Which Slalom Ski for Intermediate Athletic Big Guy back to the course after 10yrs off.

[Monsterair]

Im new to the forum. Just looking for some advice on ski selection after a 10 yr break from slalom. Been skiing 35+ yrs. Advanced open water skier, beginner/intermediate in the course. Im a very active 53 yr old. 6'3" 250 lbs. Avid in most board sports (snow/wake board, surfing, windsurfing, kite boarding). Sold my Mastercraft (Maristar225/ X-30) 8 yrs ago and had a few larger cruisers and sport fish boats after we moved from AZ to FL on the Intercoastal waterway. Smooth water was hard to find there for slalom. In the end found we mostly wakeboarded as a result. We recently found a new flat water skiing area, met some folks in a local slalom community, and bought into a MC Prostar. Getting back into slalom after a nearly 10 year break and stoked! My last skiis (bought in 2000) are a 70" HO CDX for the course and more aggressive skiing, and a 69" Icon Kahuna Carve used for open water carving in the ICW. Im a fairly aggressive skier but after 6 knee surgeries and a few more years under the bridge, the CDX is beating me up. It was fine at 36 (when I bought it) but feels like an anchor at 32-34 where I feel more comfortable now. Also, dont remember it wearing me out so much after repeated starts, ha ha. The Kahuna is nice at slower speeds and and comfortable carves. Its nice for getting back in ski shape but not really made for the course. I want to get back into the course to see if I can make some advancement, but want to get a new ski. After some research, I really like the Radar Senate C and am tempted to just pick one up. The other option is the standard Senate, or possibly the Theory ( I just bought my wife one who is brand new to the course). I also looked at the HO Triumph. I am much more drawn to the Senate C (or maybe Std Layup Senate is more suited for me) but Im concerned about my size being out of its range. The largest size offerred is 69 and Radar specs reccommend max 220 lbs. I'm wondering if at my size I'll need 36mph to make it work and be right back to my 70 CDX. The Radar Theory is a half inch wider at 69 but I feel like I might want more performance (the kid inside me wants the faster one). The Triumph comes in a 71 but I'm afraid they might be a little too tame and sound a little too close to the 69 Kahuna. Seems I'm a little out of the box on size so I'm unsure. Wish the Senate came in a 70 (Radar said it was a possibility in 2013-2014). Any reccomendations for a big guy with well worn knees getting back into training in the course starting at long lines with dreams of shorter ones? Do you think the Senate C would work for me, or the Std Senate better? Or should I go to a wider shape? I am definitely stoked (and a little sore but happy) after the first few days back on my old sticks! I'm looking for a new modern design better for my speed and ability to help me progress ( injury free). Thanks in advance for any advice personal experience anyone can offer.

[itch2ski]

I just picked up a HO Coefficient X SL, it is an awesome ski for those speeds, it is super fast and holds great in the turns. I feel like the step bottom really does a lot to reduce drag. I would recommend demoing a 69" Coefficient X SL and seeing if the size would work for you. If it feels too small then demo a 69" or 71" HO Triumph as it has the same step concave design as the S2 and the Coex, but comes in a slightly wider profile.

[kfennell]

I just went through learning the course and getting up to 36 mph while weighing 250 lbs, I lost 30 lbs over the winter and now I am using an RS-1. I was using a 69.5" Senate and it was nice and very forgiving, I tested a CDX once, it was 100% more aggressive so I didn't like it much. I have run 34-22 on this ski and it is easy to get up on and nice soft finish to the turns.

 

http://www.ski-it-again.com/php/skiitagain.php?topic=Search&category=Slalom&postid=19712

[bogboy]

What itchtoski said about the new improved triumph. My wife and I have owned 4 triumphs in the last 5 years. The old generation 67",& 69" for her, the old generation 71" for me when I weighed 225, and the new 69" for me now at 195. I would recommend the new 71" for you. It is a lot higher performance than the old triumph, and just as forgiving. It skis great in the course, and out. You won't be disappointed. It really does have syndicate and coex technology built into it. Google Marcus brown, new ho triumph promo trailer. It's true.

[maverick]

I'm the same weight, size, age, and (sounds like) skill level, and ski on the Connelly V. I skied the Triumph a bit (2009 model) and didn't care for it all, so narrowed my choices to the Senate and Connelly V. Chose the V based on reviews, and have not been disappointed. I'm intrigued by the carbon version, but chose the non-carbon based on all the open water I ski.

[Monsterair]

Thanks for the advice. I'm going to demo the 69 Senate C and 71 Triumph this weekend. Ill look into the V too. Thanks.

[itch2ski]

Let us know how the demos go!

[Chef23]

I think the Senate C in a 69 would work for you. I skied an HO A1 in 68.75" at 240 lbs and started the course at 32 mph and it supported me fine (I may have it for sale next week if you are interested). Both the 69 Senate C and the 69 Triumph are bigger skis than the A1 and should work fine for you. The Connelly V should work also.

 

Welcome back.

[Mortyski]

thanks Monsterair for bringing this up. I'm a big athletic guy myself and have been struggling with finding a ski that I can start on, will glide and will turn. Sounds nuts but there does not seem to be a ski that can do all of the above for 260 lbs.

 

Has anyone actually skied on the new 71 inch triumph and the old 71 inch triumph. The old one didn't turn (to quote AB I needed mooring lights for the ski since it was so big) so I was way over weight on the old 69 inch triumph to have something that sort of turned.

 

The question is how does the new triumph turn? Anybody out there with real experience? Marcus Brown (who I have a great deal of respect for) could make a 2x4 turn with his technique so can a mere mortal turn the new 71 inch triumph in anything less than a school bus radius

 

Thanks in advance,

Morty

 

Hello AB! I know you are reading this and chuckling

[matthew]

I am also keen to hear, at 260lb I was put onto the 71 triumph 2011 (old model.)

My previous ski was a Jobe spectra 68 which I loved to ski on, but was too heavy for.

 

I find my triumph 71 hard to turn above 32mph.

[Mortyski]

Hi Matthew.

 

Yes above 32 mph forget the 71 inch, it just lifted itself out of the water. I have an older 71 triumph and I just found it did not turn with any kind of radius...sort of a super G kind of turn not a slalom turn using a snow skiing analogy

 

my best,

Morty

[bogboy]

Yes, I skied the old triumph 71" at 225# a lot for about 4 years, almost all free skiing, but did include some coaching on ski lake lakes, including ski paradise, radar, hilltop, bow lake, Florida, tate, and the portable course on lake stevens. I was only able to get through the novice buoys plus a couple regular buoys. I got frustrated with my progress, and demoed a carbon v, a1, senate, x7, & fusion. one of my mistakes was to only free ski the demos. I ended up purchasing the senate, and later the fusion. They were great for free skiing, but did not make my course skiing any better. I decided to get serious about learning the course, dropped 30#, and paid for course coaching at least 3 days a week, plus still free skied a lot. One of the ski lakes is an ho dealer, and the coach said I would do well on the new 69" triumph, so I went down to wilys the next day and bought one. I immediately loved it's high performance ( to me), and especially the ability to ski down to around 25 mph in the course, which the other high performance skis could not do for me. I then went to friends in Florida, and only skied the course every day. By day 3, I made my first full pass, and I am continuing to make consistent progress here at home on the new triumph. I think the new triumph is a totally different ski than the old one. I guess I am a slow learner. Sorry about the long post.

[Mortyski]

thanks Bogboy,

 

I was actually able to ski relatively short lines in the course (32-35 off sometimes better) at about 32 mph on the old triumph but found at my weight more success with the 69 than the 71 since the 71 didn't turn that quickly. So that is why I am asking if the new version of these skis turns any faster. I tweaked fins and bindings etc and finally settled on a Schnitz speed slot fin as the best so I did spend some time trying to tweak the ski....coaxing it into more performance than it probably was designed for.

 

Anybody out there skied on the old 71 triumph and the new 71 triumph yet? That would be the true test as for sure the new 69 should turn faster than the old 71

 

thanks,

Morty

[bogboy]

Mortyski: your right, I was'nt exactly comparing apples to apples. I did not try the new 71". Good luck, and let us know how it goes.

[Mortyski]

Will do Bogboy as I am sure there are more than the half dozen of us on this thread that are interested in this

 

...the trick is to find a ski that turns, starts and glides and you can do some warm up passes at wide ride kinds of speed without it feeling like a 20 second deep water start.

 

I tried the old Senate C, and a new Theory and they are both great skis but I felt drag at wide ride speed, the drag was so bad the ski wouldn't work. The 71 triumph didn't sink but couldn't turn very quickly. I do admit that a lot is technique but I have waterskied for decades and snow skied for the same time and I know when you have a "super G" ski don't expect to run a "slalom" course in it. I own DH, SG, GS, and Sl snow skis for that reason as they don't do the same thing.

 

Years ago I used the Icon Power Carve Kahuna Carve ski and that was fun....do water skis wear out...snow skis certainly do? Maybe I should dust off and go back to the old power carve....which I consider one of the best water ski shapes ever.

 

A carbon fibre power carve might be a big seller....that or lose weight which is much easier said than done.

 

my best,

Morty

[A_B]

Ok, I will weigh in on this one, wink wink.

 

Yes @Mortyski, I was chuckling.. didn't the 71" Triumph have retractable dock cleats?

 

I started the year at 260-ish on a 69" prototype SC, commonly referred to as Strada 55. Only a handful of these were made. They have a pvc core vs. polyurethene in the stock SC. I liked this a lot more than the 66" Wide Ride.

 

Now at 250-ish, bought a 69.5" Strada and am liking it. My Senate C is very stiff, and the Strada is a little softer and with its narrower tail, is turning sharper at 32 off and 35 off.

 

Have been thinking of jumping back on the SC, just to see if water temps or whatever are helping the Strada.

 

If you are going to run shorter ropes the 69.5 Strada is the way to go. If you are going to take a couple years to get there, the Senate C will be a good 34 mph ski.

 

Maybe 4 or 5 years ago, Mortyski stopped by and I was on a stock 69" Senate C, and running that into 35 off on most days, and picking up a couple at 38 off on a great day. I was probably around 230 back then. The only problem was that I was running a 67" (68" reg measure) 9500 225 AMP more consistently, although starts were a bear.

 

Nice to know we are not alone!

[Monsterair]

I took the 69 Senate C and the 71 Triumph out for demo last weekend. The Senate had double Vector Boots and the Triumph had double Attack Boots. At 6'3" 255 lbs the Triumph felt big. First impression was it was more of a big comfortable open water cruiser. It was harder to keep the ski on edge and create any angle across the wakes, making for a few unexpected wake jumps. Woo hoo! The ski was loose and felt like it was skipping along on top of the water. The Senate C on the other hand was Awesome! Turns were like slicing through butter! Absolutely loved it. Ski totally felt in control at all times and sliced through the wakes like they werent there. The harder I pushed, the better it felt. Decel into the turns was nice and managable wher the Triumph didnt seem to decel at all. At my level as a 32-34 mph intermediate, the Senate C really hit the sweet spot and felt like it had plenty left to grow with me. In all fairness, we only towed at 32-34 mph. I think the big Triumph might have been a different animal at 28-30 and it might have been a great training ski at those speeds ( or in a 69 at 28-34?). Also, as a side note, I'm a shoe size 12-13. The Vector Boots in the XL vs the Attack XL were the hands down winner for me. Support and comfort on the Vectors were much much better. I bought the Senate C with Double Vector Boots Tuesday from Performance Ski in Orlando. Love it!

[Monsterair]

PSS: I also have a 69 Icon Kahuna Carve I bouht around 10 yrs ago after a knee injury on the CDX1. Used it to slow the speeds and rehab the knee back into some shape. Its still a great open water ski that makes nice effortless carves for big guys without having to go 36 to get the glide (no wing on the fin). Ive had it down to 28 with no problem. Deep water starts are very easy and its great for slow speed warm ups and relaxing in less than perfect conditions. But compared to the Senate C there really is no comparison. Dont think the Kahuna was really made for the course for anything other than slower speed training or for open water cruising. Still a fun ski anyone can have a great time on. Ill be keeping mine.

[Mortyski]

thanks Monsterair for the update

 

I had the old Senate C 69inch , I have not tried the new one based on the Strada yet. AB, who I keep contact with seems to like the new SC. I've seen him dance to mid 35 on the old 69 SC and it was only a "Brain _art" that kept him from running that pass as he was way ahead of things before the BF. So maybe the new SC based on the Strada plus a few less lbs is the way to go.

 

I can imagine the 71 Triumph felt squirley over 32 mph, I know the old one certainly didn't like anything over 32 mph at all and barely tolerates 32 mph.

 

Just so you know years ago I actually run through 38 off on a Kahuna carve at wide ride speeds so it can do the course but it had to be slower speeds as you mentioned

 

my best,

Morty

[matthew]

@monsterair thanks for the post about your demo.

 

It's nice to hear feedback from someone as heavy as myself, I have never felt comfortable on the triumph and will be trying to get a ride on a Senate C, I also have size 13 feet and have to run the radar Vector XL boot on my triumph.

[matthew]

I am going to demo a 69.5 Vice and 69 senate C this weekend!

[Monsterair]

Wow, Mortyski! Thats pretty impressive! I don't think I could do 38 off on a jet ski these days ( or ever). HaHa It makes me appreciate the capabilities of the old Kahuna even more. It should be excellent for waking up tired knees and working on form at slower speeds. Definitely will keep it. Thanks for the motivation.

[Mortyski]

Hi Monsterair...as I said it was years ago but it was kinda fun. It makes one appreciate how good the good guys are today to do that and a whole bunch more at 36 mph

 

What confuses me is people are getting bigger but the waterski world has sort of ignored that and they don't make a performance ski for anyone over 220 lbs or so.

 

Big guys are always have compromises in water skis...does it glide, start, turn or hold an edge / pop the wakes. That is one thing I like about snow skiing over water skiing is the fact you can use the same skis without a huge compromise in functionality.

 

my best,

Morty

 

 

 

 

[Mortyski]

So before this thread goes into magnetic heaven and is lost forever....has anybody skied on the old 71 triumph and the new 71 triumph...any comparisons?

 

thanks,

Morty