4frnt EHP 186 review

**ARpowhound** · 11-25-2009, 11:23 PM

on the line

**TheDon** · 12-01-2009, 11:59 PM

Originally Posted by ARpowhound

I skied the new JJ at a demo day, I did not like it as well as the EHP. Go with EHP 186

Anyone have the same feelings? Anyone disagree.

I ask because I have an unmounted pair of JJ's and I'm super worried they aren't going to be stiff enough.

**Woolbury** · 02-07-2010, 03:22 PM

Have 2 days on the 186 mounted tele. Yesterday pow, cut up, steep semi bumps of LL. First run or 2 had to get used to the sliding carve(much slipperier than my Lotus 120's), but after that it was damp, stable, confidence inspiring high speed fun. Trying to compare these to the new Goats and I think I prefer them as an all arounder. Still like my 120's for touring and pure pow, but EHP's are a great design, really versatile ski. Weight, little sidecut and stiff tail all can be a problem in certain situations, but it's these same qualities that make them so awesome when you're ripping. 2 big thumbs up.

**Frank Naets** · 03-10-2010, 06:53 AM

I promised a review so here it is:

Me: 23yo male, 170lb, 1.86m, been skiing for 9 years and been averaging only 20 days a year or so (but been upping the pace over the last few years). Not very strong, no racing background, not to aggressive, ...
Ski: 09/10 EHP186 mounted on the line with salomon sth 12.
Other skis: other ski in quiver is a salomon 1080 in 188, which i like, but was missing some floatation to make life easy. Also skied the Icelantic Shaman for one run, and pretty much immediatly disliked it.
Where: 2 weeks at Kicking horse, 2 weeks at Revelstoke, few days at Whitewater. Mostly skied surprisingly decent pow to some wetter stuff.

I will start with the conclusion that I really love this ski. I am not a pro-rider, and when I bought them I was kind of affraid they'd kick my ass, but they didn't and they made me look better than I am. They are so sweet hauling ass in pow, it's mind-boggling. At speed they turn very easy and float over everything you throw at it. They are very confidence-inspiring as well, due to the ability to 'slarve' the turn, to throw them sideways to wipe of speed and to adjust mid-corner. They just make the mountain so much more playfull. Open terrain, where picking up speed is not really an issue, is definitely their favorite territory.
Through tree-runs they perform very sweet as well, with just enough tip and tail-rocker to make them easy to throw around. They do need some speed to come into their game and start turning easy, probably due to the killer turning radius. But once you pick that speed up, they're pure cherry.
On groomers they performed acceptable, and were pretty much a blast if the conditions were good and you could fully enjoy the 40m radius.
With the tip and tail rocker and very limited hookiness, they even performed surprisingly well on bump-runs, even though I tried to avoid those (which was pretty much impossible at KHMR).

I can't really comment on how they perform in really cut up stuff, but if there were only a few tracks they planed over completely effortless.

On the I really like this ski, and I thought they got a bit better (less exhausting) after they softened up after skiing them for a few weeks. My only gripe with them, is the fact that I think they should have given them just a bit more tip-rise, just to inspire confidence when busting through heaps of snow. It is not a float issue, because they float perfectly, but it just kind of seems as if they're going to crash into any rock or tree-stomp you try to ski over (which they didn't, but it felt like it).

**PNyberg** · 06-22-2010, 11:29 AM

How does the ehp186 handle switch powlandings?

**4FRNT** · 06-22-2010, 05:57 PM

Originally Posted by PNyberg

How does the ehp186 handle switch powlandings?

Hey Per, the EHP is definitely more of a directional ski with minimal tail height, so not ideal for switch pow landings. The CRJ or Turbo are better choices as they have twin tips. The YLE (pronounced Wiley after Mr. Miller himself) will be the best choice but that won't be released until 11/12. It's going to crush it forward or switch, in bounds or out of bounds.

**slashy** · 06-23-2010, 03:54 AM

hi 4FRNT.

I justed picked up a new pair of the 186 EHP 09/10 vintage. awesome build quality.
could you specify what the standard edge bevels are ? did not find it anywhere and if you reply here everyone could benefit.
furthermore I noticed the rails are just a bit dulled down near the tip. any recommendations on that ? This is going to be my soft snow ski but will encounter harder conditions during the day anyway. I had some weird experiences with rockered / non tapered skis that didn't have the edges dulled near the rocker.

thx

**PNyberg** · 06-24-2010, 02:00 AM

Originally Posted by 4FRNT

Hey Per, the EHP is definitely more of a directional ski with minimal tail height, so not ideal for switch pow landings. The CRJ or Turbo are better choices as they have twin tips. The YLE (pronounced Wiley after Mr. Miller himself) will be the best choice but that won't be released until 11/12. It's going to crush it forward or switch, in bounds or out of bounds.

I..i rock the CRj188 right now an i feel that they sometimes lack a bit of float and uhmpf to em. Sooo....why isnt the YLE released Jan 2011? I need a pair!!!

**Marok** · 06-24-2010, 02:02 AM

Originally Posted by PNyberg

I..i rock the CRj188 right now an i feel that they sometimes lack a bit of float and uhmpf to em. Sooo....why isnt the YLE released Jan 2011? I need a pair!!!

what kind of the ski is the yle? never heard of it.

**4FRNT** · 06-24-2010, 10:52 AM

Originally Posted by slashy

hi 4FRNT.

I justed picked up a new pair of the 186 EHP 09/10 vintage. awesome build quality.
could you specify what the standard edge bevels are ? did not find it anywhere and if you reply here everyone could benefit.
furthermore I noticed the rails are just a bit dulled down near the tip. any recommendations on that ? This is going to be my soft snow ski but will encounter harder conditions during the day anyway. I had some weird experiences with rockered / non tapered skis that didn't have the edges dulled near the rocker.

thx

Here's the specs straight from the factory:
Base Bevel - 1 degree +/- .5
Side Bevel - 1.5 degree +/- .5
Detuned to the contact point with a tolerance of +/- 20mm
They also come with a fresh stone grind, hot belt wax and edge are treated with a rust protectant.

Detuning, from my experience, is generally a good thing, even on rockered skis. It will take some experimenting, but i usually try to detune mine 2-3 inches down from the contact point. If the ski has a gradual tip radius/taper to it, I wouldn't detune too much, especially if you experience harder conditions. It's nice to have some bite and the taper allows smearing anyway. This is a pretty subjective topic, so don't take this as gospel, just my two cents.

Jeremy

**4FRNT** · 06-24-2010, 11:13 AM

Originally Posted by PNyberg

I..i rock the CRj188 right now an i feel that they sometimes lack a bit of float and uhmpf to em. Sooo....why isnt the YLE released Jan 2011? I need a pair!!!

Perfection takes time. After 5 protos were made here in SLC, the specs have been finalized and sent on to our manufacturer. They're real busy producing 10/11 product for the fall and mid-winter releases are rare. However, we will have samples available for rep/distributor demo needs in January. Can definitely get you in touch with our rep to make arrangements to try a pair. In the meantime, the Renegade would be your best bet as it's wider, fully rockered and stiffer.

**4FRNT** · 06-24-2010, 11:39 AM

Originally Posted by Marok

what kind of the ski is the yle? never heard of it.

It's designed for the type of skiing Wiley Miller does. Basically, it's main purpose is for greasin' backcountry booters and slaying pow. You can check him out in TGRs flicks. It's nearly symmetrical design makes it ideal for landing switch in pow.

Here's a vid courtesy of TGR. Enjoy! http://www.tetongravity.com/videos/A...ker-623689.htm

**Marok** · 06-24-2010, 12:39 PM

Originally Posted by 4FRNT

It's designed for the type of skiing Wiley Miller does. Basically, it's main purpose is for greasin' backcountry booters and slaying pow. You can check him out in TGRs flicks. It's nearly symmetrical design makes it ideal for landing switch in pow.

Here's a vid courtesy of TGR. Enjoy! http://www.tetongravity.com/videos/A...ker-623689.htm

okey. you know the dimmensions of the ski?

**PNyberg** · 06-24-2010, 04:16 PM

well then.... Renegades it is!

**D(C)** · 06-24-2010, 04:23 PM

Originally Posted by 4FRNT

It's designed for the type of skiing Wiley Miller does. Basically, it's main purpose is for greasin' backcountry booters and slaying pow. You can check him out in TGRs flicks. It's nearly symmetrical design makes it ideal for landing switch in pow.

Here's a vid courtesy of TGR. Enjoy! http://www.tetongravity.com/videos/A...ker-623689.htm

How do you see it compared to the CRJ? It sounds like they are both designed with a somewhat similar purpose in mind, unless the YLE is going to be significantly wider.

**4FRNT** · 07-01-2010, 10:12 AM

Originally Posted by Marok

okey. you know the dimmensions of the ski?

We've submitted our final R&D prototype to Elan but we have yet to test the samples skis that they will produce for the upcoming season. So, were holding off on releasing the exact details as nothing is set in stone. However, it will be nearly symmetrical and around 120mm underfoot. Gotta keep some of it under wraps, if ya know what I mean

**4FRNT** · 07-06-2010, 05:13 PM

Originally Posted by D(C)

How do you see it compared to the CRJ? It sounds like they are both designed with a somewhat similar purpose in mind, unless the YLE is going to be significantly wider.

It's definitely going to be wider. Main differences are the YLE will be stiffer, more symmetrical (more tail), more rockered, with no taper. The CRJ is a bit more playful and jibby with a more traditional shape. Both skis are super fun, just look to the YLE for a more hard charging, stomp-any-switch-pow-landing kind of ski.

**PNyberg** · 07-07-2010, 12:30 PM

Originally Posted by upallnight

just curious as i own the 06/07 193 (different ski, i know), and i'm curious about the 08/09s.

Well Ive skied the 06/07 193 for over 100days and maybe 10days on the 09/10 193 and they are SOOOOO different! More float on the new ones and way more fun in pow. Allthough I felt them being not as dampening as the old ones. It might just be me not beeing used to the new ski and mounting??

**PNyberg** · 07-08-2010, 05:23 AM

Originally Posted by 4FRNT

It's definitely going to be wider. Main differences are the YLE will be stiffer, more symmetrical (more tail), more rockered, with no taper. The CRJ is a bit more playful and jibby with a more traditional shape. Both skis are super fun, just look to the YLE for a more hard charging, stomp-any-switch-pow-landing kind of ski.

I must have that ski!

**glademaster** · 01-23-2011, 07:28 PM

Bumping this old thread because I'm looking for some mounting advice for a pair of 179cm EHP's. I had the 186's with Dukes last year. I bought them with the bindings, and they were mounted for someone with a 307mm BSL, mine is 317, so I skied them mounted roughly 1cm back.

I'd like to mount either 1 or 2 cm back of the line on the 179's, but I'm not sure which would be better. I don't want to give up too much of this skis versatility by mounting it really far back, but the line is 6cm back from center, so even 2 back of that is a pretty forward mount. Does anyone have any experience with the 179's mounted anywhere other than the line?

**Like a Boss** · 01-24-2011, 01:33 PM

What's the actual length of the 179s, straight pull from tip to tail?

**glademaster** · 01-24-2011, 07:53 PM

I'm not sure, my pair of 179's will be getting here Wednesday, so I can try to measure them then.

**ghosthop** · 12-15-2015, 12:04 AM

Bump

^I see gladmaster likes his ehp's 1cm back, anyone have anything to add or say otherwise? I currently have a pair that I reused some holes and ended up at at +1 and feel like I'm having to keep my weight back too much. On the line is not an option, but -1 is. Besides where I'm having to weight the ski, my biggest issue is it feels that the tip gets deflected in really heavy crud, stability in funky snow is something that I hoped these skis would excel at especially considering their weight.

Also, I know these aren't the flavor of the week anymore but damn are these skis so much fun in soft snow. It took a bit to get used to the way the want to be driven but so much fun at speed and so easy to throw sideways. That tail is a powerhouse and I look forward to getting my winter legs back for popping off every roller in sight. Also, it may have to do with the forward mount but I have had no issues banging out shorter radius turns in soft bumps. I'm on a pair of 179.

**cooks** · 12-15-2015, 01:15 AM

I have a handful of days this season on a 193 that was recently re-mounted at somewhere around -1.5cm I believe. I would not hesitate to go -1 rather than forward of the line. I skied a couple days on the ski when it was mounted excessively forward. It wasn't horrible, but there was definitely such a thing as too much tip pressure. At their current mount, that is gone. The ski responds very nicely and intuitively to varying amounts of tip pressure.

Completely agree too with how fun these are in soft snow. Sure they feel a little "simple" compared to some other modern designs, but I'm totally ok with that.

**Danny Noonan** · 12-15-2015, 12:08 PM

I have skied both the 193 and 186 a lot in my day. I can say that the 193, I loved on the line and if anything would have gone back 1cm max if I had to (like your situation). The 186 I much preferred behind the line for the exact reason you are saying, as I felt like there was so little ski in front of me that I ended up back seating them if I wasn't careful.