Nano 1 vs Twist Cross Course Speed

[Double7s]

Two sets on my Nano 1 with the factory setting. It feels slower from side to side compared to the twist. I run the same buoy count on both skies but I have to work twice as hard to get the same thing on the Nano 1.

I was hoping the magic that would get me out the gates at 38. Can't see it on this ski unless some changes. It's a different animal so I'm not sure where to start. Any ideas?

[Horton]

Take more speed into the gate. Yes it is not super fast but it gets wide easy

[Double7s]

175lbs. 34 mph

[jipster43]

@scotchipman @Double7s. Have either of you removed your wing? I thought @Horton felt that gave him some extra speed and the ski still shut down well at the turn.

 

My waterski vocabulary has officially outstripped my skiing credentials. I geek.

[Double7s]

Have done nothing to the wing or fin. Tried moving binding back and offside would not turn. Moved one hole forward of stock, it helped fix the turn.

I'll try no wing. Got nothing to lose.

[klindy]

I've heard of several folks who have removed the wing with good success.

[Double7s]

Last time I skied without a wing was on my Connelly Super Hook.

 

 

[Horton]

I took the wing off for a few sets but lost angle. Unless the water is really hot keep it on.

[Double7s]

What angle are you running.

 

[Stevie Boy]

I tried running with deeper fin 2.502 but kept factory settings, theski ran on rails but the turns were so hard i could not cope, one thing I noticed tho was that the ski carried more speed on the setup and was easier to run with the boat, I have gone back to factory, but I am considering moving the wing to 10 degrees which should add a litle more tip (similar to deeper fin) and see if the ski carries more speed, sounds a bit back to front I know @horton any thoughts ?

[Horton]

Try going back to stock on the fin and move the bindings back.

[The_MS]

If you feel the ski is slow, its set up wrong. This ski carries speed well is is easy to move out off the wake.

[ForrestGump]

The N1 has gotten faster and faster feeling as my ski partner has moved his bindings back. Have you actually measured the fin or did you run as it arrived from Goode? The one he got, the fin was nowhere close.

[bradb]

Try 8 degrees on the wing. That solved the problem for me.

[Than_Bogan]

Disclaimer: I have never skied on a Nano Twist.

 

I believe the Nano One can "feel" slow when it actually isn't, because of the way it takes a long sweeping, yet very tight radius, turn. Because the ski never slows down too much at the end of the turn, it doesn't need to accelerate a lot to get that speed back.

 

Thanks to Newton's sometimes-annoying laws, you can't feel speed -- only acceleration. So when the cycle of acceleration and deceleration is damped a bit, the ski "feels" slower.

 

I think we've all seen that this ski is smooth and easy enough that you can get right back to your best scores on the first or second day. But this ski is also very different, and I think to get the MOST out of it, it's going to require time on the ski to learn how to take the maximum advantage of what it can do.

 

As I noted in another thread somewhere, the weirdest thing about this ski is that it's not as "fun" as older Goodes, because there's no "shot-out-of-a-cannon" phase. Instead it just keeps bringing me to the next buoy with room to spare. How boring! :)

 

On a setup note, I think 10 degrees is worth a shot. I started at my "usual" 7 and felt the carry-out was not good. Dave Goode suggested I add wing. Sounds unintuitive, but 8 was better than 7 for carry-out and 9 was perhaps even a touch better. I haven't tried 10 myself yet, but I may. I'm guessing that somehow the extra wing angle delays the "shut-down?" And because this ski can shut-down so fast it can make you run narrow if it's not setup right and/or you're not skiing it quite right.

[SkiJay]

@Than_Bogan It does seem counter-intuitive that more wing would delay shut-down. Do you think the increased carry-out could be the result of more speed generated by better angle during the cut?

[Than_Bogan]

@SkiJay Certainly that's possible. I don't know the reason, but I've heard several people say that many adjustments on this ski seem opposite to the "conventional" adjustments on other skis.

 

Anyhow, my point is only to TRY both less and more wing, to see if either one solves the issue.

[Skoot1123]

Question from someone that doesn't see any shortline (35 off and less) - is it really SPEED that you want to feel? Don't we want our ski to be efficient - ie smooth is FAST? This follows what @Than_Bogan mentioned in that we can only feel acceleration. If we are efficient at what we do, we'll get more work done with less effort, which equates to more sets, and more buoys.

[ForrestGump]

@Skoot1123 I think it's an issue of semantics. What a lot of people consider a fast ski is what other people call a low effort ski.

[Skoot1123]

@ShaneH - Ok. That helps. Thanks!

[SkiJay]

@scotchipman Assuming that by "less effort" you mean less drag, then less wing = less effort. Beyond less to no wing and binding placement, effort is pretty much a function of flex, tunnel, rocker and bevels ... not very adjustable.

[SkiJay]

@scotchipman For what it's worth, a smaller wing is an option too, as is a stainless wing with thinner mounting flanges.

 

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/1530989/Waterskiing/BOS/Stainless.JPG

[SkiJay]

The flangeless Speed Fin is an option too, @scotchipman. It was designed as a direct replacement specifically for the Goode fin, so it might be ideal. Does anyone know if Goode has changed thier fin shape or hole pattern over the past five years?

 

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/1530989/Waterskiing/BOS/Speed%20Fin.jpg

[Steven_Haines]

I think what happens with a steeper wing angle is that the ski leaves the second wake with the tip a little higher which allows the ski "jet out" or jump out wider faster. This is only based on personal experience. I seem to like around 7° because I don't seem to handle the ski stopping abruptly at the ball. Probably has alot to do with core strength.

[swaterkd]

I had the same problem coming from the twist and spoke with dave goode and he had me add depth to the fin and it fix the speed problem. I'm now at 2.503.

 

 

[Ed_Johnson]

I made the 9900 Mid and Nano Twist Mid faster by going to a Fwd Mini Ventral and a Rear Large Ventral. Also helped to keep the tip down off the apex...I use the same set-up on the Sans SR2 and the HO S2, with a Carbon Fin.

 

Chet and Chad did a video on this set-up, that I believe is still on the Goode Web-Site.

[Rich]

I believe the nano1 is actually faster than other Goodes. It rolls up on edge and generates more cross course angle. This may "feel" slow however it is covering more distance which = speed. I have a blade I'm using that I can run deeper and is slightly better on the onside as it slides just a bit more, though subtle. The off side turn is incredible with either the stock blade on stock settings or my modified bladed run deeper 2.502. same DFT as stock & same length.

[Rich]

a deeper blade holds more angle. more angle will allow you to travel distance. distance traveled = speed. Feeling fast can be a ski that is not getting as much angle. going in direction of the boat always feels fast.

[MrBrown]

@ShaneH wrote – “The N1 has gotten faster and faster feeling as my ski partner has moved his bindings back”

 

@Horton wrote – “ Try going back to stock on the fin and move the bindings back.”

 

@Scotchipman wrote – “I'm open for suggestions on how to increase the speed but not sure I can go back any farther on my boots”

 

 

How can moving the bindings back and displacing more weight on the back of the ski make the ski go faster?

 

Thanks!

[Rich]

My experience with all Goode skis up to the nano1 has been bindings back allowed me to get into the sweet spot at the apex in a stacked body position. I believe it also allowed me to get the ski in front of me off the 2nd wake. As I approach apex, I'm again coming up over the ski getting more ski in the water at the apex. This allowed me to acheive more angle which = speed. On the nano1 I have maintained the stock binding position because the ski is working so well. I have played with the blade as I mentioned above, On the nano1, I was not getting the tail slide I wanted to feel on the onside and rather than go shallower on the blade I went with a 3/4 in slot and deeper blade. Its been working great.

[Horton]

@skiing2heaven

bindings back means you can hold more angle and edge => more speed

 

Move bindings forward yes you have more ski under and behind you but less leverage against the tail => less speed

 

Note this is a rule of thumb and only works to a point.

[SkiJay]

Within a useful range, moving the bindings back is similar to moving the fin forward in that it raises the tip and engages less of the ski's length, effectively shortening the ski. Since generally speaking, the more edge you can engage during acceleration, the more angle and speed you will generate, it seems to me that the notion of moving the bindings back to generate more speed must be a case of perception; less ski in the water feels less stable, and less stable "feels" faster.

 

Bindings to the rear will make it easier to "jet" the ski out in front of you during the edge change, a move that would feel relatively nimble and quick. But, in terms of generating actual maximum cross-course speed with your center of mass, more ski in the water = quicker acceleration, and fin back or bindings forward = more ski in the water.

 

Moving the bindings back will make it easier to point your ski at a sharper angle across the course, but because there is less ski in the water, your mass is more easily towed down the lake by the boat. With more of the ski's length engaged, there is less down-course drift, and more cross-course acceleration.

 

This relationship is consistent with the age old tradeoff in ski sizing. Want more speed? Buy a longer ski. Want easier turns? Buy a shorter ski.

[Horton]

@SkiJay I hear your logic but move your bindings 1/2" forward and then tell me how much space and width you have at the ball.

[SkiJay]

I have, @Horton, and you are right. Bindings back will create more space and width than bindings forward. But I didn't think "space and width" was the question. I was responding to @skiingtoheaven's question, "How can moving the bindings back ... make the ski go faster." More width is not a direct result of more speed, but that is another interesting topic.

[disland]

We need a really smart guy like Than to put an accelerometer on a ski and actually measure speed and acceleration. I would love to measure the acceleration numbers for a guy like Nate Smith vs other skiers. Put some science behind the theory around efficiency

[Horton]

@skijay

 

Well ok then it is a matter of definition.

 

To me “Speed” means one of two things:

 

1) The amount of physical effort needed to make space and width

2) The amount of or lack of technical skill needed to make space and width

 

We really do not have a way to measure real water speed. I guess if two skis are on the exact same path and have the same amount of pressure applied in the same way, the one with bindings forward should be faster.

 

[Than_Bogan]

@disland accelerometer on a ski is tough, because you've got so much vibration. So you have to smooth the resulting signal just the right amount to discard the noise without discarding the signal.

 

Also, you really want direction not just magnitude.

 

Not surprisingly, I've thought about this a bit, and so far the best I can think of is:

 

1) get a camera way the hell up in the air -- the closer to directly overhead the better

2) Do a calibration for real world distances, perspective, and optical distortion (similar to the jump meter concept, but this camera needs to be a lot higher up)

3) take video

4) unwrap the resulting images through the calibration, creating a rectified video (as if taken from infinitely far overhead and with no distortion)

5) use either machine vision technique or just manually mark the location of something you are interested in in each frame (e.g. the handle)

6) From this sequence of x, y positions, it becomes possible to compute just about everything you'd like to know.

 

Obviously, this is a huge undertaking, so I've kind of been waiting for better equipment or ideas.

[SkiJay]

You Rock @Than_Bogan!

How about a GPS recorder with a very high sample rate?

[Than_Bogan]

@SkiJay Thanks! The problem with anything that directly produces the positional data is the accuracy. GPS data, at least without super-secret military access, is no where near accurate enough. We want inches and we're lucky if can get yards.

 

A couple of years ago, somebody was advertising a gadget that would record a sequence of 3d points that you could attach to anything. It was marketed at X-gamer types to be able to create a visual representation.

 

But -- as far as I know -- it never actually came to exist, presumably because the problem of getting sufficiently accurate 3d points is extremely hard! (The conspiracy theory would be that the military put the kibosh on it because such a thing would be useful for planning and/or practicing attacks as well.)

 

If such a thing ever came to exist, it would of course be PERFECT for this.

[T8skier]

To sound very unscientific, a lady from some university developed a system for football to know exactly where the nose of the ball was at any given time. She use some pods around the field with a sensor in the nose of the ball. Even under a pile of player, the ball could be located exactly.

This system could work for our sport. Put the sensor on the skier and the track and speed could logged.

 

[SkiJay]

@T8skier Can you find out more about it and share it on BOS?

[T8skier]

http://blog.brickhousesecurity.com/2010/03/02/gps-tracking-football/

[T8skier]

Also look at. http://finishlynx.com/isolynx/player_tracking.html

This system would unlock the vault. Date would be incredible.

 

[klindy]

@T8skier oh man that IsoLynx system looks like a great start at automated trick judging to me!!

[T8skier]

A ski school needs to buy it so I can try it!

[SkiJay]

Thanks @T8skier. Interesting food for thought!

[Horton]

Well back to the point. Binding back my not technically be "faster" but it does (generally) what we want in this case. Or at least be a good first try. Hell bindings forward could be better there is no telling.

[Stevie Boy]

How about using a program called "KINOVEA" setup a camera pin point two locations, record passes with two different ski,s, should be able to get time difference from that ,other option if anybody has it, is a program called "DARTFISH" where you can actually overlay one video over the other and play both at the same time.

[buski]

How about magnets at every ball, a sensor on the ski, and lots of math.

[Horton]

@buski time from ball to ball is always the same