Get the 67 Senate C. The 69 would be HUGE for your size.

I agree with 2gofaster, im 6'4" 195 and my old 69 was too big for me.

67 seems like the right choice!

A Legit. Question: Why does the manufacturers sizing chart always suggest a Bigger ski then many skiers actually seem to prefer to use?

In the above comments by TW & Trichter, what or why was the manufacturers suggested size TOO big? Is this because of skiing -35 & shorter @ speed? If so, would'nt this hurt someone trying to work their way through the speeds and lengths? or does the ski just feel too Buoyant and shallow?

@ 6-4 and 195 Radar clearly suggests the 69" and @ 220 theres no question!?!?

Maybe Chris can comment on the mfr's suggested sizes and how or why they arrived at their #'s.

Last edited by h20dawg79 (Wed, Mar 24, 2010 1:25 AM)

h20dawg79 wrote:

[...]

@ 6-4 and 195 Radar clearly suggests the 69" and @ 220 theres no question!?!?

[...]

I started with the 69" at 32 mph and I was stunned at how quickly and easily it turned.  No problem running up the rope at the slower speed, and the deep water start was like riding a surfboard.  There is no question this ski has RS-1 DNA running through its veins.

But at 34.2 mph it just wouldn't turn as tightly as I wanted it to and I found myself fighting the clock by the end of the course.  I could squeeze out some -22's, but couldn't finish a -28.  When I tried the 67" (a few days later) I had some of the easiest -32's ever for that early in the season.

As we tend to do, our group test rode every new ski we had, which included the RS-1, the Senate-C and the O'Brien Elite.  Of those skis the Senate-C was preferred by all.

I went on to try the A-1 at the very end of the season and am currently on that, but I'm going to be talking to Eddie about a Strada [to try] within the next month...

TW

What line lengths are you running, Deke?

h20dawg79,
     I would say the answer to your question is that manufacturer suggested sizing is designed for the average of the skiers who will be riding the ski.  Most of you skiers here on PSC are on the very high level of skiers.  The more advance your technique and physical conditioning, the shorter ski you can ride.  Hence why some of you end up buying smaller skis that what is suggested.  In season, I weigh between 178-183 and comfortably ride a 66" ski.  After the tournament season is over, my weight comes up to 188-192 and a 67" is my choice to ski.

Chris

ChrisRossi wrote:

h20dawg79,
     I would say the answer to your question is that manufacturer suggested sizing is designed for the average of the skiers who will be riding the ski.  Most of you skiers here on PSC are on the very high level of skiers.  The more advance your technique and physical conditioning, the shorter ski you can ride.  Hence why some of you end up buying smaller skis that what is suggested.  In season, I weigh between 178-183 and comfortably ride a 66" ski.  After the tournament season is over, my weight comes up to 188-192 and a 67" is my choice to ski.

Chris

Very Cool Chris! Thanx... 
That gives everyone (including me) some Great direction and sheds light on the importance of also considering the particular use and ability of the particular person  in question.

2gofaster wrote:

Deke, I'd probably run a 65 if I were you. It's got no shortage of surface area.

Thanks Shane.  I actually weighed myself for the first time since January and came in around 163.  That's about an 8 lb drop!  It's proof that the "only beer diet" actually works.

Last edited by Deke (Thu, Mar 25, 2010 3:37 PM)

If it helps I'll put another vote behind the 65" First, because you are skiing on the high end of the speed range, you can push the upper limits of weight. Second, take the data from these other skiers: if guys in the 200lb range are skiing well and comfortably on the 67," then you should be good to if you are only 10lbs over the suggested upper limit for the 65"

Chris knows the inner workings, I don't, but it makes sense that Radar is giving size recommendations with the understanding that this ski is aimed at skiers that are usually below max boat speed.

That depends on technique, physique, and what line lengths you are running.  I ski a 65 Senate and love it.  The 65 Senate has almost exactly the same surface area as a 66 Strada (my other ski).

CHris

ChrisRossi wrote:

That depends on technique, physique, and what line lengths you are running.  I ski a 65 Senate and love it.  The 65 Senate has almost exactly the same surface area as a 66 Strada (my other ski).

CHris

Do you use stock fin/binding numbers on the 65 Senate C? I can't find the numbers anywhere. Anyone have numbers to post? Thanks