Is StarGazer Really Dead?

[Ed_Obermeier]

I spoke with the folks at Skier to Skier (from whom I purchased my SG upgrade earlier this year) recently on the subject of the future availability of StarGazer (Max has done a LOT of developement work with the PP folks over the years) and they assured me that PP or SG isn't going away any time soon and that in fact they're working on the next version and will have it out by spring, and that they will continue to fine tune the system as time goes by as they've done with Classic in the past.  Of course that's not news to anyone.  What does seem to be news though is the apparent fact that PP and the SG system (or some variant of it) will remain available at least for the forseeable future despite what most on the forums I've seen seem to think or realize. 

Now having gotten some hands on working with StarGazer in my Supra and getting used to how it's setup works, and reading a lot of widely varied opinions on it on this and other forums, I guess I'm in a quandry.  For me personally SG is the best speed control system I've used yet FROM A SKIERS PERSPECTIVE.  Admittedly I don't have a lot of experience with Zero Off (a few sets behind it at tournaments and a couple of practice sets behind a friends promo 197) so I really am not qualified to speak too much on ZO.  I haven't skied as well with it as I have SG but I'm not a real solid tournament skier anyway and only have a few sets with it.  But here is the bottom line that I fail to understand about all the bitching about setting up SG to get good split and end times.  Consensus seems to be that the SG pull is a more "user friendly" pull than ZO gives.  Isn't the pull the skier gets more important than the amount of input required from the driver to give the skier that "better" pull?

I read a lot of bitching about how much tweaking is required to get SG to give good split times etc. For me it's definitely way less tweaking than was ever required with Classic and once it's set it's set, no ongoing tweaking involved (skier weight, crew weight, head/tail wind adjust, etc) as with Classic, plus it's consistantly more accurate.  I fail to understand how that's not a significant improvment over Classic.  I understand that with ZO there is NO tweaking required; however I've seen plenty of opinion to indicate that perhaps SOME adjustability might be desireable and be an improvement to that system.  To me and those I ski with regularly SG is a softer, friendlier pull than Classic (or my admittedly limited experience with ZO) making my passes feel slower and easier, yet the split and end times all are all within .02 of actual pretty much every pass.  This is true for a variety of skiers who have skied and driven my boat, everything from 15 off 26 mph through 35 off 34 mph.  Dumb as I am, if I can set it up to do this (didn't take much tweaking to achieve this actually) I fail to understand how so many other people have so much trouble getting the same results.  Sure it would be nice to just turn it on and go (which I'm able to do once I got it adjusted out properly) but I think we've lost sight of what the desired result SHOULD be with speed control - giving the skier the best, most user friendly, most consistant pull possible from whatever system you're using.  If it's a little tweaking for the driver so what, both SG and ZO require WAY less tweaking than we had before they became available.  How is that not a step forward?

Personally I think we've all gotten too spoiled.  We expect perfection from the speed control systems we're using without having to input too much to them.  Even with Classic it is a hell of a lot better/easier than most hand driving (let's be brutally honest, how many of us non pro drivers are really that good at getting near perfect times hand driving and still giving the skier a good steady pull?  I'm yet to meet one, myself included, and I'm a decent driver IMO).

Having said all of that, consider this.  The percentage of all "serious" slalom course skiers who actually are semi regular tournament skiers is what, 10% at most?  There are a lot of us (I consider myself "serious" despite the fact that I may not be all that good at it) who have a lot more fun and prefer skiing with their buds on Saturday morning or whenever than going to a tournament.  I ski a few INT tournaments but I'm not big on tournaments personally.  IF you assume (at least for the sake of this discussion) that StarGazer is noted as being the more preferred pull by the majority of skiers due to its "user friendliness", why then would the 90% of skiers who don't have to worry about tournaments and ZO choose to purchase ZO given all of the negative opinion about it?  Especially considering that the vast majority of that 90% own non-DBW boats and can't get ZO anyway, and probably won't be buying too many new $45K boats anytime soon?  If SG comes up with a setting that approximates the ZO pull in their next version it gives "serious" tournament skiers even less reason to purchase a ZO system or a new ZO-equipped boat.  You can practice that particular type of pull with what you already have now by purchasing a simple upgrade.  Plus you'll have way more variety, the user-friendlier SG settings PLUS a set of ZO-feeling settings if you want or need them.  PP sells more systems and upgrades to existing systems, ZO gets even less market share.  PP wins.

If you do the math it doesn't seem too difficult to come to the conclusion that SG has a much larger potential market than ZO ever will (especially considering the established good customer service of PP versus the questionable customer service to date that ZO has displayed). PP over time will be the dominant speed control system in the market place, perhaps eventually even effectively killing off ZO UNLESS they do something to soften up or otherwise improve their pull to make it more SG-like.  Assuming that, I'm of the opinion that SG is far from "dead" and will in fact be the largest share of the speed control market for many years to come.

The reports of SG's impending demise appear to me to be grossly over exagerated.  A lot of opinion is that PP killed themselves by selling the GPS rights (for whatever reasons, I'm aware of the law suit) to ZO.  I'm also aware that E-Controls own ZO and they have a big chunk of the marine engine electronic managment system market and all of that.  Doesn't matter. I think the PP folks are way smarter than that and knew full well what they were doing.  PP and SG will be the lions share of the speed control market and will be around for a long time to come. My opinion.

Ed

[JohnN]

Hmmm... I just had a flashback.  Substitue Accuski for PP and PP for ZO.

 That being said, SG seems to be skiing really well now.  We ran a round last weekend with PP SG and there was an incredible number of great performances and at least 3 records set.  It felt like the switch section was added or something (although it wasn't - with the records the ropes got measured plenty)!

 John

[Ed_Obermeier]

I thought about that.  I believe however that there is one significant difference in this instance.  I don't recall there being the widespread and very vocal backlash against PP that there has been against ZO but I may not be completely correct about that.  I recall some compaints but not anything approaching the skier backlash and very vocal negative comments towards PP at that time that there are now about ZO.

Also PP was available for install in pretty much any boat regardless of age etc, ZO is not.  Pretty much an entirely different set of circumstances IMO.

Ed

[TeamWally]

Ed, back in the day Accu Ski and PP were OPTIONS, usually dealer installed, later factory options. If my tarnished memory serves me AWSA did not require cruise control till the mid to late 90's. Now we have the boat companies mandating which systems will be used, what was once an option is now mandatory, and the choice has been eleminated from the menu. I doubt that anyone who skis AWSA or INT would argue that the pull from boat to boat, brand to brand is very inconsistant, PPC, Gazer and ZO. Quite frankly that horse has been beat to death. Next year we will only have one system to contend with. EDnd of story. What irks me is that e controls and the boat companies have decided what we will be using at local, regional and national events. I am all about free enterprise and building brands but I am not about eliminating the competition by slight of hand and colusion. I truly feel GPS based systems are very cutting edge,neat and techy, but I don't see any advantage to GPS over magnets. The vast majority of comptetion sites have magnets in place and surveyed courses, the addition of GPS does nothing to enhance skiing at these sites. PP is by and large a skier reactive system, pull harder ...get more rpm...stop pulling rpm drops. GPS systems are programer proactive: The software builds a virtual course for GPS, attempts to add rpm where it is programed to and corrects at 3 ball regardles of what the skier is doing. If you are willing to ski in a manner consistant with what the program thinks is proper form GPS will work very well for you, if not it sounds like backyard tourneys and older boats are the way to go, again that horse is dead.

Lets address the real marketing concept involved which is is to give the boat companies an easier sell to crossovers and wakeboarders, a plug and pray cruise control that will function on any open body of water with minemal driver input. Based on tese criteria GPS is a home run for all involved, kinda like towers on promo boats to enhance resale.

The party line from AWSA US watersking  the sanctionioning body seems to center around all the revenue and prestige to be had from controling an Olympic sport in the distant future. How about we toss out bouy count and times and judge it like gymnastics or diving, so many points for degree of difficulty. 35-38-41-43 off, and all the rest on style. Did the athlete have his or head up, did they look at the judges with awe and respect ? Was the Koren judge fair to to the Polish skier etc etc etc.

One other thought: If GPS is so freaking good how about each skier wears a GPS vest with a Garmin built in  and a sensor placed on the ski, at the end of the pass the judges download the data and determine if the pass was run. Viola no more gate calls, no more 5 judges for 6 balls just pure data coordinates. Data in: ratings mailed out. That is all.

[Ed_Obermeier]

Isn't SG primarily skier reactive being it's at least in part still RPM based as Classic is?  I certainly see RPM raising and lowering as I'm pulling skiers in response to their loading/unloading but it's not huge surges and falls.  With the segment times properly dialed in I"m not seeing the significant changes in RPM at 3-ball etc others report with ZO or an improperly setup SG.  If dialed in properly there is no need for either system to make a 3-ball adjustment, correct?  So proper setup seems to be the fix.  Those parameters are adjustable for SG, currently ZO has no such adjustments.  Users like not having to adjust anything with ZO but sounds to me like a lot of folks think it would be a better system if there WERE some adjustability.  Others bitch about the amount of adjusting required to get SG dialed in, but once dialed in (and it doesn't take that much IMO) everyone I know and talk to who are using it love it.  I just don't understand the bitching, that's all, it's less tweaking than before.

A couple of advantages to GPS over straight RPM - 1) way less ongoing tweaking (set properly and forget), and 2) no magnets to mess with.  Sure dedicated sites are already dialed in with magnets, surveyed courses etc and for those folks there probably isn't any advantage over the old ways (other than reduced tweaking for drivers).  What about the other 90-plus% of us who don't have access to those sites?   What about the 90% of skiers who course ski seriously but just really aren't that intereted in competing in tournaments?  What about us portable course users (and there are a bunch of us out here)?   Not having to mess with magnets saves a bit of time in setup and takedown.  When you do that 2 - 3 times a week the time savings begins to be noticable.  A small issue but an advantage none the less.  With SG I don't even bother with magnets at all, I use the hand timer to trigger the timer at the gate.  So I'm now completely free from having to mess with hauling magnets along, installing them etc.  Same with ZO, no magnets to mess with. I for one consider that an advantage. 

Plug and play may be fine for wakeboarders and others who aren't concerned with times being within hundredths of a second or quality-of-pull issues as slalom skiers are.  If that's the market ZO is going for that's fine, they'll likely have some success there particularly in brand new boats.  However, for slalom skiers (the market segment we're most concerned with here) good times, and more importantly the quality of the pull, are what matters.  Whatever system gives them that is what skiers not constrained by the pronouncements of the governing tournament body will buy.  Right now according to everything I'm reading on these message boards the nod for that currently goes to SG.  I want to clarify the fact that I'm not a ZO hater.  I don't have near enough experience with it to have much of an opinion on it really.  What opinion I DO have of it so far is based on what is being reported by a lot of much better skiers than I am, and so far that opinion seems to generally be less than favorable.  My point is this -  the pull the skier gets should be more important than the amount of input required from the driver to make the system time out properly.  Regardless of which system that is. 

Reportedly AccuSki has offered their programing to ZO and if they add that or similar to the system that would certainly level the playing field some.  ZO will undoubtedly continue to tweak their system striving for a more user-friendly pull as will PP.  I made the statement that I thought PP would be around for a long time to come and would be the largest share of the speed control market for many years to come based on the fact that there are already thousands of PP systems installed versus a few hundred ZO systems that a significant percentage of those owners are still less-than-thrilled with.  You can't put ZO in anything older than some '06 boats (that may change in the future though unlikely), you can put SG in almost anything except a new TBW boat (per PP's agreement with ZO per the lawsuit).  SG costs $400 to upgrade to (assuming you already have PP), ZO IF you can use it in your existing boat costs $1500?  That tournament skiers and new boat purchasers will only have one system to contend with next year does nothing to change the other 90-plus % of the market already familiar with and using PP and SG.  Those who already have PP and/or SG will likely continue to use that system, PP will continue to upgrade it, ZO will at best make only small inroads into that market.  ZO may sell a lot of systems to wakeboarders but skiers will stick with what they've already invested in UNLESS some compelling reason to change comes to pass.   

Ed

[eleeski]

PP (including Stargazer) does not work properly with DBW. This weekend I drove an 07 Nautique with Stargazer. The speeds were all over the place - but the end course was perfect. OK Luke showed me how to recalibrate and that fixed the problem but the calibration drift is kind of insidious and doesn't seem to get fixed until it affects the skiers. Plus it was unacceptable for tricks - I had to hand drive! Add that there are no user inputs to customize the pull and you have a very deficient system. The PP DBW interface has been bad for three years and Stargazer did not fix it.

PP Classic is an excellent system with the throttle cable. In my opinion it has the best feel for the skiers. Even if they like a different style of pull it can be customized. The driver has great control for safety and turns. PP Classic is a great product which will be around as long as throttle cabled boats are used.

ZO is almost as driver friendly as PP Classic. Actually easier since the speeds are always right. The system works right. Now the pull options don't match everybody's preference but I wouldn't be surprised if a few more letter options don't get added. I have a fair amount of time driving and skiing behind ZO and I love it now.

Most of the complaint about ZO is based on the hostility from having to buy a new boat or a very expensive retrofit if you want ZO - or the difficulty in getting time behind ZO. This factor will fade over time and the technical merits of ZO will be realized.

Settlements and AWSA have left ZO as the only choice for new tournament boats - and serious tournament skiers. In a few years ZO will be available, accepted and everywhere. Embrace it and enjoy the tournaments. 

And PP will still be making the older boats reasonable training boats.

Eric

[Old MS Accout]

ZO rocks

SG does not rock

[DaveD]

MS, you're headed for double secret probation again.

[Old MS Accout]

Its a good thing that Horton hates it also.

[Horton]

No I like PPSG

There is testing going on today and yesterday. I think I understand that ZO may get more settings to help with options and PPSG is getting a ZO like mode.

[Old MS Accout]

Great, more buttons to press. Why cant they just come out with a system that is the same for everyone. No switch/KX/PX/Crew wt/ABC/Normal/Heavy/Light/FAT/SUPER FAT.

Just turn the key on, put it at 55k and ski. Is that asking too much?   

[Horton]

That would be fine if we all had the exact same boat to practice behind

[Old MS Accout]

We can do that. Just have USA waterski only approve the 196 as the only tow boat. Works for me   

[scoke]

 

 

Once Andy gets Steve Locke to go to the same church as himself and Bill Yeargain, it will be a done deal.

 

[Horton]

OK be nice.

[skibug]

I still vote for the overhead cable system....no boats.....that would cure it.  Electric motors are way easier to tune and tweak a they are much more precise. 

[eleeski]

It does seem strange that the people with the most time behind ZO like it the best. In time, ZO will be popular - especially if they add a couple more pull options.

 

MS, the beauty of ZO over SG is the input from the skier to customize the feel. When SG offers an optional setting that I like, I'll buy it!

 

Eric

[Old MS Accout]

I hated both systems until a month ago. SG still freaks me out unless I have practiced behind the boat prior to tourney. Chads boat, Erbs boat and a few others are dialed in real nice and the pull is great.    

[Director Darwin]

Chad's new boat (w/ ZO) is awesome.  Feels a bit stronger than my SNj on "B" setting.  Went to "A" and felt great!  The delay I feel w/ SG coming out of the buoy really screws me up.  I like both systems but they are different.  I believe that's the real issue - not which is best.

[Old MS Accout]

Exactly. That and the mid split on SG.

[lkb]

Every practice set I have skied since Feb. this year has been behind ZO. I just tried something different. I skied a few passes with it set in the rpm control mode. You set a certain rpm and it holds it there regardless of boat speed. So anyway, I skied a pass at 28 off 3600 rpm after skiing several passes on tourney mode and of course getting 16.95 every time. In rpm mode it felt great and easy. I was in sync and had clean hookups at almost every buoy.  Here's the interesting part, the time was 1.74, 7.05, and 16.78. So it was way hot and it felt easier than a 95 with the boat throttling me in tourney mode.

I am 155 lbs and not all that strong a skier but up until I got ZO, I felt like I had a decent shot at getting 4 or 5 at 35 or maybe even running it most times I tried it. I have tried hard most of the summer to improve my technique and have only gotten worse this season. I guess today's experiment opened my eyes and tells me I don't want to be throttled. I hope ZO offers some other settings soon.

 

[RichardDoane]

We went to a tournament last weekend, and all the slalom groups were run with PP Classic. I felt the rides were way better, and if I hadn't made a couple of stupid mistakes I would have set a new TPB. Even some "hot" times of 16.89 or so felt so much easier to ski than ZO @ 16.95. ZO will needs to make some changes, and I hope they're already working on it for next season.

[sixamss]

What IKB found is interesting and I think proves that Andy set out not to provide a consistent speed but to use gps tecnology to attempt to help the skier get wide and ski more bouys through gassing in predicted parts of the course. He was trying to make a product that provided better results. Not a product that under the rules should have been designed to be as constant as possible which it could have.

What was created did aid light/smooth skiers (new pbs world records/)but unfortunatley provided too much gas for others and was unpredictable.

 What will they do to fix it. Listen to the experts that have offered adice? No they don't answer calls from all reports. So that means probably another season at least until it is fixed.

[Old MS Accout]

The boys sure put it up yesterday at the BD behind ZO. 2 records went down.

[eleeski]

And I came within a buoy of my meager tournament best yesterday behind CC ZO - despite aging, arthritis, not much practice and a really funky ski. ZO can work!

Eric

[Horton]

I skied 4 rounds last weekend.  Score for all 4 rounds were 3 to 6 balls below my practice scores behind PP the week before and 2 or 4 balls behind my PP tounament average. On the other hand, with the third round the pull felt totally unreal and I just  screwed it up my gate at 38. I think that if you fall in to the groove of skiing ZO behind a specific boat it may be better then PP.

I am hearing all kinds of storys about new versions of both systems being tested to help with these issues. As I have said before, I am not sure I want to blame anyone for the ZO/PP thing but 2008 sucked bad for my skiing and a lot of other skiers.   

[sixamss]

Eric I have been watching your Pro ZO posts on all discussion boards and you are quite right it can work and does for some. The 6lt CC is pretty dialed in esp when you get on great water like Hancock. You seem to be oblivious to the problems that have affected and disenchanted many. There are many  who are unhappy but get paid by boat companies who have told them to zip it. This goes for a number of high profile coaches who get free boats or cheap boats and can't say anything in the open.

 

[RichardDoane]

It seems that guys who ski fairly smooth and weigh less than 160 lbs have benefitted from the pull of ZO.  As someone who weighs 180 +/- I have to really pay attention to ski as well with ZO as behind SG.  At our PP Classic tournament a weekend ago, not nearly as many people got yanked out the front at the second wake as usual (with ZO), so it's almost a safety issue.

[eleeski]

Those who know me are aware that I honestly and bluntly say what I think. I probably don't pay enough attention to popular views or the feelings of others. Respect me or hate me for it - that's what I am.

PP Classic or Stargazer are undriveable in a DBW boat in a short setup when tricking - and don't even try a double up! The only tricks reride at last weekend's Adobe tournament was a Stargazer failure to aquire speed in time. One out of four rides it pulled! Training is worse. This condition has not been fixed for three years.

I am pro ZO for a good reason. My Stargazer average this year is 40 (!) bouys less than my ZO average. Practice is not much better. If I had drawn ZO and skied my average ZO score at Regionals or Nationals I would have had a shot at an overall medal instead of last place. Stargazer's slalom pull is not just frustrating for me, it is humiliating. I hope I never get another slalom ride behind the current Stargazer.

The real disenchantment is the lack of time a skier can get behind ZO. There are not very many boats out there. New boats are expensive (and the new MC is black - horrible for a non boat wiper). But this problem will fade quickly with time. And if Stargazer makes a ZO emulator option, I expect most of the complaining will stop.

When skiers get used to the ZO pull, I would expect to see fewer falls - and injuries. And if the falling records are any indication, skiers will come to enjoy the pull.

Stan has needed a new boat for a while. The rats ate a hole in the seat and the duct tape repair is now several years old. Stan hated the DBW PP MC he had lined up last year - so he passed on that boat. We were loaned a ZO MC for Trick Tests - the boat and the pull was so good we had to buy it! So I have had an advantage adapting to ZO. And I honestly love the boat. Nobody paid me to say that - actually I had to pay a lot to be able to say that...

Eric

[sixamss]

Eric, it really doesnt seem to me that you have had enough experience behind both systems to be commenting as strongly and as often over the web as you have been. Not knowing who you are or to what level you slalom I can't comment on your lost 40 bouys but something does not add up with your ZO push everywhere.

[Horton]

Eric,

Gazer and Classic ski almost exactly alike. I do not see how it is possible that you lost 40 balls with Gazer. Let me think. In 2007 with all PP Classic you averaged 90.3 balls (roughly 6 at 32 off). In ski year 2008 you averaged 89.7(1/2 ball less) with a mix of ZO and SG. Are you telling us that in practice with ZO you run about 130 balls? If each pass past 38 takes 18 inches off the line, I think you have to pretty much be at 71 off to get another 40 balls (silly but funny).

In 07 there was no gazer or ZO but you skied about the same this year.... except for regionals. Are you saying you can not run a pass in practice behind Gazer? Or did you just have one bad ride at regionals?

I skied with Kirk this weekend. Ski is fine, fin is wrong, bindings are just stupid. Bindings will work for now but if he skis correctly the fin is a problem. He needs a little coaching and he could be a good slalom skier. Unlike his father he listens.

[eleeski]

John, Thanks for your help with Kirk. He got a lot out of it. He needs more practice and training - his equipment is not the factor holding him back (maybe I should put him back on a Leeski though?). He doesn't listen to me though...

Stargazer is quite different from PP Classic KX-PX10 which is my training preference. I did struggle when my switch failed so maybe the PP Classic Normal 0 is similar to SG.

I only had two tournaments with SG this year, Regionals and Nationals. When you have a 3 buoy score it's pretty easy to have a skewed average. Admittedly, it wasn't a fair comment - but it is accurate. I skied SG a fair amount with very limited success. Early in the season, I was unable to make a pass at all in practice behind SG. But I wasn't skiing so well behind my boat either. I did OK in my first tournament behind ZO for the first time ever - better than my limited practice performances. Stan got his boat early in the summer and I exclusively skied ZO - until I discovered I would get SG at Regionals. Admittedly, I screwed up and did a lot of that training on "L". Practice and Regionals were horrible. I finally made a 32 off in practice behind SG the last run before Nationals. I could have learned the system and had a nice pass going at Nationals until I reverted back to instinct and forgot the style points that I needed to make SG work.

A far as qualifications to have an informed opinion, I am a mediocre slalom skier (although I briefly held the Hawaiian area M3 record in slalom). I build my own slalom skis so I have a well developed analytical sense. I skied over half my training sets this year behind ZO. I had checkbook in hand to buy SG - until I skied behind it - so I have no prejudice against PP. Additionaly, I am a reasonably good trick skier (I build my own trick skis as well). I spend a lot of time driving and coaching college skiers and juniors. I feel that I am at least as qualified to judge speed control systems as many of the other posters. My preference for ZO is unusual but not baseless.

One size does not fit all when it comes to pull profiles. We have the technology (and the historical precedent) to give a custom pull to the skier. Let me enjoy my weird pulls (and skis) and hopefully you will find a setting that works for you.

Eric

[jpski]

I read this post and had to join

 This is just my 2 cents so take it for what its worth it

I will start off by saying that i ski both systems regularly over this summer. I have ZO on my boat and a friend who i ski with alot has SG. My biggest issue with star gazer is that it makes assumptions (ass-u-me).  My issue with it is that i am 165 lbs skiing at 36 mph and how SG works is it has a default skier weight of 180 lbs which it sets its baseline off of and the gps does almost nothing but give you a speed readout and gives you sup-par timing. So the boat gets up to speed using the baseline setting and then you have your 1 magnet start timing point which perfect pass suggest. After that timing is not true to the course because it is being run off GPS so the real question is how accurate is this timing? When the boat is taking times off literally dots in the sky which the system is able to have good times under almost any circumstance because it is not a fixed point in the course that you are timing off of. Then what happens is every time the GPS thinks that you go through a set of gates it makes an adjustment but what it does is it overcompensates for what it needs to do so that it gets good times. For example say that your 1 ball time is 1.71 (actual 1.68) the boat adjusts so that 2 ball time (4.22 actual) comes out to be 4.22 which sounds good but in reality for this to happen the boat has to go actually faster than 36 mph to make up for that. And then when you get to 3 the boat is then going to have a fast time so to get a good time at 4 the boat will have to then go below 36 mph again. 

 

The point that i am trying to make is that the speed is always changing. One of the big issues to look at also is where the speed makes its change. Currently they system tries to make that change immediately but due to what line length the skier is skiing that can really hurt the skier because any good driver knows that if you need to make an adjustment to the boat speed or path you need to know where the skier is in the course. If you make that adjustment when the skier is out at the ball it will hurt them because that is where they are most vulnerable as opposed to making that adjustment behind the boat where the skier most likely will not notice it. Now the issue here is that SG does not know where the skier is in the course. It has no way of figuring out if they are pulling or what and this cannot be a default thing. This is because where the skier is in the course highly depends on the line length. Compared to the boat a skier at 15 off is in a completely different place than a skier skiing at 38 off. For example at 38 off the boat is going thru the boat guides at just about the same time or a split second before the skier goes around the ball. At 15 off when the boat is going thru the boat guides alot of the time the skier is just coming off the second wake so if the boat makes the adjustment immediatley as it goes thru the boat guides a 15 off skier will not be as effected as a 38 off skier.

 

 The difference between PPSG and ZO is that ZO makes adjustments compared to what the skier is doing immediately and SG is clueless until it finds that it has a time that is off and then over compensates to make the next time come out right when in reality if the time is off by .02 at 1 ball the adjustment needs to be made so that it is off by .02 the rest of the way thru the course.

 

once again this is just my 2 cents take it for what it is worth 

 

Go Zero Off

[BuoyChaser]

What is the accuracy of the Zero Off GPS receiver in comparison to the PP SG receiver? I know on the iPhone there is only 50ft of accuracy. There has to be some reason for adding the 2nd receiver for more than just redundancy.

[scoke]

 

SG coming into the course: for 34.2mph it comes into the course at 34.7/34.9

for 36mph: comes into the course at 36.7-36.9.

 Every time.

Zero Off: 34.2=34.2 Gate; 36.0=36.0.

Completely different.

 

[Boody]

I have the same findings as Scoke, I ramped down the "pregate" to almost nothing and I still get 34.7 - 34.9, every time.  The skier pulls it down to 34.2 on the pull out, but the boat takes off in the glide. 

SG is way to slow to react and causes and yoyo effect all the way thru the course.  And it doesn't care if you are in the pull or in the turn, it will compensate whenever it gets around to it.

I wish ZO was available for our 2005 Nautique. 

[jpski]

Boody,

 I would pay attention because i would not at all be surprised to see somebody come up with a way extremely soon to use the old PP servo system with zero off. Thinking about it how hard could it be to make it work? with both systems you have the system telling the motor to speed up or slow down so would it take more than just swapping a few wires around?

[Thomas Wayne]

Isn't that just about exactly what StarGazer does?

TW 

[jpski]

What i am saying is that I think there very easily could be a modification made to be able to run zero off using the PP servo system on a non DBW system because due to legal agreements ZO cannot make a system for non DBW boats