Do you have any experience with g3 empire carbon 115 skis?

[pomidor]

Hi
I'm really interrested in buying the G3 empire carbon 115 skis, however in my location I can't examine them in any store so I'll have to buy them online. It would be awesome if anyone of you could share some experience with them. Also i couldn't find any pictures of the rocker profile and the mounting point. I allready emailed G3 but their didn't send me anything different than informations from their webside which is not much. So if any one of you have some images that would be great!
Best regards

[mall walker]

I have fondled some in a store here in SLC. It's allllll rocker, like no flat point at all. Think Carbon Katana.

They look sexy (except why black )

Edit: also tech talk jong

[1000-oaks]

Based on dimensions, rocker profile, and weight, I would definitely own a pair.....but they're black, which knocks what I'd be willing to pay down to about $100.

[tuco]

Wish they woulda kept the Highball shape, or just kept the Highball

[1000-oaks]

Just received a pair of 185cm Empire 115's (white ones) yesterday after much consideration. Prefer the more narrow Highball tip width, but really didn't want the twin tail so went E115. Knut said he liked the Highball a lot until he got the E115, but now he doesn't ski his Highball anymore - said he prefers the lower tail rocker of the E115 because it's more supportive and holds better on groomers. Described the HB as a "stiff Hell Bent", but probably just to explain what he thought of the tail rocker.

[tuco]

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.

[1000-oaks]

Wonder how the Highball & E115 compare to the RPC. Probably stiffer but looser.

[tuco]

Same shitty variable snow performance?

[rod9301]

I don't get this kind of tip profile.
The new cochise has it, and you have to detune a lot.
Otherwise, on a soft groomer, and probably in most other conditions, as soon as you put it on edge, it hooks violently, to the point that it throws you over the front.

[tuco]

compounded by a too skinny tail that washes out, especially in steeper terrain where its not perfect snow conditions

[rod9301]

Yeah, you've got to love the feeling of confidence it gives on steep stuff.

Someone said it's got a rocker like the carbon katana, but I ski these and they are solid in all conditions.

[1000-oaks]

Never heard the RC112 or the early Mantra described as "hooky", and both have about as much taper than the E115. Stiffness probably fights hookiness, and the E115 is plenty stiff through the tips. http://www.tetongravity.com/forums/s...t-s-talk-taper

The gent who described his E115's as hooky had them mounted 2.5cm forward of the line, which could definitely have something to do with it. The center of sidecut on the 115 is 2cm ahead of the mounting line, so mounting +2.5cm puts ball of foot about 8cm ahead of the sidecut (assuming ~ size 27 boot).

[Knut]

The gent who described his E115's as hooky had them mounted 2.5cm forward of the line

Which I really don't know why anyone would want to do that

I cannot second the performance in not too good snow. I find my Empire115's (no carbon) pretty reliable in pretty much all snow conditions and the tip design especially works very well with crusts of all kind. For a full rocker, they are very decent on hardpack as well. So I am at a loss as to how shitty shitty conditions would need to be for them to perform "variable".
The more unpredictable snow conditions are, the better reverse sidecut -or as a compromise taper and pintail-designs work.

Symmetry is exactly what I wouldn't want in a ski for these conditions. Actually I would hardly ever want it, as I'm no switch guy. Not at all

[Kevin_mcbride]

I own the non carbon version and I have a few days on the carbon version. I find that the skis just super stable in all conditions. I haven't had any problems with hooking.

[tuco]

Maybe straighter would have been a better choice of words.
Reverse sidecut is good in variable--taper/pintail is not any sort of compromise to reverse.
Taper/pintail sucks in variable cuz the tip wants to plane the shit snow but in causes the tail to sink- thus making it unpredictable unless you just go straight.(edit: maybe the full rocker eleviates this feeling?)
Everybody skis different, so this is all IMO, of course.

[Knut]

Well, a completely straight ski would make it more predictable, maybe. It'd be more stable in simply wanting to go straight. But it would by no means be easier to ski.

So yes, taper/pintail is a compromise. It's by no means as good as full reverse sidecut, but still leagues better than straight and surely another thing alltogether than a pronounced conventional sidecut on a full rocker. THAT's hooky and unpredictable. Straight is just unskiable (at least not in any enjoyable way) in these conditions. And full reverse sucks when you don't break through at all. So I'd deem it a pretty darn good compromise.

I think what you describe as "unpredictable" is what others would term "readyness to turn"
But I wouldn't call the Empire115 nervous by any means. If, then rather the Highball than the Empire. And speaking of which: the Highball ranks by means of unpredictability surely above the Empire. Both skis can't really be classified as unpredictable in shitty conditions, as they're both pretty stable, but if, then the Highball is a notch more nervous and hooky.

[tuco]

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on those points, cuz for me, I like a straighter ski-- much more predictable. And by saying completely straight you might be taking things to the extreme, because i never said that. I skied a ski that is 146-125-135(32.5 radius) 90% of my days last season with the widest part of the front of the ski at the very tip. Certainly not completely straight. I didn't ski these skis 90% of days cuz I lack for a large quiver and a full range of shapes/camberrocker profiles, I skied them that much because they were great in all conditions for my style.
To me, the over done taper/pintail design( I technically own taper/pintail skis, they are just way more subtle) is just plain a compromise in every way and would rather have the conventional sidecut and full rocker(tail acts like a ballast to the tip). What some might term 'readyness to turn", others might call hooky/unpredictable.
In summary, some people will like these more extreme designs(overly done wide tip/too much taper/way too skinny tail) and some won't. Still like to look of the Highball better(doesn't have that goofy tip, not as pintaily)

[swissiphic]

Have some demo E115 carbons will ski them soon. I ski mostly with dynafit bindings and touring boots; presently dynafit mercury and garmont delerium. I know this is a thread on the Empires...but...I got some 2 cents to contribute to general discussion on ski hookiness...scroll to summary if you're a 'don't bore us get to the chorus' type of reader.

Lots of experience with all sorts of skis... 25 years of ski touring and 15 years of heliskiing in northwest british columbia. Praxis Protest 177, armada jj 185, Kufo 178, Declivity 184, k2 coomba 181, coomback 188, k2 darkside 176, k2 sidestash 188, rossignol xxx bandit 188, B4 184, 178, rossi 4g 207, S7 178, Atomic powder plus 180, powder cruise 180, heli star 180, heli daddy 180, REX 190, Volant ti chubb 180, 190, Fischer porohete 190. The whole lot of them feel hooky at the tip in specific conditions...different for each ski with different degrees and ranges of versatility. The best of the bunch for plain old spring m/f breakable crust. windboard, wind slab, shallow upside down snow, crust/facets and variable soft shallow snow was the volant chubb 190 with super heavy salomon rental bindings...such an awesome alpine non deep snow cruising crusher. On a lot of skis, experimented over the years with custom tip rocker with an adjustable strap attached to tip to crank in as much rocker as I wanted...worked pretty good for some conditions, useless in others...

One thing I found with all skis though, is that the 'correct' amount of tip and tail edge detuning contributes significantly to reducing hookiness in icy crusts/conditions...same with edge sharpness along the running surface edge...razor sharp edges suck, old beat up rock scarred ski rounded edges mo betta. Still dicking around with extreme base bevels and 'spooning' tip rocker area edges on new skis to see if there's any magic to be found....so far a good amount of base bevel seems to bring positive results for backcountry boards.

Touring vs heavy alpine bindings also plays a role. Doing a/b comparisons with heavy rental alpine salomon bindings and dynafit vertical st touring bindings on my volant chubbs showed a DRAMATIC difference in stability in all kinds of 'hooky' alpine windslab/temp crust, etc... dynafits make skis noticably more twitchy...probably the lack of toe elasticity and locked in solid heel response but who knows, this could also be significantly affected by mass/weight of alpine binding.

Skied in all sorts of different ski touring boots as well...funny enough, my favorite variable conditions boot was an old school low cut dynafit all terrain with intuition powerwrap liners and raichle flexon comp tongue back in the early 2000's...for some reason it had more special sauce than stock boots in this era.

Other factors i've found as important contributors to ski feel; endless dicking around with binding mount point; I'm convinced that adjustable fore/aft position on ski is one of the futures of touring binding design so you can adjust for conditions (back for bottomless pow, and some slabby/upside down snow and some varieties of breakable crust) more forward for hard pack and billy goating, etc....). It's gotta be an easy system like alpine rental bindings; no screwdriver...just push a tab and slide the binding back and forth.

There really is an endless smorgassboard of variables to tinker with to find that perfect synergy of boot, binding and ski that contributes to end game ski feel. I've also found that really working hard to dial in boot fit and stance angles of forward lean, lateral cuff alignment, inner ramp, binding ramp and boot fit tension go a long ways in end of day ski 'stability' feel...

In summary, if I had my druthers....everything really should be 'shift on the fly' adjustable in real time, in the field, mid ski run.
Skis: adjustable tip rocker and snap on ski forbody/tip area variable contact point, front sidecut and tip taper shapes.
Bindings: (dynafit) adjustable binding position and ramp angle
Boots: adjustable inner ramp angle (heel rise or lower), lateral cuff alignment (outboard for carving groomer, more neutral for pow, variable and breakable crust), forward lean for very slight incremental 1 degree at a time tweaks (upright for hippy pow turns, more forward aggressive for boxer body position on steeps and breakable crust), full lateral outside foot width adjustment for either precise skiing and no pain no gain or relaxed touring, sloppy forefoot and pow turns. micro adjustable inflatable innerboot air bladder in the crucial ankle area to fully lock in the foot in that boot zone. easily adjustable up down rear spoiler for support in crust when you wanna ski from the heel and carve the crust in a more upright position leaning on the boot for midfoot balance point/heel pressure turns)
body: inflatable/deflatable feet to better fills the voids in ski boots for more precise fit when needed.

[1000-oaks]

Doing a/b comparisons with heavy rental alpine salomon bindings and dynafit vertical st touring bindings on my volant chubbs showed a DRAMATIC difference in stability in all kinds of 'hooky' alpine windslab/temp crust, etc... dynafits make skis noticably more twitchy...

http://www.tetongravity.com/forums/s...its-ramp-angle

[neck beard]

Maybe I suck at skiing, but I think reverse camber and reverse sidecut skis are still quite hard to ski well in breakable crust and wind funk. Easier, but not easy.

[swissiphic]

http://www.tetongravity.com/forums/s...its-ramp-angle

nope, it ain't ramp angle. had cutting board risers under toes to minimize it on that iteration of ski testing. the old dynafit boot model i skied had major boot board internal ramp (tlt tourlite tech 4s/power wrap liner/raichle flexon comp tongue) ...jacking up the binding toes minimized the cumulative effect.

[Knut]

Maybe I suck at skiing, but I think reverse camber and reverse sidecut skis are still quite hard to ski well in breakable crust and wind funk. Easier, but not easy.

True for me as well.

To me, the over done taper/pintail design( I technically own taper/pintail skis, they are just way more subtle)

Do I get you right that you neither own nor have skied an G3 Empire? (Or speaking of which: the Highball?)
I guess then we should continue talking when you do. Because for these kinds of skiing behaviour, the overall setup of a ski and how stiffness, shape, rocker, sidecut and torsion work together make all the difference. It's not just taper/pintail

What some might term 'readyness to turn", others might call hooky/unpredictable.

Yep. Those with a lack of tension in their legs

[tuco]

Do I get you right that you neither own nor have skied an G3 Empire? (Or speaking of which: the Highball?)
I guess then we should continue talking when you do. Because for these kinds of skiing behaviour, the overall setup of a ski and how stiffness, shape, rocker, sidecut and torsion work together make all the difference. It's not just taper/pintail


Yep. Those with a lack of tension in their legs

I have skied the Highball(liked em quite a bit) and would ski the Empire(which I'm sure i would like too, till they faced conditions they are ill suited for). I have skied and owned similar skis to the Empire minus the full reverse and not quite as overdone, did not like(serious lack of versatility) and sold them. I believe they work good for you. I've spent alot of money learning the hard way(trial and error) what I like and don't like. Its kinda stating the obvious that all the ski characteristics work together to make the ski what it is..

These skis are for meadowskippers, you don't need tension in your legs

[kootenayskier]

I skied ~ 60 days this past winter on the G3 Synapse 109, all touring, in the full variety of often horrendous conditions we experienced this past winter. They were as fun and easy to ski in all these conditions as any ski could be, and while not railing groomers quite like more traditional skis, they have no significant limitations. From previously being sceptical, they have me convinced that fully rockered skis (with side-cut) are the way to go for backcountry conditions, and I'd expect the Empire 115 would be a wider, more aggressive version of the same.

[1000-oaks]

These skis are for meadowskippers, you don't need tension in your legs

Lol, the TGR list of non-meadowskipper skis grows shorter every day.
XXL
Zealot
Zeus
M111