PDA

View Full Version : HO Triumph vs Comp/Freerider


Leroy
09-26-2005, 04:42 PM
Has anyone skied the Triumph or Comp/freerider? Was talking to sales guy at skier's edge here and they look good as a next step for me. Looks like they have a shaped ski that still has higher level performance as your skill grows, unlike my EP.

I'm leaning toward the Comp/freerider Burner, 67", good for up to 200lbs, and lace up bindings fit size 6-14, good for my sons also.

erkoehler
09-26-2005, 04:44 PM
Was it the triumph or the truth that they are not making any longer?

Leroy
09-26-2005, 04:50 PM
Truth I believe, the triumph is new.

Upper Michigan Prostar190
09-26-2005, 05:35 PM
Yes, Truth is old, triumph is new. Totally different skis though.

I considered the Triumph too for quite a while before I got my Vengeance. They are a bit similar in design. I dont know what the difference really is between them.... :confused:
I know they both are thinner than the Comp/freerides. The C/F is a much wider ski, take a look at them on the HO website. I wish there were better descriptions on their website. ITs kinda vague, all of the ski mfgs are bad at this. I think they could all do much better in helping customers determine the correct ski. I asked around here alot and did my research, talked to wileys, and bought the Vengeance and I did fine, I love my ski. But maybe I lucked out too, i dont know. They could certainly do a better job of helping customers selecting skis for their skill level. and I called about 5 or 6 HO dealers that had un knowledgable "kids" trying to sell me a ski. these kids didnt even ski!!! they knew very little about their product line and couldnt answer any questions but read out of the brochure. sad..... :(

My buddy is going to get a new ski next year, most likely the Comp/freeride Magnum 71"( he is about 235 lbs or so) they are quite a bit less money than the Triumph series, and he is too cheap to buy a triumph. so he will ski the C/F.

UMP

Kell
09-26-2005, 05:39 PM
[QUOTE=My buddy is going to get a new ski next year, most likely the Comp/freeride Magnum 71"( he is about 235 lbs or so) they are quite a bit less money than the Triumph series, and he is too cheap to buy a triumph. so he will ski the C/F.

UMP[/QUOTE]

UMP, I got the Magnum 71" last year, and have no complaints. Solid ski for my abilities. I'm 6'4" at 245lbs and an intermediate skier with some moments of agressiveness! :purplaugh

Leroy
09-26-2005, 05:56 PM
The sales guy seemed to know his skis and skis courses.


Several have recommended the Vengence for me, it looks nice also....still thinking.

3event
09-26-2005, 06:08 PM
Leroy, a buddy of mine who is a learning slalomer got the Burner. He's about 200# I think. It has the double tunnel on it. He's felt that he got beyond it pretty quick and wants something more already. Check the Triumph, I think they have ditched the double tunnel and gone back to single tunnel. That would seem to be a vote that the CompFreeride series with the Burner didn't perform like it was supposed to. The sales pitch I heard was that the double tunnels were supposed to make it easy to turn - 1 of the 2 would be fully in the water even when partly on edge. I'm no expert on HO history, that's just our experience.......

By the way, I hear people bashing the Truth around , but I have a 03 and after taking some time to get used to it, it really flies - I am an open water skier and I am having a lot of fun ripping on it.

BeavenX5
09-26-2005, 06:09 PM
Has anyone skied the Triumph or Comp/freerider? Was talking to sales guy at skier's edge here and they look good as a next step for me. Looks like they have a shaped ski that still has higher level performance as your skill grows, unlike my EP.

I'm leaning toward the Comp/freerider Burner, 67", good for up to 200lbs, and lace up bindings fit size 6-14, good for my sons also.
I skied a few time last year on a Burner, liked it better than my old 1987 Obrian lapointe...I then tried the Vengence once: Lot faster into turns and more agressive.
I ended up buying a Truth this spring, it took me a few week to adapt as it is a lot less forgiving, but now I finally love it. I am skiing the course this year for the first time and am now at 31mph 15' off.

What I want to say is, as a recreational ski, the HO Burner is a great ski easy to start and forgiving. It may limit you if you plan to improve a lot and start in the slalom course as its wide w shaped chanels are slower to get in a turn. The Vengence is a lot more performant but more demanding. The truth is more for the course and not very recreational as it will not allow you to take it easy.
I hope my own unprofessional experience can help your decision.
JC

Upper Michigan Prostar190
09-26-2005, 06:41 PM
Leroy,
Thats good you got a knowledgeable sales person!!! they seem to be rare these days.....in every market. Stick with that place. :)

See, its difficult for me to speak about the skis since I have never skied a triumph. But I will say this, I have had my Vengeance for about 6 or 7 weeks now and I absolutley love the ski. I dont ski a course, but I love to free ski as aggresivley as I can and this ski was the ticket for me. If you push it, this baby delivers. its smooth and graceful in the turns, but its fast when you come out of the corner. just what I like. I think the Triumph would have been an great choice for me too, but the Vengeance gives me room to grow on(which I am starting to do already). the Vengeance will either be a great ski for me to be on forever if my skill level doesnt outgrow the ski, or it will allow me to advance my skill level (if thats possible given my ability, etc..) to graduate into a more agressive ski.
Just trying to give you as much info as possible to help you decide. I know that the advice I found here when I was ski shopping was the best I got anywhere (thanks people!!! :) )

UMP

erkoehler
09-26-2005, 06:49 PM
:confused: The sales guy seemed to know his skis and skis courses.


Several have recommended the Vengence for me, it looks nice also....still thinking.

My brother has the Vengence. Since he is injured, maybe I should start to work on the slalom

Chef23
09-27-2005, 11:05 PM
I have a Charger (I am a fat guy at 230) and I have run 5@28 off at 34 mph on it. If you are just getting into the course it could be a good ski for you. I did pick up a new ski recently (D3X5) but still haven't run any better than 5@28.

I haven't skied the Triumph so I can't comment on it.

Hoosier Bob
09-27-2005, 11:12 PM
Leroy, I hope you are speaking with Ron the owner. He spends a lot of time learning the new skis and will help you out anyway he can.
Good luck,
See yah :twocents:

Farmer Ted
09-27-2005, 11:14 PM
By the way, I hear people bashing the Truth around , but I have a 03 and after taking some time to get used to it, it really flies - I am an open water skier and I am having a lot of fun ripping on it.


Call Wiley's and ask them the difference between the Truth and the CDX....

They claim the CDX "worked" the Truth didn't

H20skeefreek
09-27-2005, 11:27 PM
I'm on the vengeance too, and I love it. I wish it was a little shorter (69" and 190lbs) I needed a 67" or 68". I have a 69" Charger laying around that I might be interested in unloading if someone wants it. It needs new bindings, as it has a worn out adjustable front and RTP. It's a great ski that got me through the mini course last year. I've never tried it in the full course, but imagine it'd do all right. I may just keep it for a trainer though.

Upper Michigan Prostar190
09-28-2005, 12:51 PM
skeefreek,

I am 190 lbs and my Vengeance is a 67". thats what wileys recommend for my weight. I assumed I would need a 69, but Darren didnt advise it. He said a 67 would suit me much better. It works awesome. SO let me ask you this: what does a ski thats TOO long for you behave like? I have never had a ski thats too long. My seige was a 68" and that was nice too.

so what are the tell tale signs of a ski thats too LONG?

what are the tell tale signs of a ski thats too SHORT?
how do they behave or react? just curious....

I am very happy with my 67, it feels natural to me.

UMP

east tx skier
09-28-2005, 01:23 PM
I was about 190 lbs when I got on my 68" CDX. At 170 lbs., it still feels great. A longer ski ought to be a bit faster.

jpattigr
09-28-2005, 02:13 PM
I feel like the odd duck here but I ski on a KD Evolution Carbon 69", and set a PB this summer at 4@28 off.
I tried the 69" HO (Charger I think, double tunnel) and did not care for it at all.
I would like to try a Connelly F1X, wider version of the F1 also :confused:

Upper Michigan Prostar190
09-28-2005, 03:28 PM
I have a buddy that skis the Connelly F1X. Sure looks like a nice ski. Its too short for me to ski it, its 65". The one thing I dont like about it is you cant pivot the rear binding. I would love to try it for comparison as he wants to try my Vengeance, but his bindings are way to small for me, and my animals bindings are left foot foward, he skis RFF.

so if a ski is too short for your weight then its gonna ski a bit slower....? makes sense. how does it affect handling? turns?

UMP

jamisonsbrodie
09-28-2005, 05:20 PM
so what are the tell tale signs of a ski thats too LONG?

what are the tell tale signs of a ski thats too SHORT?
how do they behave or react? just curious....

UMP

The more length you have, the more acceleration you will get coming out of the turn, but too much length will make it harder to turn. Course skiers are all skiing longer skis, because it allows more cross-course acceleration. In essence, there is more surface area to generate speed, and the newer skis are easier to turn.

If the ski is short, it will decelerate quickly and turn quickly, but won't carry as much speed, you will sink more and create drag. Having the right length will give you the best balance between acceleration, deceleration and turn-ability.

BuoyChaser
05-17-2006, 01:23 PM
The more length you have, the more acceleration you will get coming out of the turn, but too much length will make it harder to turn. Course skiers are all skiing longer skis, because it allows more cross-course acceleration. In essence, there is more surface area to generate speed, and the newer skis are easier to turn.

If the ski is short, it will decelerate quickly and turn quickly, but won't carry as much speed, you will sink more and create drag. Having the right length will give you the best balance between acceleration, deceleration and turn-ability.
also believe a longer ski and wider ski allows faster deceleration, like applying the breaks on the pre-turn...that's what is nice about the Burner with the center ridge on the bottom of the ski...

really want to try out a Triumph, anyone have a 67" lying around???

jmyers
05-17-2006, 01:29 PM
So what size should I have in the Vengence? I am 160 Lbs. I think it is a 65 or 66? :confused:

Upper Michigan Prostar190
05-17-2006, 01:41 PM
I would say the 65" Vengeance for you Jmeyers. they dont make a 66" in that ski. :twocents:

east tx skier
05-17-2006, 01:41 PM
Between those two sizes, I'd say 66. I weigh 170 and am comfortable skiing on both 67" and 68".

Upper Michigan Prostar190
05-17-2006, 01:43 PM
I may be wrong, but I am pretty sure they dont make that ski in a 66" length.... When I got mine, it was 65, 67, or 69

jmyers
05-17-2006, 01:59 PM
It must be a 65, my old ski was longer like a 67 I hope it will be ok!

daveg
06-03-2006, 01:36 PM
I just picked up a "like new" 2003 HO 67" Burner on ebay this week, and tried it out yesterday. It skis GREAT!!! I would highly recommend the 67" HO Burner/69" Charger to anyone looking for a wide body/shaped ski. I had been having difficulty running the course consistently on my old 69" VTC (Turbo). After a couple of warm-up passes, I went right out and skied the course with no issues. Smooth ski with great angle and very forgiving!! I weigh 205 and probably should have gone with the Charger at 69", but, for $110 blank on ebay, couldn't go wrong, plus it was here in Chicago so no shipping costs.