CsSkis

@jetpilotg4 You will get many, many, opinions as to what to do for your hands. So, I will "throw" mine out there. Check the thread "C's Skis - Simple glove modification to reduce/prevent sore hands". Since I posted that thread, I have modified a few more pairs of gloves for friends. The response has been totally positive. One example, relevant to yourself, is a friend of mine who spent two days running the course and then had to take the next week off to let their hands heal. I gave her a pair of the modified gloves and she hasn't had a problem since. The side benefit is that once you start using the gloves you don't develop the calluses in the first place.

Thanks for the info. It is great to hear that it is a group of nice people. I will follow up on @Zman 's suggestion.

@Jordan Adam Cord = Yoda = Yes

I would guess the ski that @gregy was referencing was the HO V-Type R. I did a quick graphic from screen captures off HO's website. This is what a comparison of the rocker and planform looks like for the V-Type R. Close, but not quite what HO claims: "the V-TYPE R's rocker and ski width match!".

@Keulaskier Do a search on this website forum for "Google Earth - Ski Sites Update- Again!" If you have Google Earth, this is a fantastic resource for where you can locate a lake with a slalom course with a group of active skiers who can give you the appropriate baptism into the sport.

@ltaustralia Go to www.ski-it-again.com, slalom, and sort on O'Brien. Currently there is a very nice Elite Endo and a Sixam 1.0 for sale. However, you didn't specify what length of ski you were interested in, nor your budget. Personally, I would not purchase the Sixam SS, but that's just because it didn't suit my skiing. Others were probably very happy with it. If you haven't tried a ski yourself, it is going to be difficult.

@ToddL I developed a pair of boots such as you are describing. The boots had laterally stiff risers that hinged freely from the point of the ankle. The only design limitation that I encountered is that the risers needed to be (stiffly) connected around the back of the leg in order for the risers to not move independently. If they moved independently, then the "cuff" would tend to rotate, rather than translate purely fore and aft (this occurred even with a fabric strap connecting them). The rotation wasn't consistent and, as a result, neither was the lateral stiffness. Bottom line, I didn't find the boots to be any advantage over a "normal" hardshell that was "loose" in fore and aft flex. The boots just ended up being more complex. @adamhcaldwell When you cut out part of your boot between the buckles, you significantly reduced the lateral stiffness of the shell. The cuff is relying on the lower part of the boot as a "foundation". Effectively, when you trimmed away that part of the boot, you were allowing (to a lower extent) some of the same cuff rotation to occur, like I have described above. @Horton A loose cuff, with respect to lateral stiffness, means that there is a lag between your movement and putting a lateral load into the boot. Whether or not that is a problem, is up to you. In my case, I found it to be disturbing. My brain wasn't getting feedback related to the movement and I would tend to overcompensate.

@AdamCord and @adamhcaldwell : Would you please address lateral articulation of the ankle versus fore/aft articulation. I have found that a binding that is laterally soft provides me with almost no edge control (limiting case being the bindings that are put on beginner doubles), whereas fore/aft softness has never been a problem (fore/aft being taken care of quite nicely by a front and back foot)

@Horton Yep, the Garmin has built in accelerometers and it also has an external app that allows you to create plots (including ski, or skier, path) and sort data. From Garmin's web-site: Virb XE •Accelerometer: Yes •Altimeter: No •Waterproof to 50 meters without a dive case •Image stabilization: Yes (gyro-enhanced) •Lens distortion correction: Yes •Hydrophobic lens coating: Yes Plus, if you read through the user manual, you can see that additional sensors can be linked to the camera. Basic Speed, Distance, G-Force, Track Angle/Heading With additional "Ant+" compatible sensors Path, Altitude, Water Depth, Apparent Wind Angle, Apparent Wind Speed, True Wind Speed, Temperature, Heart Rate (with heart rate strap), Boat Engine RPM

@Horton, and others. Have any of you taken a look at the Garmin Virb Xe and the GPS and acceleration data that it purports to be able to track and plot? It seems to me that this would be a more capable platform. Data with 60fps HD video. http://virb.garmin.com/en-US/virb-xe Maybe Horton can convince Garmin to send a sample his way.

My family bought this one used for $500. It was a 16' Skagit hull with a 50hp Mercury. The two notable features were that it had a separate forward "cockpit" area for the driver and a passenger, and the hull was a semi-flat-bottom hull with outboard sponsons and twin tunnels running fore and aft on each side of the keel line. The boat produced virtually zero wake for skiing. This picture was taken in the summer of 1968.

@AdamCord Yikes! I guess that I am glad that you are still speaking to me!!

@adamcaldwell I think that I am guilty for putting that thought into @AdamCord's head. I had cautioned him that the edge change might be a little "aggressive" and the drag might be a little higher. However, I had been hoping that after some R&D that the fin could be reduced in total area (relative to current fins) and that by rotating the tip of the fin foreward or aftward would allow for tuning tip/tail. Basically, you wouldn't have DFT, depth and length adjustments, only fin rotation angle. In this case, as shown in the picture, I would imagine that the ski preferred to go straight. However, I never heard the rest of the story. Only that he "survived" the experience. Any more to the story/experience?

@adamcaldwell Can you provide more info on how a fin back movement helps keep the ski out in front of the skier. You made this comment earlier in the thread, and I just need a little more explanation. Is it an adjustment that the skier is making at an unconscious level, or is it a change in how the ski responds? Thanks "Fin back adjustment will move the ski out in front of the skier more during gate roll in, and as well as in the turns, which subsequently takes pressure off the forebody bevels when loading into first wake."

@Than_Bogan I would, of course, defer to @AdamCord and @adamhcaldwell to determine what you should do with binding location/tuning - but, I would think that moving your bindings backwards would be more appropriate than forwards in reducing the "hunting" and somewhat reducing the "crushes at the finish of off-side turns". Or, should I just be quiet and leave it to the A's?

@Stevie Boy There should not be any venturi effect, as the wing is sufficiently separated from the bottom and is also very near the tail of the ski. But, thanks for asking.

I would prioritize it as drag due to separation behind the wing (which, as a result, provides additional directional stability) and the downward "lift" at the tail. Drag increases as you move forward over the ski (approach to the buoy) and the ski reduces in pitch attitude. The more wing angle, the more drag. The downward "lift" helps with rotation around the buoy.

Check with Wiley's

I concur with @skiep

@jayski The information that I received stated that, with the exception of the change in sidewall thickness to adjust for compression molding (which was also found to result in a better overall performing ski than the Endo), the planform and bottom shapes were the same. This info was confirmed again, today, with O'Brien. So, you are correct, none of the G5's are the "same" as the Endo/Elite. Nor, will they ski exactly the same. However, again, I was only talking about the planform and bottom shape. The thicker sidewall will create more lift when the ski is on edge, which is another reason for @whitem71 to go for the 66" over the 67".

Go for a 66" At your weight, the 67" will ride high in the water. It will be fast cross-course but it will leave you with too large a turn radius (unless you go for unusual fin settings). Last year I tried the 68" G5, I have several 67" Elites (with different flex patterns) which have the same planform and bottom shape as the 67" G5, and then I tried the 66" G5. At the time I tried the 66", I weighed about 170lbs and was skiing at 34mph. I kept the 66" G5 and I am quite happy with it. If you want more detail on my review/experience, do a search for Horton's O'Brien G5 Review and scroll down until you find my comments from October 2014.

After reading Horton's initial impressions on the 68" O'Brien G5, I had been trying to lay my hands on one all season. I was finally able to do so, and these are my impressions of the ski. However, first, a little background. I'm a 60+year old, 170lb skier who typically runs mid to deep 28off at 34mph. In past years (on a good day), I could ski into mid 32off, but my back and knees have begun to degenerate and 28off is now my new "normal". The skis that I have ridden this season include a highly modified 67" O'Brien Elite, a full Kevlar (not carbon) soft 67" O'Brien Elite and a few weeks on a 67" 2015 RADAR Vapor Lithium. My best scores have been achieved, until now, on the Kevlar Elite. Each of these skis has demonstrated a particular characteristic that I have really liked, but not a complete package. The highly modified Elite carried huge speed cross-course, the Kevlar Elite turned on a dime, and the Vapor was amazing on the pull-out for the gates and the minimal energy to get from ball to ball. But they all had other, less positive, characteristics that left me wanting for more. They just didn't necessarily suit my style of skiing and the limitations imposed by my "more mature" body. So, back to the G5. To replicate what Horton had skied on, Pete Surrette (O'Brien SeniorVP/GM) provided me with a 68" G5 to try. I set the fin and bindings up with Horton's final settings (front boot at 30", Depth=2.525", Length=6.841" , DFT=0.7265 head, 0.759 slot) and gave it a go. Hmmm..not so good. I was getting a lot of "hunting" on the pull-out for the gates and the turn-in was a matter of catching the ski on the right oscillation. In addition, I was getting a reasonable off-side, but the on-side turn was a real struggle. The ski just didn't want to come around before the line loaded up. So, after contacting Horton's "Yoda" ski set-up master and describing what was going on, the following settings are what I ended up with: Front boot at 29.75", Depth=2.485", Length(tips)=6.885", DFT(stem flat)=0.768" The ski no longer hunted during the pull-out for the gates and I could consistently time the turn-in. In addition, I was now getting very consistent on-side and off-side carving turns. I would finish a turn, edge change, and then be in the next carving turn. There was no sensation of an intermediate cross-course pull. It was just one smooth turn after the next. Unfortunately, unlike Horton, I was finding the 68" to be too big for me. Course width wasn't an issue, it was just that I couldn't get the ski to turn in a tight enough radius. I just ended up later and later for the subsequent buoys. I reported this back to Pete Surrette and his Sales VP Ed Lavin and the next thing I knew Pete was handing me a 66" G5 to try. With a grin, Pete told me that I would probably like this one a whole lot better - and he was right! I took a look at the fin settings that O'Brien had on their website (2.510", 6.730" and 0.735") and tweaked those on the basis of my skiing style and past experience with the O'Brien Elite family of skis. My fin settings ended up being fairly close, but were 2.510", 6.830" and 0.745" respectively. With these fin settings, I equaled my current season PB on my 4th pass. What a revelation. The more committed I was to the pass and the harder I worked the ski, the more I got in return. There wasn't any adjustment required in my (neutral stance) skiing style - unlike other skis that have required more tip pressure at turn initiation, such as the Vapor. In addition, the "communication" between my brain and the ski didn't seem to get filtered - what I wanted to do, the ski responded. And, lastly, I was not getting as much of a "kick" up through my spine and knees on wake crossings as I had been getting with my Elites. (This is a big deal when you have a bad back and knees.) I had been worried about fore/aft sensitivity with the shorter ski, but actually found it to be more stable than the 68". One thing that hasn't been mentioned in other reviews is the improvement in the O'Brien fin block over past versions. The current "Insight" fin block is one of the best that I have encountered in terms of the minimal amount of time to adjust it to a desired setting. Bottom line: I don't want to give the ski back!! If you get a chance, and are close in weight range to me, try a 66" G5. I don't think you will regret it!

@Wish I don't know how to comment on Connelly's information. The biggest question that I would ask is what kind of "tunnel" test they used and how the testing was conducted. It would be nice if they published a technical report on how they did it. Up to this point, I am not aware of any formal, lab-based, testing that could replicate how we interact with a waterski and determine what does and doesn't work in a slalom course. (I wish there was!!!) And, when Connelly talks about validating it on the water... testing a waterski is, to all intents and purposes, based on highly subjective feedback. Just ask Horton! Does it sound like I think that I know everything? I hope not, as it gets proven to me every day of the week that I don't! Just for fun, I have attached a picture of the spray off a ski that was being tested a few years back. The only "data" I acquired on how it worked was all based on subjective feedback. However, it turned out that fin tuning was a stronger influence on the feedback than the design of the ski itself.

@ThePantsManCan I'm glad that you understood about requiring air to ventilate the step and that carrying the step around/over the bevel might alleviate the suction. Unfortunately, a waterski is much more complex than the planning hull of a boat. Boats are typically going in a straight line (traveling point-to-point). Running a slalom course is just one linked turn after another. If you look at any picture of a waterski as it is passing through the water (cross-course or otherwise), either one side or the other is always immersed in the water from about the front foot to the tail. So, what would be the purpose of adding steps? There is something else about boats versus waterskis. When a boat is on plane, most of the water molecules are traveling longitudinally under the hull. There is some bow and hull spray, but most of the water is passing under the hull. However, and we are all proud of this one, slalom skiing is defined by the spray we generate! The spray is a graphic way of showing that a large proportion of the water molecules are travelling more laterally (typically, about 30 degrees) across the bottom of the ski. (Refer to attached picture of Rossi) There is one point at which the waterski is acting similarly to the planning hull of a boat, but it is very, very, brief. It is during the edge change. (Refer to attached picture of Smith) The ski is unloaded at this point and the planing attitude reflects that fact. However, it also occurs in the "whitewash" which is already well "ventilated". So, steps wouldn't contribute to a lowering of drag at this point either. Food for thought.

@ThePantsManCan Please read my previously linked article on how/why stepped hulls work before you invest much time/effort on a stepped ski. If you really want to start tinkering with your old ski, start thinking about how bevels work and how different bevel shapes change where the flow separates on the sidewall of the ski. A round bevel creates more suction and a sharp bevel reduces it. @Wayne Always ask - what is the change in the surface supposed to do - is it marketing, or is there a real reason for the change? My guess is that the dimples were there for marketing purposes.