New to course ski question

I'm new to the forum and skiing a course. I have been free skiing behind an I/O for about 25 years. Later this summer I hooked up with a great local group, providing the opportunity for a Nautique and to try a course. I have only been out 5 or 6 times but it is amazingly addictive. At 15 off and 30 mph I've only gotten around 3 so far, it's a work in progress. So here's my setup:

-36 years old, 6'4", 175 lbs (I'm a rail)
-2010 O'brien Siege with X9 binding and RTP that I originally got for free skiing.

Yesterday I was going around the 1 ball and bit it, my rear foot came out and I injured ligaments in my right foot along with a hairline bone fracture from the ligament pull (I've got all winter). This already happened once before but without a bad injury. Now I'm worried about the RTP. With that I'm considering either getting a double binding setup for the Siege or a new ski altogether, like a Connelly V. Knowing that I'm just a novice, would it make more sense to get the double binding setup now and a blank in a year or two or a mid level ski with bindings package now? Winter sales are coming and I have nothing but time. Thanks for the advice.


  • gregygregy Posts: 2,398 Mega Baller
    Connelly V, Radar Senate would be good skis. Most people say don't change both bindings and ski at the same time but at your level I think i would be fine, I changed boots and ski regularly when I was younger and 15off. A lot of people like the Radar Vapor type boots. The liners are heat molded which if your like me and have a narrow foot its really nice to fill in the extra space. There's a lot of instructions on here how not to over tighten them so they release properly. I also remember seeing some threads about RTPs that things people had done to keep there foot in them, grip tape etc. The other option would be a half boot. I think Radar and HO have version of it. I use a Reflex r-style half boot and like it.

    I'm 6'2" and 170lb so pretty much in the same boat. If the ski recommendations overlap in weight I tend to go to the longer size. Ski-it-again is a good resource for skis and equipment. You can probably find some deals over the winter. Oh welcome to the obsession, you'll never look a skiing the same again.
  • DavidNDavidN Posts: 96 Baller
    Get rid of that Siege!
    I had one many many years ago and it was probably the worst ski I ever owned. Unpredictable, unstable, unforgiving, ...
  • vtmechengvtmecheng Posts: 160 Baller
    DavidN, that's how I feel about it but don't really have much to base that on being new at this. I find that when I'm set up right I can get an ok turn and wake crossing but any slip and it's bad. It's likely all me but I feel it's ok or horrible, no in between. At my skill level, or lack thereof, should I even worry about a test ride or just get a V or Senate, whichever has the better deal this winter?
  • gregygregy Posts: 2,398 Mega Baller
    Either one of those skis would be an big improvement. Look for a deal. If you haven't already look in ski test area for reviews. I'd recommend sticking with the 2016 or newer skis.
  • DavidNDavidN Posts: 96 Baller
    It's the ideal situation to test a ski before you buy, unfortunately that's not always possible. Then you have to rely on ski tests, reviews or recommendations.
    If I were in your shoes, I would buy used, as with progress the need for new material will come faster than you think!
  • vtmechengvtmecheng Posts: 160 Baller
    Thank you for the advice. I've read good reviews of both the V and Senate. I'll keep my eyes out for deals or a good used one over the cool months here, maybe I'll get lucky.
  • DavidNDavidN Posts: 96 Baller
    edited September 2017
    I'd also consider some of the d3 skis.
    I found them always to be really reliable, predictable and easy to ride.
    (Maybe with the exception of the X7.)
    They offer a solid foundation to improve.
  • ObrienslalomObrienslalom Posts: 44 Baller
    I'm probably exactly at you level with similar background. I also owned a siege, and switched this year to a radar senate.

    Very happy with my choice, but I was able to demo before I bought it. I didn't have a visceral hatred of the siege, but the senate certainly feels more stable.
  • vtmechengvtmecheng Posts: 160 Baller
    Obrienslalom, which version of Senate did you get?
  • ObrienslalomObrienslalom Posts: 44 Baller
    I got the graphite. I'll be honest, it was only because that is what the shop ordered for my size. I'm in no way saying that is the right one...

    I do really like the HRT bindings though. Much more secure feeling through the back foot, without having to change my skiing.
  • GlydonGlydon Posts: 178 Baller
    Connelly V , Radar Senate , HO CX ... all good ski's if you are buying used try to buy the Carbon version of the V and Senate and the superlight in the CX all have PVC cores and are less likely to break down and well way lighter. If you have never tried double boots before be sure to try before you buy ... they have an adjustment period. Deep water starts , ski responsiveness , etc. Good luck.
  • buskibuski Posts: 99 Baller
    Pick up a leftover 17 graphite senate and cross ski off the list.

    If running bungee bindings (vector,etc), I'd probably err on the side of making them too loose. I don't think double bindings would eliminate those falls as I've had friends have a 1 in/1 out fall on double similar bindings. If you don't like the loose feel then some other binding would probably be the way to go.
  • Chef23Chef23 Posts: 5,031 Mega Baller
    HO Omni would be a good choice also.

    Regarding rear bindings my thoughts are your RTP might have been a little loose. I have certainly had one foot in and one foot out falls but generally they don't happen if I fall just turning a buoy or when I am crossing the wake.

    The shift to double boots can be substantial particularly if you get up with both feet in. Some double boots can make it difficult to get your feet as close together as they might be with a RTP. The Radar Vapors are a good example of this due to the material in the shell of the boot and the liner it isn't possible to have your rear foot as close as a RTP. Personally not a problem for me as I ski with a little gap between my rear toes and the front boot but I know it has been a problem for some other people.
    Mark Shaffer
  • vtmechengvtmecheng Posts: 160 Baller
    I know that my RTP is loose and my current X9 doesn't allow for adjustment. I fell forwards, the rear foot came out, and the ski pulled my foot around. I know this was all me and poor body position, I'm working on it. I know that things can happen with sports like this. I've seen the posts on here about RTP vs double and safety, both sides of the argument.

    I've tried double bindings a couple of times and it wasn't a big deal for me to get up, they were Connelly Stoker bindings. What I really wanted to know is if switching to a mid level ski now was really worth it or if my Siege is good enough until I can get through the course comfortably at 30 mph and 15 off. Sounds like most here feel it would be worth it.

    Not sure I can spring for a carbon but we will see how the sales look. The Senate carbon is already out of stock in some places so that's not a good sign for big sales on that specific model.
  • vtmechengvtmecheng Posts: 160 Baller
    I'm sorry if that last post came across a little strong. I have a tendency to be direct. Thank you all for the advice so far.
  • gregygregy Posts: 2,398 Mega Baller
    I went with Double boots when they first were popular in the 80s and only change to a half boot a couple of years ago. I never had a problem getting up. I was taught from a kid to get up with rear foot in though. Since you're 6'4" getting foot close together shouldn't be an issue, you'll more than likely feel more comfortable with them a little more apart. I used double D3 T-factor boots for 4 plus years. They're nice for a rubber boot.
  • pregompregom Posts: 77 Baller
    I remember seeing a post, which now I can't find, in which senate alloy, graphite and lithium were compared. In the last few iterations even the alloy is a ski with full carbon construction but it has some "inside strings" to make less stiff than the graphite. The lithium is different in that it has the PVC core. I would definitely look on Ski-it-again for some good deals on second hand skis.
  • vtmechengvtmecheng Posts: 160 Baller
    I also only learned to get up with both feet in and I get up easy with a soft pull. Being tall, my hair doesn't even get wet sometimes.

    The guys I started skiing with are largely out for fun, going 30-32 mph at 15 off. If I can or wanted to do more they are happy to up the throttle but it's all about fun. With that, is the Carbon worth all that extra money? Also, what would be a good price on a 2017 Carbon V or Graphite Senate? Thanks again.
  • vtmechengvtmecheng Posts: 160 Baller
    I see Wiley's has a 2016 Connelly Carbon V blank for $450. I really have no idea if this is a good price or how the 2016 compares to the 2017. Any thoughts ballers?
  • vtmechengvtmecheng Posts: 160 Baller
    edited October 2017
    I'm sorry to beat a dead horse here but just want to make sure before I drop some money tomorrow. Just learning 15 off at 30 now, and maybe up that in the next season or so to 32, is the 2017 Carbon V really worth the extra $375? If it really is then I'll bite the bullet but if it isn't then that's money in the bank. I'm worried that I'll grow out of the regular V but maybe I'm not giving it enough credit. Thank you all for helping with this tough decision, I'm not fond of parting with money.
  • TallSkinnyGuyTallSkinnyGuy Posts: 521 Solid Baller
    Depends on your athletic ability and how much you plan to ski the course. If you're athletic and getting into a course more than four sets a week next season, you might "outgrow" the standard Connelly V in a couple seasons. But if you're getting into the course that much you'll probably want a new ski after a couple seasons anyway. I remember Horton's review of the standard Connelly V from a few years ago in which he stated that he thought the V was a capable ski up through mid-32 off at 34mph (IIRC). You've got a long ways to go to reach that level. If I were you I would go with the standard V (or an Alloy Senate or a standard CX) and then if you reach a certain level (e.g. running full passes consistently at -15/34mph), then reward yourself with a new ski that is a little higher performance, like the carbon versions of these skis.
  • vtmechengvtmecheng Posts: 160 Baller
    edited October 2017
    I'm athletic, wife and I have a full Olympic weight set and squat rack in the basement. I'll a little out of shape but am on my way back. That said, I only get to ski on Saturday mornings and skiing season is short lived in Pittsburgh. If I get through at 15 off at 32 mph by the end of next year that would be just outstanding. I'm sure the V would be fine for the first couple years but would the Carbon get me 2 or more extra? If so that extra money may be worth it. Better to spend $375 more now than $700 more later. The all black carbon does look beautiful.

    I almost got a demo Alloy Senate today from @perfski but someone else got it right when I started talking to the salesman. Really wanted the Graphite they had but that was taken early. Now I've followed the sales back to the Connelly V series.
  • gregygregy Posts: 2,398 Mega Baller
    I'd go with carbon upper end in Senate or Connelly V. They're good through 32off. You've got a long ways to get there. These skis are design to be stable and inspire confidence. The Upper end versions typically have fully adjustable fins. You definitely want that and Invest in Skijay's Fin Whisperer book if you haven't already. I wasted several years on poorly setup skis. Once your start getting into 22off and your body position and technique is improving a properly setup ski gets to be more important.
  • vtmechengvtmecheng Posts: 160 Baller
    Both the V and Carbon V have fully adjustable fins. The Alloy Senate doesn't have the full adjustability but Graphite does.
Sign In or Register to comment.