Administrators Horton Posted May 11, 2007 Administrators Share Posted May 11, 2007 Subject Author Horton's Monza Log John Taylor Horton If you read what I write on this forum as well as Ski Fly and Nichols I hope you get the impression that I am not on the payroll of a ski company and try to give as unbiased as possible information about slalom skis. There are skis that I personally have not been able to ski on but that I still feel work very well for other skiers. A prime example of this is anything from Goode. I feel that if you do well on a Goode you do very well. I don’t ski well at all on those skis but all you have to do is go to a couple of tournaments to see that the skiers on Goode who have that style do very very well. I also have a very high opinion of the products and methodology at D3. I ski with a D3 test skier and worked with D3 on fins before they started making their own carbon fin product. What I learned from all of this is that they are crazy for quality and are always doing R&D. My point here is that just because the following thread will not mention D3 or Goode does not mean that they are not great products. Ok enough impartiality. My new Monza showed up the other day and all I can say is BITCHEN! I have not taken it out yet so I guess I need to cover last years ski first. In 2003 I rode an O’Brien Mapple. I got back on O’Brien when I started skiing again for no specific reason. I barrowed a first generation Siege when they came out and liked it so I got one. This is a few years before the whole CarbonFins thing. Fast forward to 2004 and a number of really good O’Brien skis later I got a Sixam. For me this was the best ski I had ever ridden. The first pass I ever took on it I almost missed the gates because the ski was so much faster then anything I ever rode before. On the Sixam I went on to match my 36 mph tournament PB from 1988 and set 34 MPH scores that surprised even me. I found the ski to be fast, and very predictable. This spring I am changing some things in my style and am surprised to find out that the darn Sixam can turn even harder and faster then I ever know. So in short I love the darn thing. Today I am going out on my new Monza for the first time…. I love this stuff! ezOPPosts: 944/16/05 6:48 am Reply Horton's Monza Log Day 1 John Taylor Horton First ride on the Monza was pretty darn good. Fin and bindings where how then came out of the box. I did not even measure. The ski was not perfect but considering Zero tuning it was pretty darn amazing. I ran the same ball count as on my well tuned 2004 ski. 2 28s3 32sMissed one 35 & ran the next one (second 35 of the year) ezOPPosts: 974/16/05 9:22 pm Reply Day 2 John Taylor Horton I moved the fin closer to Chet's published numbers and switched to a 106+ CarbonFin. This is the most user friendly top of the line ski I have ever ridden. This ski is does not feel like the blue one I rode once last fall. The blue Monza seemed unforgiving and twichy. I still have not exactly figured out the settings but ran a bunch af smooth 32s. I will publish the Numbers later. ezOPPosts: 984/18/05 5:07 am Reply my monza ron John- here's a brief history log of mine:Dead of winter (Feb.) quick trip to FL...4 months since last skiied; coming off of a 70" phantom to a 68" monza.Day 1, first set, both approach boots back one hole, fin same as received: got thrashed, literally, 2 OTFs; but felt an amazing energy coming out of the turns;Day 2, moved rear boot to two back; set fin at Rossi's settings: much better, smooth, fast, turns quicklyBack to CT, 2 months later:Day 3-6, open water...incredible quickness out of turns, very stable, turns are almost intuitive; move rear boot back to one hole back; still w/rossi's fin settings. I have to agree with WS's review: boot setup is critical with it.Day 7: first course ski: the ski doesn't know how to "take it easy!"; turns on a dime, initiates turns amazingly fast and comes around more than I'm used to; slingshot effect cross course; might take a little bit of re-tooling my technique to take advantage of the huge potential that's so obvious. Some of my early passes were so effortless I'm lost; others were a bit rough since I didn't expect such incredible angle.More to come Unregistered User4/18/05 6:45 am Reply Flex for 34mph MS JTH,Have you narrowed down what is the best fin for the Monza in your opinion. When my water warms, Ill be ready to check one out again. Unregistered User4/21/05 12:43 pm Reply Re: Flex for 34mph John Taylor Horton I think the 106+ is going to be best for most skiers but I have not spent enough time on the ski to rule out the 88+. I will post when I have a better answer. JTH ezOPPosts: 1024/21/05 1:11 pm Reply Thanks MS Thanks JTH. Your hard work is app. Unregistered User4/24/05 3:16 am Reply Re: Day 3 - Full Disclosure & Numbers John Taylor Horton Out of the box I measured my Monza blade at 2.522 Depth/6.953Lenght/.0710 Distance to Tail. With these setting the potential of the ski was obvious but the set up was not close. That was Day One. I ran a couple of 32s and a 35. The 32s were ok but the 35 was harder then it should be. The ski felt slow, spongie and overturned on my heel side (off side). It also seemed to roll over in the pre turn more aggressively then necessary. Again I felt comfortable on the ski but was unsure how to settle it down. There was no way in hell I was going to run 38 like this. NOTE: I was surprised that a depth of 2.522 did not cause a problem. Historically I am very picky about depth and have never found a ski that I liked out side of the range of 2.485 to 2.510. If anything I have always run shallow. On my 2004 67.5†Sixam, 2003 Mapples, HO CDXs and Phantoms I more or less always ran about 2.495. Second Day out. Depth 2.510/Length6.840 /Distance to Tail .0622 / CBR 106+. These settings were sort of arbitrary. I looked over the published HO numbers and threw a dart. Kind of the same deal as above. I ran a bunch or 32s that were OK but was a loss on the settings. Ski still turns way too radical on 2/4/6 (off side). The fin setting seemed a little better. I thought that having the blade farther back may have helped stability. The tail did not slide on me and the tip stayed down at the finish. The water was breaking pretty far forward on the preturn on both sides. After the Second day of skiing I contacted Eddie at HO and asked if thought the ski could be too soft for me. To no surprise Eddie was totally accommodating and suggested that I could get a stiffer ski to try. In the process of 5 or 6 emails that went back and forth Eddie stated that my flex numbers were in the range that most skiers were very happy with. At this point I assumed that I had lost my &%$#ing mind. Ok I am crazy, that is not news. I pulled the ski apart and double checked the binding placement. 29.25†(roughly) to the rear of a Skitec + Custom Liner is darn close to the 29.5†that Rossi is using (Skitec + Custom Liner is thicker then a stock binding so I adjust back a hole). On a lark I thought maybe I needed more depth. Third day out. Now I feel really dumb. I increased the depth to 2.527 and the ski is pure magic. All of my complaints from day one are forgotten. The ski is fast and smooth. When I do what I am supposed to do I am so early at 35 that it is silly. Length and distance from tail have not changed from day 2. Ran a bunch of 35s and missed a few only because I was working on things in my style. Now I have to Eat Crow and send Eddie an email explaining that he sent me the right ski to start with. Edited by: John Taylor Horton at: 4/24/05 9:00 amezOPPosts: 1074/24/05 8:45 am Reply 34 or 36 MS JTH, Was that at 34 or 36 and IYO would that depth work with the HO fin? Unregistered User4/24/05 9:49 am Reply Re: 34 or 36 John Taylor Horton I am still at 34 so far this season. I may do some 36 when it gets warmer make 34 "feel" slower. I think that what you would take from my post is not my exact numbers but the fact that the ski likes a bit of extra depth and that the need for that depth was not as obvious as on others skis. I will continue to tweak my # to fit me as you should do for you and your Monza. JTH ezOPPosts: 1074/24/05 10:45 am Reply Testing MS Our water is 62f, but our air temps are still fluctuating from 45f-70f. Still have the dry suit on. As soon as I get a day or 2 where I can hang out at the dock and put some serious time in, I will test until my hands bleed. Thanks JTH. Unregistered User4/25/05 7:39 am Reply What Size rryker John or Bruce or whoever, I have skied on the 67.5" SixAM for the last year and before that a 68" CDX. I am switching over to a Monza and trying to figure out what size would be best. I have skied on the 67" and 68" and skied the same ball count on both, but the 67" felt a lot easier, so I was thinking of going with the 67", however the water was cold, in the 50's wearing a drysuit. Any thoughts?190 lbsSki 34.2 mphtournament PB is 4@38 off Unregistered User4/26/05 7:45 am Reply Re: What Size John Taylor Horton I am about the same weight and ball count. Eddie wanted me to go with the 68". I can not tell you that it is better then the 67" since I did not get to spend time on both but I can say that I like the 68". Was on 67.5 Sixam in 2004. ezOPPosts: 1094/26/05 7:49 am Reply sizing ron rr-how tall are you? eddie told me I was a perfect fit for a 68" size @ 6'3", 185 lbs...just thru 32 off...although I know first hand that Ham W. is on a 67" and is slightly heavier than me (and into much shorter line length)...but if you've tried both, pick the one you like... Unregistered User4/26/05 8:05 am Reply Sizing rryker I am 190 lbs and 6'2" tallI have spoke with Eddie and Matt Rini and they both suggested the 68" for me. I just felt that the 67" ski turned and carried better width than the 68" ski.I skied the same ball count on the 67", 68" Monza and my 67.5" SixAM. But the SixAM I was all over the place, the 68" Monza was a little better, but the 67" I was sold on. It might be in the fin set-up on the 68", we used Matt Rini's #'s. I think I will try the 68" one more time with Chet's #'s and pick which one I like.Eddie told me that the Dr. was skiing on a 67", but as he puts it, he is a horse. Unregistered User4/26/05 8:50 am Reply Monza size Bruce Butterfield RR, I’m 190-195 and there is no question that the 68 is the better size for me. Comparing rough measurements and subjective ‘size’, the 68 Monza has very nearly the same surface area as the 67.5 Sixam. The 67 Monza is noticeably smaller. How the ski turns and carries width can easily be adjusted with the fin and/or bindings. Smaller skis do have some advantages that some skiers prefer. However, for the vast majority of skiers, the rule is if you are on the border, or if there is any doubt, go bigger. Unregistered User4/26/05 11:32 am Reply settings ron RR-you might want to also try rossi's numbers...I'm using them and they feel great...coming off of a 70" phantom I'm still amazed to date how much faster my shorter 68" monza is compared to it...and last night I found out that it's also much better in windy/choppy conditions...just holds its line and cuts thru...good luck Unregistered User4/27/05 3:12 am Reply Re: settings John Taylor Horton I spoke to ER today. When I asked him about my deep settings he told me that some skiers were all the way down at 2.580. CRAZY but I will play with it. Have not skied in a week but hope to get at least 5 sets this weekend..... John Horton ezOPPosts: 1134/29/05 5:35 pm Reply 68" Monza rryker John, Bruce, and Ron, Thanks, I went back up and tried the 67" and 68" Monza again, this time I changed the settings on the 68" to Chet's #'s, which was tip up, tail down and further from the tail. Wow!, I skied within 1 ball from a PB, straight up the line. This was in a dry suit, water temp in the 50's, and at least 15-20 mph winds. Yes the 68" is for me. I brought it home with me.Also a big thanks to Doug at the Liquid Edge for setting me up with the demo's. Anyone looking to try one out needs to check his site out. He has 66",67", 68" Monza's and system 8's in stock, also a private ski lake with a new MC PS 197 ready to pull you and try out the skis, he really wants to sell you the right ski for you. TopNotch, visit theliquidedge.comLocated in central Illinois. Unregistered User5/1/05 11:14 am Reply Re: 68" Monza John Taylor Horton I talked to Chet today. Not only did he make my day by telling me how much he likes his new CBR 106+ CarbonFin but he made some very interesting comments about Monza settings. First of all he told me that the published numbers are NOT 34 mph numbers and that 34 mph skiers need to add a bunch of length and move the blade forward. Since I am still in love with the ski but unsure about my settings I will give this a try. Chet also told me that he thinks it makes sense to take your numbers from one ski to another and that I might try my Sixam setting on my Monza. This seems crazy to me but heck he is Chet. JTH ezOPPosts: 1195/6/05 7:22 pm Reply Re: 68" Monza John Taylor Horton I went out on the Monza 4 times this weekend. She is like a new girl friend. She looks great. She does all the right things but I just do not know what she is thinking yet. I am trying to make adjustments slowly. I set length quite a bit longer this weekend and ran some nice passes but also fell at 32 and 35 for no apparent reason. (32 is my freaking opening pass!) It has taken a bit of discipline to not start messing with other fin flexes yet. I am happy but a have never had this much trouble dialing a ski in. I am past the 4th date. I thought it would be easy by now. Edited by: John Taylor Horton at: 5/8/05 8:30 pm Goode ★ HO Syndicate ★ KD Skis ★ MasterCraft ★ PerfSki Radar ★ Reflex ★ S Lines ★ Stokes ★ Baller Video Coaching System Become a Supporting Member or make a One-time Donation Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Administrators Horton Posted May 11, 2007 Author Administrators Share Posted May 11, 2007 Subject Author Re: 68" Monza John Taylor Horton Since the later posts from this forum were lost I guess that I should state that right before I hurt my ankle I was quite happy with my Monza. My previous posts show that I found the ski a little odd to set up for my style. I just had to find my happy place. ezOPPosts: 1736/23/05 8:07 am Reply Re: Horton's Monza Log RTTS For what it's worth and that's probably not a whole heck of a lot but I've been teased with glimses of what this ski can do in the past and I FINALLY have got this sucker back to where it's smokin again. I'm 160lbs on a 66 Monza. It seems to me that it is highly sensitive to fin adjustments. It doesn't take much for the ski to be off or if I'm a little off I won't have a good set. I like the 106 fin at 6.845/2.515/.70 bindings 28 7/8ths (FM's). John, I want to go back and try the 88 fin but I'm afraid!! Now that I have the ski running I don't want to touch it. I made full circles running length, depth, fin forward/fin back, moved the bindings all over the place and finally ended up back at square one, with the 106 as the only addition. Rod MemberPosts: 156/23/05 1:06 pm Reply Re: Horton's Monza Log John Taylor Horton Rod, I think it is smart to be nervious about changing things. On the other hand if you have really good measurments you can go back. Right before I got hurt I was thinking about the 88 as a way to ease some of the quarks of the Monza. From the reports I have gotten I think it might be better to get your numbers on the stiffer blade and then try the softer ones. A lot of you have found the funky settings makes that ski feel sluggish and it is easy to confuse this feeling of soft with the feeling of a over soft blade. ezOPPosts: 1746/23/05 4:38 pm Reply Re: Horton's Monza Log RTTS John, I'm going to bang out a few more sets on the 106. Then I'll go back to the 88 with the same settings. Since it's doing so well I just want to keep working on technique and consistancy. I think my form kinda went to crap while I was trying to overcompesate for some of the settings I tried. I ran a bunch of passes yesterday that were just so easy I was hardly working at all. Now I need a bunch of sets just like that!! Rod MemberPosts: 166/24/05 7:34 am Reply Re: Horton's Monza Log kstateskier I've tried 4 setups on my Monza since I started skiing on it back in March... One setup was because of temp changes but the other 3 were just toying... The setup I have now is working awesome and I've run 3 pb's in the last week and continue to ski at the same level! Its like someone flipped a switch in my head and on my ski... Current settings:67 with Animals FB: 29.375Depth: 2.515Length: 6.842DFT: .700Wing: 9 Water temps: low 80's... MemberPosts: 66/24/05 1:17 pm Reply Re: Horton's Monza Log RTTS Kstate- that's real close to what I'm running although diff ski size. You are ahead with your bindngs 1/8th on animals and I really don't know on FM's where I truly sit. I think due to the liner and the way I measured and compared off of my old Wiley bindings I'm probably real close to 29-29.125 on the 66. MemberPosts: 176/24/05 2:55 pm Reply Re: Horton's Monza Log kstateskier RTTS: Are you experiencing just crazy cross course speed and real good arcing turns when you reach coming into the buoys? I'm finding that on 1,3,5 (I'm a RFF skier) that as long as I'm reaching and allowing the ski to continue outward in its arcing turn I keep the line tight and turns are very consistent... On 2,4,6 side I can alo get good turns or I can slam turn it and the ski holds on like its on rails!!! The only trouble I run into is if I try and turn narrow on 1,3,5 side I can come out of the turn on the tail, but thats the only hiccup I've seen... My other setup could turn either side any way I wanted but wasn't as fast cross course I didn't think... I'm really happy with my current set up and again went from consistent 34-15 passes to 36-22's a lot and getting into 28's at 36... Now I obviously don't attribute all that improvement to the ski, as I have been working hard in the gym and on land with my handle and rope control... But the ski is definately awesome! RTTS why did you choose the 66? I'm 5ft 11" and weigh around 155-160 and am pretty athletic... and I choose the 67 because 66's have always felt a bit too short. Brad Beach MemberPosts: 66/25/05 7:51 am Reply Re: Horton's Monza Log RTTS Brad, RE:66. I ski with a bunch of 38/39 off Monza skiers. They all went short as they said there was plenty of speed. Now, I'm no where near their level but I took the their word and I let eddie pick out the ski. I do think at 15/22 off I could use some more length. Once I got into 28/32 and free ski 35/38 there is no shortage of speed and I like the handling. RE: turns. Man...if I keep the handle in and carry my direction outbound, counter and reeeaaach on both sides this ski is smokin and the pass is EASY!!! If I go narrow at the ball, it's all over and it's a hacker scramble to the finish. I can't tell a whole lot of difference between the 106 and the stock blade until I get a little out of sinc, then the 106 gives me a little cheating room and I can recover in good shape. The stock blade would break me after a sloppy turn and hold me there thru the wakes as I couldn't get back into solid position by the 1st wakes or behind the boat. My .02 cents. Oh, and I'm finding the monza does better with a balanced stance that the D3 requires more so than the back stance that the CDX put me in. Soft knees have helped me too and I think it just gets my weight up where it belongs on this ski. MemberPosts: 186/25/05 10:47 am Reply Re: Horton's Monza Log RTTS Brad, One more thing, I ski a lot colder water than you do( I'm guessing). If I skied in 80-90 degree water I would have to be on a 67 for sure. Our water is only 65 right now and at most gets to 75 degrees. Most of my course skiing is probably done between 55 and 70 degree water thru the year. Last year it hit almost 80 degrees for about a week but my little old D3 didn't suffer at all at 65.5 inches. I've run a couple 22off at 36 and the Monza does just fine. I'm an old guy so I get to ski at 34 usually. MemberPosts: 196/25/05 10:54 am Reply 70" Monza Brent I've been having limited success with this Ski & find it very finicky with set-up ! the best numbers so far have been Boot 30"1/8 ,DFT .710, depth 2.515, length 6.920, wing @ 7 dgree's upside down! I can run 2http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/nerd.gif ff no problem but the ski diggs in @ the end of turns @ 32off (4 balls is the best on this ski)! I ran 32off on my old phantom every set the last half of last year! Any other numbers working out there? I have run 2 @ 35off @dubious speed on this ski ,but that is not what I want! I'm a 215LB 34mph skier! Any help or suggestions would be great!http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/frown.gif http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/frown.gif Unregistered User8/7/05 1:16 pm Reply Re: 70" Monza John Taylor Horton Is this issue mostly on your toe side (off side) or on both sides? When you say "Digs in" do you mean that the ski just turns too hard or that there is too much ski in the water? Edited by: John Taylor Horton at: 8/9/05 7:15 amezOPPosts: 2008/8/05 9:43 am Reply Set-up problems! Brent I have added some length (6.945) which seemt to help my off -side turns a little! I have been tweaking so much that even when going back to the "same setting" the ski behaves differently (I think small veriations in DFT, not intentional)! My problem now is losing angle coming out of 2 & 4 ,the ski is not coming around fast enough on that side ! Thinking of adding another .020 to the length! Every time I move the binding forward the ski stalls "diggs" in the turns! 301/8 seem to be the ideal boot location for me on this ski! Sorry for the lack of focus on this message! Unregistered User8/13/05 3:32 am Reply Re: Set-up problems! John Taylor Horton First of all Binding placement is a gross adjustment. The Monza seems to tolerate more binding movement that anything I have ever ridden before but I am back at stock and hesitate to more bindings very much. If the skis is solid across the wakes and is close at the ball I would do the find tune with fin adjust. Also odd about the Monza is the amount to depth you can run. I thought that with my new fin shape I would need to go back to 2.500. after a few rides I was back at 2.530. By old school standards this is crazy but it really calms the ski down. I also have moved the blade forward about .200 from the back of the box. My actual numbers are in my tool box or I would give them to you. Edited by: John Taylor Horton at: 8/14/05 10:32 amezOPPosts: 2038/14/05 8:08 am Reply Ramblings RTTS I've run my depth anywhere from 2.530 all the way down to 2.510. I didn't seem to have any serious issues till I got to 2.510. At that depth my ski had a wicked onside turn that I could hardly keep up with. I have video of my skiing before the fin adjustment and everything looked pretty good. After the fin adjustment the ski would do a sudden 90 degree turn onside at 1,3,5. Offside was quicker too but not as severe. It felt like I had to pull a lot harder to make my passes with that setting. After that set I went back to 2.512 and the ski calmed down again. I was amazed that .002 in depth was enough to flip a switch to where the ski was uncomfortable for me to ride. MemberPosts: 248/15/05 10:27 am Reply Goode ★ HO Syndicate ★ KD Skis ★ MasterCraft ★ PerfSki Radar ★ Reflex ★ S Lines ★ Stokes ★ Baller Video Coaching System Become a Supporting Member or make a One-time Donation Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.webp.594e76dd75aefabbbd8c63a3242fcd7d.webp)
.webp.3cd841288e23e58f209509e0bce4937d.webp)
.webp.fe8dc8cebd1653a72f884b76caf34341.webp)
Recommended Posts