Ski Lake design - need advice

[EricE]

Looking for some advice on a ski lake design - basically my ski buddy started off looking at a piece of property that allowed for plenty of length for a 2000'+ lake, but after a few test digs, found a significant amount of rock that would have to be blasted, which doesn't really seem to be an option. Staying away from the rock, there is still room to put about an 1800' lake with a turn out on one end. The photo shows what he is considering and we are looking to see what everybody thinks about this layout. Concerns are, but not limited to bounce back off the turn causing it to run down the course, and the turn being opposite of what you want for skier position coming into the course. He had been looking at the property on a contingency basis for permitting, etc, which has all been cleared, now the rock. Basically need to either proceed with this or similar

layout, or start from scratch looking for another piece of property. Any advice and feedback is much appreciated.

[kfennell]

Well our shortest lake at SMRR has a 417 ft setup and if you don't have a 6L it is pretty tight at 36 MPH to get up to speed, that is all I can offer there.

[klindy]

Unfortunately for the skier the turn out is the wrong direction. In the drawing above the boat would have to straigthen out and then the skier can pull out for the gate. The lakes I've skied on which have the turn out coming from the other side you basically let the boat 'cast' you out for the gate. Saves some space and doesn't require a perfect boat setup every time.

[Bruce_Butterfield]

That looks workable to me

 

Here a lake in Greenville tx with similar layout, but shorter. I forget the dimensions, but way shorter that 1800 ft. You should be able to get off google earth. Just east of Greenville just north of I30

[klindy]

@bruce_butterfield I've never slalomed on the short lake, only jump/trick. Did they discontinue slalom on that lake at some point?

[Skoot1123]

Definitely doable. Send me a PM if you like - just built our lake and we have something similar.

[Andre]

Kris lapoint set up in orlando is very similar even has the same dogleg to the left coming back.

Quite easy to adapt to the set up and the 8 bouys course.

Good luck with the lake!

[Bruce_Butterfield]

@klindy once the second lake was dug, most of the slalom was there since the setups were easier and less backwash.

 

Even though the setups were short and it could get rolly, the crooked lake actually slalomed better since it was really deep.

 

I think the long lake is around 1800'

[eleeski]

Consider using two courses with offset entry exit gates (8 buoy course). Some extra buoys to confuse you but you could fit in a very conventional approach in that distance. A bit more survey work for an RC tournament (you might need an OK from your EVP) but as a ski site very workable. You can significantly reduce the dogleg length and digging. ZO might be a bit more work.

 

If you are slalom only, consider a bit narrower. Less dirt to move and much quicker roller dissipation. 175' works reasonably safely for clearance. Make the turns wide to give options - and no islands to give you some boat/skier path flexibility (and to make it a tolerable trick site - tricks need length too).

 

1800' just straight with a conventional course is tight but workable. You are going to enjoy even the short setup site.

 

Eric

[BRY]

As for length you have enough with 1800 to have a very nice lake. Short end of my FL lake is about 390 and that is plenty with 200+ skier CC 200 5.7 to 34-36. 350 is workable, particularly with a 6L, but very tight and would need to take it right to shore. Freaks some people out.

 

I have seen two (skied one) lakes with a turnout like that and they sucked. Better than nothing but the people there usually ski elsewhere. Do not recommend the turnout idea at all. Use that area for a nice swim area and/or marina.

 

So for solutions:

1: Overlayed 8 ball course

This is something I think you should just do with 1800 regardless of final layout. I don't have the exact dimensions but essentially gives you close to 200' extra set up room. Changes from very tight to very nice. Great example is Champions Lake (google Bellerive Drive Clermont, FL 34711) which ski's very nice, has AWSA tournaments and is about 1780' with 8-ball.

 

2: Islands

I like islands. Most if not all lakes is WA state have islands. Islands leverage your length as you start away from the course (no start rollers) and are on plane at 25+ mph essentially at the very end of the lake (I don't like full speed around the turn but some do). Accelerate off the back of the island (25 to 34 or 36 is quick) for plenty of set up time. You essentially gain the radius of the islands as functional lake length. Islands can be offset to either side, Ski View in WA has them both to the west side, odd but it works (not a short lake either, ?).

 

Anyhow, 1800' can be very workable and not tight with the right approach. Go 8 ball and you can rightly say anyone who ski's your lake has more balls than everyone else!

 

[Bruce_Butterfield]

Another idea - does the lay of the property work if you run the lake diagonally in your drawing? Use the traditional dogbone with turn islands and cutouts with the ends of the lake at the upper right and lower left in the drawing. I suspect you can get close to 2000' with that orientation.

[eleeski]

@BRY Islands make your lake shorter. You can use a simulated island if you want to get the boat on a plane a bit earlier but you are limited by shoreline clearances and your path flexibility is decreased. Set some buoys to simulate the island to see if that works. But that kid who is drifting to the inside means that you MUST steer wide to keep them off the rocks - pushing you downcourse for the setup. And since you are limited by the end of the lake no matter what, You can't gain any turn island radius of length. But you can lose effective length with an obstacle in the way.

 

If you can dig around the rock and work around a natural limitation of the site to make the lake longer, then great. Add length and leave an island. But make sure the skier path is big enough. I've skied islands that went past being scary to being downright dangerous. Even well engineered islands are a proven liability problem.

 

Eric

[MISkier]

I've skied a few lakes that are 1800 and a little less. If you just set the boat down off to the side a little and curve it in on the start, you should be good. It also helps to have a smaller, faster boat. My Response LX has no problem getting to 36 mph before the 55s on an 1800 foot lake straight in with no curve.

[crashman]

Your setup would be very similar to ours. At the south end we approach the course just like you would. There is an art to timing the pullout correctly as to not lose momentum as the boat is turning into the skier. At the north end of our lake take a straight on approach. Notice on the south end how the point that sticks out blocks the rollers. On the north end starting in the turnout will throw a roller down the course. I agree that an 8 buoy course would be ideal.

 

[BRY]

@eleeski agree to disagree. Linear length with islands is shorter but running length is longer and length at speed is longer. Plopping buoys in a non-island lake simulates but isn't the same as an engineered turn with the extra width, not a good comparison.

Kids and rookies are so slow if enough length for 36 then all day for them. Plenty of room and time to skip the island all together if skills not there yet. But haven't seen anyone who can round the buoys have a problem with the islands.

I currently live on a lake without islands and own a lot on a lake with islands (lakes about 3000mi apart). Guess I have skied 30+ sites and seen thousands of passes. Over two thirds of those lakes with islands. Over the years I have seen two people hit the beach total, neither had anything to do with islands. One just skied onto shore, said she was playing with her contact. WTF ??? The other was a guy wake boarding, very experience skier and boarder, not sure what the hell he was doing and he doesn't remember.

Like islands better, really like to spin for volume, but no island fine too. If I were building a new one I would put in proper islands if I could.

[Skoot1123]

Island work for us. We have 100' diameter island and 100' of clearance between the island and the shore. Plenty wide enough for comfort. New skiers probably won't ski long enough to go around the island anyway.

[boarditup]

I've been involved in blasting millions of yards of rock. Depending upon the rock and the local market, you may have enough material to sell to make it revenue-neutral. It is worth a few phone calls to local contractors and material handlers to be certain.

[GOODESkier]

Here is a lake that skis pretty well, it is only 1850' in length and uses somewhat traditional turn islands. The north end of the lake sets up with a bit of a thread the needle coming off the island. Very Do-able. This lake is in Northern Washington State. Called Bow Lake........ Seems to have converted to mostly wake boarding. It is for sale........ newly installed cable park on it...... for a few million, you could own it.

 

 

[GOODESkier]

This site in Abbotsford, BC works as well. No Islands, and they do not use the bump at the East End of the lake. When skiing, you exit the course and pull out drivers side. On pull up, boat is headed away from course and then turns tight at the shoreline and heads back towards course. I have seen lots of 39.5 @ 34.2 MPH run at this site. Perfect, no, but still very good! Only 1800 feet in total length.

 

 

[eleeski]

I'm not trying to make this an island debate. This is a short lake debate. To maximize the utility of a short (but workable) lake omit the islands. It leaves you with more options. Make wide turns as if there were islands and you have the most options.

 

On the island debate side, a skier ran into the well designed island at Imperial and died. Imperial lost the lawsuit and paid out an award over the insurance. Evert aspect of this would keep me from ever digging an island unless I had to. Plus I hate them for tricking. Sorry about the thread hijack.

 

Eric

[GOODESkier]

If Albert Dyck were a shallow man made ski lake, it would be perfectly fine at 1800 feet and short set ups with no islands. It is mainly the shoreline and the deep water that plays with skiers here........ well that and the opening pass....... starting straight off the dock doesn't give the boat much set up speed. The new TXi seems far better than the CC 200 in this short set up.

 

I'd go island-less and pretend they are there. Little effect on the water quality. You can have a floaty set for a make believe island............

[Edbrazil]

I supervised the surveying/adjusting part of the task of setting up Kris LaPoint's new site in South

Orlando. It is about 1584' (~483m) along the centerline of the overlapping (8 buoy) course, with

a turnout at one end that's the "wrong" way. Shore to endgate at that end is about 447' (~136m).

At the other end, with no turnout, shore to endgate is about 551' (~168m). This was the 3rd

iteration of setting out "marker buoys" with lightweight anchors.

 

Kris drove test passes and we adjusted the markers until he felt we had the best we could do.

 

Would be interesting to get some feedback from some skiers who have skied there.

 

Even more radical is the Autores' site in Northern New Jersey. Along the centerline of the courses,

the lake length is about 1280'. Turnouts at both ends, with one end being the "right" way and

the other end being the "wrong" way. I was there back in 2012 to survey/adjust and certify the

courses for an upcoming Class L tournament there. The site has overlapping courses, in a

unique arrangement: 2 slalom courses, overlapped on the same centerline by 1 1/2 buoys,

or 61.5 meters.

[Andre]

Ed

Rest assure ,you did a great job at Kris's place!

It was my first time with a dogleg and a 8 bouys course and it was real easy to adapt to.

Nobody of our group of 8 skiers did complain about it!

Great site and peoples!

 

Kris and Andy's lake each side of the highway.

 

https://www.google.ca/maps/@28.4522448,-81.4292952,2740m/data=!3m1!1e3

[eleeski]

@OB Didn't Dr. Michaels figure out the buoys on a cable system?

[Onside135]

...

[wski1831]

I've skied a 1900' lake with narrow ends going straight in. It's tight at 34 and really tight at 36. Wider turnarounds at the ends would help with the shorter length, not sure if that would make enough difference for 1800'. If you could travel to one or so of the other lakes and ski it and see it for yourself I would think that would be the best decision maker.

[EricE]

Thanks everybody for weighing in on this.

 

We have quite a few options to consider. We are both 34 mph skiers with a 2010 Response LXi and a 2012 pro star WTT, so the shorter setups should be ok. I have skied quite a few times on a lake that measures about 1850, with one really narrow end, and it does take quite a few times to get comfortable. When you get out of the water, there is no adjusting shorts or wiping water off of your face - get up and get out. Very workable, but not ideal.

 

We have discussed the 8 buoy course for another site we were both considering buying, as it was about 1800' with limited land to add lengh. I know my buddy has skied on a lake in Mississippi, I think, where they had the extra buoys rigged to a garage door opener to pull them down, which I think is awesome. Without that, I have read on other threads, and seen the layout, that the five ball from the opposite direction is right near your gate turn in - which could either hurt or help.

 

Regarding other layout otions, the property is faily narrow, 300', with the dog leg, so this limits options on how the lake is oriented.

 

We have debated islands, and my buddy has spoken to quite a few other skiers about pros and cons, and the debate rages on....obviously from this thread!! I think there are two primary options - blast away to build the ideal set up, or walk away and find another piece of property. I think if he is going to spend the money to build the lake, he won't want to settle for less.

 

Thanks for the offers of assistance, and we will probably be reaching out to you individually.

 

[DaveD]

Blast away, it's only money. Living with regret isn't fun. You don't want to be thinking "why didn't I make this stupid lake longer?" every time you ski.

[MISkier]

If you have the permits and approvals already, you are incredibly fortunate. Dig and blast while you can before someone wakes up and tries to shut it all down.

[Skoot1123]

LaPoint Ski park skis very well. Spent three days skiing down there and really had NO ISSUES with the extra buoy. Even the "wrong way" pullout for the drop at the dogleg wasn't an issue. Driving wise - not a problem either. Great site!!

[behindpropellers]

@EricE - Find a suitable spot for your lake dig. Make it as long as possible. Make the dig as simple as possible.

 

Unless the land is free, find another spot. Do it right so if/when the day comes to sell you can get your money back out of it.

 

Tim

[buoyboy1]

I would get a geotech engineer involved to make sure your rock does not have fractures that would make keeping a lake full of water difficult. Also, if you rotate the course about 5 or 10 degrees, it will make for an easier set up for the driver and skier and help to prevent bow rollers when turning in to line up. I did that on my lake since I did not have room to offset my islands. You will be surprised what a difference a few degrees makes. I have one buoy only 45 feet from shore and its really not an issue. If you decide on an island, keep the top of the island no more than 18" above the lake level. My islands are much higher and the muskrats have caused a great deal of damage. If you keep the top of the island low they will not have room to get a den above the water level. Most of my lake maintenance is on my islands......muskrats, erosion and mowing.....never ending.