EHPs......

Printable View

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

12-12-2006, 10:59 PM
XtrPickels

Quote:

Originally Posted by Z

First let me admit there are not a ton of people who enjoy hucking to hardpack as much as I do. Therefore, I demand that my skis are okay with it too.

This made me laugh

and my feet hurt
12-12-2006, 11:53 PM
Vicious

Nice review Z...I still need to fondle these.
12-13-2006, 11:34 AM
Professor

I fondled mine last night. Much better finish than I expected. Also looked like the mounting point was off from ski to ski. But when I measured it, it is just an optical illusion. But now the real question..... which one is left and right. If you put them on one way the trees match up. If you put them on the other way the bottom of the "f" lines up. Things like this are important to telewhackers cuz we have to have a right and left ski :D
12-13-2006, 11:49 AM
pechelman

so long as the pointy end is forward, i think itll be ok ;)
12-13-2006, 11:53 AM
Professor

Quote:

Originally Posted by pechelman

so long as the pointy end is forward, i think itll be ok ;)

But both ends curve up and both are kind of "blocky". Is there an arrow or something to tell me which end is up :biggrin:

BTW looking at Z's review, one of the things I noticed on them last year was how short they feel at first, which could explain the "forward mount feeling". I think the reason is because the effective edge is so short. These things have a really long shovel and then the last couple of inches is just ramped. So when you arent in soft snow, they definitely feel short.
12-13-2006, 12:05 PM
marshalolson

when we held Z's up to my 120's, it looked like the same mount of shovel, and the came contact length in the tail, with the extra length really coming from that long "rockered" tail.
12-13-2006, 12:20 PM
Professor

Quote:

Originally Posted by marshalolson

when we held Z's up to my 120's, it looked like the same mount of shovel, and the came contact length in the tail, with the extra length really coming from that long "rockered" tail.

If that is the case, how did the mounting point compare? I would think if all the extra length is in the tail, the mounting points "should" be a similiar length from the front of the ski.
12-13-2006, 12:22 PM
marshalolson

Quote:

Originally Posted by Professor

If that is the case, how did the mounting point compare? I would think if all the extra length is in the tail, the mounting points "should" be a similiar length from the front of the ski.

basically the same boot center line
12-13-2006, 12:24 PM
Professor

I figured it would be close. BTW these things say they need a 3.5mm drill bit. Is there no metal in there? I would think there has to be some and if so, isnt a 4.1 drill bit more appropriate?
12-13-2006, 12:31 PM
thebigeast

Quote:

Originally Posted by Professor

I figured it would be close. BTW these things say they need a 3.5mm drill bit. Is there no metal in there? I would think there has to be some and if so, isnt a 4.1 drill bit more appropriate?

i was under the impression that they are free of metal
12-13-2006, 12:32 PM
marshalolson

3.5/3.6 for sure

no metal, and suprised to report that there is not metal in the new BD's too
12-13-2006, 12:42 PM
Professor

Quote:

Originally Posted by marshalolson

no metal, and suprised to report that there is not metal in the new BD's too

Interesting on both accounts. Now just have to decide on bindings for these things..... alpine or tele :eek:
12-13-2006, 12:44 PM
marshalolson

i for sure makes sense to make your shortest, softest ski alpine, and tele on the big stiff, heavy sticks
12-13-2006, 02:16 PM
Z

I drilled em with a 3.5 and had no issues. They drilled easily and didn't feel like any metal in there.

As for the centered feeling, I think I just need to work it out. They just feel so money in pow I can't imagine moving em back really. The hardpack feeling is kind of cool, like I could take em in the park and spin em no problem...I'll be skiing them a ton soon and will report back...
12-13-2006, 02:32 PM
Professor

Quote:

Originally Posted by marshalolson

i for sure makes sense to make your shortest, softest ski alpine, and tele on the big stiff, heavy sticks

I think it makes sense :p Actually these will get tele bindings. The M103s work great for the days I alpine. So the quiver of tele sticks looks like this, Proto 196 Squads, Production 194 Squads, EHPs, and then of course 195 B3/B4 for screwing around/night skiing. Then there are all the skis that just never get used. But I think I have some overlap on the 190+ length skis :biggrin:
12-13-2006, 02:39 PM
marshalolson

yeah dude, that is about as much overlap as my 190 120's, 192 138's, 190 FFF, 190 FFL, 200 FFL lineup.
12-13-2006, 02:43 PM
Professor

Quote:

Originally Posted by marshalolson

yeah dude, that is about as much overlap as my 190 120's, 192 138's, 190 FFF, 190 FFL, 200 FFL lineup.

Yes, that is ridiculous. Ridiculous that you dont have a 200 FFF in that lineup :nonono2:
12-13-2006, 02:53 PM
marshalolson

common... you should know better*
12-13-2006, 03:10 PM
Professor

Quote:

Originally Posted by marshalolson

common... you should know better*

All I know is that Igneous didnt say they were "never" going to make them. But I havent seen any yet :cussing:
12-13-2006, 03:12 PM
Z

Quote:

Originally Posted by Professor

All I know is that Igneous didnt say they were "never" going to make them. But I havent seen any yet :cussing:

Dude. Marshal NEEEEEDS 200FFFs.:D

Actually. 200FFF candy graphic:fmicon: . Z NEEEDS those.
12-13-2006, 03:16 PM
Professor

Quote:

Originally Posted by Z

Dude. Marshal NEEEEEDS 200FFFs.:fmicon:

Doesnt everybody :FIREdevil
12-13-2006, 03:23 PM
lemon boy

I have allowed 262 posts to go by w/o comment but I can't contain myself any longer. I don't *need* 200FFF Candys, but I do want some.
12-13-2006, 03:36 PM
marshalolson

*paging stephen drake to the white ginormous-retardo-licious ski phone
12-13-2006, 03:50 PM
Professor

Quote:

Originally Posted by marshalolson

*paging stephen drake to the white ginormous-retardo-licious ski phone

That is another ski I "need". Kind of like I "needed" to eat all of the ginormous cheesesteak I had for lunch. Looking back, maybe I "needed" to lay up :eek:
12-13-2006, 03:52 PM
lemon boy

:nonono2: :nonono2: :nonono2:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Professor

I "needed" to lay up :eek:

I'm ashamed for you.
12-13-2006, 03:57 PM
soul_skier

wasn't someone trying to convince stephan to do a 202 lotus 138?
12-13-2006, 03:59 PM
lemon boy

first should be the 198 120 then the 0238
12-13-2006, 04:28 PM
Professor

Quote:

Originally Posted by lemon boy

:nonono2: :nonono2: :nonono2:

I'm ashamed for you.

I said "MAYBE I needed to lay up". Gheez for a skinny guy you are kind of a pest :cussing: :biggrin:
12-13-2006, 04:29 PM
lemon boy

at least I don't ever even think about laying up :p or at leat admit to it publicly
12-13-2006, 04:29 PM
mountain_man

Those Lotus120 198's will be some ski. :FIREdevil
12-13-2006, 04:37 PM
Professor

Quote:

Originally Posted by lemon boy

at least I don't ever even think about laying up, I just go ahead and do it :p

:nonono2: :nonono2: :nonono2:
12-14-2006, 07:48 PM
upallnight

ok...getting this thread back on-track...

just did a freehand mount of NX21s to the EHPizzles. would have been a great ski to have out there today with up to knee deep pow (heavy!) when they opened thunder, but, alas, i have been lazy and didn't mount or wax the skis. if i get around to mounting them tonight i might take 'em out on the hill tomorrow. would be good for the (eventual) opening of sublette. it's still a good time to test skis for resistance to rock damage, although coverage is generally better than you would think -- the heavy wet stuff we've been getting has been doing a decent (but not fully tahoe-esque) like job of covering the rocks.

http://64.62.221.49/tgr/ehp193/ehp193withNX21.jpg
(including a little something for skier666 in that one)
12-15-2006, 12:36 AM
kidwoo

DROOOOOOOL
12-15-2006, 12:55 AM
shirk

UAN What no Dynafits on those?

You are fully sterotyped as Mr Dynafit :)
12-15-2006, 12:58 AM
upallnight

Quote:

Originally Posted by shirk

UAN What no Dynafits on those?

You are fully sterotyped as Mr Dynafit :)

i know.... i'm typecast, even though i have more skis mounted without dynafits than with. :)

dynafits on ehps would be redonkulous, but i'm putting them on a pair of dp120s. pics to come in the near future.
12-15-2006, 07:27 AM
shirk

Hey atleast you are not typecast as a Trekkers fan :)
12-15-2006, 06:15 PM
upallnight

I guess there are worse stereotypes... :)

Posted a preliminary comparison of EHPs vs Spats here.
12-15-2006, 08:29 PM
MT

Quote:

Originally Posted by lemon boy

at least I don't ever even think about laying up :p or at leat admit to it publicly

Dude, I don't ALR is ever going to talk to you again when he hears about the Lay Up.....:frown:
12-18-2006, 11:59 AM
Professor

Quote:

Originally Posted by MT

Dude, I don't ALR is ever going to talk to you again when he hears about the Lay Up.....:frown:

What part about, "I thought about laying up" vs. "laying up" is so hard to understand. Oh and for the record ALR doesnt answer his phone, so how could he talk to me. He does send text messages, but I dont think that actually counts :cussing:
12-18-2006, 03:42 PM
MT

Rosenkrantz doesn't answer the phone at all anymore. His new stance is that "talking on the phone is for pussies" which would be the same as laying up.....however, his typing has improved. Even contemplating the "lay up" is bad in my book though.

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page