Similar ski to Connelly V???

[maverick]

I've been skiing a Connelly V for the past 3 years, and am enjoying it immensely. I ski open water exclusively, and at 6' 2" and 250#, its combo of size, shape, and soft flex seem to make it an ideal ski for how I ski. My brother (an inch shorter and now 25# lighter) has been skiing a Sixam for the past 3 years, but has slowly outgrown the ski as his weight has climbed, to the point that he skis my Connelly V a helluva lot better than his Sixam. He's looking to purchase something similar in feel and performance to the Connelly V, but would prefer to go with a different ski so between the 2 of us we have two different skis to play with. He skied the Radar Theory last year and wasn't overly impressed, and we both skied the Senate this morning but couldn't get a very good read on that ski because of the binding setup on this ski. Looking for suggestions on what to look at, and am wondering how the Carbon V differs from the standard V, and what advantages one may have over the other as an open water ski. Thoughts?

[musclefixer]

you will want to look at the HO S2 , very similar ski to the carbon V with step bottoms

[Chef23]

At 225 the 67.5" S2 would work for your brother. Another option would probably be a Radar Senate.

[maverick]

My familiarity with the S2 is nil -- would you consider it to be a fairly forgiving ski suited for open water skiing?

[Porkfight]

The Strada-based (2012-2013) Senate and Theory are, essentially, the same except the theory is .20" wider than the Senate so the Theory would hold you higher in the water than the Senate at a given speed. The new Senate is based on the new Vapor shape, only .20" wider.

 

I ride a '13 Senate-C in open water and love it. There was a brief adjustment period over my previous 30 yr old Jobe but now it's clearly superior in every way. I would recommend it or a Theory all day long.

[maverick]

One thing we need to factor in is how well the skis planes during deep water starts. As bigger skiers that often don't have the luxury of skiing behind tournament ski boats, we need a ski that has enough width or surface area to pull out w/o completely wearing us out. The Connelly V seems to give us that magic compromise of deep water starting ease and free ski performance, while deep water starts on the Sixam 2.0 can be sketchy depending on the tow boat. It was hard to tell much on the Radar Senate yesterday because of the boot/binding configuration, but there didn't seem to be much difference on the deep water starting aspect between it and the Sixam. Am wondering if the added width of the S2 makes the deep water starts for a big guy a bit easier, maybe more in line with the Connelly V? Thanks for all the info to date.

-- Mark

[JobeWatersports]

For you who don't know... Jobe produces brand new slalom skies which are used by the best athletes in the world. Be sure to check m out http://www.jobesports.com/products/slalom-skis/slalom-skis/rogue-slalom-ski/

[Chef23]

@maverick the S2 is going to be smaller and harder to get up on than a 69" Connelly V. It will probably be roughly comparable to a 67" V.

 

@JobeWatersports if you have a specific recommendation it would help. From what I have read about the Rogue it isn't the right ski for this conversation.

[Greg Banish]

I'm 6'2", 200# and currently run a 67" CarbonV. I have skied the 66.5" S2 and it feels very similar in all aspects, with perhaps a bit more acceleration out of the ball than my CarbonV.

 

I also demo'd the new Senate with Brooks last week. It's the Vapor shape, but .20" wider (also wider than my CarbonV) and it took a LOT of getting used to. It rode completely different due to the wider front/middle that made it feel "grabby" and less predictable to me in the turns. I also got into a condition where it felt like the ski was "porpoising" as a result of my front foot pressure coming out of the ball. It felt like a bucking bronco trying to throw me off it all the way across the wakes. Brooks had me adjust how I loaded up coming out of the ball, but I felt like I was now learning to ski around the ski instead of working on fundamentals like I normally would have done on my ski. The extra width makes starts easier, but I wasn't having a problem there anyway. After 10 passes, I wanted my CarbonV back. Bad. I probably would have skied better on the Vapor, but that's pretty much double the price to remove the 0.20" width. I'll stick with my Connelly for at least another season.

[maverick]

Thanks for all the feedback. My brother pulled the trigger on the Connelly Carbon V, and is having a ball with it. I haven't been on it yet, but should remedy that this next weekend. I'm interested to see how it skis compared to my "standard" V. Thanks again.