Where's the limit?

[Than_Bogan]

The laser boat path discussion reminded me of something that probably shouldn't be confused with that thread. This is a hypothetical-scenario discussion, so if you don't like those, MOVE ON NOW!

 

At some point, rope lengths become so short that deviations of inches make the pass possible or impossible. Clearly -38 is NOT that point, as I know plenty of people who can drive -38 more than well enough. But at -41, I start to wonder a little. And if anybody ever starts working on 9.5m (the one after -43, whatever we call that in Silly Units), it seems to me that it gets incredibly difficult to keep that fair.

 

Does anybody else have thoughts on where the limit of the rope shortening concept lies?

 

And then what's the solution? Do we make people ski at 38 mph? Do we insist on laser guided boat path? Do we really need a mechanical system (like a cable or whatever) that has center-line accuracy in the centimeter kinda range? Do we purposely degrade the technology like auto racing does (for example, insist all skis be mostly fiberglass)?

 

Of those undesirable choice, I think the least awful is to up the speed. But one thing that sucks about that is that "open" skiers would then almost be doing a different sport than everybody else.

[Chef23]

How would open division skiers skiing at 38 mph be any different than M3 and older skiing at 34 mph vs 36 for younger skiers. I don't think it would be a different sport and anybody is free to try and ski at 38 if they want.

 

Max speed has been 36 mph ever since I can remember (at least 40 years I can recall). Technology has changed substantially over that time maybe it is time to up the speed for Open Men.

[Than_Bogan]

Indeed, 38 to 36 is no different from 36 to 34 (or even 34 to 32). I just don't love the idea of introducing even MORE differences. Part of why I'm attracted to measurable sports is the ease of comparing. Different speeds make that harder.

 

Perhaps it'll soon be time to move all the youngsters to 38 and most of us oldsters back to 36. I know the latter idea has been somewhat popular on this very forum!

[Deke]

The thread "Too Wide, Too Soon" and the pendulum posts on another site both seem to suggest that as the line shortens the swing wants to be faster too. Speeding up the boat (speeding up the course) might actually make 43 possible.

[Ed_Obermeier]

I seriously doubt there will be much support for moving Over 35 skiers up to 36 mph from the rank & file. Faster speeds = more potential injuries. You have the choice to ski whatever speed you want now, making a higher speed mandatory is only going to shrink the ranks of Over 35 regular tournament skiers even more than is already occuring. Poor idea IMO.

 

The limit seems to be somewhere in 43 off. Only a very few can attain that now so I don't see an issue, still plenty of head room rope length wise for the vast majority. Interesting idea to discuss in theory but a guaranteed non starter with regards to actually getting anything changed in that direction.

 

Ed

[Than_Bogan]

I will officially be very, very, very surprised if any pass is inherently easier at 38 than it is at 36.

 

Of course, I've been surprised many times before.

 

But what the concept reminds me of is I used to see wallies on my home lake trying the course for the first time and getting a ton of slack. Seeing the rope slack, they immediately screamed at the boat driver "GO FASTAH! GO FASTAH!" I saw this more than one time, and it's pretty easy to understand why: Slack rope sure seems to imply that the boat isn't going fast enough! Of course, we all know the opposite is true. It's actually the speed that requires the skier to accelerate faster and thus create the slack by going faster than the boat.

 

Having played around a lot with the physics underlying a slalom pass, I can tell you that just about every interesting thing you'd like to measure (peak acceleration/deceleration, peak rope tension, peak turning force, peak derivative of force, etc.) is required to be bigger when the boat is going faster.

 

Of course, the asterisk in all of this is that there is some minimum speed below which it becomes far harder to complete the course because your ski is not planing well. I can't prove that some similar hydronamic effect wouldn't come into play at 38/-43. But, nevertheless, I'd still be very surprised if it did.

 

I will eat my words (mmm, tasty words....) the day that someone trying to set a MM record asks the boat driver to take him at 36 mph.

[Than_Bogan]

@Ed Totally agree. I'm not talking about the present. I'm talking about a hypothetical future in which people are seriously threatening to run 9.5m. Maybe that day lies in the *distant* future. But I wouldn't want to bet my house on it!

[ral]

I guess that when a bunch of skiers is running 41 off in every tournament, and piling up at 3 or 4 at 43 off, rules would have to be reviewed.

 

Then it might make more sense to go 42.5 off before 43 off.

[Than_Bogan]

@ral Another excellent point. 9.75m is somewhat "off the trend line." Decrement of 0.5m makes total sense going from 11.25 to 10.75, and is even sorta believable going from 10.75 to 10.25. But it's an awfully big gap, in terms of the geometry, to go from 10.25 to 9.75. (Imagine if the increments had been constant all the way from 18m!)

 

I have always felt they should have been willing to do any multiple of 5cm for the smallest gaps. So after 10.75 I'd go down by 45 cm to 10.30 and then down by 40cm to 9.90. And then probably down by 30cm (pending a chance to do a little math) to 9.60.

 

BUT it would be a bit horrible to retroactively do that, because it messes with all the records. (Hm, so does going to 38 mph I should note!)

 

Btw, I have been told that there is a precedent in the sport's history to redenominate the rope lengths. I haven't been able to prove this, but one older guy in MA has sworn up and down that 30 off was used way back.

[Than_Bogan]

Heh, imagine jumping from -36 to -42!!

[LeonL]

I've heard the same thing as Scot.

[Deke]

Than, in my comment I wasn't saying it would be EASIER at a higher speed. I was saying it might be POSSIBLE.

[Than_Bogan]

Ahh. I think I just found my error. I inferred you meant 36/-43 was NOT possible, and since possible is easier than impossible, I went down that path.

 

The good news is my points still stand even if I'm not actually disagreeing with anyone!