justcuz

I think I can get some calipers from work...I'll get that checked.

You raise a good point. These are the settings that I was trying to ensure: 2.495 D 6.845 L .785 DFT 8 degree wing 29 5/16 to rear of front binding That said, I do not have calipers. I got the ski from another baller, so I literally went on the faith that he set it up like this. With my very amatuer measurements, they looked awfully close to the above. The only measurement I wasn't sure of is "DFT". Maybe this ski is over my head becaues I don't even know what that is.. Top two are fin depth and lenght, right? Wing is obvious, and rear of front binding is measured from the rear of ski near as I could tell. I'm just a little concerned that I maybe took too big of step from the F3 to the Senate...but let's face it, you gotta go sometime.

and it's freakin me out. :) Just got a new ski; 67" Radar Senate C. I'm right at the weight threshhold...I'm 200# and could be on either a 67 or 69. Chose the 67 beacuse another baller gave me a heluva a deal on it. I got pounded tonight, went over the bars twice and slid out once. After the over the bars thing I really laid off the ski because I couldn't figure out what I was doing wrong. Every time I went over the bars it was coming down the second wake. I'm sure I was in terrible position, but I wasn't with people who could help with that issue....they couldn't stop laughing anyway ;). I was skiing at 32 tonight. Is there any one thing that seems to cause people to go over the front.....constantly? I'm coming from a Connelly F3 that I thought was a 67, but after skiing this ski the Connelly felt like a 75" ski. But I never went over the front. Turn initiation felt incredibly good compared to my F3 and I was ready to give 'er, but after the ego got tromped I sallied out. Supposed to be cold and windy for several days so I won't be able to get any video or any sets for a few...just looking for some "generally speaking" comments. Highly doubting its the equipment. My only excuse would be that maybe I should've gone with the 69". Any thoughts would be awesome!

Itch, any comment on whether or not the extra $$$ is worth it for the SL version?

Me: 200lb, relatively agressive skier, 30 years old but still 24 at heart. Currently on a Connelly Concept F3 from 2002? I think. Rarely get into the course, ski mostly open water. However, I do live on the water so I can be a bit choosy and wait for the glassy moments. I tend not to slalom ski unless it's pretty darn calm. Thing I don't like about the concept; seems like a lot of work for a ski that isn't actually all that agressive. I have no problem getting up on it, no problems holding on, but I feel like it's really not actually that quick....ESPECIALLY at turn initiation. Once inititated it seems to be OK, but it's like a two step process. I think I'm looking for a ski that is a little smoother, perhaps a little less tiring, but still quick. The tiring thing doesn't bother me that much, but I wouldn't mind a longer ride. And when I start that turn, I want it to turn...like soon. Ski at 32 to 34....sometimes 35-36 but rarely. After all this research, this is what I've come up with as possibilities; -Radar Senate or Senate C -Connelly V or Carbon V -Radar Vice -HO Coefficient X We have no local shops here, I cannot try out these skis. I'm cheap, and will try to find a lightly used one but still want to try and get one that's the right fit for me...so in the end I'd pay for that. What say the collective? I'm in no rush so I could wait until the winter for a great deal. Is anything missing from the list? What about the carbon vs. non carbon argument?