Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2
Results 26 to 44 of 44
  1. #26
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    302
    Quote Originally Posted by tuco View Post
    I have skied and owned similar skis to the Empire minus the full reverse and not quite as overdone
    If they were minus the full reverse, they were not similar
    That's a vital difference.

    I have skied e.g the Armada JJ and Rossignol Super7 in comparison, and albeit they share quite some similarities, they ski remarkably different, mainly due to the camber underfoot. The closest to the Empire115 that I've skied so far is probably the 1st gen Praxis Protest. Another ski that's everything but unpredictable.

    There's not a lot of skis like the Empire out there: full rocker, stiff flex, early taper and a slight pintail design -name me one you've skied and found unpredictable that combines these design elements and I might agree that you have something to contribute to this topic.

  2. #27
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Juxtaposition
    Posts
    5,733
    Praxis CCR GPO. Got 60 days on that ski. Similar to the empire. But dis ain't my thread.
    Life is not lift served.

  3. #28
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    302
    Hrmhrm, the GPO has about 90cm of classic camber. and quite short tip, but especially tail taper. IMO that's significant difference.

    Although I'd agree immediately that it's a great ski.

  4. #29
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Juxtaposition
    Posts
    5,733
    Quote Originally Posted by Knut View Post
    Hrmhrm, the GPO has about 90cm of classic camber. and quite short tip, but especially tail taper. IMO that's significant difference.

    Although I'd agree immediately that it's a great ski.
    Herr Knut, hint: CCR = continuous curve rocker. There are two molding profiles for the GPO, camber and CCR.

    CCR GPO and Empire are variations on the same theme: sidecut, fully rockered, taper, 115mm/116mm, carbon.

    Empire has a wider tip: 145mm v. 140

    Empire has 1mm narrower waist

    Empire has more taper: 19mm v. 12mm

    Empire has a smaller turn radius length-for-length (190 Emp = 21m v. GPO 180 = 22m)

    Flex: hard to compare as there are 4 custom flex profiles available for the GPO.

    If I was interested in the Empire but wanted a less grabby wide tip width, less taper, less sidecut, similar rocker and weight and waist and length... then I'd ski the GPO.
    Last edited by neck beard; 05-28-2015 at 03:52 AM.
    Life is not lift served.

  5. #30
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    3,064
    Quote Originally Posted by Knut View Post
    If they were minus the full reverse, they were not similar
    That's a vital difference.

    I have skied e.g the Armada JJ and Rossignol Super7 in comparison, and albeit they share quite some similarities, they ski remarkably different, mainly due to the camber underfoot. The closest to the Empire115 that I've skied so far is probably the 1st gen Praxis Protest. Another ski that's everything but unpredictable.

    There's not a lot of skis like the Empire out there: full rocker, stiff flex, early taper and a slight pintail design -name me one you've skied and found unpredictable that combines these design elements and I might agree that you have something to contribute to this topic.
    I could see rocker making that shape better, but not enough to overcome the unbalanced nature of it in all conditions. At some point in rough 3d snow it will come into play.

    Rocker aside, the Armada JJ is a completely diferent shape. There is no pintail. The tail on the JJ is 4 mm skinnier than the tip. The Empire is 19mm. The OG protest is 6mm. The Highball 13mm with a long forebody(wide point at tip) If you think rocker completely changes a skis characteristics, but that much difference between tip and tail doesn't, then no one can help you. And the new Super 7's dimensions have changed to, wait for it, more balanced tip to tail. Unfortunately I had to sell my OG Protests before I ever logged 1 run, but my brother had 1st year tattoo topsheets and there was something off with the way those skied(too soft maybe?).

    I'm not quite sure you get it. I just explained why I did not like this shape(slight pintail my ass), why the fuck would you think I would either buy or demo these. If you wanted to let me slay yours for a day, I wouldn't turn you down, but I could really care less if you felt I have something to contribute to this topic or not. If your worried about contributions, maybe you should go take rocker shots and post em for the OP, like he requested.

  6. #31
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    302
    Quote Originally Posted by neck beard View Post
    Herr Knut, hint: CCR = continuous curve rocker. There are two molding profiles for the GPO, camber and CCR.
    My sincere apologies, I wasn't aware of that build option for the GPO. I just new about the standard version (and have test-skied it shortly). Didn't find it on the Praxis website, but saw now that it's a custom option. I bet it skis quite different to the standard GPO. Have you ridden both? I am curious as to how they feel in comparison.

    Sounds like quite an ingenious ski and I perfectly understand why you chose it.
    It surely sounds like a very interesting alternative, then.



    Quote Originally Posted by tuco View Post
    I just explained why I did not like this shape(slight pintail my ass), why the fuck would you think I would either buy or demo these.
    And I still cannot help but wonder about how you thing that that type of info should help the OP. But as you don't care for that, well, fair enough, I guess. In the end, this is TGR.

    Quote Originally Posted by tuco View Post
    If you wanted to let me slay yours for a day, I wouldn't turn you down
    Whenever you're in the Pyrenees, give me a shout. Happy to let you take them for a ride. Normally we can offer suiting shitfuck conditions along with it

    Quote Originally Posted by tuco View Post
    If your worried about contributions, maybe you should go take rocker shots and post em for the OP, like he requested.
    Are those really that hard to find?
    https://www.tetongravity.com/forums/s...09#post4314809
    (follow the link within)

  7. #32
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Squaw valley
    Posts
    4,639
    Knut, where are you in the pyrenees?

    I'm moving for a year to luz saint sauveur, put my kids in school rio learn french, and of course ski, mountain bike and climb.

  8. #33
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    3,064
    Hey man, all I said was I wish they woulda kept the Highball shape. Yeah, that might not have been helpful info to OP, but neither were the 30 other posts in this thread until you posted that link, including yours.
    If I was lucky enough to ever make it to the Pyrenees, I would do that. Shitfuck conditions are exercises in building character.
    Talk to the OP, I don't care about those rocker shots in the least

  9. #34
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    302
    Quote Originally Posted by rod9301 View Post
    Knut, where are you in the pyrenees?
    The oriental pyrenees. My base is Barcelona currently.

  10. #35
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    northern BC
    Posts
    30,885
    This year my buddy the guide has forsaken his Stokes/Rads for Empire/Ion and seemed pretty happy, the empires broke trail well/ carved the big turns/didn't delam/the IONs didn't blow up
    Lee Lau - xxx-er is the laziest Asian canuck I know

  11. #36
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    3,064

    Talking

    Quote Originally Posted by tuco View Post
    The tip shape is exactly what I do not like. Wide point is too far back, and has way too much taper. The basically 2 cm difference between tip n tail works great in great snow, but when snow gets weird these kinda skis get funky and unpredictable IMO. Touch more symmetry for me. I do like the lower tail rocker but variable snow performance in a ski like this wins out over groomer performance.
    I read the thread in your linky

    Quote Originally Posted by BrianColesIsSexy View Post
    Very solid smooth ski. Probably everything you need for power. My only issue was the dramatically wide shovel that was a little hooky in variable snow
    hmmmmmmm!!!

  12. #37
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    6,748
    Quote Originally Posted by BrianColesIsSexy View Post
    I skied these for the majority of last year. 185 cm mounted at +2.5. {snip} In wind blown conditions or other grabby snow the tips were very prone to hooking.
    Hmmm, "mounted at +2.5" the ski is "very prone to hooking".

    Shocker, wonder if the tips might be numb and unresponsive mounted at -2.5cm. It is a continuous rocker ski after all, with no flat section in the center to enlarge the sweet spot.
    Last edited by 1000-oaks; 05-29-2015 at 10:53 PM.

  13. #38
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    3,064
    Quote Originally Posted by 1000-oaks View Post
    Hmmm, "mounted at +2.5" the ski is "very prone to hooking".

    Shocker, wonder if the tips might be numb and unresponsive mounted at -2.5cm. It is a continuous rocker ski after all, with no flat section in the center to enlarge the sweet spot.
    Maybe he was trying to overcome a lack of tension in his legs?
    From reading one of your previous posts, sounds like the rec. line is already quite forward?
    2.5 made if "very prone to hooking" instead of being just "prone to hooking"?

    In all seriousness though, I think D(C) sums it up better than I
    (from the 'Lets talk taper...' thread)

    Quote Originally Posted by D(C) View Post
    It's one of many factors that contributes to a ski's overall feel. In my opinion, taper works well with a flat tail whereas a rockered tail should be more standard proportions or it ends up overly washy. A flat pintail is a good alternative to tail rocker for balancing a heavily rockered tip, but both should not be used together. For example, the RC 112 (140-112-120) felt balanced and stable whereas the S7 (145-115-123) felt like the tip was too big and the tail was too small. Also, good torsional stiffness should accompany a pintail or it ends up being difficult to get it to lock into a turn. It worked great with a stiff ski like the RC 112, allowing for a very solid bite while still being quite easy to pivot. I found the 191 Lhasa Pows, on the other hand, very difficult to engage on edge on harder snow, and my hypothesis is that this is due to a less substantial tail.

  14. #39
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    6,748
    Rocker shot (high res): http://www.phototurbo.com/ski/138-em...ski-rocker.jpg

    Left to right: '07 192cm Lotus 138 Rocker 1, 183cm G3 Empire 127, 185cm Empire 115, 184cm PM Gear Bya Reverse (Kusala profile), 2010 183cm Bro Fat, '08 PM Gear (AK) Bro, 177cm Movement Bond

    Clamps positioned on mounting line where they clamp ski (ignore handle position). Can't remember if I clamped L138's at 0 or -1.5 (recommended mount), probably 0. E115's still in plastic. E127 and E115 have the exact same tip spread, but have a different rocker profile to get there. E115 has a little more tail rocker than the E127. E115 is flatter through the middle than Bya's, but Bya's have more gradual rocker and bigger tips. Bya's clamped at 103cm from tip, which is probably where I'll mount them (might go 103.5cm). Bro Fats have long-rise tips, but I wouldn't call it a rockered ski. AK Bros mounted 2mm forward of line as recommended. Bonds mounted on the line.
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Click image for larger version. 

Name:	138-empire127-115-bya-bro-ski-rocker.jpg 
Views:	133 
Size:	813.4 KB 
ID:	167564  
    Last edited by 1000-oaks; 05-31-2015 at 10:08 PM.

  15. #40
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Juxtaposition
    Posts
    5,733
    1. Do the white non-carbon Empires have the same rocker as the black carbon model?

    2. Can you please take all future rocker photos on TGR? You done good!
    Life is not lift served.

  16. #41
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    1,899
    One run on the 185cm Empire 115 carbons. Snow was firm transitioning to slightly sun softened sun dimples and sun cups. Some pretty steep hard snow to 50 degrees slowly transitioning to more cruisey terrain below. Took me two turns to find the sweet spot for harder snow; centered or ever so slightly aft of center. Forward weighting in steeps would result in slight ski overturn, centered to aft of center felt solid. Minimal chatter, felt pretty damp in firm but not frozen suncups. Easy pivoting and slarvy short and medium radius turns. Lower angle wide open terrain high speed big turn carving on suncups proved enjoyable; these babies railed; damp, torsionally stiff and had a solid tail. Could employ a bit more shin/tongue turn initiation through the big carves. Can't wait to try 'em in winter snow of all sorts.


  17. #42
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    6,748
    ^ Thinking I'll mount my white ones at -5mm to -10mm behind G3's alpine line, it seems a touch forward.
    Last edited by 1000-oaks; 06-10-2015 at 07:07 PM.

  18. #43
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Wasatch
    Posts
    7,243
    ^^^more rear. What the empire 127 is at like -11. Fine there why go back?
    I need to go to Utah.
    Utah?
    Yeah, Utah. It's wedged in between Wyoming and Nevada. You've seen pictures of it, right?

    So after 15 years we finally made it to Utah.....


    Thanks BCSAR and POWMOW Ski Patrol for rescues

    8, 17, 13, 18, 16, 18, 20, 19, 16, 24, 32, 35

    2021/2022 (13/15)

  19. #44
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    6,748
    ^ I meant 5mm - 10mm behind the alpine line (not behind ski center), to make it about the same as where the e127 has the line.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •