ajgear

I should also put a caveat on this re: price. Just looked at the Lithium Vapor, and it does look great...until I scroll to the price. I'm looking to be all-in with bindings for +/- $650. I made the mistake of buying my wife a better road bike than I had. It ended up costing me a fair chunk of change, simply because I refused to have a lesser bike. :)

Size recommendations as well? 65" was my guess, but any input would be welcome.

It was literally skied once. I bumped up to a 69" ski. I've got it on BOS classifieds and ebay, but would happily end the auction and do a private sale if anyone is interested. $825 makes it yours and gets it to your door (in the continental US). Feel free to message me with any questions.

Anyone have a recommendation for a women's slalom ski? My wife is 5'7" and about 125. She has slalomed a fair bit, but almost always on skis that were too big for her (men's skis). She skied a friend's ski (women specific) and it made a world of difference. I'd say she's an "intermediate", but could work toward "advanced" in a hurry with the right gear. I really want to get her a ski that can help with that progression. Any Ideas?

FINALLY got on my CX 69". Pure stock settings and I like it a lot. I did notice that I had to run a bit faster. I was running 15 off at 32 on my old ski. I started 22 off this time at 32, and found out quickly that the boat (not mine) put the rooster tail right at 22 off. Went back to 15 off at 32, and needed more speed to make the ski react. At 34 it hooked up for me and ran great. Very stable while I was waiting for good water, and had a great progressive turn-in and hooked up hard when I laid into it. Never felt skiddish. It was my first couple runs of the year, so it's hard to tell exactly what was just early season rustiness, and what was getting used to the new ski, but after 8 or nine cuts I was starting to understand the ski. Coincidentally, I was starting to feel the burn, took a hard cut, and folded like a cheap lawn chair. Next run felt pretty solid, but again, fatigue became a factor after 10-12 turns. I'll run it again Saturday morning. That will be a better test. At the end of tonight's session, my feeling is that I'm going to love the ski as I learn how to handle it. We'll see.

@skinut, I think you're looking at this wrong. While others have pointed out areas where the HUD may be impractical at the moment, it has started a good conversation about what IS practical at the moment. Star Trek put a lot of ideas in peoples' heads. Eventually those big ideas became practical things. We're not hurdling through space at warp speed because of them, but we did get wireless flip phones (communicators), stun guns (set phasers to 'stun'), etc. So thinking about something that is completely impractical at the moment is not, IMHO, a waste of time. It simply opens the mind to all possibilities between now and the future where that impractical idea may become practical. And that is important.

If you really wanted to make it fancy, you could attach it to a plotter visible on a phone or tablet so the skier could see their line after the run.

How about a GPS enabled rope handle. If linked to the GPS in the boat via bluetooth or other wireless (or wired for that matter, since you do have a rope going to the boat), it could easily tell where the imaginary buoys are and could give some haptic feedback to the skier via vibrations in the handle. For example, a slow pulse until the skier reaches the buoy line, then a series of quicker pulses leading to the buoy, and then a constant buzz that signals the skier to turn. If you really want to get accurate, given that the handle may actually be inside the buoy line, one could put the GPS unit on the ski boot and send the haptic signal through a vibration in a leg band or other device connected to the skier (or still send it through the rope handle). The cost of unit like that could be as low as a couple hundred dollars with a unit for the boat and the handle/ski unit.

Yup. Already on it. My guy ordered the next '16 for the dealership with two ski racks which he will swap for two of my board racks when it comes in. Now I just need to add the heater.

Pics of the new ride. It would look so much better on the water, but 40 degrees and overcast with drizzle isn't exactly photo op weather. So this will have to do until spring.

Sealed the deal on a 2014 VTX (diamond). A bit (as in waaaay the f*^#) outside the original budget, but it's brand new, and I got it for less than any used 2014 I could find with less than 150 hours. In fact, it was less than similarly equipped used 2013s. So I get full warranty and new boat smell for the used price. **What you've just read is the abbreviated version of how I talked myself into going $25k over budget.** Thanks for listening. Now to spend the next 6 months jonesing for the chance to get it on the water

I'm going off the OPs line of thought a little (hijacking the thread, to be honest), but I have a similar situation and the advice seems to be the same. Difference is, I've got friends on the same lake with DD boats, so if we decide to run the course (will happen rarely), I have access to those. So we're looking to get a little bit of diversity in the circle of friends' boats. I don't want to go wake/surf specific though, because we still like to ski primarily (open water) but also like to surf, and to a lesser extent, board. And although we have "access" to more pure ski boats, most of our time will be spent on ours, so it needs to be good at open water slalom and passable-to-good for wake and surf. Our budget is a bit higher, probably topping out in the $45k range (but with wiggle room for the right boat). Research so far has appeared to render the following ranking: 1) Malibu VTX Diamond hull (not excluding other Diamond Hull V Drives) 2) Nautique SV 211 3) Sanger V210 4) Centurion Enzo SV 216 5) Malibu Sunscape 23 LSV (Diamond - the size concerns me more than a little, but if someone has had good experience with this, I'm open to it, since I know of a good deal on one) Also considered (though not preferred by my wife due to DD): Malibu Response FXi Master Craft X14 So many boats to ski behind, so little summer time to do it... The real answer is to win the lottery and buy one for each sport, but until I get A LOT luckier, we'll have to stick with a Jack-of-all-trades-master-of-none boat.

Any thought on the Nautique SV211? I've heard good things about the ski wake on those, but I have no experience behind one. Seems those can be had just slightly above the OPs range.

Anyone have experience with the Camaro Blacktec 5.0 full wetsuit? I've seen nothing but rave reviews of the Blacktec 2.0, but not much on the 5.0. Is that just because the 2.0 is so warm that it obviates the need for the 5.0? I'm cycling out my ancient Henderson 3/5mm and even older, and severely haggard, O'Neil 3mm. We don't ski ice-out on our lake, because it's part of the Wisconsin River, and as soon as ice goes out, all of the chaff (branches, trees, stumps, etc) flows downstream to us, making skiing extremely hazardous for the first few weeks. But we will ski in 40-45 degree water early and late season. I am assuming that if the 2.0 is as warm as people say, the 5.0 would be overkill for anything but water that's on the verge of being solid. Just wondering if anyone has actually used a 5.0. Conversely, how cold has anyone taken the 2.0? Would it be livable for 45 degree water?

@Fast351, that all makes perfect sense. Kind of like being on 90s downhill skis. WAY different than today's shape skis. Only difference is that where I used to ski on 205cm skis, modern design allows me to ski on 180s. I also started on my old ski when I weighed 175, and skied it all the way through getting a lot of muscle (and some fat to go with it), so I never really felt it getting too small. I think @Waternut nailed it, in that I subconsciously learned how to 'manage' the shorter ski, and now I need to retrain to get on the right size ski so I can improve. @Wayne, my old ski does, in fact, have an adjustable fin, and if memory serves, we spent an entire weekend taking a run, adjusting, taking another, etc. Same with binding possition. Difference then was that I was 18 yrs old and could ski all day and never get tired. Not so much theses days. In any case, I will absolutely check that. Not everyone that puts skis together is as meticulous as they should be when it comes to 'tunable' items. Should have my CX SuperLite mid-next week. If weather cooperates, I'll take it for a spin and report back. Thanks for all the help.

Found a SMOKIN' deal on a CX SuperLite 69" with double x-Max boots. It's on its way. I'm looking forward to riding it. Not looking forward to 50 degree water without a wetsuit/drysuit. @Waternut, the bindings on the TX were set to the factory spec. When I compared that to my Mach TRX (same length @ 67), the TX bindings were about 1/2 inch farther forward. I haven't adjusted a binding since my brother and I set up the Mach two decades ago. I assume that shortening the length in front of the boot would slow down the turn-in. Is that a valid assumption?

I got a chance to ski the TX Superlight 67" tonight. Getting up on that was a cakewalk compared to my Mach TRX. Once I got the feel of it, it felt pretty darn good at 32 mph, except that the turn-in was a little snappier than I like when I started to get more aggressive. I tried bumping up to 33/34, to see if that would make a difference. It did. I ate sh**. Back to 32. Can I assume the 69" would take some of that away and make the turn-in smoother/more controllable?

Sounds like the CX Superlite 69" might be the way to go. I'm not as well versed in the physics of waterskiing as I am in downhill, so I wasn't sure how surface area and length played together. Intuitively, more surface area is going to get me up and keep me up with less effort (and lower speeds), but I wasn't sure how the width/length ratio would affect handling. My initial thought was that the added width of the TX 67" would compensate for a bit of length, and feel somewhat like the CX 69", but it sounds like either ski would be better suited to me in the longer length. Thanks for the feedback everyone. Truly appreciated. It's tough to get unbiased advice when people are peddling closeouts. So much of the info out there is geared toward way better skiers than me. I fully understand that at 41, and with my experience thus far, I'm never going to be a top tournament skier, but I always want to improve and try to push myself. It's refreshing to get information based on that. So thanks again.

Hey all. I'm looking for some advice on ski size. It seems as though I'm a tweener in some aspects, being at the top of one scale and the bottom of the other in weight, skiing ability, etc. I'm getting a lot of differing opinions from places (mostly those that have a closeout special ski to sell). In any case, I'll pose it to you to see if I can get some independent thought on the matter. I'm 6'4" and weigh-in between 200 and 210 lbs depending on the current ratio of beer consumption to physical exertion. I've slalom skied for 25+ years, but I've never been in a course (though my buddies have sworn to change that). I've been on an HO Mach TRX 9.5 (67") with double boots since the mid 90's. I have no complaints about that ski, but then again, it's pretty much the only ski I've ridden with a hand full of runs on buddies' skis over the years. I ski at 31-32 mph at 15 or 21 off, and I usually run about 20 or 30 turns per set, with a little straight-line break somewhere in the middle. So that's me, but here's the question: If I'm finally going to get a new ski, should I buy a 67" or 69"? I'm primarily looking at the HO TX Superlite (possibly the CX Superlite). I also considered the Senate C. I'm open to others as well, but these are my current prospects. My thought was that the Senate and the TX are wider skis, so being on the high end of the weight recommendation would be less problematic. I've read nothing but good about the CX as well, but it sacrifices some width, and thus, the length might be more of a concern. If I just go by the weight charts, I'd be in the 69" on all, but I'm afraid I'll come off of my current 67", and a 69" will feel like a aircraft carrier. 99% of my skiing will be open water (but aggressive, at least in my mind), with a possibility of hitting a course once in a blue moon. There's some great deals out there right now, but demoing is tough because most of the places don't have multiple sizes this time of year, and it's getting pretty dang cold up here in the Northwoods. So I'm likely going to try to make a rock-bottom deal on a ski, and if I hate it when I get to actually put some time on it, I'll sell it. That said, I'd rather give myself the best chance of liking it. Hence the question. Whatever input you have would be appreciated. Cheers.