ZO vs Perfect Pass

[MikeT]

What ZO setting is most like the original Perfect Pass

[liquid d]

None. Start at B2, and try them all. I'm sure there's an article on here telling the dif between settings to help. C's pick you up right after the ball, B's in the middle, and A's later (holding the power on after the 2nd wake)

[prettig]

Question: pratice mode

 

Yesterday on ZO: the A,B, C is gone !

It feels different (I ski C and feels like B ).

 

Anybody knows what happens to these settings when in pratice mode ?

[MISkier]

@prettig, the settings will remain as they were when you switch from tournament mode to recreational/training mode. Select the setting you want while on the tournament screen and that will be retained when you switch to the recreational/training screen. It should still show you (at least it does on mine) the letter on the recreational/training screen. You just can't select or alter it there.

[prettig]

thx...will check again (on the zero off I did not see it in practice mode). But good to know it keeps it's setting.

 

p.s. what version or year is your zero off (maybe that also makes a difference) ?

 

 

[MISkier]

I have a 2009 Malibu Response LX. It is also the same on our club boat, a 2015 Malibu TXi. I don't recall how it looks on the new Nautique and MasterCraft integrated displays. But, on the stock ZO display, it is there.

[mcskier41]

I've tried almost every setting and I believe the A settings are closest to PP but YMMV. I use A2 currently. I do ski PP once in awhile and unfortunately, it's so frickn easy compared to ZO and always ski better. And also unfortunately when I go back to ZO, I digress. Just seem to have better rythym with PP. All else is same. Same driver, same lake, frustrating!

[Wish]

Best bet is a blind study. Sorta.. Ski the ZO settings and have the diver randumly choose the setting and label them 1-9. Have driver keep track on paper. After a couple passes on a setting, grade it A = loved it.. F= setting almost killed me. What you will find I believe is an "A" setting right for you. One that works with your style. One that will actually make skiing ZO easier then PP. I think it's safe to say that with so many skiers using so many different settings that works with their style that finding one that matches PP may be something that could hold you back as there is probably one that is better for you.

[Wish]

I'll add that the ski might even matter. I ski Classic PP at home sight and skied C1 in tournaments on my precious ski - HO S2 and ZO was easier. On the new Denali and technique advice from the Adams, after going thorough all the settings again, A2 is the standout.

[303Skier]

I disagree with @mcskier41 ZO is much more consistent and the pull is always the same. PP is all over the place.

 

If you are a heavier skier (190-220) I think C's are the best. If you are smaller lighter skier (120-150) A's are the best. Everything else B.

[Waternut]

Going from a 2000 ski nautique and a 2000 Malibu Response to a carbon pro a couple years ago, I felt B2 was gassing the crap out of me everywhere. Moved it A1 and it felt like PP.

 

I agree that I thought ZO at least felt consistent which helps me. PP just makes me feel like I'm doing good and then all of a sudden, I'm late at 5 and 6 ball.

[eleeski]

ZO vs PP? ZO wins in every respect.

 

In the day of PP dominance, skiers used switches and KX and PX settings. ZO had to match the feel of those settings. The A settings were closest to PP with no switch and the C settings were closer to a working switch and strong numbers. What the B settings matched is a mystery. If you ski ZO enough, tune your numbers and letters to your style. Few boats now are using a switch with PP so I recommend using A1 for the transition. Or get your PP switch working and choose C3 (this is the closest match but doesn't work with Stargazer).

 

I have not used Zbox. Maybe it simulates B?

 

For tricks, all PP variations with a paddlewheel are great. For ZO, any setting higher than B2 gives a reasonable pull. The A settings feel like a stretchy rope. Personally I like C3 but I pull hard.

 

I'm a totally lame jumper so I don't want the switch to engage. ZO on A disengages the switch. I don't remember jumping on PP. Real jumpers choose the letter to match the distance. Your coach will help you with that.

 

Once you get used to ZO you will love it.

 

Eric

[DanE]

@eleeski Zbox have all letters and numbers from A1 to C3, also have the + setting.

[303Skier]

I could never get the Zbox to even come close to the feeling of ZO on my 94' PS 190.

 

If you ski tournaments ZO is a must!

[aussiemc]

I have worked with my PP Zbox for a few seasons, and whilst getting great times, the pull is different to ZO, even the entry speed into the course was slightly slower with the ZBox. Short setups are a lot of work for the driver. It is a good option, but for a sport that is ridiculously technical, a good option doesn't always cut it, as mention if you ski tournaments, ZO is the only real option. I'm in the process of having ZO installed in my '03 197 TT.

[Stejcraftben]

A1 or A2 are the closest in my opinion but still feels nothing like pp. I was speaking to Austin Able a few months back about the new zo pucks and software and he said that the pull seems to be a lot softer. He described it like this in terms of the type of pull. "If pp is an an A, and the old zero off/pucks are a C, then the new zo if is a B". He also said that he went out at 36mph and it felt like 34mph. Sounds odd!

[JC McCavit]

It would be good to develop some baselines before making such a determination. With ZO, what brand of boat, motor combination are we comparing to? All the big name tournament boats with ZO feel different to me when switching at tournaments. The same is true when practicing behind different boats with PP. I have PP zBox on 97 SN with the GT-40, the pull and settings are pretty close to my friends 2010 SN 200 with ZO. I have heard short setups can be a problem with PP but have no personal experience. But I have also heard of ZO boats surging or shutting down in the middle of a pass. It is for these reasons and more we need some baseline comparisons before jumping to conclusions when comparing which setting on ZO is closest to original PP.

[prettig]

http://www.schnitzskis.com/images/626_Daves_ZO_Chart_A.jpg

 

Above is zero off...... classic (stargazer) PP is like B1-B2: so in the middle, buit a bit longer (starts earlier and ends later). Did ski behind stargazer as well......more easy (you think) .... once used to ZO or z-box....far better.

 

PP with Z-box (i ski behind both ZO and Z-box), if setup correctly..... almost the same as ZO (I am on C1.... so early pull right after the bouy).

 

A,B,C: the moment

1,2,3: intensity

 

 

http://www.schnitzskis.com/images/926_stargazer_settings.jpg

 

 

[customski]

I have a Z box upgrade for sale if anyone's keen? Was bought to suit 07 LX Malibu with 320lcr with drive by wire.

[LeonL]

The unfortunate reality is that despite all your moving around through the 18 ( if my math is correct) options on ZO, you find a setting that you love. You're skiing with a 200 5.7. Then you go to a tournament and you get a 200 5.3, or a Malibu or MC or Centurion. They ain't gonna feel the same. Drivers are different. You're beating your ahead against the wall if you hope to get the same feel as what you're used to every day. As far as ZO feeling like PP in any mode or setting, forget it.

[prettig]

@LeonL .... sorry but disagree...... you are correct "classic" or stargazer PP is no match with ZO.

 

Z-box is (several guys here ski short lines ... 12m and shorter behind both system, 3 different boats).......almost no difference.

 

Power off the boat, model, etc (let's say after year 2000 or so) ..... does not matter..... good ski-boats are all powerfull enough, wakes all flat (on real slalom boats).

But needs to be setup correctly and then they all operate the same: just look at the full course timing figures after the run......you might need small adjustments to your PP z-box setup.

 

To give you an example: i have an 2006 LX, friend a "not so well" maintained LXI with z-box. First difference is the hull (you feel the difference), then his power is rubish (not firm). So I do not ski behind his boat......my LX close to the SN 200 (200 wakes are slightly better at short lines).

So a modern close to "stock" (so still enough power) boat setup correctly will work fine for most (unless you are into 10,25m or so).

Line: old or new.....!?

 

 

Drivers..... YES ! (some drive like they are drunk)

 

 

p.s. who uses A settings ? (never understood A...... pulling after the wake !)

 

 

 

[eleeski]

@LeonL The variations between brands of ZO boats at the same setting is on par with the difference in lake depths, water temperature or shoreline visual effects. If you can't handle those differences..? Get enough time behind the different boats (to figure out that C2* works better with the Centurion and C3 works best behind a Nautique?). Or just go adapt and ski well.

 

@prettig I'm not buying 100% of your graphs. But they do give a general idea. I certainly don't buy B2 = Stargazer - but personally I don't like either B2 or Stargazer. ZO gets it's programmed responses based substantially on accelerometers. The timing will be proportional and reactive to what the skier actually does with the pull and the timing will be instantaneous. Stargazer reacts to a calculated GPS drop in speed. It takes a while for the boat to decelerate, and then some time to accelerate. If you aren't very smooth, the Stargazer will offer a weird pull - something my personal experience bears out (especially at 5 ball!). Doesn't fit well to a theoretical graph.

 

PP classic with a switch and KX PX set will command a response as soon as the switch engages. Pretty close to the response time of an accelerometer. I added 100# to my weight, adjusted my baseline accordingly (and set for slightly fast times) and couldn't feel the difference between that and C3.

 

No idea how Zbox works but even college tournaments want ZO. Might not be worth the effort and money - especially when PP Classic with a switch can get a good simulation. If your driver is very skilled.

 

While I choose C3, I have had some great sets at A1. The boat is very smooth and I don't sink in at the buoy. My longer line lengths are tougher but it was best when the line got short. Haven't switched in a tournament yet (but my hip is keeping me a long way from those line lengths for a while).

 

@customski You switched to ZO? PP was pretty good with the older throttle cable boats but really gave us problems with the DBW boats. Probably the biggest reason ZO won the speed control wars.

 

Eric

[crashman]

I've noticed when I go to a ski school if they ask " what's your setting" and I reply "whatever is closest to perfect pass" it's a crap shoot what they select. I also learned I sound more intelligent if I pick a letter followed by a number and try to not fall coming through the gate. I'm also always glad to come back home to my TSC 1 stargazer tug.

[prettig]

the graphs are indeed indicational.

 

PP has 3 (in general) versions:

- classic (magnet timing and optional switch), the ONE line display

- stargazer (magnet or GPS), multi line display

- Stargazer + Z-box (GPS, no magnets, ZO simulation, with accelerometer) --> this is the one I compare with ZO !

 

Then, throttle: cable or wire:

- Z-Box with drive by wire is as responsive as ZO (z-box with cable is not)

- Drive by wire also means: fuel injected engine (far more responsive than carburator)

- Any cable throttle is just slower (always)

- This means approx. a 2006/2007 or later model boat (throttle-by-wire got introduced during these years)

 

ZO is only available on drive by wire boats. (no retrofit on cable throttle)

 

 

Upgrade or not:

With Cable throttle:

- you have one option: PP

 

Wire throttle:

With PP already installed and multiline display.

- z-box is plug and play (DIY-15 minutes) and far less expensive

- PP has excellent support

 

- or replace with ZO, more expensive to buy, more expensive to install (no DIY)

- CHECK with your dealer if it works on your boat and engine (mine needed a NEW engine cable loom)

- ZO is 99% factory installed and their support.....lets say it took me a "while" to find out if and how it could be installed in my boat.

 

Nothing installed:

- Both PP z-box and ZO would work (but ZO with installation is far more expensive than PP z-box). AND for ZO CHECK if at all possible in your boat.

 

 

[LeonL]

@eleeski , I can HANDLE those differences. My comment is that they are there. @prettig , if you or your short line buddies can't feel a difference in boats with different power or different hulls or different speed control systems, well I don't have an appropriate comment. Didn't say you can't handle it, just said you're gonna feel a difference.

[thager]

My 02 is cable throttle. I have ZO. I installed it myself. No PP system I have skied, classic, classic/switch, stargazer, or ZBox is even close to ZO.

[prettig]

@LeonL ..... there are differences (hull, power, etc .....) and you do feel it. But we feel: the same boat ZO or z-box..... pretty small difference (but yes it's there). All other PP systems.... I agree fully: big difference with ZO.

 

@thager ZO on cable !.... how did you do that ? REALLY intersting to know......lot's of people install PP because they have cable throttle and think that's the only option.

 

And if I have to choose: ZO (just because it's the competition standard).

 

 

[customski]

@eleeski yes I sold that boat before the upgrade and try to just ski with ZO now.

[thager]

@prettig The throttle cable connects to a component that interprets the throttle position. Can't recall the components name right (potentiometer) now but is same thing airlines did with the original DC-9s when they were converted to digital/electronic throttle components until later aircraft were produced with all digital fly by wire throttle components.

 

i.e you keep the same throttle your 02-07 Nautique came with. The conversion kit includes the component that reads throttle position.

[Stejcraftben]

where did you get this kit from thager?

[thager]

From Tim White- Inboard Solutions LLC in Alabama USA.

[DanE]

@thager Chevy engine? What was rhe total cost? New ECM?

[thager]

Yes chevy engine. $3200 back in 2010 dollors. Talk to Tim about 2016 costs. New ECM is part of the kit and more.