PDA

View Full Version : Mapple Water Ski


Mag_Red
02-03-2006, 07:58 PM
I usually ski a 65"-66" 150 lbs @ 32-36 mph Found a great deal on a 2003 Mapple 64" blank. First were there any changes between the 2003-2005 models and second, do you think this may be too short of a ski???

MarkP
02-03-2006, 08:03 PM
Sounds too short.. Especially at 32

pilot02
02-03-2006, 08:09 PM
I agree, probably too short at that speed. It'd be a close call and personal pref though.

Mag_Red
02-03-2006, 08:14 PM
Sounds too short.. Especially at 32

:( That was my initial thought. Maybe if I lose some weight............or learn to ski faster :D

MarkP
02-03-2006, 08:29 PM
:( That was my initial thought. Maybe if I lose some weight............or learn to ski faster :D
Iím using a 66 at 165, and am afraid Iíll have to get a bigger ski if I want to start skiing the course.

Cloaked
02-03-2006, 08:55 PM
I usually ski a 65"-66" 150 lbs @ 32-36 mph Found a great deal on a 2003 Mapple 64" blank. First were there any changes between the 2003-2005 models and second, do you think this may be too short of a ski???Too short for you Bob. It will hurt you in a course. That short of a ski will hinder a nice (essential) rythmn. You'll constantly be fighting with it to stay on your timing.

Mag_Red
02-03-2006, 08:56 PM
Too short for you Bob. It will hurt you in a course.Did you forget my nick-name from MM I???? One ball :D

Leroy
02-03-2006, 09:00 PM
I think at 36 that would be perfect, right?

rodltg2
02-03-2006, 09:01 PM
i actually went to a taller ski, i like it better. im 165lbs and went to the 67" d3.

Leroy
02-03-2006, 09:01 PM
Well you don't want to be no balls!



Did you forget my nick-name from MM I???? One ball :D

Hoosier Bob
02-03-2006, 09:03 PM
Hey Mag, I think that ski is designed entirely differently than the 66" and I would check with O'Brien or Bart's first. :D Well you don't want to be no balls!

Hoosier Bob
02-03-2006, 09:14 PM
I lied, it appears 64" for 04 and 05 was still the same. I thought 65" +. Any shorter than 64 and I believe different graphics and designated for very small skiers (kids?).

88 PS190
02-03-2006, 09:39 PM
Jr. Mapple 64"

Shorter skis can be used but can hinder you a bit. I'm 6 foot 170 and skiing a 65.5 and find that acceptable so long as the speed is 34 or 36, couldn't drop it down or the ski would be too small.

skisix@38
02-04-2006, 09:21 AM
The thing about shorter skis is that they don't provide as much lift. What you'll notice is that when you start to turn you are fine but then as you finish the turn the boats always ahead of you forcing you to finish your turning while you are loaded by the boat. This is because the ski is settling into the water too much and slowing.
The old general rule of thumb was that you wanted to go with a shorter ski to get it turn, that's not true with todays skis. You can make fin adjustements to get a longer skis to turn.
The other thing to keep in mind is that most of the talk has been centered around skis that were deisgned for competition and those skis are meant to slow down quickly and settle in the water to shed the speeds of 39 off 34 or 36mph. If you are skiing at 28-30 mph the ski is going to be wanting to settle in all the time. I would highly recommend going with a longer ski. By the time you out grow that longer ski, there will be some other new technology that you just have to have anyway.