O'Brien Conquer Review

[Horton]

http://www.ballofspray.com/images/2013/conquer/Conquer.jpg

In a field of skis that all look and perform similar, the O'Brien Conquer stands out like Metallica at a jazz festival. The silhouette of the Conquer is made up of bold straight lines. The forebody is broad and straight. The tip is angular. The Conquer is blissfully different.

 

The Conquer’s width and flat rocker equates to an unusually stable ski that produces crazy width and speed. Perhaps no other ski can get a skier from one side of the boat to the other as fast as the Conquer. The attitude of the ski is relatively flat and very consistent heading to the first wake.

 

From the wakes to the ball, the Conquer gets wider and earlier in front of the ball than any other ski tested to date. The ski flows out and in front of the ball while maintaining extraordinary stability. The fact that the ski is so comfortable underfoot at this point allows the skier to be in better than normal position.

 

Off Side turns on the Conquest are sharp and fast. The ski snaps around from wide as opposed to carving back. Sometimes the ski needs to be pushed a little to initiate the rotation and then it simply changes direction all at once. Pushing this ski too hard at Off Side will result in a radical turn and a frantic exit from the ball line.

http://www.ballofspray.com/images/2013/conquer/Conquer-7.jpg

On Side turns are more flowing than Off Side turns. The ski is very sensitive to skier weight distribution as well as fin and binding settings. With moderate front foot pressure, the Conquer will turn smoothly when skiing at easier passes, but at the limit, the ski will turn slow if the skier does not move forward over the ski.

http://www.ballofspray.com/images/2013/conquer/Conquer-12.jpg

Quirks: When skiing in my comfort zone, the Conquer is a favorite. The ski makes it easier for me to be in a better than normal position off the second wake. I find that I hold on with two hands longer off the second wake on this ski. The space and width are truly astounding. I dropped 28 off as a starting pass on the Conquer and hardly missed a 35 off during the all the test rides.

http://www.ballofspray.com/images/2013/conquer/Conquer-9.jpg

When I begin to run out of talent at 38 off and start to make mistakes, this ski’s need for extra precision and front foot pressure at the On Side turn cost me buoys. My mistakes equate to too much speed going to On Side, and the Conquer simply will not turn On Side with extra water speed and not enough front foot pressure.

[estrom]

It's hard to get over how big/wide that ski looks.

 

[LeSkiAvantTout]

My D3 is a tad too tiring for the wet choppy cold water I'm usually on in England, (ski year round) and given I don't run the course (like to though one day) and don't want a BIg Daddy type embarrassment this big beast looks ideal. A lot of your reviews make the skis sound pretty similiar to anyone but a short-line big hitter (no offence that's the audience they're aimed at) but this one is clearly different so goes to top of list, cheers!

[drew]

The 64.5" and 67.5 are more evolved (better) than the 66... I love the 67.5 Conquer, but prefer the more traditional Endo shape. My brother Doug chose the 67.5 Conquer after trying just about every option on the market.

 

[Chef23]

Given the width of the ski I would think most people would wind up on the 66 or the 64.5 inch Conquer I am surprised they didn't start with the 66 and scale from there.

[gregy]

@chef23 thats what I would of thought but Drew's brother is not a big guy and on a 67.5. From the videos I don't think turning is an issue?

[Horton]

@Chef23 I do not know that the skis are scaled. A lot of skis are redesigned from size to size.

[otisg]

I finally skied mine 67.5" and agree with this review - the ski skis great.

I set the fin up with the exactly same numbers as my Green-6 AM which were what the factory recommended and I never saw a reason to change.

The Conquer is a little quicker in the initiation phase - I think...

I, also think that the ski does what I really need it to do which is make it a little easier for a big geezer (225 Lbs.) to get out of the water but one who likes a smaller ski, once up.

[swerveit]

Anyone got the binding numbers for a 66??

Thanks in advance

[otisg]

swerveit - I started in the middle but might move them a little forward because this ski does not slow down as quickly as the green 6-AM in the pre-turn.

FWIW- I used the same fin #'s as my Six-AM and the ski skis just as well... I am, thrilled with the way the ski comes up and out of the water - great for short Lake setups

[A_B]

@horton, how wide is the ski? Is it like the Wide Ride or a Mid ?

[swerveit]

Thanks however I need the actual distance from tail binding measurement..I can't believe that they don't have historical/factory settings on the website :(

[ForrestGump]

29 3/8 is where Horton was riding. Think he was on 66.

[Horton]

I was on 66

it is mid ish

[swerveit]

Thanks @shaneh !! As a person who historically has always had authodox shaped skis looking down at it I did panic at first.. Jump ski sprang to mind. Think I'd freak out on a wide ride.

8 passes down - I don't want to jinx it, and I'm waiting for the catch

[Horton]

I think this is where I ended up

 

29 3/8

.7275

2.500

6.838

[A_B]

Come on @Horton, no review is complete without surface area....

 

[ForrestGump]

Size matters.

[rfa]

Also testing a Conquer...a couple of questions please...O'Brien size/weight charts not helpful... at about 140-145 lbs would the 64.5 be the right size? @Drew says 66 not as good as 64 and 68, so i'm hoping the 64 would be the right size for me. Also O'Brien's fin numbers are: L=6.730; D=2.495; DFT=0.720; Boots=28.25". anyone can confirm or suggest other #'s? I'm also testing an 65.5 Endo and cannot get the fin to the L # unless i modify it as it bumps up against the screws on the fin block (I posted on separate thread regarding the Endo). Thank you!

[Horton]

@rfa Everyone tells me that the 66 is the ugly duckling of the range. I ran ran some 35s on the 67 last Sunday and I think it is a pretty good ski. For your size I think the small one should work. I am trying to get some numbers.... for you and me.

[rfa]

Thank you!!!

[TNh2oskier]

@Horton‌ whats the ugly duckling comment mean? I'm not sure I follow, I can be a little slow at times.

[Horton]

the 66 is not the best of the three sizes in the range. The 66 is a good ski but I believe the other two are better. This is not uncommon it actually happens with many of the top skis in the industry

[TNh2oskier]

Thanks, that's what I thought you were saying but wanted to confirm. Guy on SIA has the 2013 66s and 64s for 275 brand new old stock, and I was thinking about picking one up, but I think I will pass. I dont need another distraction.

[Horton]

@TNh2oskier‌ ooooo you should get the 64 and send it to me. I want to try that thing.

[rfa]

got the 64...will try later today hopefully...

[aupatking]

I still can't find a size chart for this thing.

[swerveit]

I got a 66 and I'm (189 lbs/85kg) I ski at 34mph, tried the 67 and felt like an oil tanker, couldn't turn it. 66 feels great.

@aupatking‌, what do you weigh? what speed do you ski at/line length?

[aupatking]

That's perfect, I'm high 180's to low 190's and ski at 34mph between 22 and 32 off. Thanks for that info. I want to play with one of these over the winter.

[jayski]

If anyone is interested in a 67" I have one with two rides on it for super cheap

[aupatking]

@jayski‌ pm sent

[swerveit]

@aupatking‌ I just thought I ski on cooler water than most stateside, which makes a little difference. I'm not 100% sure the fin was money but the 67 felt big immediately out of the water, the 66 felt spot on. id say try both as the both I tried felt surprisingly different. Ran 32 on the 66, had to drop a rope length for the 67 and still was a nightmare.

historically I've always preferred bigger skis, this was the first time I've gone smaller as the surface area is fairly large.