Is the Flextail Tournament Legal?

[jpwhit]

Out of pure curiosity, has the subject of tournament legality of the flextail been discussed. Given that Goode advertises that the ski flexes laterally at the tail and therefore changes the angle of the fin, it seems to come very close to violating the spirit of what's in the AWSA rulebook.

 

C. Slalom and Jump skis:

1. Any type of fixed fins may be used.

2. Devices affixed to the skis intended to control or adjust the skiing

characteristics of the ski, for example, wings on a fin, are allowed as long as they

are fixed and do not move or change during actual skiing.

[Jody_Seal]

The fin is fixed! and there are not any "Affixed Devices" The flexing of the ski is inherent to the ski's design and incorporated into the body of the ski!

So as a judge I would say the ski is completely legal under the current rules applied.

 

[Stevie Boy]

When Material Flexes there will be fatigue, after so many cycles fatigue causes a structure to fail, I wonder how many cylces, surely not indefinite ?

[jpwhit]

Playing devil's advocate, the fin itself is a "device affixed to the ski intended to control or adjust the skiing characteristic". Just because clause 1 stipulates that a fixed fin may be used, it doesn't exclude the fin from clause 2 as being a device affixed to the ski. Furthermore, because of the flexing it does "change during actual skiing".

 

It could also be argued that the rib in the center of the ski, that allows more flex than normal, is also a "device affixed to the ski".

 

And to argue the other side, all skis flex some degree, so I guess the real question is does intentional engineering of the ski to let the flex and change the angle of the fin violate the spirit of the rules.

[GOODESkier]

I think if you read the details on the rule, it embodies the spirit of not being able to "change" those settings on the fly to enhance your performance as the speed gets faster or the line gets shorter. The ski flexes, it doesn't adjust fin settings from pass to pass. The skier has no ability to give particular input to those changes in an effort to improve the skiing of the pass. It is all flex and basically what your current ski already does to some degree. If you think your current ski doesn't flex.........

 

Kinda like saying if you can move your rear foot from side to side or allow your heel to lift, does that violate a fixed binding rule?

[RazorRoss3]

When someone makes a ski that doesn't flex let me know, because they will have discovered technology that isn't bound by the laws of physics. The flex tail takes the knowledge the the ski flexes both side to side and torsionally and bt design allows the side to side flex to be greater.

[jayski]

So now we need integrated knobs on the fin block with definitive clicks (Re:Boa style) relevant to 1000ths of an inch to adjust the fin settings at the end of each pass so as we shorten the line we can tailor the fin to our needs...Still falls into the rule as the "fin remains fixed during skiing"

[drewski32]

Motion IS relative. If I understand the ft design correctly then the fin does not move relative to where it is mounted. It is the ski itself that flexes...

[jpwhit]

Nobody's arguing that ski's don't flex. And even further, the flex of ski's is part of the engineering that has a significant impact on how a ski performs and I don't see any issue with that whatsoever.

 

But, I think it becomes grayer, when you engineer the flex to then change the angle of a control surface like the fin. And more importantly where do you draw the line? What if I engineer the center rib, in a design like the flextail, with an embedded microprocessor that changes the stiffness and therefore the effect on the fin angle based on the side to side tilt of the ski? The skier still wouldn't have the ability to change it themselves while skiing, but I could make a "smart ski" that changes it's own characteristics based on all kinds of different parameters.

[Jordan]

Years ago, there was a ski that had a wing that actually moved depending how hard you stepped on a plate under your foot..that's the type of thing the rule refers to.

[Mateo_Vargas]

I've always wondered about the movement & change of the rear Powershell. Or is the rule only applied to skis and not bindings?

[Than_Bogan]

@jpwhit We may have to draw some new lines some day -- almost every technology-using sport eventually does. But I don't think the Flextail is even close to that line. People have been using flex as a feature for some time. This ski is not fundamentally different.

 

The introduction of a sensor that actively modifies the ski is qualitatively very different, and if that becomes possible and we decide we want a rule against it, we can make one.

 

My guess is, we won't. Crazy tech that has enabled a lot more people get into shortline has been tons of fun, and the very best still put up better scores than us mortals. I claim those are the key two points: is it fun for the ordinary skier and does the best skier still win. Yes and yes.

[mwetskier]

@jayski -an adjustable *wing* angle using a knob on top of the fin block was done many years ago. i don't remember now if it was ' out lawed ' or simply didn't catch on but its nothing new. i suspect the cause of failure to thrive for the easily adjustable wing would be the same cause for failure for an easily adjustable fin itself.

[ToddL]

@GOODESkier - I posted this on a similar thread:

http://www.schnitzskis.com/images/926_IM000484a.jpg

It allows the skier to reach down between each pass and adjust the angle of the wing.

@eleeski suggested that the above fin is legal since it does not allow for adjustment during the act of skiing, but rather in between ski passes. Assuming that it is legal per the rules, I guess this proved to not be worthwhile or effective as it is no longer on the market nor is it a design element of current skis.

[skialex]

@Than_Bogan in alpine skiing this sensor chip thing is already old tech. I used to ride a pair of Head Monster intelligence with a chip embedded that was actively changing the stiffness of the skis to suit better the changing terrain. I don't see it any more though!

[jpwhit]

I think my curiosity here is really around what people think are the boundaries of what should be allowed. As an engineer by trade, I'm personally fine with the application of technology to improve athletes ability to progress to higher levels in the sport. But it seems clear the current rules would forbid a steerable fin controlled by an actuator and microprocessor. But engineering the use of flex to indirectly control the fin isn't such a completely different thing in my opinion.

 

But so far it seems the consensus is that as long as it's not controlled directly by the skier during the set, or completely removes talent or fun from the equation, that most folks would be fine with almost any system that indirectly controlled the behavior and characteristics of the ski. Potentially even if the ski were smart via embedded electronics.

 

Cycling has had to wrestle with similar issues now that many high end road bikes utilize electronic shifting, power meters, and other new technology.

 

I completely accept that we also need rules just as an agreement of what is allowed and not allowed as a practical matter. But also expect the rules will need to be updated in the near future to account for coming technology. A key one likely being whether skis or other equipment used by skiers must remain passive devices or can become active devices through the use of embedded electronics.

[mwetskier]

@skialex -i think that was a pizo electric gizmo of some sort. its been tried in just about every piece of sports equipment on the planet without commercial success.

[ForrestGump]

Head seems to think its successful. All of their Performance and Racing lines such as the i.Supershape line and WorldCup line use an electronic Kinetic Energy Recovery System to stiffen the tail of the ski at the finish of the turn as it reaches maximum deflection. I rode a bunch of skis in the spring and HEAD's had a noticeable acceleration difference as the ski rebounded. HEAD i.Titans are in my ski bag now.

 

Will we see someone try something like that in waterskiing? I doubt it. R&d budgets are measured in the thousands of dollars, not millions like in snow skiing.

[mwetskier]

@ShaneH -i did not know that head was still embracing that technology. thanks for the info!

[RazorRoss3]

In some ways isn't the flex tail accomplishing that? Approaching the turn it is dog it the tail as it flexes almost behind the turn and then as it finishes that rebound is as if the ski had become stiffer which pushes the ski accelerating it forward out of the turn.

[oldjeep]

That KERS system is such a gimic. I had a set of iSpeeds, a couple years ago and if KERS does anything it isn't noticeable. Everyone bought them and them went back to Atomic the next season.

[Horton]

@Jordan nailed it. In the late seventies or early eighties there was a design that connected the pressure of your back heel to the angle of your wing. It was literally a moving part. I've always assumed that's what the rule is referring to. Any flex lateral or longitudinal is not the point or the spirit of the rule

[Stevie Boy]

Is the Flex Tail a game changer, obviously not, Andy Mapple scored 1@43 off many moons ago, since then not too much of an improvement on that score, just a few more people getting close, but training and understanding is the biggest part of that, there is no magic wand and no magic ski, just Great Ahteletes and Superb Waterskiers. (If it was easy they would call it wakeboarding)

Anybody know what ski Andy was on when he first ran 1@43 off in competition ?

[Wayne]

There was a waterski that had some pizo electric gimic (was it an O'Brien?), thought is was for damping vibration or some crazy claim. I just remember it had an LED that blinked so you tell when it was "working". Was that thing tournament legal? I'm not sure what that thing actually did.

[GOODESkier]

Anyone that thinks equipment doesn't matter...........

 

Andy sure worked hard with Nautique and Zero Off.......

 

He sure worked hard with O'Brien and his company Mapple Skis........

 

He sure worked hard innovating better products and equipment.........

[Ed_Obermeier]

@Wayne that ski was an Obrien Vision GT. I still have one (standing in the corner of the closet with all my other past ski purchase experiments). Bought it right after I gave up on the Obrien G4, the one with the adjustable rocker hardware and the flex plate on the front? Ah, the ignorance of youth... If you smacked your hand against it the light would blink but never was sure if it did it while skiing or not. Look down fall down, right? Pretty sure it didn't do much, certainly didn't do much for MY skiing...

[Wayne]

@Ed_Obermeier I remember the G4 but couldn't remember the name of it either. The G4 I think everything was "screwed" down so it met the spirit of the rules. Wasn't sure what the Vision GT actually did. Just blink to attract fish, bouy sonar or actually modify ski characteristics. I barely remember the wording in an Overtons or Bart's catalog talking about actively damping vibration so I would gues it was supposed to change stiffness but who knows. Does that ski rattle when you shake it or does it require batteries?

[Stevie Boy]

@GOODESkier the products maybe better, but you still cannot get away from the fact the World Record stands 2 1/4 @43 Off thats 1 1/4 bouys in all those years, the point I was trying to make, when people were questioning if the Flextail was legal or not, is the fact that nobody has immediately gone out there and run 4@43 off, If somebody had done that, it might be reasonable for them to question if the ski was legit (Which I Think It Is By The Way), as it is scores are getting close to the world record by skiers on most of the leading manufacturers.

[GOODESkier]

@Stevie Boy at 43 Off 1.5 buoys is like going from 15 off to 38 off ........... To say that is :"not much of an increase in buoy count" is crazy! Just my opinion. When you get short line, an increase of 0.25 buoys is ALOT! Love watching my son get PB's just about every week at Long Line 23 MPH currently. For me to PB at 39.5 I would take a 0.25 buoy and dream of 1.5

[GOODESkier]

http://www.waterskimag.com/features/2015/08/26/slalom-revolutions-40-years-of-pushing-the-limits/?src=SOC&dom=fb

 

[jetpilotg4]

Nice read Goodskier thanks for the share

[LeonL]

Call me a fool, but I say the FlexTail is a flash in the pan that will soon disappear. If nothing else as someone said earlier, the life span of tail will be unacceptable.

[ForrestGump]

@Stevie Boy not to take anything away from Andy, but you realize Rogers was the first to run 1@43 in competition, right? By over a year.

[Stevie Boy]

@ShaneH Well Shiver Me Timbers, thanks for putting me right, I actually thought Andy was the first, Learn Something everyday, I apologise for incorrect facts.

[klindy]

At 34mph too.

[Horton]

@LeonL maybe. I have heard some smart people say that the Goode and Mapple approaches to a different ski flex are not as different as they appear. I can not guess if this exact tech is the future but these two approaches have people thinking about torsion and lateral flex possibilities.

[ozski]

Hmm What if the front of the fin was fixed but could pivot - the rear could move left / right slightly, depending on how it was mounted that would be mechanical I guess. I'm still trying to work out the benefit of the flex in the tail in my head - if your heading cross course then right behind the boat at the point of greatest load the ski is going to be bent, slightly.. I'm not sure a bent ski helps me at this point so it must be super special at the ball. Would be very interesting to flex test the tail and work out the loads required to make it move, and then fin adjustments are going to impact the flex so another variable I had not even thought about.