Another big guy

taran2taran2 Posts: 9 Baller
edited August 2016 in Skis Fins Bindings
Hello from Canada
Looking to upgrade from a 69 HO Charger. Ski at 36 mph behind Malibu response lxi
Strictly a very aggressive free skier in open water. 50 years old , weight @245 lbs, 6'2"
Tall . Looking for more speed across the wake ....charger feels like a boat anchor as I was 30 lbs lighter when I got it 6 years ago ..thinkING about a Radar Senate Graphite or alloy ...not sure if I need a 69 or 71 inch ....weight chart from Radar puts me into a 71. Also want to ski at 32 to 34 mph.

I am in reasonable shape with a bad back .
Still want to rip some water apart as mt kids are getting into skiing and boarding.
Any input would be appreciated!!



  • WayneWayne Posts: 442 Baller
    @taran2 I had the same ski as you many years ago. I'm on a 71" Radar Senate Graphite now. It does not feel too big to me running 34 MPH and I'm 6'5" at 235. I would go with the 71", even if you drop a few pounds it will not be too big.
    Tom Anderson
  • taran2taran2 Posts: 9 Baller
    Thanks for the input!
  • KRoundyKRoundy Posts: 231 Baller
    I'll agree on a great experience with the 71" Radar Senate. (I have the Lithium version - I got a great deal on an end-of-year sale). It does not "feel too big" at all and it is a rocket across the wakes. It will do anything I ask of it. I'm 6'-1" and looking to drop down from my current 250lbs. I'm quite confident that it will work well down towards 200 lbs.
  • taran2taran2 Posts: 9 Baller
    Thank you !
  • storm34storm34 Posts: 64 Baller
    Same as above, got a good deal on a 71" Lithium this summer and loving the change. Was skiing on a 69" senate graphite earlier in the season and feel much more comfortable on the 71" lithium.

    I'm 6'5" and 240# and currently skiing into 22 off at 36mph.
  • taran2taran2 Posts: 9 Baller
    Looks like a 71 is the way to go ...thank you
    Looking for a rocket on the water .
  • pumpinpetepumpinpete Posts: 37 Baller
    Imo ho tx 71" also a very suitable weapon for you
  • mwetskiermwetskier Posts: 1,329 Mega Baller
    @taran2 -radar does a great job of translating their optimum size design ski to the larger sizes. my ski partner has a 67'' vapor and regularly runs to mid 35 but yesterday he decided to put his bindings on my 69.5'' vapor and try it. first set he skied up to his regular 3 @ 35 and made the comment that if he had only my ski and was at a tournament he would go ahead and ski with the bigger ski. he is a long time radar fan like me and commented that you can really feel the radar blood line in any ski they make. for the record he is at least 45 lbs lighter than me.
  • Chef23Chef23 Posts: 5,786 Mega Baller
    Senate or HO TX would be an improvement over the Charger. A 69.5" Radar Vapor Lithium would have less area but would feel faster. I skied a 68" 2015 Vapor at 32 and 34 mph and it was plenty of ski for me at 230 lbs.
    Mark Shaffer
  • taran2taran2 Posts: 9 Baller
    Thank you all for the great input!
  • WayneWayne Posts: 442 Baller
    If you have the opportunity I would demo the skis that are being mentioned. Regardless of Senate or TX I would go with the graphite or superlight of each version respectively.

    Also what bindings are you on now? Depending on the age of that charger you may or may not be able to move those over to the new ski.
  • A_BA_B Posts: 4,023 Mega Baller
    edited August 2016
    The Lithium Senate at 69" is plenty of ski at 245. Larger skis don't turn as well. I would not recommend for 36 mph like you said you were skiing. No problem at 32-34 though. The 69" would ski better at 34 IMO. I am 265 on a 69".

    The other option would be to go to the 69.5 Lithium Vapor. Probably will start a little harder but will turn better and not ride the tail as high on the water, which means sticking tighter turns. No problem at 36 on it either.

    Just my 2c.
  • taran2taran2 Posts: 9 Baller
    Thank you all! Please keep in mind that I free ski only , in sometimes not ideal conditions.
    I currently ski at 15 off and sometimes for fun at 22 off. Will never be on a course.
    My HO Charger (2009 model year) requires a ton of effort to move from turn to turn through the wake.
    I am just wanting to make skiing easier on my body so I can keep up with my kids and throw up some water.
  • storm34storm34 Posts: 64 Baller
    I have to ask...why 36mph at 50 years old and not in the course and not ideal conditions?

    If you're not out slaying buoys then I'd say it's hard to justify the price of a Vapor or even Graphite. 71" Lithium performs fine for me at 36. Might be a better fit if you decided to drop speed.

    Never got into 36mph on the 69" but I did experience the ski sinking at the buoy at slower speeds. Not the case with the 71.

  • WayneWayne Posts: 442 Baller
    @storm34 makes a good point, the Senate Lithium is probably plenty of ski and light years ahead of your current charger.

    @A_B I think what you are describing is that the shorter ski rides deeper so it's actually easier to get a shorter ski to turn because more of the ski is in the water, you are engaging the tip more by default. With the bigger ski it rides higher in water through the turn and you need to stand tall to get the tip to engage. I think it's a matter of personal opinion and technique.
  • A_BA_B Posts: 4,023 Mega Baller
    I thought everything out here was personal opinion? :)

    My friend is 6'3" and weighs 270 and he is on a 69" Senate with carbon and pvc core layup, the old Strada 55, which is how the Lithium Senates are laid up. I have one as well, and would sell it if anyone is interested.

    My thoughts on the larger ski turning is really not much different than a station wagon vs. sedan. Both the 69 Senate and 71 sit on top of the water more due to the added width under your feet and the tails.

    I also rode the 68 and 69.5 Lithium Vapors which is standard width and narrower tail. That is more conducive to tracking better at higher speeds. The tail sucks down in the turns better.

    I would not steer anyone away from any of the above. I just would not say that a 245 Lb guy needs the 71" especially if they are skiing at 32/34 mph. If you are doing 30, I would say the longer ski would be beneficial, but necessary.

    I would be on a 68"' Vapor if the starts weren't such a crapshoot. Once up, it was plenty fast and turned like a dream. Would need to get down to 230's for that.

  • storm34storm34 Posts: 64 Baller
    @A_B - Good point on the benefits of skiing slower speeds on a larger ski. The 71 has been great for me this year as I've slowed the boat to 30 mph at times to focus on some technical elements this year. Now you got me thinking I should give the 69 a shot to see what it does at faster speeds.

  • PorkfightPorkfight Posts: 180 Baller
    edited August 2016
    A guy I used to free ski with growing up is going with me on a river trip next month and wants to ski again. He's 6'4" 245 lbs and says he had success on his uncle's Connelly Big Daddy in recent years. I told him that ski was not allowed on my boat. He was an aggressive skier in his day but struggles with get ups (behind a generic 4.3L V6 powered runabout). Since I have other friends in the same weight range who want to learn to ski, I just bought a used 71" 2013 HO Triumph. It should be perfect for him at 30-32 mph.
  • taran2taran2 Posts: 9 Baller
    Thank you all for your input.
  • OldboyIIOldboyII Posts: 552 Solid Baller
    edited August 2016
    Im 57, 200, freeskiing because no course available within tolerable cardriving distanse.
    I try to make 6 turns as wide as possible within distance close to course lenth.
    Was on G XT 66.7, now on HO SL CX 67
    First ski was more than enough for my speeds - some 32/34.
    New ski feels like I fly above the water. Very decent support.
    I do not have a right to give technical advices, but IMO the less you are tailrider the shorter ski you can use.
  • SkiJaySkiJay Posts: 2,302 Mega Baller
    edited August 2016
    I'm helping a good skier who weighs 240 lbs. get properly set up right now. He started with a couple of current 69" skis, and both rode too deep and tip-high. They could be set up to work okay, but were simply too overloaded at 34 mph to be ridden efficiently. The turns had to be "windshield wiper" turns, because the tails rode so deeply. And getting over the tip properly was hard and delicate work—just about the time there was enough tip in the water, it would bite too hard. I'm not saying these skis didn't work cause they did, just not ideally.

    We're just getting started with the 71" Senate, and it immediately looked better on the water. The tip attitude is perfect, it accelerates better, and carries more speed around the ball. The next step is to see how hard we can get it too turn by playing with binding location and DFT. One thing is for sure, @taran2, if you get the 71", at 245 lbs., you'll want to move your binds back as far as possible, like to around 31.5". Not all bindings will mount that far back, so you may need to modify your binding plates, or to increase the fin's DFT to compensate. ... Your ski should be your dance partner, not a wrestling opponent
  • UWSkierUWSkier Posts: 960 Mega Baller
    @SkiJay as a 6'5" 250 lb mostly 34 MPH skier, I'll be interested to hear how this works for your guy. On a 69 '16 Lithium Vapor now and while any issues with my skiing are certainly >95% mental, <5% equipment, I've often wondered how the 71" Senate would work for me, especially with the new shape.
  • taran2taran2 Posts: 9 Baller
    I have the opportunity to test ride a 71 senate graphite and alloy this weekend coming up....will report results ...thanks guys ....
  • WayneWayne Posts: 442 Baller
    @taran2 run the recommended settings from Rossi or Rini. @SkiJay is correct on binding position, both Rini and Rossi recommended to have the bindings back pretty far. I tried them further forward and the ski didn't want to turn for me.

    It really surprises me how people associate a long ski with poor turning. Radar did a great job on the 71" senate. It can really crank a turn in a hurry if you need it to but it gets width so easy you shouldn't need to do a snappy turn unless you made a mistake. My feeling is you shouldn't be looking at the 69" until you are 220 or under as Radar recommends. I think with skis of the past the longer lengths were harder to turn but it's not the case anymore.

    I have the graphite senate (2016) and still find it very forgiving. I came off a 2013 Coefficient X (the non-super lite version) and found the senate to be more forgiving, faster and lower effort than my old ski. It has also been the first ski where I felt comfortable on it right out of the box with the recommended settings.
  • SkiJaySkiJay Posts: 2,302 Mega Baller
    @UWSkier As promised, here's an update for the 2016 71" Senate setup. The skier was a good skier in his youth, running into -38, so his technique is still pretty sound. But he took a long hiatus from skiing and found himself older and heavier (240 lbs.), struggling to make a full pass and making no progress for a few seasons. The Senate has now delivered him a series of PB's in his comeback and a renewed lease on the sport.

    His current settings are:
    2.455, 6.880, .910, 31.5, wing off
    (tips and head measurements) ... Your ski should be your dance partner, not a wrestling opponent
  • MuskokaKyMuskokaKy Posts: 275 Baller
    I agree with @Wayne; 71 senate will deliver! #RadaRNation
Sign In or Register to comment.