PP and ZO....

[bxroads]

I remember a lot of the 2008 MC's had both PP and ZO installed. Somebody remind me why PP is no longer approved. Is it simply because the big 3 don't set up their boats with PP and get them approved with PP? Why not have both approved and the skier gets to choose?

[ForrestGump]

IT's not that it's approved or not. It's that PP can't sell to the new drive by wire market, per their negotiated agreement with ZO.

[Wish]

So can anyone tell the whole story, like name names and lay it out in a play by play fashion. Not looking to upset the apple cart or lay blame but just really want to know the whole story. I keep hearing bits a pieces.

[ral]

Again?????????!

[Wish]

Yes or direct me/us to the thread that does. :-)

[ral]

Actually, there was ad nauseam discussions on "another" forum where many of the current forum members were involved (including but not limited to OB, JD, Scoke, Brent and I)a couple of years ago. Do not know if still there. Bottom line, PP agreed not to go TBW and ZO not to go servo, as ShaneH describes. It was an agreement betweeen both companies, motivated by, among other things, the fact that econtrols (ZO owners) have a clear and distinct advantage when it comes to interacting with engine control systems.

 

[Wish]

So the missing piece for me is why did the two companies have to agree with anything. Where they not independent? I get strongest survive but this seems to not be that way.

[Kelvin]

Each was allegedly infringing on the other's patents.

[ForrestGump]

Wish, the piece you're not getting is called patent infringement. They reached a settlement that allowed PP to continue serving the servo controlled market, and ZO got the new DBW market. It is what it is.

[danbirch]

If ZO has really come up with a "D" setting, that really mimics PP, then OB's "clock" may be once again used as a speed control.

[Wish]

Ok, patent infringment, got it. Makes more sense now. But of course that leads to my next question, whose patent was infringed upon?? PP was first so was their patent not well written and ZO found a way around it??

[LeonL]

The problem started when PP came out with StarGazer, a GPS speed control system. That was when ZO said, "no fair" and filed a suit. It was settled by agreeing to split the market so to speak as detailed above.

[ski6jones]

The ZO/PP thing doesn't even upset me anymore. My therapist and I are making great progress!!

[danbirch]

PP owned the patent on speed control (in boats). ZO owned the computer systems in the boats (E-Controls). ZO began making speed control systems, then PP sued ZO (for infringing on their speed control patent), but soon realized it was a useless battle, as EControls could/would simply write their speed control out of the software, and it would not work anyway. Long story short, PP ended up selling their DBW speed control rights to ZO., while PP maintained the older/Mechanical speed control systems.

[Wish]

Well, if that's the case, and ZO obviously at that very moment cornered the market on all future boats, why has it taken PP soooo long to come up with a ZO simulation system? That should have been day one push to match the ZO feel and make the system adjustable to continue updates that get as close to ZO as they move on. That keeps current and future costumers in play for PP. I see plenty of used (machanical thottle) boats out there without speed contoled systems. So why so long on PP's end to emulate ZO?

[JC McCavit]

I am not sure I buy the Servo v.s. DBW agreement. You can order a PP StarGazer for DBW boats...it is less expensive than the servo controlled version.

[danbirch]

@ Wish: I don't know why they took so long. They claim to be still working on it. I recall them saying that they were fairly busy with the non-dbw boats.

@ JC: That agreement was published on their websites (the final agreement). You cannot put SG on a 09 and later boat (w/o spending A LOT more than anyone would want to). 07's and 08's, yes, you still can. I've heard that newer wakeboard boats can have SG on them.

[Ilivetoski]

Not really on topic, but i can tell you I like PP alot better than ZO. If you dont have the option to ski behind it regularly and train behind it, then as your skiing changes so will your #, letter. At my labor day tourny went out 1st round at A2, my skiing changed so much that i went to C1 the next to rounds.

[Chef23]

@danbirch I think part of the agreement was that ZO would go on all new boats. That doesn't mean that you couldn't buy Stargazer for a DBW boat but you can't buy it new from MC, CC etc.

[danbirch]

Chef, yes, you are correct. I have a friend who had an 09 MC TT, and wanted to have SG put onto it. The local MC Dealer said they would not do it, BUT, it probably could be done for around 5-6k. I'm not sure how they came to that figure. I think it would need a new module, and not sure what else? The strange thing (to me) is that when I got ZO put on my 07 MC TT, it cost about $800 for the new module, and the cost of ZO, so around $2200 w/labor. Not really sure why they quoted my friend 5-6 k to make his 09 go back to SG. Maybe someone else (like Jody Seal) could shed some light on this?

[Chef23]

They might need to replace the computer on an 09 to get SG to work.

[501Brandon]

So as a Skier at 34mph running 22' and into 32' is there really in need to get wrapped around the axle about a speed control system? I was tore up about it initially when I went to a couple events... I couldnt ski for crap then a guy simply said "at our speed and rope length we shouldnt worry about it because were probably not going to feel the difference anyway"... At the end of the day I have always said as the skier if I have time or the awareness to see where the boat is or how he/she is driving I am not focused on what I should be doing... Am I way off with these thoughts/theories?

[Ilivetoski]

@Klondike it does matter. I went in one round at A2 in labor day tornment. Fell 2nd pass. 2nd round went out at C1 and ran a new PB. No doubt in my mind that it makes a huge diffrence. With a lower #/ letter than you should have (eg. A1 when you should be at B1) it will be like skiing at a slower speed. When i ski at 34mph at 28 or 32 off, then i take HUGE hits, those hits go away at 36. BUT at A1 or A2 I take those SAME hits even at 22. B2 and C1 give me a tight line and makes it feel like im skiing faster in the sense that I am not taking hits but slower in the fact (and most people disagree with me on this) but I find ZO to be more forgiving than PP. Just because of how i ski i guess. Back on topic... YES it does matter.

[Chef23]

@livertoski think it is a style thing. I ski at 34 mph reg into deep 32 off with forays to 35. I practice mostly behind PP and ski A2 in tournaments behind ZO and ski within a buoy or two at tournaments of what I ski at home. There is another skier I ski with who uses a different setting from me but skis as well behind ZO as PP.

[Ilivetoski]

@chef23 B2 is what best simulates PP. If you are running within a buoy or 2 on A2, you could probobly top ur pb with B2 unless you ski VERY patient and soft

[Wish]

so why doesnt PP or ZO get all over the these guys for patent infringements???

http://www.hydrophase.com/ridesteady

[danbirch]

@ Wish: Good question.

 

The Hydrophase owner's manual says it will only work on the Mechanical Throttle type boat. I'm just guessing here, but maybe since PP has sold it's "boat speed control" patent rights, it can no longer defend it's exclusive right to the product?

[ForrestGump]

Just because there's another product that does speed control doesn't mean that they are infringing on a patent. You would have to delve into the details of the patent to determine that.

[Chef23]

@livetoski I have skied my PB on A2 behind ZO. I just haven't duplicated it in a tournament. I tend to be pretty patient for a big guy.