The Promo Boat Paradigm has to change

[Horton]

Here in south / central California we had just enough promo boats for tournaments last year. This year we will have 1 or 2 less factory supported promo boats. The remaining promo boats engine hours are going to be more of a premium. We are in a pinch.

 

Talking to boat industry people has convinced me that we simply need to find a new paradigm. Expecting new boats to simply show up at tournaments is no longer realistic. I think the hardest hit is going to be college tournaments.

 

A boat company executive challenged me to ask you guys for new ideas.

 

[jhughes]

What worked and didn't work in the past?

 

As I understand it, previously in general the promo owner would get the boat roughly for what they would sell it for for a cost-neutral brand-new boat every year (right?). In return they would be required to drag it around to a couple tournaments (some which may be really far away) and deal with other people driving and handling the boat during those tournaments. Was that a bad deal for manufacturers? I have no idea.

[Horton]

@jhughes To make the programs work in the past the cost of the boat was offset by the factory. As tournament boats represent a smaller part of the boat business the accountants see making the boats as low profit and discounting the boats as a loss. That is the problem.

[Kelvin]

@Horton, was the loss of promo boats in southern CA due to manufacturer/dealer cutbacks or the unwillingness of the promo owner to continue in the program?

[LoopSki]

what about an incentive from the factory for personal boats? could be in cash , gas,

gear ,creditt towards a new one etc...

[Horton]

@Kelvin The biggest change seems to be with program changes at Nautique but this issue is not about brand. All three factories have to justify the programs.

[jhughes]

I think any program is going to have to be "performance based marketing". Closing the loop on influence to the actual incremental sale. As such basically anyone who buys a boat based on seeing or riding behind your promo gives the dealer your referral code and the dealer credits you for a rolling 18mo past each promo boat delivery. Something like that. You buy full price but get credited back as the influence spreads.

[bigtex2011]

@horton it is no different here in Texas. As a current promo person, I pull at least 10 tourneys a year and sometimes more. For me, I know going into every year knowing that I will loose money on the boat. Many years ago, that was not the case.

 

I almost think the lake owners almost need to provide the boat and just start charging a usage fee for their boats. If skiers don't like what they are providing then they will go elsewhere.

 

I dont know if there's a simple answer.

 

I think AWSA forcing skiers to have a boat 3 years or less for an L/R event seems insane.

Then Zero Off. I could go on and on.

 

Our sport isnt like golf, tennis, surfing, mountain biking or hardly any other sport. Those sports, you just use the site and leave. Our sport adds the extra factor of a shiny new boat.

 

Just my thoughts and I know I'm just stating the obvious.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[jayski]

1. AWSA needs to stop the implementation of an "age" rule on boats for tournaments, assist the clubs in fiscal expenditures, regulate speed controls and drivers for tolerances not what ship their driving.

 

2. "Promo" boats should be distributed and handled by the manufacture not the dealers. Dealers/Manufacture/Promo person work hand in hand to create a program to give the boat the most exposure possible to garner sales and drum up enthusiasm for the brand

 

3. Strategically placed Promo boats geographically with people THAT ARE ENTHUSIASTIC AND CAN REPRESENT. Not people that get a boat for personal reasons and do not assist from a sales aspect. Dropping your boat at a lake Friday and picking up Sunday at a tourney is not proper representation.

 

4. Promo boats at tournaments are a poor way of selling boats. Promos should be taken to a lake community/club for a day, on the water demo's, let people use it the way they use their current boat. In a tournament, a extremely small percentage get to drive it, most have 8-12 passes behind it, most get to just look at it. Who buys anything of that magnitude in that fashion?

 

5. Promo people do not own the boat, they 'rent' the boat for their own personal hours (with a gratis hour amount for time, effort and expenses based on area to cover and number of events coordinated)

 

6. AWSA 'point' system for promos needs to evolve, trying to manoeuvre promo boats to 3 event tournaments because with greater 'points' inhibits the program and not assisting manufactures

[JackQ]

I don't know what the solution should be, but you are asking the right question. The current paradigm is collapsing. It is harder and harder to get boats for tournaments.

 

At first the manufactures cut the promo boats for many that did not travel outside of their home lake. The tournaments at their site previously were sufficient to remain in the promo program. It was obvious that many of those situations did not provide "brand exposure" for the manufactures. Since then additional boats have been removed from the programs to the greatest extent with Correct Craft.

 

We have had to resort to paying a "stipend" to a boat owner with a current model boat, and/or requesting (for C tournaments) a waiver and using an older model boat again compensating the owner.

 

 

[ForrestGump]

I honestly don't know what the answer is. A big question is whether AWSA is already thinking about what happens when the supply of boats dries up and you have far fewer boats than tournaments across the board? Their "product" is built on top of that promo program and they've been hands off for years.

[MattP]

What @jayski said x 1000!

 

I was in a meeting this winter where the total number of ski boats for all 3 manufactures sold this past year was given. I was utterly shocked. It was about 1/3 - 1/2 of what I thought the number was based on some figures I had from a few years back. The market has shifted again mainly in the price of boats.

 

I know that AWSA is aware of these concerning issues and wants to adopt to the changing marketplace and programs. I hope they do and I hope they work in tandem with the companies to find the most beneficial program for the companies and the active membership in the sport.

 

Along with @Horton I would be concerned about collegiate events.

[klindy]

I know it's important to also support their factory team which can mean additional boats for those skiers. I don't know specifically what the deal is for pro skiers but I suspect it can range from a discount to some sort of a managed lease to free use of a boat depending on who you are. My point is taken in comparison with 'privately purchased' promo boats, I suspect the costs are higher to the manufacturer for the team boats. I may be wrong but I'm sure it's also a factor.

 

Either way, team boats or promo boats are both a type of marketing and any costs associated with them allocated accordingly. Now that two of the big three are publicly traded companies, I'm certain these kinds of programs are scrutinized even more closely.

 

[MarkTimm]

I have been trying to get a promo boat for the last year, simply because we don't have enough here in the PNW. The ones we do have are overused, thank God for John Goodman. I recently gave up on that pursuit and purchased a new boat. I am now wrestling with the question, without factory support would I allow my new boat to be used in tournaments? I guess we will see. We may need to move to a Co-op model where a person or group has a boat available for tournaments. In this case the tournament organizer will need to pay more than free entry for the use of a boat(s). If the manufacturers are willing to provide a boat at dealer cost and the LOC will pay a fee for the use, this could be an economically viable solution.

[6balls]

Is promo to support tourneys or promo the brand? If to support the brand they shud sell promo price on ski and wakeboard/wakesurf boats on prominent public lakes and run some clinics on em. Sell some boats.

Where that leaves tourneys dunno

[skier2788]

My question to the boat manufacturer is where is the incentive for the promo guy? I lease a boat for $3500 and get to put 100 hours on it. At the end of the day the dealer takes it back and sells it. The next year I pay $3500 and get to put 100 hours on the boat. They are giving this guy a new boat and losing money on it but he has no reason to push their brand or attempt to sell it himself. Why not have dates written in the lease that if the dealer gets a deposit on the boat before Sept. 1 your lease for the next year is $1500 Oct. 1 it's $2000 and so on. Actually give the guy with the boat a reason to sell it.

 

The current structure doesn't seem equitable for anyone and that is why I think you see promo people quitting and dealers not looking for new promo people

[Bruce_Butterfield]

Great and relevant topic. Here are some thoughts that can lead in different directions:

 

1. We currently have a catch-22 with USAWS requiring "new" boats at tournaments, presumably in agreement with the big 3 so they can get exposure to the tournament skiers (buyers). If the business model for the boat companies has low priority on tournament skiers (buyers) and they choose not to fully support tournaments (lots of promo boats), then USAWS needs to change the requirement for tournament towboats to be independent of year, i.e. any towboat between 18-21' with minimum 300HP, center pylon, capable of maintaining straight path, etc. is good for all tournaments. Promo boats go away and clubs use what they have.

 

2. If the towboat manufactures want to support 3 event tournaments (again the business model decision), then its up to them to provide incentives to promo boat owners/dealers. The prior model (many years ago) provided incentives to promo boat owners that at least let them break even and use a new boat. It was "cool" to have a promo boat and bring it to tournaments. Its clear that model has gone by the wayside.

 

3. The lease program I’m aware of by 1 of the big 3 actually seems like a good deal – lease the boat for the year, take it to x tournaments and you are allowed put a reasonable amount of personal hours on it and turn it back at the end of the year. When you are talking a $6 figure boat and are going to tournaments, this is an easy way to get a new boat for personal use at reasonable cost. This is the most logical evolution of the legacy promo program. However, if there are not enough skiers who want the “newest, coolest boat” this isn’t going to work.

 

Bottom line is if the boat manufactures want to really support 3 event skiing, they need to make it feasible / economical / desirable for people to have promo boats. If people are not lining up and begging to get into the program, they are falling short.

 

Personally, I would like to see the requirement for a current year boat to go away and USAWS should set minimum performance requirements for all tournament towboats. If the boat manufacturers want to support 3 event skiing, and it fits their business model, the onus is on them to provide incentives for people to make the newest/greatest boat available.

 

[Chad_Scott]

I think we are lucky the manufacturers are still involved in the promo program at all. Remember these tournament boats are less than 5% of the companies overall production. In our Ski and three event world wholesale is considered retail. Promo Boats are usually sold at dealer cost minus discounts or credits earned from pulling events. Everyone wants the boat a cheap as they can get it. Now that most of the companies have gone public. They look at one thing. The bottom dollar at the end of the year. The discount ski boat world Versus the individuals or families purchasing wakeboard and wake surf boats. And these customers want all the bells and whistles you can add to the boat. Production time is the same for a boat they make a heck of a lot of money on. As a promo boat owner for 20 years everyone wants the bottom dollar for the boats. And for the manufacturer what’s the real incentive. My numbers may not be exact. But it cost around 15k each year for each manufacture to sponsor AWSA not to mention the additional fund raiser for USA waterski known as the boat test. Where each new model cost X amount of dollars (I think $7500) and like another $1500 for each prop tested. I don’t know what the answer is but I know that we as an organization are lucky to still have them involved and as an organization need to more to support the companies that still support what we love. Great topic and @Horton knows the importance of these companies to the sport we enjoy which I am certain is why he took on this topic

[dbutcher]

The following is simply my opinion. Remember what you paid for it - nothing.

 

This is a really difficult problem to solve, and it is completely caused by the decline in 3E skiing. I believe that current 3E promo boat programs cost the manufacturers money - significant money. These losses used to be offset by increased sales of 3E boats to the masses of skiers (theoretically due to promo boat programs). Well, the masses have been lost to wake sports which need and use tow boats that make large wakes (obviously not 3E boats) and probably have larger profit margins. My belief is that all manufacturers have lost big numbers in 3E boat sales. It has become or is becoming financially difficult for manufacturers to provide tournament 3E boats. The best solution I can think of is for 3E manufacturers to go back to selling 3E tournament boats to promo boat operators at or near the price they sell those boats to their dealers. They could reduce or eliminate paying promo boat operators for each tournament he/she pulls. Typical promo boat operators go to tournaments anyway. Thus, the manufacturer would not lose money on the 3E promo program, but they would still have to deal with some dealer complaints about promo boats stealing sales. That is a problem the manufacturers could probably handle/resolve with those dealers. Not all dealers will complain. If a promo boat operator (understandably) doesn't want to take a boat to the Regionals or Nationals without being paid (because of distance and/or cost), that promo operator can probably be replaced. Who among us doesn't want to buy a new boat at dealer cost. Nautique's 3E promo program in 2019 (a short term lease for X $) was a good deal for the promo boat operator, or so it appears to me. It may not have been quite as great for Nautique. I don't know if Nautique is continuing the same program for 2020 or changing it. I don't know anything about the other manufacturers' programs. We cannot expect 3E boat manufacturers to lose money just so that we can have tournaments.

 

Exceptions already exist for use of older boats in Class C and below AWSA tournaments. I've heard that IWWF has allowed the use of older boats (outside the United States) for years, perhaps even in record tournaments. Tournament boats have always been in short supply outside the United States. What have other countries done to get tournament boats?

[aupatking]

Super tough question

If tournaments can survive without the Promo boats, that’s the real question. Who’s boat gets used? How are they compensated? Are clubs that hold tournaments forced to buy boats? You think tournaments are expensive now! Maybe with anything able to pull a tournament, it would be worth a manufacturers money to promo a boat so it is only their boat that is seen. I don’t think it’s worth their money now.

Why is the governing body pushing for manufacturers? Does any other sport governing body require less than 3 year old equipment by only 3 approved brands?

On the other side, if there is no requirement, do we lose the big 3? You know that’s the worry at AWSA right now. I’ve been betting hard on the loss of at least 1 for the last year. If I were not a skier, but was on their board or their accountant, I’d be fighting against us.

Maybe it’s what is best for the sport? The age requirement goes away and is replaced by performance standards. If a bubble back 1997 with a ZO conversion can pull a tournament, do you really think a college club/team is going to have that much trouble finding a boat? Maybe we’re finally forced to open the actual sport side to the larger (poorer) market. Nothing in the world says a kid skiing behind a 91 Prostar today can’t run 39. The boat is certainly capable.

I do believe that the market, left alone, will correct itself. The outside influence of the AWSA 3 year rule may be the worst thing that ever happened

[dave2ball]

@dbutcher if the MFG sold boats to promo guys at cost like the prior programs and the did not give compensation for the tournament use the where is the incentive to go to bring the boat a tournament? As with the old programs you owned the boat. So you could not show up and the MFG had no recourse other then not selling you another boat.

I was on a big 3 promo team for over 35 years. I have seen every program pass through and nothing has worked. We are a thorn in the dealers side in most cases. As soon as I brought my promo to a tournament the first question was how much are you selling it for. The possible buyer would then run to the local dealer and throw that number out of what he would pay. So the dealer would loose money or no sale. That was one problem all programs faced until dealer first right of refusal came into play on a couple of programs. If the dealer did not want the boat back they should not complain right? Wrong. So now the programs are what they are today. There is no easy solution If there was it would of been fixed years ago.

Having private owners provide boats opens up another thread entirely. Insurance issues, correct ZO program, What is a fair price, mechanically sound. It may come down to the tournaments paying for boats one way or another.

Have the promo boats bring the price of there boats down either by different models or smaller motors which drive the retail prices up. There are great ideas out there in earlier threads time will tell the fate.

 

 

 

 

[The_MS]

When I left the CC program in 2010 I had about 32k into my last 09. It would be hard to think about going from 32k to over 100k in 9-10 years. Almost 7k yearly. Thanks to those members they have stuck it out.

[6balls]

They are sticking it out, but business is business. I have to think a matter of time before one of the big 3 drops the ski boat market. If I was on their Board I think I'd be telling them that every year after looking at the numbers.

I guess they could still view it as a loss leader if they have any numbers on how many aging skiers stay "in brand" and buy a surf boat later.

[Horton]

The elephant if the room is the news that Nautique cut their promo team by more than half 2 years ago and then slashed it again for 2020. That simply creates too much of a gap for the MasterCraft and Malibu programs to fill.

 

I am not here to bash Nautique - they have their reasons - whatever.

The question is how is the sport going to respond?

[LoopSki]

why would correct craft spend all the time money and effort on the " ski polygon " then slash the program? i doubt too many get sold to open water skiers.

[dave2ball]

@Horton great question. Are Master Craft and Malibu willing to put more boats out there for tournaments by increasing there teams? Has MC and Malibu increased there sales due to the changes in Nautique’s program? I have only had maybe 6 rides in the 2 years or so behind the new nautique due to the lack of availability of the boat. Every boat felt different. It’s hard to drop 80 to 90 k on a boat that is now rarely at tournaments in my area.

[jayski]

From a business perspective I think Nautique is on the right path with their promo program, it isn't 100% and could easily be tweaked to create sales and enthusiasm and be super beneficial to Nautique and the dealers.

 

As a site owner and tournament organizer, in a location that is not 'easy' to obtain promo's, all brands are the same, difficult to get and costs money. It's way easier to run my own boat, take the costs of having a promo and factoring that in for the resale cost of the boat when I turn it over for a new one.

 

for @dbutcher question about 'other countries', In Canada there is no promo boat program, any level of tournament is run using the 'clubs' boat, could be 2-3 years old, could be 6...

[lazzn]

I feel like this can go one of two ways in the short run. Either AWSA drops regulations for tournament boats so that more personal boats are eligible, or something changes with promo boats.

 

On the regulations side, my feeling has always been that the main purpose of ZO is as a homologation tool. If your boat was AWSA certified WITH ZO as the speed control, and your boat can have the latest ZO version, hypothetically it should be able to pull any tournament. (I am sure i will catch flak for that statement but something has to give eventually.) Obviously the biggest problem with this is that regions with less promo boats will have more older boats pulling tournaments, while places like (florida) are more likely to have all new boats.

 

On the promo program side of things, how have the number of promo boats tracked the demand for ski boats in general over the years? Is the lack of promo boats a problem with program design or is it a symptom of what's happening to the market in general? In my mind, everything in this sport is very related. As a collegiate skier, a lot of the kids I ski with plan to buy ski boats after college. Certainly not new, but you could bet that many of them will be able to afford a new one ~relatively~ soon after graduating. But how many of those kids will stay involved enough in the tournament scene to have incentives to buy a new boat. We all love/want the new boats, but in reality, if a skier isn't skiing in lots of tournaments/competing to be on top, there are significantly diminishing returns to getting a new boat. Less people skiing -> less people wanting new boats all the time -> factories having less money to support promo programs -> less people skiing behind the newest boats -> continue cycle.

 

SO i guess my point is, is the promo program where the change has to break? Or is it a problem that is more easily solved by fixing the rest. In general, skiers want the latest and greatest. If lowering requirements for tournament boats helps more tournaments happen, and more tournaments helps increase involvement, then eventually there will be more demand for new boats. More skiers in general give a better chance of more people wanting to do promo. More demand for boats gives more money for factories/dealers to support promo programs.

 

Idk, just my crappy take on things.

[Horton]

@JeffSurdej Comments?

[Not_The_Pug]

@LoopSki you would be surprised that most of the promo boats sold or new get sold to open water skiers. I have been on the CC team almost 10 years and all but one of my boats have gone to non tournament skiers. I know of two 2019 Ski Nautiques that went to individuals that ski open water (they both had purchased promo 200's in the past).

 

These programs rely on referrals. How many people on here, if they are looking at a new or used boat go to their local promo team member first? We turn in referrals that help the factories know we are working to promote the boats.

 

Nautique also started doing the Swervin weekends. This is to get the boats and skis from HO in front of individuals that are not tournament skiers. How many people send people they know that would like to try skiing or get a little coaching from a Pro skier for free to these types of events. It is all about getting people on the water.

 

We have to promote all the boats to both tournament and open water skiers. It all comes down to selling the boats, whether they buy new or a promo boat.

 

I really enjoy taking my boat to College tournaments. They are so appreciative to any of the promo people that bring a boat.

[Jody_Seal]

Why do we need brand new boats to have trials? Er or tournaments....?

It has really become stupid, why should this sport be mandated to be a sales platform for three company's to sell roughly 50 boats a year?

Let's be real we reap what we sow. The sport has become one of exclusivity, analisim and confused ethics. We make stupid rules and policy's that impair the sports growth and or sustainability.

Maybe it is time for us to take a real good look at putting emphasis on the handle end of the rope rather then the pylon end.

Idea! Start a movement within the sport that focuses on competition win and placement rather then performance rankings. When this happens it becomes true competition of the day and when that happens it does not matter what boat pulled the competition. When we change the policy's of tow boats and utilize the rule book for competition 16.95 can be had by just about any inboard designed in the last 25 years.

 

Time to start a data base of private boat owners willing to supply their boats for competition purposes. Eliminate the current towboat policy's and allow older truly tournament operational boats to be utilized. Do not know the nuts and bolts it will take to do this but it is time to stop adhering to towboat castration.

[klindy]

How many boats are available from each promo program? And where approximately are they located?

[dbutcher]

Read page 17 of the 2019-2020 USA Water Ski & Wake Sports Towboat Policy Manual. It's on the USA Water Ski & Wakesports website. Better yet, read all of it.

[MattP]

AWSA Towboa Manual

[Horton]

irrelevant

[elr]

Does the newest model tow boat get more exposure at a busy ski school (Cory, Jay, Jack, April etc.) or a record tournament? If I were a ski boat marketing executive I would look for places that pull a lot of kids.

[skier2788]

Maybe that is the way the promo thing goes. Instead of incentives for an Individual it is to ski clubs and ski schools. Offer a package where you get a reduced price but have to sign a contract for a certain number of boats over a five year period and are required to take it to a certain number of tournaments per year.

[EricKelley]

Nautique says has pulled more tournaments than other manufacturers. They have not received preferential treatment with events at Nationals having done so. What's the incentive is the question? Should manufacturers that pull more events get used in the Nationals premier events and get other rewards? Not an easy answer to this and Tournament credit numbers are murky because private owned non promo boats are not separated out of the numbers. That's why we really need to account for privately owned vs promo boats in the numbers. Rest of this...what Jody said.

[APB]

Well said @jayski

 

 

[Horton]

@EricKelley that Nautique stat might be true but if you don't include central Florida where many sites are Nautique Only things are not as lopsided.

[unksskis]

"g) Closed Tournaments: If a sanctioned tournament is not open to all USA Water Ski

Approved Tournament Towboats the tournament will NOT be included in the total

number of tournaments used to determine the 20% quantitative requirement. Those

boats participating in the closed tournament will NOT receive credit from that

tournament toward qualifying quantitatively for Regionals and Nationals."

 

Then they shouldn't be getting credit for those towards Nationals

[Golfguy]

My vote is that AWSA gets out of the boat testing an approval business. Specs for speed tolarences and course deviation standards are as far as they should go. If a Bass boat could preform to these standards, who cares? (exageration to prove a point) No one asked for bigger more expensive ski tugs. With the AWSA, like with so many professional orginizations, the primary objective is to fund itself and the benifits to the members are questionable. We are all too close to the problem to solve it. It needs to be blown up and re-written. If the market for three event boats was thin 15 years ago, tripling the price can't be the answer. My $.02.

[Chad_Scott]

@horton. Agreed closed lakes in Florida is something they created and then want credit for pulling the most events. Outside of Florida I’d say the numbers are much closer. And I agree that the boat test should not be a fund raiser for USA waterski unless they are willing to do more for the big 3. I’d say the big 3 all have higher expectations for their products then reflected in the boat test.

[Broussard]

@unksskis That only works if the person sanctioning the tournament checks that box on the sanction form, does not take into account any exclusivity contracts that sites might have with manufacturers.

[Adam Caldwell]

Pretty simple.

 

Any, C or F event should be able to pull any boat that has ZO capability.

 

 

Keep the E, L, R more consistent with newer boat requirements to maintain some level of consistency for the tournament skier who is okay paying extra for the best boats and best conditions.

 

 

[lakeho26]

If we(3e skiers) as group decide we don’t want continued innovation and quality with 3 event boats, then yes get rid of awsa testing, get rid of the 3 year old boat rule, and in turn we’ll lose the only reason for the big three to continue to bring out new models. As @Chad_Scott put it we are lucky the big 3 see the value still in putting the RD And cost involved.

 

For promo paradigm , at anytime has any manufacture tried higher hours and longer length of time for having a boat? Instead of getting a new boat every year, make it so you get a boat every other year or every third year (time a boat can be used in tournaments)? Still have one promo per dealer per year.

That would allow 3 people to be part of the promo program and if managed correctly, could be in the right areas to help out with drive distances and availability.

 

Also this could help with the amount of 50hr Promo boats for sale and buyers questioning if it makes sense to buy slightly used or just buy new due to the high price!

 

Closing statement!

DeRegulate in order make it easier and more accessible for more people and companies to be involved but don’t get rid of the few reason We have for the big three to continue to build us new awesome boats!

 

[JeffSurdej]

@Horton great topic, I have stuff to add but it wont be until Sunday Night. AWSA is definitely working on the situation b/c we have to prepare for the future of hosting events as this evolves. Just FYI, right now you can host any class C event with a boat that has ZO, back to 2007 I think. That was approved about 3 years ago. I think E,L,R is now 3 year old boats.

[Jody_Seal]

Manufacturers do not get tow boat credits for closed boat tournaments.

 

Some History:

Tow boat testing "WAS" at one time lucrative for AWSA. We had almost a dozen or so manufacturers showing up every year, each region selected drivers and boat and tow boat experts gathered each year to certify that boats being utilized in tournaments would provide adequate performance for competition. In those days manufacturers would provide in some instances 3 to 4 of their products. In many years testing could last over 3 to 4 days, especially when they were testing for barefoot and even wakeboard.

Before Ron Tanis invented the acceleration drone AWSA would hire some of the nation's top skiers to be utilized for testing purposes. Again before the drone skiers were utilized in acceleration runs from a deep water start. Watched Frankie Dees do maybe 100 deep water starts to wide open throttle behind all the participant boats

all before lunch. The drone was a much needed tool for this aspect of testing.

 

One year there was some cooperation and a coo was established within the manufacturers as the consensus with the manufacturers was AWSA was charging way to much for them to participate in testing and licensing to participate in tournaments.

I remember Mrs. Armstrong who was the president of AWSA at the time getting up in a towboat meeting and telling all the manufacturers that AWSA understood their issues but that if the dollars were reduced AWSA would cease to exsist financially. Again that was before USAWS and the big move from overlook drive.

 

Tow boats because of this testing along with the electronic evolution got better and better for all involved. But over the years since the advent of towboat evaluations the towboat industry changed. We all know what happened, wake sports demanded a different boat and wake sports became the dominant factor in the inboard industry.

All those manufacturers that before would produce comp boats ceased doing so as they seen the change to wake sports and responded accordingly.

We as skiers however did not and even to this day expect manufacturers that continue to provide equipment to abide by our policy that no longer fit their marketing directions. We bitch and complain that they do not support us to the level we once had or even a fraction of that level.

We have not made direction decisions nor enough policy adjustment to counter these industry marketing decisions. We continue to knee jerk in our adaption and adjust policy in a knee jerk way in response to what the boat companys decisions and policy's they make.

 

Today we have three companys left that to some degree support three event competition waterskiing. All three were dominant way back in the day described above but they are changing again from our needs and direction.

We as a organized competition organization need to make a realistic decision as these boat companys may indeed just drop comp boats from their lines altogether.

Our knee jerk policys and rules are and can be insane.

 

Those of you that dont know the definition of insanity: doing the same thing over and over expecting a different outcome.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Horton]

back on topic please..

 

if current model boats are required and for this argument let's say they are, can we as the competitive skiing public reinvent the entire model?

 

 

 

 

[JackQ]

lakeho26, Innovation? What useful innovation have we experienced in the last 10-15 years?

 

I have a 11 year old Nautique 196 that I ski with 95% of the time, I ski no better or worse behind any of the new boats, with one exception, where I would much prefer the 196.

 

The wake is s good or better behind the 196 that all but one new boat, tracks close to all but the "old" 200s, spray is good enough at 39 to be a non factor. Maybe you are referring to the proliferation of sea deck, that is more expensive, harder the maintain in the long run, and provides less sound deadening. Or the advanced the dash displays that add cost, and are less reliable. In the future even the $1K replacement parts will be unobtainable. Fuel Injection is a fantastic improvement over carburetors, but DI will likely be a long term maintenance nightmare, it has in many instances already proven so in the automotive world.

 

I am afraid we (skiers) must force USAWS to relax the tow boat requirement for E, L and R tournaments as promos become less available. The requirement should be it was a certified boat (if we don't cease this non value added activity) in the last X years, and has the latest ZO version, and is in good mechanical condition.

 

The condition of "the" boat is what concerns me, I have single puck ZO, latest version, well maintained boat, replaced steering gear, head, cable, mounts etc every 3-4 years. I know the better my boat tracks and drives the more likely I will get a good pull. With the promo boat programs condition was never a concern, most were fastidiously maintained.

 

At my ski site there are older boats that range from poor (engine constantly misfires, leaks continually, steering cable requires herculean effort, with excessive play, etc) to another boat re-powered with PCM 6.2, new running gear, etc. I would not want to and likely would refuse to ski in a tournament with all but the re-powered well maintained boat.

 

So how are we/should we determine when a older boat is not good enough to pull a tournament? This will prove to be a sticky wicket! But it something we may quickly have to sort out.