Horton's O'Brien Elite Review - 6 months late

[Horton]

If you were silly enough ask, I would say that I try to be an impartial connoisseur of slalom skis. I intend to be an honest arbiter of what works and what does not. It is my goal to explain the differences between one ski and another.

When we get to the subject of the O’Brien Elite I have no idea what to tell you. I am tempted to tell you that it is simply the best ski ever but I know there is no such thing.

When I received my first Elite this Spring I was deeply impressed but found that I was constantly running narrow. This was really odd because I was both incredibly early and narrow. Observers all told me I was crazy but it did not feel right. I exchanged text messages with Andy and he told me move my fin back. This made no sense to me but it got me out wider.

Since there were other skis to ride I sold my first Elite to a friend and moved on. My friend with that Elite is now skiing far better then ever before.

Fast forward a few months to my second Elite. When I got this ski I again wondered around looking for the settings and technique needed to make the ski work. It was always pretty good but not perfect. One setting gave a killer toe side and a school bus heel side. Another setting seemed pretty good but not golden.

Finally I got smart and listened to the Louisiana boys and went to SkiDawg’s settings. For the first few sets with Dawg's #s I thought that what I was experiencing was soft boats. In reality the ski was making everything feel slow. Magic?

Now the ski is at least as fast as anything I have ever ridden, symmetrical, and smooth but aggressive at the ball. This ski requires a calm skier. If you can go lighter on the line and stay tall (AND CALM) at the ball the Elite rides itself.

Generally I look for the personality of a ski. Some skis are smooth and forgiving IF the skier does one thing very well. Other skis require a little extra of something else. At least one top seller on the market today has a distinct toe side and a distinct heel side. On the Elite, I do not find myself thinking about any of this. The ski is simply an extension of me.

Details:
Turns are almost never round house - generally tight fast arcs. Toe and heel side feel symmetrical.

Weight distribution: as with all high end skis front foot pressure always helps but the Elite is very forgiving in this regard.

Ski is very stable in the pre-turn. The attitude of the ski seems to be more tip-down then most skis - flat in the lake at the ball and across the wakes. Overall stability of this ski is excellent.

I avoid the terms fast or speed when I can so: The physical effort/strength needed to ride this ski is very low.

The Elite gets wide with little effort. You want to ride a tight line to the ball no matter what ski you are on. The Elite will not shut down on you if you screw it up and throw out the handle. You can plan on being wide. 

Fin & binding set up is more critical then most.

The additional width under the bindings may sometimes make wake crossings harsh. I have only noticed this a few times. Since I go off the dock at 32 off it is hard to judge. With 3 adults in a MC with a 150 pound tower the wakes are maybe more noticeable then other skis.

[Deke]

John,

Great review! I'm curious about your comment about your first Elite, " This was really odd because I was both incredibly early and narrow." What do you think was going on? What did you change relative to where you were to make the next ski so completely wide all of the time?

Deke

[Horton]

Deke,

For whatever reason (skier or settings) I was rolling in too fast off the second wake. This make the ski engage too early. I think the settings were maybe way off. Hard to say now. All I know is I am skiing the smoothest of my life now.

[tjm]

What are Dawgs settings?

[Horton]

Front Binding at (29 7/16") 6.837 -  .784  - 2.505

Dawg calls for 2.512 but I never run that deep

[Horton]

Funny I just looked at the Elite blog - I have been givien Dawg credit but these are almost exactly Andy's #s.

Andy Mapple's Personal Settings(Rear Toe)

Boots: 29.5"

Length:6.837" (Tips)

DFT: 0.785 "

Depth:  2.510"

(Dawg Andy)

[MrJones]

Were you on the same size ski both times?

[Horton]

as fat as I am the 67 is the only way to go -  Yes

[lkb]

Horton, I think you nailed it when you said This ski requires a calm skier. If you can go lighter on the line and stay tall (AND CALM) at the ball the Elite rides itself.  When I am calm, relaxed, fluid and light, it really rewards me. If I do anything at the ball like breaking at the waist or leading with my shoulder into the wakes, I am toast. So, maybe it will teach me to ski right.

[Horton]

I do also find it to be pretty forgiving.

[MAD11]

Dawgs numbers seems to be about the best. I tried shallow where Horton is and couldn't get any width. Chased fins settings for last three weeks and was about ready to shelve it for Fischer in the garage until I found a broken back powershell. Slapped on a Reflex boot on the rear in it's place and all went back to normal. Set it back to Dawgs settings and all was well. Tried the first 38's  today since April and went most of the way down em, but just not ready to push the bionic ankle yet. Dam thing hurts! I think this ski is going to be fine when I got the guts to push a bit. Maybe try some 39 starts in a few and that will tell me if my setup will work. Only advice is don't stray off the factory numbers too much. If they aren't working something else is wrong. Haven't notice the must be calm stuff you all are talking about either. Seems to go if I'm in the right spot or not. (mostly not right now)

MA

[MrJones]

What happened to all that "I'm not going past 32 until next Spring" stuff Mark? Glad to hear you are feeling froggy enough to be thinking about taking some pokes at 39.

I do agree about the settings. I had been at the 'factory" numbers of 2.510, 6.837, and a bit farther back at .777. Tried the 65.5" a couple days ago. It didn't work as well for me, but Lynda noticed that the 67" was a bit sticky toe side in comparison. I moved forward to .785 (by accident, didn't want to go that far but that's where it landed) and the ski felt better. Rolled out better into heelside and no stick on toeside. 

I am not sure if they have the numbers locked down as much on the 65.5" and 68" skis, but the 67 numbers are solid. 

sj

[lkb]

Scot, when you tried the 65.5 what did it do? I'm curious because I'm just not having the success with my 65.5 that people seem to be having with the 67.

Thanks-lkb

[MrJones]

lkb,

I am a bit of tweener size wise between the 65.5 and the 67 at 6'1" and 175. I am going back to skiing some 36 and wanted to try the smaller ski.

It did some things that I liked compared to the 67. It rolled out from under me with more ease and I could get away with more on my heelside turn. Not surprising in that the ski is smaller and I could muscle it easily.

On the negative side the ski was more work behind the boat. (Again, no surprise as the ski is smaller) The main problem for me is my own fault. I tend to unload and jump on the nose on occasion (read often) on my toe side. The 67 will let me get away with this, the 65.5 will put me in the water.

As I said I believe this is a size issue. I am on the high side of weight and height for the 65.5. You might start another thread for guys tweaking on the 65.5. Most of us have been on the 67 and the conversation on set up has centered on this. Good luck.

[ForrestGump]

My ski partner has been on a 65.5 since the week before nationals. He's at 6.840, 2.510, and .765 with wing at 9 degrees and binding at 29 1/8. He's 6' 160lbs and cleans 38 pretty regularly on it. Which is something he hadn't been doing on his previous ski.

The one thing about this ski that gets me is that if I reach the apex and have my hips dropped any, I'm going to get crushed when the ski hooks up. It just builds too much angle to be able to handle that. As long as my hips are up, all is good. The Senate C didn't punish me for poor body position like that.  On my 67 I've gone back to the original recommended setting of 6.850, 2.50, and .785. At my level(mid 32 on a good day), this seems to be the best setting I've tried.

[ScarletArrow]

If the ski requires a calm skier - doesn't that mean its NOT forgiving?

 

I guess I would define a forgiving ski as something that would allow you to be sloppy in form and not be punished excessively for it?

[Horton]

You want to really really RIP be calm. You can be stupid and keep skiing . . .

[MrJones]

Agree with JT. I can scrap, etc on the larger ski if needed. The thing I frequently ask my self at the end of the pass is "why was I skiing that so hard, the ski would have kept me early with half the effort."

If you are falling off, etc I recommend you check your settings. When I had the fin shallower and longer I had some problems with that as well even on the 67. This saying has been burnt out, but set up is critical.

[MAD11]

SJ,

I didn't say I was going to run any. Just take a few modest pokes at 1 ball to see how it goes. After skiing on Goodes for 10 years I think this ski is as sensitive if not more so to fin setup. I know I'm right on the lenght and depth, but just not sure on the DFT. If I measure with my old calipers I am forward compared to the slot calipers I'm using from Dave D. The thing feels like I need to go back some, but the slot calipers are reading dead on .785.  Will try to go back some this weekend and keep the other settings the same. Also may take a trip to Shreveport to just lift the Dawgs exact settings myself. Darwin assures me there is plenty of beer in that town. Got a call in to see if Baker is ready for a road trip. He's a great travel partner, but can sometimes be a little chatty.

ma

[MrJones]

MAD

For what it is worth. I have a 15 year old set of dial calipers that I am getting .785 with. Chad measured it one time with his slot calipers and came out with close to .800. A few of us compared measurements with different calipers at a recent record. I was surprised at how much variation there was. Come on up this weekend and we will get it figured out. 

[ForrestGump]

Scot, I'm going to compare mine to yours too this weekend. With mine I'm at .785 but with Marc's slot caliper I'm at .805 or so.

[Old MS Accout]

There is no beer in Shreveport. Make sure to bring a bunch with you.

[MAD11]

SJ,

 Sounds like between what you and Shane are saying, Friday afternoon when I get back in the country were going to .800  with my slot calipers and give it a whirl. What the heck.  My set measures dead on with Chad's when we compare.

ma

[lkb]

ShaneH, what size senate c were you on before the elite?

[ForrestGump]

LKB, I had a 67.

[lkb]

If you want to sell it one of my ski partners may be interested

[ForrestGump]

Just sold it and shipped it yesterday.

[Carder]

Hey guys,

 Just got a 65.5 Elite and it is long. Had to put my D3 plates all the way back and still is 1/16" forward of stock #. Measured it with a tape and it's 66.5" with the curve to the bottom of the bevel of the tip. It says its 65.5 all over it but I bet I got a 67 by mistake. I did see on another site that someone else noticed that the 65.5 was longer than his 66 Z7.

Can someone with a 65.5 put a tape on it and see if it is really that long? I dont want to ski on it if I'm going to be sending it back. Thanks!

[Horton]

I suspect (will ask) that they measure from across the top, a straignt line from the tail to the tip. I just measured the one I have in my office and I got 65 3/4.

Adam reads BallOfSpray plus I will text him and you will get a straight answer.

 Lenght is a silly way to measure skis anyway.

[Thomas Wayne]

The distance, in a straight line, from the very tip to the very tail of a ski results in what ski manufacturers (et al) call the "chord length".  If the 65.5 Elite measures 66.5 along its running surface then their size designations are most likely in chord length.

We all learned about the chord of an arc in high-school geometry, and most of you (the lucky ones) never had to think about it again after final exams.

TW

[AdamCord]

Loft - As TW pointed out we measure our skis along the chord length of the ski. A 65.5 Elite will measure ~65.75" in a straight line front tip to tail. Thanks - Adam

[Carder]

Thanks for the info everybody. 

This new 65.5 Elite is longer than my friends 66 Z7 (chord length 65.4") and my old 66 Sixam (65.5" chord).Looked a little big for a 155lb guy. Center hole on D3 boots was 29.5", stock for a 67. Just wanted to make sure before I took her for a spin.

Adam the ski is a work of art. Has made a different skier out of my ski partner. Thanks!

[Horton]

By the way I have two for sale . . .

[Dirt]

Loft, I drilled and dremeled another hole to allow me to move my D3 bindings further back.

[Carder]

Yeah, did that too yesterday. Thanks!

[block]

Loft,

   I assume , given your measurements that your ski is actually a 67.  Is that how you read it?

[ForrestGump]

No, his ski is a 65.5. A 67 measured the same was Loft did, measures 67 3/4. An Elite has a lot of surface area.

[block]

Du! I got it now, thanks.