Would you rather have a foot more rope or a foot narrower balls?

[Horton]

I am pretty ambivalent about the never ending Jim Michaels threads but I someone said something about a narrower course vs a longer line. Seems like an interesting idea.

[Drago]

Haven't done the math, but narrower course has GOT to make a bigger difference

[Horton]

@Drago

I am not going for it. Longer rope has to be better to a point. Gimmie 3 feet. You take 3 feet narrow I am pretty sure I win. You still have the same arc on the boat and only don't need to be as wide.

 

At some point it gets silly - 10 feet narrow is another story.

[Drago]

@Horton , I'm not married to that decision. I'm thinking back before I completely busted my body apart: I was running 39 at least once a tournament. Could I run 41 with a foot narrower course? I think so. Could I run 40 off? I think so. Might be the same thing at that point(?)

[ozski]

If we are talking changes how about an 8 ball course? As for the OP's question I'm taking the mini course....

[SBFL]

Neither, the reason we should ski is for the challenge and the fun.

[DanE]

Soo much easier with a foot narrower Course vs a foot longer rope.

Skied a tournament few years back were qualification round were held at a remote lake with surveyed Course.

Finals in Town in 4 buoy Course, crappy conditions, buoys moved in a foot on purpose, felt like 3-4 feet of extra rope.

[6balls]

Narrow easier...where are our physics guys?

[Than_Bogan]

Not surprisingly, I have actually tried to answer this question with some math. I mostly failed.

 

But I think I convinced myself that narrower course by the same amount is probably easier than lengthening rope. Qualitatively, it's because the lower amplitude impacts just about everything somewhat significantly: forces, rate of change of forces, speed, acceleration, etc.

 

Still, I'm only about 75% sure I'm right. Could be an amusing tournament someday to test this!?

[bmiller3536]

If the buoys are 1 foot closer you would decrease the total distance of travel which would in turn decrease the average speed which would make for less work on the skier (do not have to generate as much speed) Not sure if this directly implies it would be easier but anything that requires less work I am all for

[ForrestGump]

I only want the buoys 1 foot closer when @teammalibu is skiing against me. And only for me. Is that too much to ask?!?!?!

[aswinter05]

After spending 5 months chasing green buoys..... I believe a narrower course was much easier than if I had an extra chunk of rope chasing the orange buoys. This is just from a 15-off standpoint. I bet it's MUCH different for you guys running shortline.

[Skoot1123]

I answered as if the foot narrower balls were on each side of the course (ie as in a total of two feet). I would defintely take the narrower course over one foot longer rope.

[ral]

1 foot narrower is better until the rope is the same length than the course width. Benefits of a narrower course are more at longer line lengths. 0.25 m reduction on the course is a 2.1% reduction, and a 1.3% reduction in a 18.25 rope.

 

Course width tolerance is .022 m (+/- 1%) and rope tolerance is 30 cm over or at 14.25 and 15cm under that, so the proposed advantage is very near the course and rope tolerances.

 

A 28 off or less capable skier would increase nada with either option...

 

This is a simplified answer, but the full math would yield a similar result.

 

@Skoot1123, the math beyond your reasoning is not that sound...

[Skoot1123]

@ral - my reference point is 15 off. Sorry I didn't state that in my comment. However, we do come to the same conclusion in the end (a break even point/point of no gain for narrower buoys) as I just ran some calculations comparing narrower buoys and longer line lengths.

 

Narrow buoys, longer rope - whatever: in the end all I want to do is progress my skiing and in the end a narrow buoy course or longer rope wouldn't do either, the baseline for my skiing would just be different.

[bmiller3536]

@ral that made absolutely no sense

[RazorRoss3]

When I'm skiing I find that being higher on the boat and wider frees me from the boat and allows me to set more angle with less load than if I'm narrower and that this holds true for all the lengths I ski (15-32). I ski at 36 but more angle and less load are just as useful at 34 I would assume. Taking that personal observation into account I would say that some extra line to get me to buoy width would be easier than narrowing the buoys because I would probably ski to the same width I do already because that width seems to set me up for better turns and easier pulls.

[scuppers]

What @Than_Bogan said. Amplitude

[ral]

@Skoot1123, I was just teasing you on the "(ie as in a total of two feet)" thing...

[Skoot1123]

@ral - no harm!

[ral]

Bottom line, I thnk 12 inches might be very relevant for some body parts, but not for a rope or course before 38 off.

[ski6jones]

Thread title should read "Would the course be easier with ...". I'm happy with the course and rope just as it is.

[Drago]

@ral: in ref to your 1st post, I would think at longer line lengths, it would be unnoticed. Not until 35 off or so would either case really have a discernable difference.

[Waternut]

I don't really have an opinion but may vote later to see the results...

 

We talk as if a narrower ball would be beneficial but at short line lengths, it looks like the pro's hook up so late that they're basically in the boats wake by the time they're hard on the line. If you bring the balls in 1 foot, it makes me wonder if we/they would be able to generate enough speed to actually get wide enough. We/they would get wide enough at the ball but may not be able to get as far forward on the boat which effectively reduces line length because the rope rarely get completely perpendicular to the boat.

[JohnCox]

I would like more talent.

[rfa]

@ski6jones...yes i suspect that was the intent of the original question. Without "any math" i think the qualitative answer is "narrow course easier than longer rope". This only important at the skier's limit not on "easy passes" (if you run 35off it's not a big deal whether the rope is longer or the course narrower at 22off...). I think it's the amplitude "thing" as @than suggests. Let me "offer" two pieces of empirical data. I have the green mini-course buoys on my course...10ft short of the regular turn buoys. My wife cannot ski the full course at 15off but enjoys running the mini-course at 32off/32mph. At a more relevant level, my older son can run 28off/36 (full-course) only on a "good" day, yet can run 38off/36 on the mini-course 'all day long"...so in my son's case, running a 10ft narrow course with a 10ft shorter rope is much easier than the 10ft wider course/longer rope. I suspect this trend holds true across varying line lengths (may be not linearly), such that if given a choice, skiers of all levels would choose a narrow course over an equivalent longer line.

[MattP]

@Horton a foot? Is that like .3048 of a meter?

[AggieSkier]

I'd rather have a foot longer rope b/c I measured my rope today and it's more than a foot too short! Thanks Straightline!

[SkiJay]

@JayG80 Compare your rope to a good one to identify which section(s) is short, then contact Randy or Russ at Masterline. They're good guys and will make it right.

masterlineusa.com/

[AggieSkier]

@skijay It is short in the mainline section. Discovered it while prepping a new rope for our upcoming tournament. Shorty is a Straightline. Legit tourny rope is a ML.

[DanE]

@ral If you actuallly tried a narrow course you would be surprised how easy it is, this math thing Only takes us this far...

[SkiJay]

@JayG80 Oops ... Straightline not Masterline. Sorry about that. I need to get glasses!

[ral]

@Drago, exactly. This is why I mention that no difference at all @ 28 off or longer.

 

@DanE, narrow is easier, I agree, but more than 1 foot if you are running 15 to 32 off. And again, 1 ft is close to the tolerance for width.

[bmiller3536]

@ral, think it the buoys were a foot closer than tolernce would allow...so if tolerance aloud one foot if you take away another foot than actually you are two feet shorter than actual

[DanE]

"Note: The average of the six measured F dimensions cannot be less than 11.48 m."

@ral The tolerance really is less than an inch if you want to make the course narrower than actual.

Believe me, if you ski 32 off on a foot narrow course you will almost think think you´re @ 22 off.

[Drago]

@ral, ah , I misread

[Skihack]

Why don't we push for a shorter course? Should be easier due to less travel by the skier. Let's keep the speed at 34 or 36. We don't want to go faster to get a 16.08 or 15.95 whatever the speed may be. I wonder if shortening the course would mess up the mapping of Zero Off. :) Our course is set dead on actual, we have another one at 4" narrow and it is a big difference not only at really deep shortline but at 28 and 32 off as well. We also have a 4 buoy course we like to use when someone needs to work on their gates. Generally , the energy saved allows for a few more passes so all the more time working on the gates. An eight buoy course is an interesting thought right now. I think that would be good for those working on increasing their stamina and ball to ball techniques. Wonder how you would map an 8 buoy course? Guess at this point you would just have to add up the segment times and gate times and go back to timing or put in a gate between turn 6 and 7 and just time that portion.

[hammerski]

Ok, two stories for the ballers out there. A 3rd round at Bel Aqua 20+ years ago, they made up loops that compensated for everyone's reach. Shorter guys got a longer loop, taller guys still got a loop, but shorter. At the end of the round, most skied a couple balls better, but the interesting thing was that the placement was still about the same as the tournament results, so reach didn't seem to be a clear factor in how everyone skied.

 

Next, I was skiing off the hook in early 2010, running 38's like candy, ran a few 39's. I picked up new rope the previous fall. After skiing with this rope for 4 months, the week before nationals someone kindly said, "you're running those 38's too easy...better check your rope" Sure enough, they had made a switch rope too long, the switch section was out, but the main section was too long. Talk about a mind melt before nats! I now have marks on my deck.

[6balls]

I vote for both...gimme a foot on each! Of course if you give the pro's that they will still kick my a$$. Bottom line is if it's the same for everyone, the best will still be the best.

 

[ronski]

It all depends on if you are at 39.5 or LL doesn't it?