Any other 2013 or 2014 Prophecy Riders out there...?

[skibug]

Looking for some setup feedback. I really like my ski (68" 2014 Prophecy) but after mixing in a few sets on some other skis over the last month I have noticed that the Prophecy just isn't as free from the second wake out to the ball. I love everything else about the ski; but, I wish it would cast out a little freer. I am trying to free it up without it getting too squirrely (like with JB's personal numbers). I am currently at:

 

FB 29.75, 6.838, 2.515, .740, 7°

 

I am thinking of moving the FB back 1/8" to see if that frees it up....any opinions?

[skibug]

bump...no one?

[Chef23]

I think @lpskier is on a Prophecy.

[webbdawg99]

I believe @MattP‌, @mrpreuss, and @JoelHowley‌ are as well

[Horton]

my settings

 

6.824 / 2.515 / .755 (head)

7 degrees

bindings 29 3/8

 

 

[ForrestGump]

My settings :

6.823, 2.529, . 765, 29 7/16, 8 degrees

[wtrskior]

deep and short seems like the norm, interesting.

[swaterkd]

I am on one and I love the cast out. you are ahead with your front foot. Try putting the binding at 29.5. that should help. I like my bindings ahead so I moved up 1/8 from that but you are up 1/4. I have my fin stock got them off connelly web page.

[dtm]

I ski on a 2013 68" Prophecy. I'm @ 193#'s. I also tried several other skis, but always gravitated back to the Connelly. I agree that deep and short works the best. There is no doubt that you have to work a little harder on the Connelly. The payoff is that the ski sits so deep in the water in the turn, that it is more stable and allows for shifting weight when you need to. I've found that putting your bindings in a canted, "duck stance", works well on this ski. I cant the front foot toward the little toe @ 1/4", and the rear @1/2". Also, I run the front binding a "hair" forward of stock (may have to do with that I'm close to being in-between size 67-68"), and the rear about as close to the front as I can get it. My numbers are @ 2.520, 6.829, and .744, and 8 or 9 degrees on wing upside down; I move the fin back in cold water.

[lpskier]

2014 Prophecy, 68", 193 lbs, Lff

 

29.5

6.852 tips

.745 head

2.507

8 degrees, upside down

 

Fogman bindings, both toes rotated to the right, heels to the left of the center

line of the ski. I can send you the dimensions on the rotation but I'll have to get them off my ski if you need them. I don't know them off the top of my head.

 

The ski is really working well for me with these numbers.

 

 

[skibug]

Thanks all, now my head is really scrambled. But seriously, i have a few ideas that i am going to play with out of all this feedback. Thanks.

[rawly]

What size ? I am currently loaning my 66" Prophecy to a friend.It's almost time to get it back so that I can fairly compare it to my Radar Vapor.Those are my two favorite skis that 2014 had to offer.(currently stuck at deep 35)

[ForrestGump]

I found that I like deeper/shorter. It tracks off the second wake to the buoy line better with no detriment effects being that deep that I can see or feel. Essentially I ended up at Jamie B's settings, but 010 farther forward to take away some of the heaviness at the end of the turn.

[davemac]

@efw...if you could only stretch it to be a 67", I'd grab it at that price.

[skibug]

@efw, sold one of my essentially brand new 68" 2014's (2 sets on it) a couple a weeks ago for $700. I was in a position where I wound up with two 2014 skis; so I just wanted to dump one of them; with thanks going to Connelly. I bought a 2014; then later they replace my 2012, that had two inserts pull out, with a new 2014 model. That is what I call standing behind your product and a focus on customer service.

 

I think there is a stigma with Connelly; because there is just not that much hype and not a lot of the 34 mph skiers are riding it, or pros for that matter. It is too bad, because it is a great brand and a great ski.

 

@ShaneH, thanks. Going to pop in my second fin tonight and try the short/deep again. I guess I should add to that pushed forwards too.

[ForrestGump]

It IS a great brand. I emailed them about supporting the SCR regionals and within 7 days they'd sent me a couple of skis to raffle and banners. Some of the other brands never even bothered to reply.

[rawly]

Yep , at you efw. Will pass it on. Great price for an awesome ski.

[lpskier]

I can't say why Connelly seems to be a second-tier brand. When the F1 was their top-of-the-line ski, it's retail cost was something like 60% of the other high-end skis. This may have created a perception that they were a second quality product.

 

While the Prophecy is priced more in line with its competition, Connelly doesn't do a particularly good job marketing their skis, and the pro shop sales people may not be particularly interested in selling them. It could be that the sales people believe that it is too hard to convince a skeptical buyer that the Connelly is a good product, and it may be an easier, surer sale to push buyers towards another brand that gets lots of buzz in the magazines. Let's face it, the typical sales person wants to make a sale, not a convert.

 

Our local pro shop stocks high end Connelly, D3, and HO, and can order Radar, O'Brien, etc. The store owner is an MM rated Connolly skier, and maybe one of Connelly's larger dealers. Because he is a well-known skier, skis on the ski and believes in it, and people respect his opinion, it is easy for him to sell the ski. Perhaps as a result, the vast majority of the course skiers in our community ride Connelly. The 2012 and 2013 National Men's 2 champions live nearby and both switched to Connelly last year from Goode and Radar respectively. My ski partners all ride Connelly and the "worst" one in the group runs in to -32/58k. The only two MM skiers in the Eastern Region ride Connelly.

 

Connelly designs and builds a great product, and I think it really works well in the colder northern water. I have skied Connely for my last five skis (2 F1's and 3 Prophecies). Previously I skied on O'Brien (two skis) and D3 (7000, model not number of skis). I tried both the Nano 1 and the Mapple 6.0 last year, and ultimately preferred the Connelly buy a large margin. I think if Connelly put more effort into promoting their skis, they would sell a lot more of them. They really are very good skis.

[Booze]

@lpskier - what did you like about the Connelly over the N1 and 6.0?

[lpskier]

@Booze I just didn't like the Nano, period. It was all drag and I struggled to run 28 on it. Moved the bindings; changed the bindings; adjusted the fin; added wing, reduced wing, took the wing off. It just was not the ski for me, or I just couldn't figure it out. I sure does work for Regina... and lots other skiers, but it didn't work for me.

 

On a lark, I tried a Mapple 6.0 and ran mid 35 on it the first time out (in April). When I got home from Florida and in cold water, the ski was very inconsistent. Some days it was brilliant and other days it just didn't work. I reset the fin or moved the bindings just about every set, trying to get a more predictable ride. No doubt the ski was very good as evidenced by the brilliant days, but it just wasn't the right ski for me. In fairness, however, the water was warming up and so the conditions were changing daily.

 

Once I finally thought I had the Mapple dialed in, I went south for a tournament at Lake Holly and then on to Charleston to ski at Seth's for a week and the July 4 tourny at Trophy. The ski was horrible. Eventually I set it up as it was in Florida, and it was back to a good, but still inconsistant ride. By that point, I was sick of adjusting my ski on a daily basis and was ready to move on. Incidentally, my friend from Utah bought a Mapple the same day as I, but eventually returned it and went back to his Connelly.

 

First ride on the 2013 Prophecy, I felt right at home (I had skied on a 2011 Prophecy prior to the Nano). I added .005 of depth and left it there for the rest of the season. A month later, I had my best Nationals score ever (6 no continuation at -12/55) (The moral of that story is that you should never set a goal like "I just want to run 35." Much better to say "I just want a piece of 38.")

 

My 2013 had a little accident (fully and promptly warrantied by Connelly), and I had a harder time getting my 2014 dialed in, experimenting with the short and deep numbers, which didn't work as well for me. The ski felt heavy, the turn radius was pretty long and the ski felt stuck in the water. Now that I have the fin set up for my style, I am totally loving it. At Nationals this year, I want a piece of 38.

[skibug]

bindings back 1/8 helped the cast out and freed up the ski a little bit. It is a little looser everywhere; which is probably a good thing once I get comfortable there. Going to try the shorter/deeper/further up tomorrow with the same binding position. I am actually pretty short and pretty deep right now; but will be going shorter -.008 and pushing the fin forward about 0.020. we shall see.