2016 Connelly GT Fin Settings

PhilSymoPhilSymo Posts: 37 Baller
Has any one got other numbers for the 2016 Connelly GT ?

I know @Horton has some numbers from @Sethski ..... care to share???

or does any one know @JoelHowley to get his numbers?

Comments

  • ozskiozski Posts: 1,326
    Forward shallow long numbers which are pretty close to where I am now. I've added a little depth from memory but I will double check and post here over the weekend. Joel's exact numbers are probably not ideal for the masses, perhaps I got lucky but the ski felt dialed after some fairly minor tweaks and I have not looked back. It will be good to get a consensus of opinion from other GT skiers through the summer. And of course Horton's review.

    6.970
    2.456
    .771
    7
    'Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try Again. Fail again. Fail better.'' Boat 2005 Nautique 196 6L ZO - Ski: Nano One XT

  • SethskiSethski Posts: 111 Open or 55K Rated Skier
    edited April 2016
    @ozski, @horton and I have discussed quite a bit but I always urge people that there may be magic numbers but the skier definitely is a huge factor. Your settings are very similar to some settings @skijay slid my way, but you're a little further forward, a little longer and slightly further from the tail. @skijay spent some time helping Gordon Rathbun setup his @Connelly_Skis_Inc GT. He also had some deeper, shorter numbers too. I will share some options and also say, fin numbers for me are still a work in progress, but I got my originals from Fred Halt when he first gave me a Connely to try. I keep going back to something close to those numbers. They are:

    2.523
    6.810
    0.725
    Wing at 7 or 8 depending on the water.
    Bindings: 29.125
    That having been said, I think a lot of people will want a little more length than that, just don't go so long that you have to pull all the way to the buoy.

    I have had some luck with students and others I train with using more average numbers like:
    2.512
    6.850
    0.745
    Wing at 8 and bindings the same as above.

    @skijay would you like to throw out your shallow/long numbers and your deep/short numbers?
    Seth Stisher
    SethStisher.com for water ski training and all of your gear needs!

    "Follow your passion by pursuing your goals within that passion at all costs!"
  • HortonHorton Posts: 22,999 Administrator
    edited April 2016
    From Jay for 66" ski

    2.445
    6.950
    .740
    29.125

    These are the best settings i have found - i fudged them for the 67"

    Support BallOfSpray by supporting the companies that support BallOfSpray

    Babe's /Connelly / DBSkisGoode / HO Syndicate / Mapple / Masterline / O'Brien /
    MasterCraft / Perfomance Ski and Surf / PTM Edge / Stokes / Reflex / Radar / Wakeye

     

  • SkiJaySkiJay Posts: 2,120 Mega Baller
    edited April 2016
    Here are the two setups I worked up with Gordon Rathbun doing the skiing at Ski Paradise a couple of weeks ago. They ski so similarly that he had a hard time choosing between them. Virtually the only difference is roll resistance.

    Ski = 66"
    Bf = 29.125"
    Wg = 8°

    Long/Shallow
    2.445
    6.955 (tips)
    .715 (head)

    Short/Deep
    2.520
    6.895 (tips)
    .695 (head)
    www.FinWhispering.com ... because understanding is better than memorizing
  • SkiJaySkiJay Posts: 2,120 Mega Baller
    edited April 2016
    @Horton The version you've listed above is a very aggressive turner on a 66" ski, but much better for the 67". Anyone who likes a quick-turning point-and-shoot setup will love that one.
    www.FinWhispering.com ... because understanding is better than memorizing
  • PhilSymoPhilSymo Posts: 37 Baller
    Whats peoples thoughts on size on the GT.

    190 & 5'11.

    ski in to 13m when I am fit on a Jobe Encore 2009.

    normally a 67 ski for me. but the size chart is saying 68.. and I agree with ski the longest ski you can turn, unfortunately here in Cyprus I kind of only get one shot at it!
  • DanEDanE Posts: 762 Crazy Baller
    edited April 2016
    @PhilSymo Fwiw I tried a 67" GT last year @190 6'1 and I moved on because it was a tad small for me. Normally I ski on 67s but with the GT I would go 68 (34 mph into 38).
    Really liked the ski though.
    ozskiPhilSymoaupatking
  • kckc Posts: 55 Baller
    I've skied two sets this week on a borrowed 67" GT with different numbers each set. First set (as received) at 6.828 tips, 2.533, .783 slot, 9 degrees. Second set at 6.836, 2.524, .767 slot, 8 degrees. Boot at 29.5 for both sets. Skied mid 38 first set, and deep 38 second set (at 55k). These are typical scores for me, run 38 on a good day. Ski is really stable/comfortable, but feeling narrow on both sides at 38. Suggestions?
  • ozskiozski Posts: 1,326
    Try the forward shallow long and let us know what you feel. I was running my boots slighly forward of where you are but am currently at 29.5.
    'Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try Again. Fail again. Fail better.'' Boat 2005 Nautique 196 6L ZO - Ski: Nano One XT

  • kckc Posts: 55 Baller
    Thanks @ozski
  • ozskiozski Posts: 1,326
    No problems @kc after I ski today I will remeasure my latest settings and post them. The are slightly different from what I've posted above but going shallow long seems to free the ski up side to side IMO.
    'Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try Again. Fail again. Fail better.'' Boat 2005 Nautique 196 6L ZO - Ski: Nano One XT

  • aupatkingaupatking Posts: 717 Crazy Baller
    I'm loving my 68 GT and running my current high full pass every time, even when skiing really bad, which is all the time right now.
    The only odd thing I'm finding is, it's crushing me offside. It's a bad habit of mine at the second wake to break, but this ski is doing it, out at the end of my turn. I don't want to mess with the fin yet, as I've only put 2 sets on it but I'm just wondering if there's a simple boot placement I should try first. I'm running it stock (29.875) and will get my fin numbers tomorrow night. All I've measured with, so far, is my Axiom, to know the baseline it came at.
    Any word from Connelly when to expect a fin block with set screws?
  • ozskiozski Posts: 1,326
    The fin block will be upgraded for next year from what I have heard. Its hard to comment on ski performance without fin settings but the boot placement sounds like its in the right ballpark. Post your settings with some video and the guesswork will go away.
    'Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try Again. Fail again. Fail better.'' Boat 2005 Nautique 196 6L ZO - Ski: Nano One XT

    aupatkingcustomski
  • Connelly_Skis_IncConnelly_Skis_Inc Posts: 16 Baller
    http://connellyskis.com/page/GT_fin_spec

    Joel's numbers for the 67" are on that link. @horton & @sethski are great references too!!! Although not on the same page when it comes to size sticker.
    aupatkingHortonpumpinpete
  • aupatkingaupatking Posts: 717 Crazy Baller
    edited October 2016
    @ozski thank you for the response. Your answer kinda answers my question, in that you are not seeing this at all.
    My current settings are:
    6.866 2.472 0.759 wing at 8
    I see that I'm short, shallow, and further back of stock. LE is 2 100ths back of stock. I'm going to make some adjustments, back to recommended for my line lengths (-28 and longer) when I get home Thursday and see what that does. I've attached video. It's mostly me, but I'm sure the fin being in the right place will help.

  • ozskiozski Posts: 1,326
    edited October 2016
    Honestly if your only a couple of sets in you should give yourself more time before drawing too many conclusions about the ski and how it performs. Last week I made some changes to my boot liner to give me a little more padding around the top of my ankle, the result was 1 pretty bad set and then another but by the 3rd set things got a whole lot better. My point being that you need to look at whats going on between the ski and the handle because that's often the part that needs to adjust - and that can take a few sets.
    'Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try Again. Fail again. Fail better.'' Boat 2005 Nautique 196 6L ZO - Ski: Nano One XT

  • aupatkingaupatking Posts: 717 Crazy Baller
    That was my thinking with running it, as is. Even with a non-stock setup, this ski is special. I moved my back boot back, left the front at stock, and set the fin at stock (for >28) and it cleared my problem completely. Well, with the exception of what is still between the ski and the handle. Consistently running into -28. I love this GT
  • ozskiozski Posts: 1,326
    edited November 2016
    I took my first set on the GT with @Sethski 's short deep numbers yesterday and to say the ski is behaving better (for me) would be a giant understatement. I'm certain a couple of things are in play here, the new binding setup I'm running allows me more freedom to move forward which works well when I'm on my game. Combine that with forward shallow fin settings and the margin for error is just too small for me so I've been missing some easy passes (-32) and then running (-35) the very next set. Constancy was not there so I decided to go with Seth's numbers for a set and the GT is different beast, there is more stability everywhere and a much wider margin for error on both sides. My 2-4 offside no longer feels like a box of chocolates, its predictable and almost automatic as long as I'm "roughly" in the middle of the ski.

    I know @SkiJay commented that the 2 variations ski much the same but having spent of a lot of time on this ski running shallow settings my own thoughts are a little different. My initial impressions are that the GT becomes even more user friendly running the deeper numbers with little if any trade off.

    Best I could get with the Voodoo fin block -

    Ski - 67
    2.525
    6.810
    .740
    Wing 8.5
    'Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try Again. Fail again. Fail better.'' Boat 2005 Nautique 196 6L ZO - Ski: Nano One XT

  • SkiJaySkiJay Posts: 2,120 Mega Baller
    If I recall correctly, Gordon Rathbun ended up liking the short deep setup slightly more than long/shallow on the GT too, @ozski, so you're not alone. And I'll stand by the statement that long/shallow skis remarkably similarly to short/deep—if and only if both setups have been properly optimized for the same skier. If one is significantly better than the other, the weaker setup still had room for improvement.
    www.FinWhispering.com ... because understanding is better than memorizing
  • ozskiozski Posts: 1,326
    @SkiJay I will report back after I rack up a few more sets, I think I'm having a fin adjustment honeymoon phase. I suspect a lot of what I'm feeling is a combination of increased mobility working better with the deeper settings.
    'Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try Again. Fail again. Fail better.'' Boat 2005 Nautique 196 6L ZO - Ski: Nano One XT

    nzguy
  • aupatkingaupatking Posts: 717 Crazy Baller
    I wouldn't mind trying a couple different setups. When I got my GT the LE was a bit forward and the fin was a little short/shallow of where I've got it now. It can get too tip sensitive, pretty easily. I guess that's attributable to it being a crazy easy turning ski
    Do you guys have a short/deep numbers idea for a 68?
  • ozskiozski Posts: 1,326
    @SkiJay Do you have a formula for translating numbers between ski lengths?
    'Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try Again. Fail again. Fail better.'' Boat 2005 Nautique 196 6L ZO - Ski: Nano One XT

  • SkiJaySkiJay Posts: 2,120 Mega Baller
    Unfortunately, that's a formula that will likely never exist, @ozski. Try as they may, manufacturers are unable to scale ski sizes up and down without creating changes to how each size will behave. And this ranges from situations where the same exact numbers will work across much of the size range to situations where only one ski in the range is great, with the other sizes unable to perform as well regardless of setup tweaking.

    However, sometimes you can get pretty close by putting your favorite settings from one size on the next size, followed by a little tweaking to suit. Generally speaking, and I mean "generally," you may find that this tweaking on a one size larger ski will end up with a DFT increase of .005, the bindings back 1/8", and maybe a FD that's .005 shallower—but results will vary widely among different ski lines.
    www.FinWhispering.com ... because understanding is better than memorizing
    Hortonozskiaupatking
  • jjackkrashjjackkrash Posts: 376 Solid Baller
    I just got a new 2017 GT and a new set of Radar Vapor bindings. The factory recommends 29.875" for the 68" (and says Joel Howley runs his a little farther forward of stock in his 67").

    Anyone have a better starting point than stock?

    Any tips on the best way to get an accurate measurement with the single plate and Vapor boots?
  • lpskierlpskier Posts: 1,676 Mega Baller
    2.510
    6.830
    .760
    7*
    29.5
    John Wilkins- Si non pro sanguine quem ludus ne. #iskiconnelly
    jjackkrash
  • Kellen417Kellen417 Posts: 12 Baller
    edited June 18
    @SkiJay
    I tried the numbers Horton listed above for a 66:

    2.445
    6.950
    .740

    Pretty awesome, but as you mentioned above it's possibly a little bit too aggressive on the smaller ski. If I'm super conscious not to give it too much input, it's great.

    I'm curious What changes you would suggest to smooth it out just a touch?


    Thanks
Sign In or Register to comment.

Not sure how to deal with a long link?