Difference Between Course Designations

[Skoot1123]

Was wondering what the difference between a Record Capable tournament and the other designations (L, C, others?) is. I would suppose they all have to be within the tolerance's as set forth by USAWS/IWWF, but is an RC course in a tighter tolerance range? Thanks in advance for the enlightenment!

[9400]

Tighter tolerances, especially the ones that benefit the skier.

[thompjs]

I don't know of any course differences. R, L, E are the same. C is based on Chief Judges judgement that it is good enough.

[Horton]

a record capable course must have a certified survey. The tolerance is simply much smaller than for a class C

[klindy]

Tighter tolerances and as has been said for class C "verification" is up to the Chief Judge to determine if the courses are in tolerance. For class L or R a survey is necessary why is very accurate. It's not unusually to have too tweak a buoy or two on courses which were not installed dry. Dimensions are calculated not only cross course and up/down the course but also diagonally. So it's not only the position of a single buoy that's important but also it's relationship to the buoys around it. All must be in tolerance.

[Skoot1123]

Thanks @klindy - so the standard tolerances are still used, its just that they check each and every buoy to verify the relationship between them all is the same. That's how I intepret what you said - is that correct?

[Horton]

@Skoot1123‌

you got it

[Wish]

Are they surveyed and certified once a year or before every class L/R?

[thompjs]

Survey is good for 90 days. TC Committee is working some possibility of extending that for sites that are "stable"

[skier2788]

What is the general cost of a survey? Our lake is draining for dam work this winter and we have talked about putting in a permanent course

[BRY]

@Horton "a record capable course must have a certified survey. The tolerance is simply much smaller than for a class C."

You are correct in that an R must have a survey (C just has to be measured). You are incorrect that the tolerance is smaller, the tolerances are the same.

The real life precision of the measurement is in all probability different. Tape can be pretty good though, a fixed buoy course I helped set up with tape was surveyed a couple years later and two buoys were a couple inches wide, everything else spot on. Tape was a real pain though.

 

Tolerances for speed, line and course are all the same for C on up. C's however are not required to have 55's, though recommended.

The judging standards are the same for C on up also. What constitutes a good or missed gate, 1/4, 1/2 or full buoy is the same between C and E,L,R.

 

Differences are primarily the number of officials required, the rating of said officials, elevation of towers, requirement of a Tech Controller, requirement for video.

 

A properly run C is a real tournament and most of the C's I have been to the drivers are the same guys as at the R's.

 

Rule Book and Technical Controllers Handbook will answer all:

http://www.usawaterski.org/pages/officials/awsa/awsaofficialsresources.htm

 

 

[RichardDoane]

@klindy - it's the total of all the the buoys that adds up, differences of + and - are calculated as a sum, I learned quite a bit being involved with the new anchored course for BD Broho

[lpskier]

AWSA rules apply to C and E tournaments. IWWF rules apply to L and R tournaments.

[klindy]

@richarddoane you are correct. But not "all of the buoys" have tolerances based on the sum of 'whatever'. Things like overall length has it's own tolerance and of course there are 5 41m segements between buoys and two 27m "gate segments" on each end. Individually they have their own tolerances. Basically if you look a the diagram in the back of the rule book those are the "critical" dimensions that are checked. The "average" width of the skier buoys must also be in tolerance.

 

I do about 5-6 surveys a year so I've got a pretty good grasp of the requirements and the spreadsheet we use to confirm everything. It generally takes some experience to feel comfortable with the spreadsheet at least.

[Edbrazil]

 

As a Tech. Controller since the position first got defined in 1975, for the 1976 AWSA rules,

I have dealt with a lot of SL course surveys, as in hundreds. When the specification for an

11.48m for the SL buoy width average minimum first came out for 'record' events,

I thought it was maybe too strict. But it wasn't. I give Bob Corson credit for that Rule.

[Edbrazil]

Actually, the tightest tolerance is the width of the endgate buoys in my opinion. Dimension

"E" in the World Rules. Only about a little more than 2 inches allowed. See Diagram 1 in

the World Rules. Personal opinion is that is a bit too strict.

[RLogan]

The tolerances are a little tighter for RC. I use the Emmanuel Lion Homologation survey software for surveying. It has a "check box" for "Normal" and "Ranking List" tolerances. You can see the min/max change as you change the selection.

[klindy]

@RLogan‌ there may have been a tolerance difference at one time but now the course dimensions and tolerances are identical in the AWSA and IWWF rule book which covers class C thru class R. I think Emmanuel's spreadsheet predates a change.