Connelly Carbon V - the review

[Horton]

http://www.ballofspray.com/images/2017/untitled-10-2.jpg

 

I cannot express how impressed I am with this ski. The trick with skis like this is to not ski them beyond their sweet spot. In my opinion the Carbon V peaks at 32 off 34 mph.

 

To get some perspective, after I rode the Carbon V for a few rides, I rode one of my favorite high end skis for a set.

 

Compared to a high end ski the Carbon V is very stable and forgiving. The skills required to run a perfect pass on the Carbon V are the same as on a high end ski. The difference is forgiveness. The fact is that a ski that I would use to run into 39 off is harder to ride.

 

The Carbon V turns great on both sides and makes a surprising amount of speed across course. It just might be faster than a high end ski. If I had to complain about something, I would say that I struggled a little to keep the tip down at the end of the turn. This is partly just my bad habits and the fact that I was taking the ski to the top of its performance envelope. If you watch the below video you will see plenty of dumb mistakes but you will also see that I am early to every ball.

 

The unexpected difference was the strength required. The high end ski clearly requires much more strength per pass. I can ski about 25% more passes per day on the Carbon V.

 

If you are dreaming of 39 off but are still working on 28 off the Carbon V should be a ski that you consider.

 

 

http://www.ballofspray.com/images/2017/untitled-48.jpg

 

[JAG]

Horton, thanks for the detailed review.

[gt2003]

@Horton, what bindings were you running? Will the Vapor's fit on it?

[Horton]

@gt2003 Radar sequence plates work on Radar Connelly.

[gt2003]

@Horton , Radar sequence work on Radar or did you mean Connelly? Are those the Carbitex?

[Horton]

@gt2003 I used an old pair of boots for this review. My Carbitex are on another ski, my Edge system is on another ski, my Reflex is on yet another ski....

[gt2003]

Wow, lol, u r in binding my heaven! Thanks John

[Fam-man]

thanks for the review.

I liked how the differences between this classs of ski and 36mph class of ski was explained.

[Bill22]

+1 what @Fam-man said

[JAG]

Free skiing, 32 off, 34mph is a blast with the Carbon V. As Horton says, it doesn't punish you for your errors (and I have many).

 

 

[34mph]

I'm on a 2016 GT now and like how it turns and preform... however I'm a 32-33mph skier going into 28 off with hopes of 32 this year... now is something I should consider stepping down into or just keep on skiing my GT ? any thoughts ideas . Thanks

[Chef23]

@34mph if you are planning to ski 34 mph I would say the GT is a good ski for you. I am not sure you would pick up much moving to the Carbon V.

[Horton]

@34mph I think you will advanced faster on the Carbon V.

[Stevie Boy]

I know this is about the Carbon V, I ski @34 mph and I have just brought a Top End Ski, is there a suggestion that when skiing @34mph a Top End Ski may be the wrong way to go ?

[Horton]

@Stevie Boy I am an advocate that mid-range skis are simply easier to ride at longer line lengths. There's nothing wrong with a GT or other high in ski but those skis are designed to run deep deep Short Line. You might have a better experience and learn more riding a mid-range ski.

 

Every ski has a sweet spot or a level of skiing that they are best for. If you are still developing your skills a higher end ski might actually be harder to ride.

[MickeyThompson]

@Horton What size Carbon V are you riding?

[Horton]

67

[34mph]

Ok thanks guys

[pgmoore]

For @Horton or anyone else who has ridden this ski... any thoughts on pros/cons vs Graphite Senate? Given PU core, I think that would be the most comparable Radar ski?

[sodbuster88]

And how does the CX or CX Superlight fit into that comparison?

[TallSkinnyGuy]

@Horton You used to complain about the Carbon V being too stiff and would usually direct people to the regular V. I noticed the Connelly website promotes the Carbon V as a 50/50 carbon/glass mix (like my Alloy Senate) whereas they used to promote it as 70/30 carbon/glass mix. So did this construction change soften the ski and thereby enable you to rave about it in this review?

[Horton]

@TallSkinnyGuy Yes I guess. The original Carbon V was "meh." The new ski is very good.

[blinddog]

I'm looking to buy a used Carbon V, any idea when they changed that mix? I already have a V and if I'm going to try the Carbon version, I don't want "meh"! Thanks.

[blinddog]

I called Connelly and answered my own question for anybody that's interested. The 2016 model is when they changed from 70/30 to 50/50.

[34mph]

@Horton does the V turn like the GT ? does it stay deep in the water ?

[TallSkinnyGuy]

@34mph I skied the V and the Prophecy (which I assume is similar in many ways to the GT) and they feel very, very different to me on the water. The V is significantly wider and rides higher in the water. My understanding is that the V also has less rocker (i.e. larger flat spot). The V feels way more stable while the Prophecy (and I assume the GT) is significantly more nimble.

[lpskier]

We have s skier this week at LaPoint Ski Park that is riding a new Carbon V, having transitioned from a Nano 1. First set he ran all six passes in the course, including his -28 pass. He looked comfortable and in control, a big improvement from his last visit in the fall. I'd say the ski is a big improvement for him.

 

Best score for a GT at the lake this past week was an up the rope 2@41. Not too shabby.

[34mph]

just to make sure I read this in the post is the 2016 and the 2017 carbon v the same ski ? or is 2017 when they changed it ? thanks

[vtmecheng]

@Horton can you confirm that the 2016 and 2017 Carbon Vs are the same? Thanks.

[Horton]

IDK

[vtmecheng]

In case anyone is interested... Some googling and I found a Connelly product catalog for 2016 showing the carbon V was 70/30. 50/50 build started for the 2017 model.

[vtmecheng]

@Horton your 2011 review of the V said it was limited to 32 off at 34 mph, same as this Carbon V. Is the difference then that the Carbon V reaches that limit with more ease and is more crisp or am I missing another difference in performance to justify the large price difference?