In Principle

[JAS]

As long as time and path are good why shouldn’t any boat with any time control

Be Ok for tournaments and record consideration?

[Horton]

Yes in principle you are correct. Unfortunately the rules and administration of the rules must anticipate all possibilities so anything but ZO is almost always disallowed at Class C and above.

 

There is an agreement between Perfect Pass and Zero Off that disallows Perfect Pass from providing speed control to new ski boats. This agreement was not created by skiers and the skiers did not have a choice. You have to go back to approximately 2008 to find a boat that was tested with Perfect Pass.

 

As I read the rule book Zero Off is not mandatory but approved speed control is mandatory and there are no other options.

 

So Rule 8.10.G says

Tournaments are only allowed to use speed control devices tested in conjunction with the towboats approved for use by the Towboat Committee. Approved towboats, including equipment as tested, are listed on the USAWSWS website under the Towboat section.

 

[Horton]

More policy.... click here

[Bruce_Butterfield]

In the early days of speed control AWSA tested and evaluated speed control independent of the boats. Perfect pass and Accuski were the big ones and there was 1 or 2 garage shop systems as well. The tipping point was when AWSA decided to push the responsibility of speed control to the boat manufacturers somewhere in the early 2000’s. Since the boat companies pay a hefty fee for every boat they submit to AWSA to test, they all picked 1 speed control (the most popular in the classic Beta vs VHS scenario) so perfect pass was the default for basically all tournaments.

 

After a few years time there was the perception that drivers were using PP to the slow side of tolerance (cheating according to the rules) and the push for “no speed variation” that resulted in the ZO system we have today.

 

So the reality is it’s still up to the boat manufacturer to submit their chosen speed control with the boat for AWSA testing. If the Adams ever get bored with skis (and win the lottery) they could build a better boat and their own speed control and submit to AWSA for tournament approval. Short of that scenario, we are stuck with the ZO monopoly to the detriment of the skiers.

[Horton]

@Bruce_Butterfield Are you seriously trying to send @AdamCord to divorce court?

[Dirt]

OK I'll bite again. @JAS I think it should be. I probably would not switch back to PP but I believe having to have the current year boat with the current engine and speed control to be competitive turns a lot of people away from the sport.

 

New hull, 5.3L, 5.7L, 6.0L, 6.2L, dual puck, single puck, diffusers, hydrogates, etc...

 

The reasons Horton posted are the bureaucracy of the sport. Those reasons could be changed with the a few rules changes.

 

A good question is whether anything would change if you made the rule read, "Any previously approved towboat with a previously approved speed control is approved."

Would there be more tournaments? Happier skiers? Huge membership spike?

 

Would changing the rule make more people unhappy?

[Bruce_Butterfield]

@horton note my caveats - bored with skis AND win the lottery. That should keep anybody’s wife happy :)

[eleeski]

@Bruce_Butterfield Good analysis on the history. One other factor was that PP did not interface well with the Drive By Wire controls that were becoming popular at the time. I got too many rerides in 2007 for speed problems. ZO is made by the ECM builders so it interfaced perfectly. Incredibly easy to use. That is a factor in the ZO takeover along with the patent issues.

 

An electric boat might be better suited to PP mechanical controls. If that happens...

 

Does anyone know when the settlement ends?

 

Eric

[Horton]

FYI other companies have worked on speed control. I heard The Medallion product was really good for slalom but they couldn't figure out jump

[JAS]

Sounds like the tail has been wagging the dog for tournament skiing. Would be interesting to see if members of the sport ( and I use that loosely) feel that we are in a better spot . In my eyes if someone goes out and runs 3@43 behind any boat with good path and time they should be the new king. This in no way discredits the new, simply validates the past. If it was skiers choice what would they pick?

[BraceMaker]

Be a heck of a cowinkidink for a 43 off skier to have someone rated hand timing on a surveyed course with end gate video to set that ;)

 

We won't see a different option till ZO patent expires and even then not unless an OEM or engine mfg is dissatisfied with the ecm they are using.

[GregHind]

Well I think Zero off saved the sport. Back in the global financial crisis 2008-10 when all the boat makers would have given up on 3 event, zero off forced a lot of people to new boats. The hulls hadn’t changed but speed control forced people to upgrade. People cried about it but they upgraded. From that foundation, when things recovered, we still had the big 3 in 3 event and we even had centurion carbon pro as an extra. That gave us the competition to turn the average waked LXI into the TXI, the not popular 197 wake into the new prostar and the old Nautique into the 200. All big upgrades but we may have had none of it, probably would have had none of it except for zero off forcing new boats when the market would have otherwise been dead.

[lhoover]

Please allow me to reiterate a thread starter from 6 yrs ago. My thinking has only been strengthened through the years. What think you?

 

Dear ZO,

 

Allow me this opportunity to thank you for the unbelievably fine product that you bring to our sport. You have developed for the boat industry, without question, the most precise and most consistent speed control ever devised and applied it to our specific sport of water skiing. You perform like none other while allowing for choices that suit nearly any style of skiing.

 

No matter the hull difference and weight variance of boats within the same brand, no matter the infinite choice of props, no matter the multiple choices of engine, you deliver. If I put nine people or none in the boat, if I have tons of junk or none in the boat, if I have a full tank of gas or running on fumes, you don't care. If I change skis, or gain weight, or adjust my binders and fin, you are still wonderfully consistent.

 

Your job is to make doggone sure that the mandated time is exact, at each buoy, and you are near flawless. You care not that I am a terrible driver or the best, because your job is the correct speed. With the simplest of input, with the infinite choices of speed desired, with the ease of just enter and go, you are without peer.

 

I realize that there is a ton of moaning and groaning about your exclusivity, or your lack of choices, or your furnishing too many choices. I know that the folks who buy the least expensive boats that our Big 3 manufacture usually do the most complaining.

 

Meanwhile, practices are so much better because of the simplicity of your use. Tournaments run so much smoother because times are never an issue. Divorce rates are down since “perfecto hubby” can't complain about speed. Records submitted for approval don't worry about subjective driving, dispensing with the “in the bucket” nonsense. Skiers keep skiing better because they know of, and rely on, your consistency. Knowledgable skiers examine their inconsistency, not yours. You perform every time, just as programmed.

 

Can you improve? Of course you can, nothing being perfect. But while you may tire of the mostly outrageous, non-productive, with little merit criticism, please know there are lots of us out here who adore you. We thank you, and hoist a fine drink in your name.

[JAS]

First of all thanks for all the great insight on speed control! I too greatly appreciate the evolution of technology. It’s probably pretty obvious that I tend to be in the camp that thinks “natural selection” should determine products used.

- To me it makes more sense that the regulations are based on tolerance not product used. If a club has a previously AWSA boat that is dialed in to tolerance why not allow.

- If we belive there is too much tolerance with certain systems then tighten tolerances and let “natural selection “ take place. Discussions then would be directed at making Brand x in tolerance and not, making Brand x like Brand Y.

- Trying to create regulations to keep pace with advancing technology is silly. Case in point new regulations for Correct Craft and Zero Off. Where will this stop. Likely to regulate ourselves into a corner like the marching band in Animal House

- Settings or enhancements should not matter, simply speed tolerance and path. Again let natural selection take care of things.

Just thoughts

 

[Dirt]

@Devil's advocate Is the virtual time really what it says it is? I beep prior to the entrance gates and again before the exit gates. Do you really know?

 

Did the magnets lie? Hand timing? Who does that?

[BraceMaker]

@Dirt beep comes from mapping. PP wants map to be saved as the back of the hull where magnet sensors would be

[MattP]

@dirt you are right

Virtual timing is all made up based on 1 way point programed to be equal to the entrance gage from each end everything that happens after that is all made up by the computer and it’s GPS.

 

A tournament could have a bad day with a driver/judge not paying attention with the course map out of sync. The beep is the backup to the GPS...

[LeonL]

@Dirt way back at the initial release of ZO I had my doubts. Kinda the fox guarding the henhouse. ZO says "my times are good, you can trust me". Well I had to be sure. At that time we still had magnets at every gate and I had a Lockett timer. I ran my boat several passes and the two timers rarely varied more than .02. So, I believe. It seems that you need a remap, but that doesn't change the speed. ZO is just starting it's "measurement" a bit early and consequently ending it by the same distance, covering that distance in 16.95 or whatever.

[ForrestGump]

There is nothing stopping another mfr from creating a GPS 3 event speed control system. Perfect Pass cannot ever offer it, though, for DBW boats mfr'd model year 2009 and later. They sold the rights to that market in May 2008 to eControls and Aquastar(ZO). And since the boat mfr's would have to test new systems, this effectively has locked everyone else out.

[BraceMaker]

@BoneHead do you know that they sold anything to eControls? I know they published that they had agreed not to, but my best guess would be that the agreement only holds for the term of the Patent. If that's 20 years from the 2004 priority date we are fast approaching when the actual patent protection afforded the ZO is going to expire.

[klindy]

@Dirt you’re right, ZO does NOT time the boat thru the course. ZO holds the speed constant based on an course which is exactly the proper length. In reality you could put in a course that the distance between each buoy is 50’ short (or long) and the “time” will be perfect. Nothing except for a rough estimate of the location of the start gates ties ZO to the course.

[Bruce_Butterfield]

@BoneHead "There is nothing stopping another mfr from creating a GPS 3 event speed control system."

 

Don't you really mean "nothing except a bunch of R&D money and a reasonable ROI for the business case"? Either that or winning the lottery.....

[BraceMaker]

@Bruce_Butterfield perfect pass has a direct competitor in ride steady. I'd imagine that when permitted to do so they'd very much like to be supplier to am oem.

[eleeski]

@Dirt @klindy Bear in mind that the "rough" estimate is within a couple feet and the speed signal is within a couple hundredths of a mph so the calculated time accuracy is well within tolerance.

 

We tested against magnets on Stan's boat with both ZO and PP. Times within .01 (we figured how to toggle to compare times - it was a while ago). I trust the ZO.

 

@BraceMaker It was a settlement. The details determine who and when competition can start with PP. But the settlement was between ZO and PP. Others are not so constrained. Of course, the market is tiny (as @Bruce_Butterfield noted).

 

Eric

[GregHind]

Mighty hard to compete against the engine ECU maker who already now has the dominant position in the industry. Zero off has so many technical advantages because it is integrated in. No need for a seperate computer. Any external device like a Perfect Pass must communicate via throttle commands. Integrated is so much more powerful

 

For example, we are in jump mode and the skier hasn’t now jumped yet. Zero can instruct the engine to leave the throttle open a bit, but reduce power thru retarding timing or not injecting fuel. Then when power is needed, the throttle is already part open, timing can instantly be put back to optimum. Rpm information is live.

 

I do not know exactly what they do, but you can bet that integrated speed control is MUCH better in terms of response time, accuracy and control.

[OSUwaterskier]

A bit unrelated to the direction this thread is going but aren’t there quite a few ZO conversion boats with both Perfect Pass and Zero Off? How can that be possible from both a technological and legal stand point? Wouldn’t that mean PP is working on a boat with DBW and/or ZO is working on a boat with mechanical throttle? Is there a way to trick the ECU into DBW while maintaining a mechanical throttle?

 

Maybe in these setups PP is used as a digital speedometer but it’s speed control function cannot actually be engaged? I don’t know how this could be possible though because that would mean there is false advertising on SIA, which is totally unheard of!

[MattP]

@OSUwaterskier most of the first model year boats when ZO came out had both systems installed.

[OSUwaterskier]

Gotcha, thanks @MattP

 

Doesn’t that seem to contradict some of what was said above? Did the manufacturers sneak a few boats through before the legal debacle? If so, I’m still curious how that setup could work from a technological/mechanical perspective.

[BraceMaker]

ZO was a nautique/ZO collaboration originally, DBW was coming out and PP developed a version for it. MC would ship their Tournament team with PP installed and a plug and play harness for ZO by retrofitting the ECM but would not provide the ZO unit which users could install. PP abandoned manufacturing these units but they are out there, occasionally you'll find a 07/08 MC that needs one as well as moomba another mefi-5 DBW boats., I think there was that thread a few weeks back with someone with an 08 anniversary edition which could be DBW w/o ZO.

 

What's more intriguing is the Moomba Cruise/ZO compatible boats.

 

 

@eleeski That's really my question. Did PP really agree to some sort of perpetual agreement to not provide a GPS DBW controls or are they held till a certain date. As far as it seems anyone knows is that it still continues to be in effect - but I do think PP continues to work on their product in a way suggestive of reentry.

[Bruce_Butterfield]

@OSUwaterskier it took a while for the legal agreements to be put in place so there was a time period where it wasn’t unusual for a boat to have both PP and ZO. I’m pretty sure the agreement was for OEM installs so there shouldn’t be any issue with an individal ordering a PP system and putting it in their own ZO boat today if they desired.

 

From the technology perspective PP and ZO interface completely differently with the engine. ZO is integral to the ecm and is basically software only with inputs from the gps. Mechanically you can’t tell from looking at the engine if ZO is installed or not. PP is connected to the throttle cable and uses the tachometer as it’s input to pull the throttle cable back once the driver pushes it past the desired point.

 

For a dual install, the only thing the driver needs to do is make sure only 1 or the other is turned on.

 

While it is certainly true that an ecm system can respond much faster than a cabled system, the measure of how “good the pull is” is 100% determined by the math coded in the computer. That’s the real issue.

[WBLskier]

Are ZO 6 buoy splits dead on every time or is there a little variation of a couple hundredths like I get with my zbox. Curious about that as I’m almost always within end to end tolerance. It have the smallest of variation in each segment.

[Drago]

ZO varies

[eleeski]

@WBLskier As a boat judge, I'm not sure I've seen a ZO buoy time off by more than .01. ZO seems to manage speed variations in real time so every split is right on.

 

Stan's Stargazer had wider variations that would carry through more splits. However the end course times were right on so the time got made up somewhere. For me, it felt like I went into 5 ball .03 faster so the end course would be right on (or irrelevant since I'd miss after the hot 5 ball).

 

If the Zbox has some variations but allows them to carry through, that feel would be awesome. If long term corrections are small and subtle, OK. If hitting an end course time right on (despite a reasonable tolerance allowed) - well that was my complaint about Stargazer.

 

The tolerance for an ECM response system might be +-.02. The tolerance for a mechanical system might be +-.04. The rule book allows >+-.14 for the end course time. A good pull should be attainable with either system - as long as you don't ask more than is possible.

 

Eric

[ryno65]

How would everyone feel if a Billionaire/Super-Villian/"Doctor" developed their own mega-dollar boat/speed control that helped them gain a pass, but no one else could use it ?

[LeonL]

I guess that would OK since he could only use in non-tournament situations. No, wait you said billionaire. I guess he could buy his way into using it for himself only, anywhere!

[6balls]

ZO is so good sometimes I wonder why we call in times from the boat. I suppose there are human errors...wrong speed set etc and we need to catch those.

Beyond that...it just doesn't seem that the current boats justify the price over the ZO boats '08 and newer...or the retrofits/repower of certain hulls that are really good.

Give me a '08 196 with ZO and I'm completely satisfied. Fantastic at 1/5th the price, and not depreciating like a stone.

I know...I'm happy the big 3 give a crap and keep producing new 3-event boats...but personal finance and bang for the buck matter, too.