Position Paper: All Skis are crossover skis. Do you agree or disagree?

[escmanaze]

Hi Everybody,

I officially sat down and did something I've been meaning to do for a while. I wrote a BOS position paper. I would love to hear your thoughts. Everything. The good, bad, and ugly. I'm open to revising it as time goes along. Who knows, maybe somebody can convince me that I'm just dead wrong.

 

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1-NiENHZt0sC7WDBaeVk6QK9OJzQ4-DYISGE1h_PPjPI/edit?usp=sharing

[Lobonator]

Can't agree more. I've often thought that people should look to buy skis based on the water conditions.

 

In my opinion, if you ski in good conditions most of the time. There is no downside to freeskiing a performance ski. They are fast and turn great, which are the two things you want most when trying to make big spray to show off for the ladies!

[Kwoody51]

Love it!

 

I’m an aggressive free skier typically skiing at 32-34 mph and ~22’ off and use a ‘15 Radar Lithium Vapor as my ski. It serves me very well and riding other ‘crossover’ skis just don’t feel right to me. They just don’t have the same initial turn in and feel like they want to ride flat vs initiate a turn/ require more effort to get the turn started.

 

I know my form isn’t perfect, especially across the wake but I cut hard turns and feel like I got a great workout when I drop!

 

Thanks for the paper and making me feel less like a poser with my ‘course’ ski ripping up the open water :)

[escmanaze]

So glad to hear it @Kwoody51 I think there are a lot of folks out there that would say the exact same thing as you. Good to hear you love the ski and the paper.

 

[escmanaze]

So here is the most recent and personal datapoint. My 10 year old kid is a total beginner but he still wants to chase buoys like Dad. 18 mph on a HO Freeride works out very well. Maybe the only ski better for him right now would be a Hovercraft so I could slow him down to 15.5 mph and let him chase the orange balls.

 

 

 

[markn]

My wife tried my old '66 1/2 Mapple T-1 and loved it. (currently on an older Radar Strada) She only skis at 26 mph free skiing and when she dropped, she said, "that is one hell of a ski". She thought it required less effort, turned better and was livelier and watching her ski, I agree. I think your hypothesis is correct!

[Hallpass]

I never cared for the really high-end skis when free skiing. I found that to ski them, I have to concentrate all the time, never relax. Stop concentrating for a second and the high-end, extremely responsive skis will take off whatever direction I happen to wobble. I've taken more than one nasty spill, unexpectedly, just hanging on for a breather. On the other hand I could cut as hard as I wanted, on any of the "mid-level" skis I ever tried, without having to concentrate constantly, maintain a textbook body position, etc. We ski in the California Delta, where most of those who still water ski (as opposed to mostly surfing) measure their free skiing in miles. Very few take seven cuts, rest, repeat. Many of our skiing friends ski on long skis, wide skis, even race skis. When you don't have to get to that next ball, it's just not that important to get every last bit of turning capability, responsiveness, etc. out of a ski. My contrarian, mostly free-skiing $.02.

[andjules]

@escmanaze you're on to something. Good job.

 

I also hate the 'crossover' language — except for something like a Katana or Freeride, which really are marketed to cross between traditional skiing and wakeboarding/hot-dogging. As a marketer, calling wider, softer skis 'crossover' is basically trying to make a novice/intermediate skier feel more excited about (appropriately) buying a novice/intermediate ski.

 

One thing that you hint at, but I think is really important in terms of $$:

- freeskiers don't really need the same side-to-side speed

- Radar and HO have, over the last few years, experimented with selling the same shape in variations with different layups/stiffness, with different price tags

In other words, high-end free skiers should seriously consider skis like the Vapor Alloy/Graphite, or the non-Syndicate Omni. Much lighter on the wallet, somewhat similar turning characteristics, but doesn't rocket you to the other side quite as quickly, but if you're not worrying about space before the next buoy… who cares?

[oldjeep]

I ski a vapor, behind a v drive in choppy water. Aside from the ski being way lighter when I take it out of the bag, it really doesn't feel much different than my senate in choppy water. In smooth water I can feel the difference.

[escmanaze]

@Hallpass I suppose you have a very different lived experience out there on the delta than what I see here in Utah and Idaho.

 

 

 

A quick google search brings up very prototypical examples of what is all over Utah and Idaho.

 

-V drive boat, because the boat spends most the time surfing and tubing.

- Fairly fast speeds to try to get the wake smaller in the big old barge.

- Small skinny skis. Marine Products is well known for getting people on small skis - probably because they know their customer base very well.

- It's all about the turns. Big spray, horizontal bodies, tight turns characterize the goal for tons of them.

- Wake crossings mean nothing. Whatever it takes to get up and over that thing. You do what you gotta do man.

- Runs don't last very long. Certainly not miles like you mention. More than 7 turns, but probably not too much more than triple that. If they're skiing aggressively, they will crash a couple times and they will repeat probably about 3 times.

 

I also see a little bit of what you're talking about, but I see a LOT more of what is represented in these videos. When these guys are at Marine Products shopping for a ski, they are saying that they want a ski that will give them the lowest (most horizontal, or laying down) turns possible. Naturally, the sales guy goes to the shape of a Vapor, Alpha, or GT-R, and probably isn't wrong to do so, as certainly, those will always be the shape that will "grip the turn" the best.

[bsmith]

The free skiers I grew up with in north Louisiana were like @escmanaze describes. We all wanted a ski that would let us lay down as low as possible and really grip the water. That meant that we were all skiing on the best competition skis made at the time. We all thought we would be good competitive skiers if only we ever got a chance to run a course.

 

For many of us, our first time to see a course was at a novice tournament that we would travel for hours to attend in south Louisiana. Most of us promptly made just one buoy on that first try. We learned that you really need a course to practice with to be competitive and that when first learning we had to dial way back on the intensity of our turns just to get some semblance of timing in the course.

 

Free skiers who had a natural "hooking" style of turn learned to ski the course the fastest. Those of us who practiced high speed laid over but looping type turns took the longest to adapt.

 

But as @escmanaze has pointed out, there are very athletic hard cutting free skiers out there that can use full competition skis to good effect while free skiing. If they ever get a chance to run a course, they would likely benefit from dropping back to a wider ski so they can slow down to learn the course more easily. But once they learn course technique and can ski the course using their best turning skills, then their full competition ski is once again appropriate.

 

I think @escmanaze is correct in saying that all skis are crossover skis.

[jhughes]

I don't think you need to define "expert free-skier" vs. novice and whatnot. I consider free-skiing and course skiing to not even be on the same planet of similarity and not even worth comparing in any fashion.

 

If the theory is that the way slalom skis are marketed, categorized, and defined in general is perhaps worth a revisit then I'd agree strongly.

[BraceMaker]

So I have gone back and forth and would currently state that I disagree with the position. @escmanaze I think the videos you posted solidified my opinion.

 

Those videos to me are people who would most benefit from a "crossover ski" and are instead riding course skis - people who are wheelie/tail turning the ski, bent over through the wakes and struggling to swerve back and forth on a ski that isn't working for them because they are all over tarnation with body position.

 

Something like a butterknife or katana for those people would actually improve their body position and let them look more in control.

 

So all skis can be ridden to do other things - but I think the crossover segment specifically would look better on that guy and still course ski.

 

[bsmith]

@BraceMaker yes, the videos @escmanaze posted are not demonstrative of the very best free skiers. The skiers in the videos would likely free ski the same whether they were on top of the line skis or traditional crossover skis. I think the main point was that they are skiers that try hard and want to push a ski to the edge.

 

The funny thing is that once a free skier develops enough skills such that they look better than the ones in the videos, they often seek out a course like @escmanaze did. As they get better in those early days of learning to run a course, are they now free skiers or course skiers? A guess it depends on what percentage of the time they get to ski in a course.

 

As an aside, when skiing in general was more popular back in the day, you could frequently encounter a free skier that had never run a course, but could link smooth low hard turns in proper form.

[GZ22]

Great position paper! I think the comp skis are amazing, but honestly i think a lot of it is cost and versatility. A crossover ski for freeskiing often has lace up bindings so that it will fit a range of riders in the boat, and is often a forgiving ski that will ride flat and cruise nice, but can also rip a turn and accelerate across the wakes nice. So I can rip it up on the open water on a ski that still performs very well, but a buddy can take that ski and learn on a stable platform that isn't a combo ski.

 

This is a tangent, but @bsmith why is it you think that recreational skiing died off so hard? It was so popular in the 80s. Is it Cost? Wakeboarding? Time? Or just a new generation with different interests?

 

I'm 30, I grew up skiing with my family, and I've spent that last 15 years trying to convince my friends to learn to slalom and none of them want to, scared of failure perhaps; maybe it doesn't look as cool as wakeboarding, or more likely they just don't feel like falling 15x before they figure it out. I mean I love to wakeboard too, but have some diversity.

 

Perhaps I should get a boom to teach my friends and all the kids, try to ease the learning curve.

 

Also we have no courses up where I live, maybe I should invest in one and get people hooked.

 

Anyone else live in a place with amazing lake access and yet no skiers? How do we get ppl to want to learn to ski?

[bsmith]

@GZ22 As some of the recent threads on the status of the sport have pointed out, there are multiple reasons for the decline in interest towards water skiing and wakeboarding. Cost is always a factor but it seems to me that things that take effort and skills now lose out to easier things like wakesurfing and of course, tubing.

 

Much fewer families own boats now than when I was a kid. And the families that do own boats seem to view riding a tube as the most fun thing they can do with a boat.

[escmanaze]

@GZ22 I think that might be part of the position paper. Certainly a lot of possibilities exist these days that didn't before. So if we are to get or keep people skiing, it would seem very important to make sure they are riding the best ski possible for whatever their purposes are. Hence - good ski recommendations are really important.

 

Here in Utah, we actually have what I would consider to be a really healthy ski scene. Local pro shop always has a big wide selection of skis and moves through them as well. There's always room for improvement, but it is encouraging that I'll bet their wakeboards sold numbers don't crazy outpace their skis sold numbers.

[BrennanKMN]

I categorize skis by their optimum speed - course or otherwise doesn't matter. A Radar Vapor Pro Build (for example) will perform better at 34/36MPH than it will at 30MPH. Same can be said for a Radar Lyric (for example). It will perform better at 30MPH than it would at 36MPH. Ask how fast they ski and stick them on the ski that matches that. I don't think I have ever meet a 36MPH freeskier. Most are in the 32-34 range if they are 'aggressive' as you describe.

 

'Higher performance' skis are designed to ski at faster speeds. Generally speaking those that ski the faster speeds can utilize a 'higher performance' ski. Additionally, most course skis are marketed as 'high performance' skis because they often designed to be run at tournament level speeds 34/36MPH. I have yet to see a ski designed purely for the course that was designed to be a 30/32MPH ski. If one did exist I think that would be a great course starter ski for many people.

 

Just like most things in life, you can put a screw in a wall with a Black and Decker drill or a Hilti drill. Both get the job done. Each have their arenas in which they excel.

[Horton]

I am sorry but every time I see this thread go back to the top of the page I bang my head on my desk in despair.

 

Crossover is just a term to describe mid range skis. Most skiers at any level beyond beginner would be pretty happy on a top of the line ski. Most other skis are some level of compromise. The exception is the wider skis that are really intended for below 30 mph. I do this for a living and I do not know what the heck you guys are really talking about.

[andjules]

@Horton "crossover" used to be a meaningful term, but as often happens when marketers get their hands on a word, over time it has become meaningless.

 

A "crossover" product is something that is supposed to perform reasonably well at two distinct things, usually where there is a reasonable expectation that it would be difficult to be good at both. Take, for example, a boat that throws a great slalom wake and a great wakeboarding wake. That's a good use of the word.

 

(High-end) free-skiing isn't inherently different than course skiing. If you're great at course skiing, you're probably great at free skiing. It's not a different sport, it's just course skiing without the course. I think @escmanaze's point is that in ski marketing materials, the term 'course' and the term 'crossover' have been bastardized and actually lead consumers in the wrong direction. A 'course' ski is really a proxy for 'expert' ski, and a 'crossover' is really a proxy for 'intermediate' ski. If you're an expert free-skier, you should buy an expert ski; if you're intermediate course skier, you should buy an intermediate ski. But again, typical marketing use of 'course' and 'crossover' (instead of 'expert' and 'intermediate') actually mislead the consumer.

[Horton]

@andjules first of all a good Crossover boat is a myth. There is no boat with really flat slalom wakes that an accomplished wakeboarder would like. If you want to jump the wakes on a slalom ski behind a wakeboard boat that does not make it a crossover boat.

 

I assume the source of this thread is the way that HO labels the skis. You can run balls on a Omni but it is best suited for less aggressive skiing. It is a great ski but not the best for chasing balls. It is a Crossover.

[vtmecheng]

This is an interesting read. I first came to BOS with the "What ski?" question and there are a steady stream of similar threads. I do agree that we can at times jump to a ski category quickly. That said, I'm not sure top end skies are more frequently the answer. Speed, boat type, and user strength are important factors. A strong skier with good form and a flat wake may really enjoy the higher end ski. Instead, someone who rides the back foot, has bigger wakes, and lots of public lake rollers probably won't like a ski that only wants to be on edge and dig in. My dad didn't even like my Carbon Omni, it was just a bit too much for his older body and poor form; the Freeride works much better for him. It's all about the right application. An Omni is a bad choice for someone trying to get buoys but a syndicate Omni is obviously great for someone learning up through starting to cut line length at 34 mph. I really think it's quite easy. Maybe there's a bit of difficulty in selecting between the Carbon and Syndicate or the Graphite and Lithium.

[vtmecheng]

Oh, and I'd be willing to bet that the majority of free skiers that call themselves advanced do not have great form by BOS standards.

[escmanaze]

Well if I've made @Horton bang his head on his desk in despair, then I'm going to take that as my sign that I'm definitely on to something. :) :D ;)

 

The paper was not aimed at HO or any factory specifically. It seems safe to say that the terms are defined this way by the industry as a whole and I wouldn't try to credit that to any single manufacturer or any single entity. It's all of us together.

[escmanaze]

@vtmecheng You are probably right that most of them don't have great form. Also, the overwhelming majority don't care. If the body is horizontal and the spray is big - mission accomplished.

 

You mentioning user strength is cool. That was the number one reason I don't own my Vice-C anymore. Awesome ski - I'm just not strong enough to get it across the wakes quickly. If I was free-skiing all the time, that ski would be my favorite because I would only care about the turns, and it really excelled in the turns. But I don't freeski much anymore and I do need to get across the wakes quickly so I opted back to the senate that helps me get across faster even if it doesn't turn as well. So in my world, the Vice-C was the better freeskiing ski and the senate is the better course ski - completely 180 degrees from prevailing narratives out there. And why? Because I'm not very strong.

[escmanaze]

So here is an interesting development.

 

Paper: The industry is primarily run by skiers who are 100% addicted to the course, and have been for a very long time, and are mostly really darn good at it and running really short lines. These folks seem to have forgotten, or maybe never even knew what skiing was like when there weren’t any buoys to go around.

 

Horton: I do this for a living and I do not know what the heck you guys are really talking about.

 

I might make the argument Horton that it's possible that you fit the theory in the paper perfectly. That's not meant as an indictment at all. My comment is intended respectfully. From everything I've gathered, you and your family have been and are tremendous wonderful assets and ambassadors for the sport. But the fact still stands that with you being born and raised in a family of tournament waterski royalty, you may very well not be too in touch with the mind and the culture of the country bumpkins from Idaho Falls in 1985 out on the local Ririe reservoir skiing behind the 1976 16 foot Reinell with a 90 HP outboard cowboy starting off the floating dock in order to help the boat get on plane quicker - or at all. (That was my intro to waterskiing when I was 4.) My teenage brothers were the bomb! cowboy start, big sprays, jumping the wake...oh yeah!!!

 

I don't actually know your personal history well enough to know if this is even true. But whether you fit the mold or not individually is actually mostly irrelevant - it just seemed like a convenient example in the moment if it happens to be true. I think there is still an overall mold out there in existence.

 

Crosses fingers: Please don't give me a triple panda. Please don't delete my thread.

[Horton]

I cannot and will not make time for something this stupid.