ABC/123

[Than_Bogan]

Has any sort of "consensus" formed on the "best" Zero Off settings?

Do people tend to believe there is a single best setting?  (I'm guessing no.)  Is there a short list of settings that most people will do best with, and if so how do you pick?

Or are all 9 settings applicable to some skier or another, and if so has anybody written a document that is sufficient for somebody to figure out which type of skier they are?

Personally I don't get nearly enough sets behind ZO to feel confident in experimentally dialing in the best choice.  How I feel on a given day can make it extremely difficult to compare one set to another, and changing the setting within a set seems really disruptive to getting good practice.

Just wanting to catch up on the "prevailing wisdom" around this topic.  Thanks!

Fwiw, I *seem* to have determined that I like 1 better than 2 or 3, but haven't been able to see clear preference on A/B/C yet.  For tournaments I'm currently using B1, but there's nothing very scientific about that.

[Horton]

I think this covers it

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZOXG8wtxx_w

 

[jdarwin]

One thing you must consider, all boats (especially brand to brand) are different.  B2 behind a Nautique feels like C2 behind the Malibu (for me, anyway).   I've tried to eliminate that variable by sticking w/ a letter/number combination behind all boats but the feel is different boat to boat.  At the Big Dawg in Katy a few weeks ago, C1 and C2 were the most popular settings.  But you must remember that these skiers are technically sound (most of them) and work right behind the boat and not right off the buoy.  I find most of the 15off - 32off skiers like B2 the best.  It seems to provide the delay they need in getting the ski to finish properly and yet, doesn't throw them into the next buoy w/ excessive speed.  Those that ski w/ PP, tend to feel A1 or A2 is the most similar.  Therefore, if you are trying to replicate your practice "feel" w/ PP in a tournament setting using ZO, I would recommend "A". 

[Than_Bogan]

Great, so there's actually 27 things to try?  3 boats * 3 letters * 3 numbers??

But anyhow, thanks for the detailed information.

Personally, I still feel that PP is just a hair easier, even now that I am alternating boats so practicing equally with both.  So the idea of matching the feel of PP is pretty appealing.

One thing I note: No mention of 3 in your discussion.  So can we ignore that possibility when searching for our favorite setting?

[jdarwin]

The number reflects how quickly the boat returns to baseline speed i.e. 34.2 mph.  Most skiers I know do not use 3 in either A, B or C.  You may find it works well for you.  It's a trial and error undertaking and even those of us who have wide access to ZO still struggle to find the right setting.  Every boat is different.  Every site you ski will be different.  Water temps / viscosity affect how a ski turns and therefore the timing where you need the boat to pick you up.  I don't believe there is a "perfect" setting for ZO.  You must find the setting that works best for you in most situations and go with it.

[clemsondave]

I created a chart that I've heard is pretty accurate. Some have other theories, but this might give you an idea. Schnitz has it posted on his website. Mine is the one near the top of the page.

http://www.schnitzskis.com/zerooff.html

[HO 410]

From what I've seen and felt, the heavier and stronger you are, the higher number you will want to use. I weigh around 150lbs, using 2 (with any letter) was pretty boarderline, 3 was overwhelming. 

[Old MS Accout]

Pick one setting and stick with it.  

[skibug]

I think you need to experiment with all of them at least once to see what each feels like; then pick one setting and stick with it.

[Than_Bogan]

skibug wrote: "I think you need to experiment with all of them at least once to see what each feels like; then pick one setting and stick with it."

So this seems to make complete sense, except it seems like one set behind a given setting can only tell me if that setting is or is not a complete disaster.  Any letter I paired with 3 clearly did not work for me.  But most of the other settings just seemed "different" -- very hard to say better or worse for me.  This is even true of 2 vs.1, but I guessed that since 3 felt so bad, going further away from that made sense, so I've been mostly using 1.

I realize I could just arbitrarily pick one of the non-disaster settings and stay on it, but the truth is I'd always wonder if I could be using one that would be better for me in the long term!  (Yep -- it's a pathology, but one I suspect a lot of folks on this board also have...)  Because of this, I honestly believe I'd be happier if AWSA or ZO just decided that everyone was going to use the same setting.  Then that would be the definition of the sport and I'd never wonder if I could get more buoys by using some other setting.

[boarditup]

C2 feels the same to me behind any boat.  So, I use C2 and have adapted my skiing to it.  When I get to a PP boat, it feels weak and it takes a bit to adapt to the slower and weaker hook-up.  However, regardless of brand or motor, I am set at a tournament.

[LeonL]

C2 is what I use, no matter what boat.  All the brands are going to feel different regardless of setting, and you can drive yourself crazy adjusting settings based on boats.  No one has that much practice time available behind all 3 brands.  BTW I'm 5'11, 160 34 mph, run 32 fairly consistently with 2 - 4 at 35 most of the time.

[Roger]

I usually use c2 on all boats as well. If it makes any difference, I still have my boat paperwork from the Big Dawg finals at Okeeheelee last year. The two finalists, Mark Shaw and Ben Favret used C2 and C3 respectively. Of all the skiers in that Big Dawg, only a small handful used a B setting, most used something in the As or Cs. I spoke with Becky Lathrop who pulled the recent Big Dawg in Texas and she says it's still like that, a small number of Bs and all the rest As and Cs.

 

[Old MS Accout]

There is a current pole on the Big Dawg web site. B2 is the leader with C1 and C2 tied. 

[Than_Bogan]

I just realized I have a question:  Do these parameters work in a symmetric way when the boat needs to decelerate?  In other words, does 1 give a long period of a slight reduction in RPM when the skier has gotten free of the boat and the rope is not under tension?  This almost seems more important to me that what is going on under load.  If the boat slows down suddenly when you release (3?), I'd expect that to feel very different than if it slows down more gradually (1?).

For A/B/C, it seems even harder to guess at the behavior when it's time to slow down.  Does A similarly delay taking any action in reducing RPM?  In this case, it theoretically might be harder to get free of the boat to get wide, as the boat would be making some effort to "keep up with you."  But if C is slowing down as soon as possible, I feel like that would contribute to a slack line in the preturn -- consider the extreme of what would happen if the driver just powered down at that point.

Now that I'm thinking about this, it seems a little odd that everything I've ever read about Zero Off talks about how it ADDS power.  But it has to REDUCE power just as frequently, and how it does that seems kinda important, no?

[Than_Bogan]

MS, can you link directly to the poll?  I appear to lack the competence to find it myself.

[skibug]

clemsondave above listed this link to schnitz site

 http://www.schnitzskis.com/zerooff.html

I really think the second set of graphical displays tell the story.  1, 2, 3 are the acceleration profiles and A, B, C is when the boat adds the RPM relative to your loading the boat.

"1" is going to be the softest pull no matter where you have it applied (i.e C = right off the ball, B = somwhere between buoy and first wake, A = even later yet)  and it will cut off the quickest.  The acceleration profile looks like a "ramp up" - hits you soft and adds RPM

"2" acceleration looks like a long "speed bump" - most similar to PP aceleration profile 

"3" acceleration looks like a backward ramp - hits you hard and bleeds off RPM

[Horton]

And all this is good for the sport? I keep this web site at a PG-13 level but I want to say some very bad words on this subject

[Than_Bogan]

Found it!

http://skibigdawg.wordpress.com/what-zero-off-setting-are-you-using/ (then hit the view results button)

But it seems the lesson of this poll is basically that every setting works for somebody.  With such a small sample size, I'd say the only significant deviations are B3 and C3, which are noticeably less popular (and yet almost 10% of respondents are using one of those, so obviously these settings aren't completely awful).

All of the other settings seem to have a reasonable number of adherents.

So it seems like just copying what "everybody else" is doing is not really feasible.  Darn! -- that's pretty much exactly what I was hoping to do!

[Than_Bogan]

Horton wrote: "And all this is good for the sport? I keep this web site at a PG-13 level but I want to say some very bad words on this subject"

Yep.  Agree with your implied meaning there!  I think all these settings are just a huge distraction, and I really think AWSA should get rid of this.  Pick control system parameters and we'll all get used to them!  Being able to tune the boat to help your skiing can theoretically add buoys, but so can lengthening the rope!  The sport is about overcoming well-defined challenges, so I see no reason to offer this level of customization.

A natural reaction to my tirade would be "Well just pick something and ignore it, then."  But if I do that it's quite possible I've put myself at a disadvantage relative to a competitor who has chosen optimal personalized settings.  And so if my desire is to ski as well as I possibly can in tournaments (and you know it is!) then I have no choice but to care about these letters and numbers.

There's an old argument in sports, games, and even politics (e.g. term limits) that if you don't like the existence of a given option, then just don't use it.  But when "just don't use it" means putting yourself at a disadvantage relative to others, that is NOT the same as eliminating the option.

(Sorry to venture off topic a bit -- I'm an amatuer game theorist and extremely interested in incentives and optimal strategy and the like.)

[Drago]

but...

drivers, when they used their right hand, gave a big guy more gas than a little guy. just sayin'

[Chef23]

I practice behind a Malibu with PP and I have been skiing A2 in tournaments and performing about the same in tournaments as I do in practice.

[Horton]

You two guys are light on the line?

Depending on the boat I am screwed with ZO as soon as I make the smallest error and lookup too early. Worse. Every boat is different. Nothing good for the sport about ZO.

[skibug]

Even though I have ZO on our new boat, I have to say I am not impressed with pull it gives me; although it may be the boat as well.  I can see if you are in optimum (or very close to) position then it will work well for you (i.e the pros and top level skiers); but, get late, scramble.....forget it.

[Chef23]

John,

 

I am not as good as you so that may be the difference. I ski into 32 off not into 38 like you. I have been told I am fairly light on the line for a big guy (230lbs).

[Horton]

I would not call my self a "good skier" I am a BallOfSpray

[skidawg]

JTH, if u could ski behind zo regularly, not only would u like it, but u would also ski better, u r good enough, smart enough and doggon it people like u!

[Than_Bogan]

Random thought:  Does anyone think the existence of these setting will hurt our chances (as remote as they may be) of becoming an Olympic sport?  My understanding is that an important sticking point is the role of the engine in the sport, and the ambiguous wording in the Olympic charter that is something like "the athlete shall not be assisted by a motor."

This is a grey area, since it's impossible to do the sport without a motor, but the motor is really the skier's opponent.

It kinda seems to me that having options to control the boat weakens that case, and makes it seem a lot more like the boat is "assisting" the skier.

Am I completely nuts?

[Horton]

Yo Dawg,
That may be true but MOST of us do not ski behind new boats. That means that MOST of us are at a disadvantage.
ZO is simply bad for the sport. Please someone explain how I am wrong. I am not close minded.
 
Thanimal,
Forget the Olympics. I am not really clear on all the details but understand we have spent a lot of $ and will never get there. What water skiing needs to do is get back to its roots. ZO does not help this and dreaming about being on NBC for 5 minutes during the Olympics does not grow the sport. We suffer from being inaccessible and elitist. We need to be more accessible.
INT kicks USAWS’s ass in this regard.

 

[skidawg]

Olympics, not happening, we don't have the money to bribe the IOC to get in, skiing Is shrinking because (this is my personal experience) when we have private lakes we typically keep them that way mainly because of time constraints, but one of our members is completely closed off to expanding our club to new members or any clinics for newbs, etc. Off my wagon

[scoke]

Yawn

[Than_Bogan]

Actually, I think Zero Off (after getting rid of these annoying user-parameters) will eventually be very good for the sport.  If you're a newbie trying to get into the sport, you can drive for a great skier and instantly have a great coach.  And it has some advantages over perfect pass: you don't need to set up magnets and (more importantly) you don't need to enter everybody's weight [women hate that!] and constantly monitor the times for wind-based adjustment [again requiring a level of expertise of the driver].  So I think it helps lower some barriers to entry and level the playing field.

[Horton]

Sure that will be great in 10 years when PP boats are history but today most skiers do not have new boats.

OK I will stop. This subject makes me so mad and bitching about it does not help.

[Steven]

I'm with you Horton! Most of us are skiing behind older boats that aren't compatible with ZO. I only ski a ZO boat in tourneys and it frustrates the hell out of me to the point of not wanting to participate. I know that I'm not the only one with these feelings. So, how does this grow the sport??? Stargazer provides a consistent pull, is affordable and available to install on older boats. In my opinion, a new boat is a waste of money! You can't tell me that a $50,000.00 boat has improved anyones scores. Just my opinion

 

 

 

 

[A_B]

I'm right there with you JH.

 

I have a great looking and running '99 SN and everyone loves the wakes, but due to ZO, it is obsolete. That is BS.

Now that I have been skiing behind ZO a few times this year, it reminds me of bad hot-sticking from years

The biggest problem I see is that if you get into the boat on a pull to make up time, the boat bites back because it is hell bent on running actual. So what if it turns in a 16.99 or 17.01 if you scramble? I've foamed lighter work in the gates actually helps keep the rpm surge down after one ball. Now I am a load at 250, so when I hit the boat I hit the boat.

 

Re olympics - we would need to start drug testing and all the rest of the crap that goes with it. Why bother? They can't manage speed control how are they to manage athletes? Would we get tv revenue infused back into the sport to help pay for the new LAYERS of administration? Can't wait to see what the dues would go to.

[eyepeeler]

AB,  The main reasons to ski are for fun, exercise, and to enjoy the outdoors, therefore your boat is not obsolete.   Your boat delivers all of that and more.  I ski everyday with an old boat with PP and run 38 while birdwatching and deep 39 on public lake.  I quit going to tournaments when ZO was introduced and haven't looked back.  ZO and $50,000 ski boats are an absolute joke.  I would love to know how many people are out there having fun skiing hard with old boats but not going to tournaments. 

     

[Horton]

Eye Peeler,

That is exactly the point. We drove skiers away from tournaments. Bad for skiing. Bad for ski companys. Bad for boat companys.

I love old boats  - older the better as long as the times are good and the path is straight. 

[skidawg]

Old boats are boring, just like old skis

[Dirt]

Well put Skidawg. I was nervous about ZO after reading all of the comments on the web. I was pleasantly surprised after getting a couple rides behind it. I tried everything from A1 to C3 in the same ride at 32 off and could not find a setting that felt really bad. I just need to pick a setting and stick with it. The only thing that felt really different was the gate timing.

[thager]

Old boats with ZO ROCK!!!!

[Deanoski]

zo off drove me away from the turys, and few other I know.   I just ski for fun run -35 34mph   pb 3@38

 

zo has not been not good for the sport period!!!!

 

Deano

[scoke]

Zo is great for the sport.

 

It's allowed skiers to feel the rythim of the boat similar to what pros have been doing for years.

It rewards quality skiers who run buoys with proper technique.

It doesn't allow bullies to push the boat around more.

Where are you guys shopping for boats that have zo for $50k. I might list my 07 nauti with ZO for $29 if the pending buyer doesn't work out.

 

Ask JD how many skiers he's got next weekend. All tourneys in the SCR have been packed this year.

It has caused many people to step up their game and improve.

It's also given the quitters a reason to quit and the whiners more to whine about and a excuse for poor performance.

[thager]

Shelby,

 

I think it's time for your Shiner bock!!!

[eyepeeler]

ZO is too soft for big skiers.

[jdarwin]

ZO is more reminiscent of hand driving.  The PP pull is what we grew accustomed to but it was much different than what we had before (hand driving).  We all struggled w/ PP.  There are so many variables in this sport and ZO just happens to be one of them.  Boats are different.  They come w/ different engines.  Driver paths vary.  If you want consistency in this sport, you are banging your head against a very large wall.  ZO is advancement.  If you don't want to ski behind ZO, don't ski tournaments.  If you want to ski tournaments, suck it up and spend the money like the rest of us.  I have a ski lake valued around $250k.  I just ordered a new $40k ski boat.  I wish I drove a new BMW but I'm stuck driving one that's 34 years old.  That's the CHOICE I made.  And I live with it. 

[ForrestGump]

I have a bigger problem with heavy malibu's with towers and wedges on the back weighting down the stern, throwing big, hard wakes in tournaments than I do with ZO.  At least with ZO you have basically the same pull every time. 

[pilot-76]

I don't know, am not against pp but if where i ski there are so many variables that pp and especially pp star gazer will not give me a good pull. pp sometimes takes someone 3 in bad cases 4 passes to give me a near actual time, and maybe i am really anal or something but feel great that I made my 28 off at 36 until they drop me and I ask the time and they say oh, no wait, it was actually still slow, will increase the next with another 20 rpm.

Actaully sold my 1997 sn with star gazer for that matter, would give me actual times 50% of the cases, but the other 50% I still don't know why it would find out mid course it was late, and go to 38+mph to catch up and give me actual time at the end, this was in single magnet mode but completely unskiable.

So now with zero off it doesn't matter who is driving me my times are always actual, 2 or 6 ppl in the boat, head wind tail wind pull feels the same every time. So i really like it, with pp my best was 28 at 36 i know it's pathetic but started too late and i only find out now in life i have some pshychomotoric issues :) but with zero off my best has been 28 at 36 as well.

Oh did I mention My wife is in love with zero off and thinks it should be the first new purchase for skiing families before opting marriage counseling. And its true lying there in april freezing water and trying to explain that she has to decrease the crew weight, decrease the rpm value and please while your doing that change the px value as well, lots of confusion in the boat. But you know, they have less interest in all that tecnical stuff.  Now it's just 34 or 36 B2 lets go, end of the run actual, thank you,

No for us zero off is really good..

[skidawg]

ZO makes us ski better. ZO is easier to drive. It took pp yrs before they worked all the bugs out, initially it sucked. ZO is not soft fir big skiers, I weight 200 and run very short rope , it is anything but soft, learn to ski lighter on the line and ZO will reward u with a sweet pull. Stop whinning and adapt. Evolve and learn to ski better

[Boody]

ZO used to suck, but then came along Rev Q, problem gone.  We had two 196s at our last tournament, on with SG and one with ZO.  There were no difference in scores and I did not hear one person say one way or the other that a boat was easier/harder.

ZO rocks now, they finally figured it out with Rev Q.

[Ed_Obermeier]

Pilot 76 wrote "I don't know, am not against pp but if where i ski there are so many variables that pp and especially pp star gazer will not give me a good pull. pp sometimes takes someone 3 in bad cases 4 passes to give me a near actual time, and maybe i am really anal or something but feel great that I made my 28 off at 36 until they drop me and I ask the time and they say oh, no wait, it was actually still slow, will increase the next with another 20 rpm."

Your problem was lack of understanding of how to adjust the system to give you near actual times.  Agreed, the PP Classic was a PITA to have to adjust all the time but it was workable if you spent the time to get familiar with it.  I ski with a friend who has a 94 Tantrum running PP version 5.0 (real old) and he can give me whatever time I want consistantly, head wind/tail wind, whatever conditions.  Because he KNOWS the system.  Stargazer fixed having to make all those adjustments and everyone I know/ski with loves SG because you don't have to screw with all of that stuff.  If you've had the same problem with SG it's because you didn'ty have it set up correctly.  Once set up right, you only need to NOT OVERSHOOT THE BASELINE RPM on pullups and it settles right in.  No overspeeding half way through the course, no hammering you from ball to ball as with ZO.  Times may not be exactly perfect (usually within .03 on all I've driven) BUT it should be about the pull the skier is getting, NOT how easy it is for the driver.  What, 16.98 isn't near actual enough to suit you??  I still fail to understand why so many tout ZO's ease of use to the driver without giving any thought to how that effects the skier at the end of the rope.  It's about what the skier feels, NOT how easy it is on the driver.  Anyway... 

"Actaully sold my 1997 sn with star gazer for that matter, would give me actual times 50% of the cases, but the other 50% I still don't know why it would find out mid course it was late, and go to 38+mph to catch up and give me actual time at the end, this was in single magnet mode but completely unskiable."

Again, it's because you didn't have it set up correctly.  Yeah, maybe it's a bit more work initially to dial in SG than ZO.  BUT, once you get it dialed in it's a really sweet pull (ask 99.9% of SG users who actually KNOW the system) and the times are never more than .02 off at 3 ball and never more off than .03 at the end.  If that's not close enough to actual to suit you then I guess I agree with you, you're too anal.

Ed