Supplement to the promo boat poll...

[jdarwin]

What boats should be allowed to pull ALL classes of AWSA tournaments?

[thager]

My 2002 196 with ZO is as good a pull as any boat out there for slalom.

[Razorskier1]

@jdarwin -- my option isn't in the survey. I'd like current hull rather than current speed control. I'm sort of used to the 200, the Prostar, the TXi, and the Carbon Pro. While the 196 is also a great pull, it is different (for me) than the others. I also wouldn't want to face other older boats. In particular, the old 197 isn't nearly the same as a newer hull.

[jdarwin]

@Razorskier1 - then, option 1 would be your best choice to make certain you have the most "recent' hull to choose from in a tournament.

[oldjeep]

Option 4 - Toss in a Bass boat for all skiers on a random day and see how they do :)

 

[Razorskier1]

@jdarwin -- true, but the 200 has been around for at least 5 years now (I think), and I'd be fine with an older one just like a newer one. Now, the problem with my answer is what do you do when the "next generation" of hulls comes along? Given the numbers in our sport, I don't think that's the top of my worry list right now!

[keithh2oskier]

So with the current rule you could potentially ski behind two different hulls for up two years correct. Lets say Nautique comes out with a new hull (SN 200v2.0) in 2017. For the 2017 and 18 ski year you could ski behind the both the 200 or the 200v2.0 as our current rule is written.

 

What if the rule was amended to be not based on year but by hull design. As long as the speed control was the same (IE ZO). So in that hypothetical as long as Nautique stayed with the 200 hull, you could also use any 196 TSC3 hull that had ZO. That could go back to 2006 era if it has a ZO conversion. My 02 is technically a TSC2 hull so even if I did a ZO conversion it couldn't be used.

 

This gives manufactures incentive to continue to develop 3 event boats so you don't have a 10-15 year span of boats that could be used like my example above.

[BrennanKMN]

I'd like to see Class C tournaments pulled with any current/previously approved speed control (including Perfect Pass). I have meet a few skiers around here who shy away from tournaments because they cannot afford to train behind ZO.

All it means is more skiers willing to ski, more boats available to pull events which both are both good things in my eyes.

 

Don't get me wrong. I wish I had a ZO boat, but it really sucks for me that I cannot train behind what I have to ski behind at a tournament.

[RAWSki]

How about just the most recent un-changed hull from each manufacturer with ZO.

That would be the last 3 years of MC, 5 years of TXi and CP?, Even longer for SN I believe.

[RazorRoss3]

I don't like "any speed control" they don't all ski the same and going to a tournament without know which I'll get would be a bummer. I think I could put up the same scores any boat and speed control but the uncertainty would still take away in my view.

[Bruce_Butterfield]

I know the majority of the ballers are slalom only, but for tournaments you need to consider trick and jump too. If PP was allowed for jump, the difference from ZO in the amount of gas into the ramp could setup some dangerous crashes.

 

The difference in trick wakes between current and previous year hulls can be significant too, but is tolerable in most cases.

[6balls]

Given they could all have ZO...I'd take a Bu Lx, Lxi, Txi. I'd take a MC 197 or Prostar, I'd take a CP, I'd take any post 1997 SN 196, I'd take a SN 200.

 

My score will not be dependent on which boat above. I wouldn't recommend going back to PP for tourneys as a rule (esp given @Bruce_Butterfield concern above) even though I still train it...but the hulls have produced great wakes for a long time at short-line.

 

For the record guys...have a record designation which would be any of the current hulls certified and with the current speed control. Specifically a Txi, 200, Prostar, or CP.

[BlueSki]

To mandate that only current hulls be used seems as pointless and problematic as the current rule. Why not take it a step further and write a rule that all boats have the same hull? I get the speed control issue, but we have enough rules and mandates in the world already. Any prior approved hull with approved speed control seems good enough for me. If someone want to repower a 1985 SN 2001 and install ZO, I have a feeling the free market will take care of any attempt to pull a tournament by lengthening the list of scratches.

[BraceMaker]

Does there exist a world in which a competitor to zero off can enter the market with a speed control with current patent in place?

 

What about if zero offs parent company decides to discontinue support?

[BlueSki]

@BraceMaker, I think a patent lawyer will have to answer your first question. My naive scan of this makes me think it may be a while. http://www.freepatentsonline.com/8983768.html

 

For the second question, while there may be a volatile transition, I have to believe that if there is a market with demand, a solution will be supplied.

[RichardDoane]

any boat, any hull, with ZO speed control, if you don't like the towboat - don't enter, it should be about lowering barriers to tournament participation

[John Brooks]

I agree with @richarddoane , we need to find ways to make sure there are fewer barriers to participation.

[ToddL]

In order for the free market idea to work, sanctions would have to list the boats that are scheduled to be used. Then, registrations would drive demand or lack thereof for certain model year boats and speed controls.

[Wish]

Why the push to make things the same for all skiers. Are we not in a sport? Bugs the crap out of me when a skier has to have this or that or it's just not worth it. What other sport does an athlete not deal with change? Our sport is chalk full of them. Different lakes, drivers, conditions, equipment failure on and on. Ya know why soccer is so popular world wide?? Because all you need is a ball (damn near any) some space and something to mark goals and BOOM you have a game/sport at little to no cost. Does there need to be standards for higher level competition?..sure. Is there innovation in equipment?..yep. But in general its popularity is based on pure access finatialy, geographically and so on. FL is full of promo boats..although shrinking I think. A state like Iowa prob has less then half which fits the demographics. Seems to me this should be a rule that can be subject to variances based on demographics. It's a known facter where the promo boats reside and if they travel or stay put at a LOC. If there is not enough boats, then the variances kick on a sliding scale. Just as in soccer, bigger world class events get tighter rules. Hard to grow a sport based on increasing limitations for all when all can be so different. Especially one that has a finite demographic to begin with. If LESS (rules) equals MORE (participants), isn't that the direction we should go. As a personal note, I take pride in the fact that I've skied on the cheap and done as well as I have (1.5@39 tournament). Skiing and training behind a soon to be 20yr old boat on mostly used skies and other equipment has been a necessary challenge. I've had to be extremely creative and recouseful in any and all decisions related to this sport that I love. Added rules have made that harder. Access has not been easy. Anything to break down those barriers would be welcomed by most. So my choice is any based on demographics.

[oldjeep]

@wish - Although I do not compete, I agree. It amuses me to no end how people will simultaneously wonder why there are fewer people skiing and complain that they are not skiing behind the smallest wake, with the newest speed control, in a single purpose boat, only when the water is calm and only when the weather is whatever their definition of warm is. Hard to believe that this is not encouraging the general public to ski.

[RazorRoss3]

@Wish, as added insight into your demographic comment, I have hosted several tournaments in Iowa, I don't believe there is a single promo boat in the state and if there is it may be a recent development because I've never seen it in the 6 years I helped the team with collegiate and non-collegiate tournaments in Waterloo, IA. We always have to use the exception rule and use boats that are 4-5 years old because despite having 2 college ski teams in the state, there are simply no boats. I know that Iowa State has been lucky in that they have known Minnesota ProMo drivers willing to drive to Ames to pull there events but still, nothing in Iowa itself. So it is definitely a different scene for tournament skiing than say Florida or other states with higher skier density.

[oldjeep]

Iowa State has a waterski team?

Edit - according to their facebook they do not anymore

[Wish]

Can someone post the exception rule. Maybe that's an adiquate sliding scale although I don't believe it should need to be applied for but rather an anually set rule/variance based on predetermined demographics. Less to do for someone willing to host a tournament.

[BraceMaker]

@oldjeep that makes me kinda sad to hear. they used to have access at a private site in ames.

 

University of Iowa is still active in mcwsa

[RazorRoss3]

@oldjeep @BraceMaker, Iowa State has had one of the top 3 teams in the Midwest region for the past 5 years and compete top of D2, bottom of D1 at nationals. They just graduated a lot of talent from the Men's team but they still have a few power houses. The University of Iowa (where I went) has had a team since '92 but our practice site is a river unlike Iowa state which still practices at the two lake private site they always have.

[oldjeep]

@RazorRoss3 - so you are saying the team at Iowa State still exists? Every thing I can find indicates that they have not been active since 2014. If they do exist then they might want to update the dead links in their club listing. I've got a kid going to Iowa State who likely wouldn't care much about competing but wouldn't mind waterskiing/wakeboarding without driving back to my house.

https://www.stuorg.iastate.edu/site/waterski

 

 

https://www.facebook.com/isuwaterski/

 

[BraceMaker]

Ah that facebook link is Illinois State (ISU)

[oldjeep]

Duhoo, that is what happens when you type in Iowa State Waterski team and then accept that google gave you what you asked for

[BrennanKMN]

I like this. I take the 'if you don't like the towboat - don't enter' the other way. If there is a PP boat and the ZO people don't like it - don't enter.

 

ZO people say PP skis different, well, PP people say ZO skies different. It is a two way street. I get really tired of people who are only willing to ski behind ZO and scoff at PP boats like they are inferior and unskiable.

 

How you can you say you are trying to remove barriers and then continue to say that anything prior to 2008 is no good?

 

I'd be more than happy to ski behind anything. I am sure there are elitist people that only want the best. For me, a ski ride is a ski ride. Sure I might not run my best scores, but it sure as hell is fun to get out skiing more.

 

I couldn't agree more with @Wish

[storm34]

@RazorRoss3 & @oldjeep - Some clarification and some info that might only add to the confusion.

 

There is still an Iowa State Ski Club which skis at Dream Lakes just south of Ames. Not sure who the point of contact is at this time but if anyone needs to connect with them I can help as we ski with a graduate and know the gentlemen who helps them with a boat every year. They're very fortunate to have Dream Lakes and a gracious supporting cast behind the scenes.

 

The state of Iowa does have a promo boat (Bu).....but it wasn't publicly known until a week before this year's state tournament. Not exactly sure the details behind his deal which further confuses the whole "Promo" situation on a lot of levels. All things aside - awesome boat and a cool guy. Hope to see them both more in the future.

 

Next closest boat would be an MC in Nebraska or Minnesota as you mentioned above. Both of those boats were at this year's state tournament.

 

MasterCraft had a long time promo owner based in the Des Moines area who started in the 70's and got out sometime around 2010. Great guy, was very active in the tournament community and a great representative of the sport.

 

The previously mentioned ISU graduate then took over his duties for a few years but life, rules/regulations and growing costs have kept him from getting another boat since 2013-ish? He was very active and made a conscious effort to help on the collegiate level being when possible. Seemed like he fought getting the boat early enough from the factory and keeping it late into the season, one of the downfalls of the promo program when it comes to supporting collegiate skiing.

 

I'm new to the tournament scene but quickly realized the need for more promo boats in the area. Hopefully we can find some solutions in the next few years.

[LeonL]

@BrennanKMN , there are some drivers that just can't seem to give you a consistent pull with PP. That's speaking of PP classic. I know. That's sounds crazy, but it's true. That would be my objection to PP in today's world. Then you have PP w/ StarGazer and Stargazer w/ Z-Box. It takes a dedicated and persistent person to get those systems working properly. Then you have the combination of a not perfectly set up SG Z-box and a fair driver and a short setup and it's a recipe for disaster. My .02 on PP in tournaments.

For me, however I have a 196 with ZO and my ski partner had (recently sold) a 196 with PP Classic. We alternated use of the two boats and neither of us could tell any significant difference. Part of that equation was diligent attention to adjustment of +/- Factor of PP to get close to actual times. We never had problems due to our relatively short setup on one end, while another skier had SG w/z-box. Never could get it right. Finally gave up and got a boat with ZO.

[BrennanKMN]

@LeonL

Don't get me wrong. I understand that ZO is superior to PP. I get that; if I could afford a ZO boat - I'd have one.

 

What bothers me though is this is a sport, some days are good and some are bad. That is just part of life.

 

I have been downhill ski racing my entire life. I have yet to go to a ski meet where they canceled it because the snow was crap (think tournament with PP boat). There were also meets where the snow is perfect (think ZO boat). That is the way the world works. You win some and you lose some.

 

Now if you want to only ski in the meets where the snow is perfect, that is your choice. All I am saying is you are holding back those of us who would ski in perfect and less than perfect conditions.

[MISkier]

@BrennanKMN, your snow analogy is a little off. You should be comparing good snow/bad snow to wind and water conditions in water skiing.

 

You should compare the boat speed control to the consistent/constant factor in snow skiing - gravity.

[oldjeep]

@MISkier I think he is right on with his analogy. bad snow/Good snow determines the consistency of conditions that each racer gets. With ZO vs PP maybe it would be more random than the suck/ok/suck snow that you get in a race course as you get down to and then below the good snow.

 

Racing in bad conditions also shows you who the really talented skiers are vs the ones who can only perform when the conditions are perfect.

[RazorRoss3]

@storm34, I also do not know the current team captain there but know a lot of recent alums and a few current team members. They are definitely lucky to have the access they do. Most Midwest teams don't have access to private water and many don't have access to courses and ramps outside of tournaments.

[Wish]

As a point of clarification I rarely meet skiers that won't take a set behind my boat or in not so perfect conditions. Most just want to have fun. But as a whole, I think things could certainly open up a bit when it comes to class C tournaments and boat rules. I'm not sure if folks feel threatened that someone will sandbag and start skiing behind an older PP in tourneys with maybe a swerved for a driver and get a higher ranking...?..possible I guess. But good luck to that person at a class REL or States/Reg/Nat when they have their ars handed to them switching to ZO. So still not seeing a reason what this is not wide open to boat option...course if you follow the money, the answer may be found there.

[RazorRoss3]

I would personally pass on a tournament pulled by PP or StarGazer/Zbox. I'll gladly ski any speed control system in practice and have even been hand driven recently for good times but if I'm going to be paying tournament entry fees I want to be skiing behind what I'm used to and what I'm most consistent behind and that's ZO. I'd also generally prefer the boat had horse power in the same ball park as current models. So basically I could have just quoted the poll option I selected.

 

 

[gsm_peter]

Sorry for a stupied question.

When was manual driving no longer used for tournaments?

 

 

[MISkier]

@oldjeep, to me,

 

Good snow = no wind and flat water

Bad snow = rollers and 20 mph head/tail.

 

Both can vary as the tournament/race progress. The buoys, boat hull, and speed are targeted to be as consistent from skier to skier as possible and should not materially change over the duration of the event. The mountain and gravity don't.

[jdarwin]

@gsm_peter - around 1998. That was my first PP promo boat. I tested for Regular Driver in 1999 hand driving even though PP was in use at the time.

[Horton]

@BrennanKMN

 

PP is way easier but since I will never get it in a tournament I don't like to practice behind it. The boat speed at the gate alone is enough to screw me up at my hardest pass. If I practiced PP all the time I imagine my practice scores would go up and my tournament scores would go down a lot.

[ToddL]

+1 what Horton said. Now that ZO has been around for a while, I wouldn't keep that as part of the rule. I would have voted for this survey option if it were in the list:

• Any year prior approved hull with current speed control.

That way re-powered beloved old slalom boats (older than 2008) could be used.

 

My issue with PP in addition to what Horton said about gates above is that if the driver positions the throttle too high or too low, PP takes a while to correct, and then seems to OVER correct, and then settle.

 

With PP, I have had pulls where the pass started slow, sped up to hyper-drive, then finished slow again; and I have had the exact opposite.

 

It seems to do fine when the driver hits the perfect throttle position before the skier pulls out for the gates.

 

But those gates are VERY different. (PP starts above speed so pull-out can be too hot, then lets the skier pull the boat speed back down into spec through the gates. ZO just sets it at spec and holds it there throughout gates.)

[Wish]

@Horton. @ToddL Some of us are the opposite. Several seasons ZO was easier because I found a setting that made it that way compared to my PP daily trainer. Scores in tournaments matched or exceeded practice scores. If a ZO is not available in an area that would like to host a tournament and has enough participants..(class C)..why restrict that? Are they really getting some kind of advantage score wise? Sounds like it would suck with the inconsistency. So I still have not read a valid reason to restrict PP if a ZO boat is not available. Now it may be that a PP boat will never get used and a ZO of some kind will always be available. But at least the option could be there (sliding scale rule variance). Still scratching my head as to why if needed it is a bad idea to use a boat with PP. Pot stirring.

[LeonL]

@ToddL , ZO goes thru the entrance gate above set speed, just watch it. Way higher if set to +.

[6balls]

In my best year pre-spine debacle (3 years ago) I ran 38's on 5 lakes, all 3 speed controls and a 2.5@39 on ZO in a tourney with zero training on ZO. Having said that the speed controls are different.

 

I would support ZO at this point in tourneys with any approved hull. In reality I'd rather run stargazer without all the mumbo jumbo settings of ZO and for me I prefer the pull. It also puts all on the same page rather than myriad settings.

 

I train PP but can't favor that in tourneys...too much variation. Even in our training conditions I might get a 17.00 or a 16.82 depending on wind, driver estimation of wind, and whether I scrapped or skied light.

 

I don't think speed control is your tournament entry barrier. I've seen the same people at tourneys for years as speed control evolved. Backing up the requirement on currency would make it easier to have more tourneys...but unless the sport expands good luck on filling those tourneys with anyone other than the regular crew and very few newbies...most of whom are tied somehow to the regulars.

 

To grow the sport I think we need learn to ski and learn to ski better clinics. Get people to ski, then get people to try buoys...we all know how addicting it can be once you've tried to round the orange balls. Run this thru promo boats backed by dealers. I don't even have to run the same boat to help that cause...I can drive, ride in the promo, teach, be shore support, or bring my boat as a supplement.

 

Toying with a community ed event next year even tho I'm non-promo. Would be fun to get some kids bit by the bug.

 

 

 

 

[BrennanKMN]

I think @6balls is mostly right saying that speed control is not an over arching barrier to entry; but it is one more nail in the coffin.

 

What I'd like to see is of those that continue to advocate for ZO only tournaments, of them, how many don't own or consistently train behind a ZO boat?

[The_MS]

I miss the days of 17.00 and would gladly ski behind PP if that is all that was around. What sucked about PP was skier 1 would go out and get a 16.92 and maybe not perform up to par while skier 2 gets a 17.02 and PBs. Could really be an issue at big events.

[Wish]

Id say it would not be allowed at big events. Sliding scale rule.

 

[LeonL]

@OB1 it's still 16.78-17.12 for 34mph in class C and E AWSA. R and L are run under IWWF and is 16.86-17.04. There is no longer a broader tolerance for "C". What is called standard tolerance is only allowed in "F".

[ski6jones]

Allow PP by exception, as is done now for older than 2 yo boats.