andjules

@Jody_Seal yeah, that's strange.

TAKE PHOTOS!

Very cool perspective. Thanks.

It's funny after our recent discussion on straight(er) legs in the course: Nate's natural tendency (first ride, 2.10-2.20s or so), even footing, is to straighten his legs. I thought he was going to have a nasty faceplant, but of course his athleticism & balance shines through.

Although in rare years I've skied our home site in a shorty on the last wknd in April... this year, the ice still isn't out (2.5 hours north of Toronto).

Good looking boat, for sure. I'll just point out that you can sometimes find a 98-or-newer Sportster LX in this price range. Depending on your usage/needs, it can be more attractive: a little lighter (slightly nicer slalom wake), walkover bow (which means closed-bow style, roomier observer seat), simpler/less-problematic electronics, and usually a 310 Indmar, which I think is a bit nicer engine than the Mercury. And 5+ years newer, often at-or-close-to the same price point. Of course, i) it's a tad narrower (less storage), ii) if you value the walk-through more than the wide observer seat, it's obviously the wrong choice, and lastly iii) when you need a folding tongue, I get that it can be the dealmaker/dealbreaker.

+1 for what @Zman said. I've got 8.5 feet, and RS-1 bindings in a size 8. Too tight.

@oldjeep‌ not some folks idea of a ski tug, but I wouldn't pass up a ride. Heck, a VTX with a diamond hull is basically a Response with a couple of fat ladies in the back. One could do worse.

@Razorskier1 - that's funny, I see almost the opposite. You certainly have a point, he can't do what he does if he weren't in a strong position, but at the same time, I'd say that's the worst-looking stack of any top skier I'm familiar with. Other than his gate shot, it seems like his shoulders are ahead of his hips at most wake crossings. And he's pretty compressed (after all out discussion in other threads about aiming for straighter legs). And coming off the second wake in to his 2/4/6, there tends to be a instant where he looks like he's going to go out the front. That said, it's the kind of skiing I love to watch. 100% intensity, all heart. That guy must have the strongest core muscles, being able to pull like that, in that position, without losing it. So fun!

Looks like it started with a Fiero. If true, no matter how ugly, it'd be an improvement.

Assuming it's the right size for your speed and weight, the Senate C isn't holding you back. If you want a new ski, great. I ride an S2, and am obviously a fan (my brother rides a non-carbon Senate and is about your level). But @Horton's advice holds (for a lot of us on here): the $ is better spent on coaching.

Yes! what a great feeling. I don't want to jinx anything, but 16m usually isn't the worst pass to learn (depending on your style), especially at 58k. Good luck. Hopefully you start nailing it consistently.

Move your bindings forward 1/8"

Stumbled on this and—as a Canadian—thought it was pretty cute satire: http://bit.ly/1jNEI5s

This idea grabbed my imagination last year when @Horton‌ brought it up and helped me clean up my stack. Perhaps it's my imagination, but it felt like the biggest improvement came from being 'stiffer' through the wakes (my pre-wake stack wasn't that bad, but I'd crush my knees through the wakes—[felt like] giving tons of power back to the boat— until I started focusing on the back leg). Interestingly @SkiJay‌ - you said it is "more of a pre-turn and turn concept" (with pics as proof), but I focus on straighter legs though the pull/wakes and begin to focus on a flexed front ankle into the preturn. Perhaps it's the (retired) trick skier in me. Anyhow, for all the ribbing he gets, I want to say thanks @Horton - I believe this idea played a big part in my score moving up 6.5 balls last summer in fewer than 20 sets in the course.

No, I think you'll find the "SV23" and the "SV23 wake" are the exact same hull, so any modern (1995 and later) Sunsetter LX is basically on the same hull - which was introduced on the Echelon (in 1993?). Here's the thing between the SV23 (wake) vs the SV23 "diamond": the former is pretty weight-and-beam sensitive. A wider/heavier boat on the wake hull makes for a hard slalom wake. A light/narrow boat on the wake hull is pretty damn nice. The Tantrum and Sportster are on the classic wake hull and have pretty nice slalom wakes, because they're light and narrow. The echelon is a little heavier, and if I recall correctly, is essentially the same as the 95-97 Response. Still a damn fine boat, but a little harder wake than the 98 and later Responses which were on the Diamond hull. The Sunsetter LX is considerably wider and heavier, and you start to feel it in terms of size/hardness of the wake. The difference between a Sunsetter LX (wake hull) vs LXi (diamond hull) is pretty noticeable.

I know I've written this before on other threads, but it's important to note there were two 205 hulls: 1992-1995(?), and 1996-2001(?) or so (not sure if 1995 was the last year for the first hull or first year of the latter one). The older 205s are nicer slalom boats (I ski behind one often) than the newer ones - which are excellent crossover boats, but probably better for wakeboarding (if you add ballast) than slaloming. I'd agree with @DW, the echelon wake should be a little softer than even the older 205s. That said, the 205s are roomier boats, especially the newer variant.

My brother (203lbs) is on a 69 non-carbon senate (sometimes running -15/32mph), and while it has a lot of great characteristics, he does complain that it feels like a bit of a log. Which is to say, I'd encourage anyone considering the Senate to shell out for the carbon version ("Senate C").

Same spirit, different targets: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l1bhjpYn3n8 *edit* don't know if people are passionate about what to look at after the current ball (the next ball, the next gates, straight down the course), but I suspect whatever keeps you from overturning is what's key.

Can I reverse the question: First sets of the season, what parts of your body are most sore? I know for me, it's usually: - last inch of my biceps before the elbow (I've always been fascinated as to why it's not the whole bicep?) - all across the shoulder blades (delts?) - butt-to-lower back ...and when I try to ski too many sets in too short a time at the beginning of the season (I took 7 short sets in 4 days on a trip to FL last month), I also find: - forearms - hands Is it different for others?

I think I know the 3 things I'm going to be working on... but I haven't distilled them into single words - good idea.

@‌Eric4c I just ordered one last week for my 2000 sunsetter LXi. I believe the LX uses the same cable - teleflex 19', part# SSC13419 themalibucrew.com is your friend Best price I could find: Amazon (select the 19' version) Teleflex now has a fancier version (Xtreme or something like that), sold at skidim, but looking into it, I wasn't convinced that it worth the price increase, at least for ski boats. Adds some 'smoothness' but not necessarily any durability. And yes, the LXi has a better slalom wake (amazing for the size of boat, great even at lower speeds, 28mph, etc) and worse wakeboard wake. The LXi is on the "diamond hull", and with a few custom-ordered exceptions, the LX is on the "wake hull". That said, I wouldn't turn down a ride behind either.

Oh @Horton, I don't doubt for a second that my Shortline wasn't fast at all, and modern skis are. I was just trying to point out that at the heart of your question was the stiffness/muscular rigidtity that happens when we're under heavy load or "lock" our joints. It is tough to be mechanically subtle in those cases, and as such, it kind of proves your point: If I'm over-flexing my muscles, I won't be subtle/technical. If my ski generates "speed" easily, I can be subtle/technical. (the flipside of this discussion—important to keep in mind—is that a super stiff ski with lots of surface area ain't gonna turn on a dime)

I'm increasingly thinking that this discussion gets off the rails for taxonomical reasons. "Fast" may ultimately be the wrong word. Imagine: i) You're standing at a bar, signing a credit card slip, without resting your forearm on the bar. ii) Same as (i), but a rope is tied mid-way down your forearm with a 50lb weight attached. Which signature will look better? Answer: (i) - when your muscles are flexing under high load (as in (ii)), it is more difficult to be subtle. I'm obviously metaphorically alluding to your question (b) - "...is it easier to be technical?". Yes. If YOU don't have your muscles under max load, or your joints locked, it is easier to be "technical". Back to your question (a) and your use of the word 'fast'. In my mind, this is about a combination (compromise?) of the ski's surface area and stiffness. When I was about 13-14 years old, I was about 135lbs, and skied at 34mph on a late 70s, pre/non-graphite 63" Connelly Shortline. It had very little surface area and very little stiffness. It could turn on a dime in ways modern skis can't imagine. On the other hand, I could come out of the ball with significant angle, the ski would "dig in", but it wouldn't translate in to speed (certainly not compared to modern skis) because I wasn't leveraging my body position against either surface area or stiffness. It was a really, really "intense" experience (in my mind, it felt 'fast'), but it wasn't "fast" (at all) as you might use the word. It was a very slow ski. Because I'd be feeling maximum load in my muscles (leaning/leveraging, physically "stiff", trying to generate velocity with a ski that was neither rigid nor had large surface area), as per my bar-signature example above, it was unlikely that I could be technical or subtle. Does that help? http://images1.americanlisted.com/nlarge/connelly-short-line-slalom-ski-75-picture-rocks-americanlisted_15008297.jpg

I had a carb'd 2002 Sportster before I got my EFI Sunsetter LXi. No question that EFI is awesome, but it's a luxury, in the sense that i) there's nothing wrong with carb'd, ii) I'd much rather have a carb problem than an EFI problem, in terms of repair$.