No Love for 179 EHP's?

[glademaster]

It seems like the EHP is a pretty popular and highly regarded ski here, but there are very few, if any maggots riding the 179cm version of it. I know other skis in that length ball park like the Line Prophet and Obsethed are used and recommended widely, but it seems like no matter how small a person is, they're advised to get the 186 EHP.

I skied the 186's last season and recently stepped down to the 179, thinking they'll retain much of the stability given that they're still wide, moderately stiff and heavy, but will be more maneuverable in tight spots or bumps. I'm not a very big guy at 5'8'' and between 160 and 170 pounds depending on how much beer I've been drinking, and although the EHP's weren't a handful in many places, by the afternoon, the 186's were working me over.

So, has anyone here skied both? How do they compare? I know the dimensions are almost identical. The 186's I was one were mounted with small Dukes on the line, but my boot was 1 cm larger than the person I bought them from, so I skied them roughly 1cm back, which is the mount point I'm planning to go with on the 179's too. Has anyone played around with the mount point on the shorty EHP?

[dragonshaft]

I demoed the two back to back, over a year ago so I don't remember the day perfectly well, but I skied the 186 first, found it playful and plenty of fun in the pow, but when things got chopped up in the end of the day they seemed a little heavy when throwing them around. Went and tried the 179s and they seemed super quick by comparison (I way in at 135 lbs). Don't know if it helps ya bit If I were going to buy the ski I'd opt for the 179 cause they floated plenty well, but I felt like I could swing em around super fast (comes in very handy when the trees are skied out). the 186 isn't that much longer than a 179 on ski with a mount close to the center (3.5 inches front and back give or take), but its the swing weight that I find more appealing on the 179, at least for my size.

[BeardedClam]

on the line is too far forward. -1 or 2cm for sure. they are easier on groomers but easy to go over the handlebars in fresh. get a solid binding for it and you will like it. I'm on 179's and FR+ and they are shit for hardpack conditions. but thats not what they're made for

[glademaster]

Good to know. I had the 186's mounted with Dukes, and I'm putting the same binders on the 179's, so I'm not too worried about hardpack performance. With a good tune I thought they were stable and held a good edge on hard snow. I'd like them to ski well in powder but don't plan on these being powder specific skis, which I fear they could turn into if I mount too far back.

Perhaps 1.5 cm back, or 82 cm from the tail would be good?

I guess part of my question too is why this ski in this length isn't more common. Regardless, I'm looking forward to getting on the shorter ones soon so I can compare.

[flipsRscary]

I was looking for something like the 193's, and came across last years 179's on 4frnt's site. 'Picked up a pair for my GF. I'll give them a try sooner or later (I'll fit in her small barons), but for the moment there's no way I'm wrestling them away from her. I'd say that's a pretty serious endorsement given that the conditions here in Tahoe at the moment (nothing fresh for weeks, pretty much worst case scenario for those boards).

[nord]

I got a pair of 179 EHPs over the summer and wondering if they are too small for me at 175lbs. I ski Mainly at Crystal Mountain WA and at Whistler.

[auvgeek]

I guess part of my question too is why this ski in this length isn't more common.

There's not really a good way to answer this question without sounding like a douche who's compensating.

Frankly, I don't know that there's any less love for the EHP in the 179 than there is for any other ski in that length. I would recommend the 179 length to people under 145#, but there aren't too many maggots that size.

I rode the unrockered 179 Seth Vicious (measured like 183) for many years before last season, when I got a real job and started building up a decent quiver. So I'm not really part of the "long skis rock" crowd until very recently. I've never skied the EHP, but I've heard great things about it's tree-skiing ability and have been thinking about adding it to the quiver for that sole purpose. At 165#, I definitely wouldn't consider the 179, and have been debating the merits of the 186 vs. 193. I've spent quite a bit of time on the 186 Renegade, and I wouldn't want it any shorter than that for everyday use, though in a tree-specific role the 186 certainly has it's merits.

Hoji himself is a pretty small guy, and he exclusively rides the 186. But I'm sure he just needs the extra float to keep his giant balls from dragging in the snow.

Just my $.02 because you asked, and I'm tired of working yet another weekend.

[Shorty_J]

I put my buddy's 130 pound wife on my 180 Praxis BC's. She had never skied anything longer than a 165 and less that 100mm waist and she did great on the 180's.

I don't know why people fear long skis, and I don't think it's a dig-wagging thing (since my buddy's wife's penis is really tiny).

They make you a better skier and I find them more versatile once you're comfortable on them.

[TAFKALVS]

Me: 5'10, 165ish, ski in a brofessionally athletic foward stance, ski more days than the average dentist on here.

Had 179 ehp for 1 season. Found them to be quick and responsive in choppy crud and tracked up snow. However once the snow depth reached more 12" I found that the tips unpredictably dived. The ski would surf on the surface until a wind drift or soft pocket and then the tip would submarine. Maybe just my skiing style- I prefer longer turns and a more forward stance. Also, be aware this ski does not carve even a medium radius turn on edge, you have to really actively guide the ski. Maybe if you like shorter radius pow turns, ski centered or don't ski very fast it will work better for you.

I would definitely mount 1-2cm back on the line. And I would really seriously consider a longer length or going with the 4frnt hoji. It's a serious step forward in terms of design and versatility, IMHO.

[BFD]

I am skiing the 17o something EHP. The blue topsheet year. I can not wait to not be skiing them. I am not Hoji. I am not that good of a skier and my style is way different, Think old short guy turns. That said I probably ski more days and better lines than your average dentist here. I really don't know what Leavenworth skier is talking about. These skis are made to run wide open. 179 is plenty of ski why carry the extra weight. These skis are not made for tight tree skiing why ski them longer. The only time I really enjoyed these skis was in Japan once the skin track was in and heli skiing where it was wide open.
come Tuesday the bindings come off and go on my DPS 112. A ski that hopefully likes short radius powder turns and skiers that don't ski very fast.
5'6" 145 if anyone pays attention to my opinion.