More options is not better

[Than_Bogan]

I just want to remind all engineers in all industries: It's usually not a better product if it has more customizability. It's a better product if it works without having to customize it.

 

This is especially true of parameters that are not easy to relate to a simple real-world measurement. If a magic ski needs me to key in my weight, I can do that. If it needs me to dial in a completely arbitrary parameter, then that's a homework assignment, not a feature.

 

Don't forget that a bucket of resin and a pile carbon fiber is a fully customizable water ski. What customers want is for the engineers to figure out the design parameters!

 

When that's impossible to achieve -- and believe me I know from decades as a software develop that it often is impossible -- then forcing the user to tweak things to solve their problem is an acceptable backup. But all of us engineers need to understand the primary goal is to "just work" without tuning parameters. The next most preferable options are easily set parameters that relate to something measurable. And the least preferable option is arbitrary customizability.

[vtmecheng]

I think we all know what this is in reference to. Using your rational, fins are close to as bad as it gets followed closely by binding placement. These require arbitrary measurements, with some level of infinite adjustability (within the range windows), that the user must adjust using feel. I don't think fixed fins and bindings is realistic. Having three set tale options that you can bolt on seems easy when compared to these and is considerably lower cost to the company than making three different molds, resulting in three different high end models for a user to select from after limited demo time, at best. If a single ski design could work for everyone then why do some skies work for some and not for others? I'm sure any of the ski companies would love to make the magical ski that works for every person without a single adjustment required. This is just not a realistic goal.

 

Like so many things, customization can be wonderful and horrible. It all depends on the application and how it is engineered into the system. Some level of discreet customization is often positive, especially when it comes to a product that will be used by people of many different shapes and styles. Let's give things a chance, see the results, and then pass judgment.

[Horton]

My take on software is the most powerful software is often the least intuitive and the most intuitive is the least powerful.

 

@Than_Bogan are you taking a dig at Connelly?

[Than_Bogan]

@Horton Believe it or not, no. It's true that they reminded me of this, but three options you can quickly test is FAR from a huge offender.

As an old engineer, I truly just want to pass down what I've learned and get people thinking about product design. Almost every engineer I've ever worked with has an instinct to provide more options. Almost every customer I've ever interacted with wants something simpler.

[BraceMaker]

An ideal waterski would have no settings and achieve peak performance for all users always.

 

The worst waterski would have 1000 different adjustable parameters but would have almost no performance for anyone until all of the parameters were set correctly.

 

Wouldn't we all agree nearly all modern skis are more like the first example than the second?

[vtmecheng]

Sorry for jumping to conclusions on your intent. I took the timing and ran with it.

[Than_Bogan]

Adjustable binding position and fin parameters are firmly in the "acceptable backup plan" category. Only a crazy nerd like me could actually WANT to play with those parameters, but for now nobody has a better way to get the job done.

 

That said, one of the best features of the CG fin is that it works great at almost any remotely sane settings. That should be the goal.

[DW]

@Than_Bogan - If all humans were identical and skied exactly the same I would agree with your premise. Unfortunately, we are not all the same in the context of ski design, therefore tuning elements can improve ones ability to perform. To extract that last ounce of performance from the ski may not be an easy task, ask any development or setup engineer that very question. I don't think many skiers regret the ability to adjust their fin or move the bindings to improve the feel and/or performance of the ski for them and those available options certainly make our skis better not worse. For an average skier, none of which are on this forum, that may be fine, but for those aiming to maximize performance, the ability to customize the equipment is key. Don't forget, we as skiers all want the impossible - instant turning capability, warp speed across the wakes, super stable, ability for a 2' midget to easily clear 43' off, what can possibly be difficult about that?

 

I agree with some of your premise which if I am reading correctly between the lines is the ability to measure or confirm changes via a measurement technique. Unfortunately, the water ski industry has gone down the measurement rabbit hole of using measurements that are arbitrary relative to an actual measurement.

[h2onhk]

I can see both sides. Sometimes you have to look at the primary end user of the system, equipment, or device. Some user's skill sets will allow them to take full advantage of the operating window you built and use it to improve, while others will crash and burn over and over again, not because they don't care or aren't trying, but the fact that the simply don't understand the system enough to make good decisions on how or what to change. I'm a firm believer in the more adjustments you can design out of a system, the more effective it will be for the mass majority of operators. In the end, if skiers are putting up big scores on the ski and that in-turn leads to increased demand and sales, chalk it up as a win for engineering and marketing.

 

I hope my next ski comes with an optional cup holder.

[Hallpass]

Apple has been the best example of this principle, for years. Elegant solutions that hide complexity.

[vtmecheng]

To go with what I think @Than_Bogan is getting at, I would love a ski with a fixed fin and binding position that worked perfectly for me. Next best would be one that only required a binding adjustment, followed by one that only needed a single-degree-of-freedom fin adjustment. Less time screwing around with settings and more time for me to ski and work on the real problem, my skiing. Too bad that doesn't exist.

[Than_Bogan]

And perhaps it will never exist. Engineering is HARD. That's why they pay us to do this, even though most of use are addicts and wouldn't be able to stop anyhow. But every day I see engineers lose sight of the goal.

[ktm300]

The variability of the customer/skier is off the charts complex regards their respective use of the product. The variability of say iphone users is also complex but not so much with regard to the use of the product. Seems the product/ski better have enough adjustable parameters to meet the variability of the customers. I love to see the innovation; a few of the new ideas will actually work. One example that comes to mind is the flex tail. Mine would leave the water at apex of one ball; my daughter loved it and skied great on it.

[Wish]

Not suggesting Connelly has a gimmick. The king of that is OBrien. They had the ski that had an adjustable plate that could change tip stiffness of the ski along with an adjustable tension rod that adjusted the tail stiffness along with 2 tail stiffness plates that could be removed, one or both, for who knows why and a mini fin under foot that could be removed if preferred as well as boot and fin adjustments. It came with a “book” of adjustment parameters. ?

 

I’ll say 3 tail shapes seems pretty simplistic and perhaps an easy test to see which one is liked. Far more easy then sliding a plate as much as 0- 2” and bending a rod 0-1/2”. It did not last.

 

 

[jhughes]

I've thought about this a bit lately. There are really two types of "parameter tweakers" in slalom.

 

Type 1: "Compensation" ski tweakers, folks that are running longer lines and slower speeds and will do whatever they can to make their equipment hide/overcome technique flaws and other things that their ego (and I mean ego like a psychological term, ego vs. subconscious, not "egotistical" or in any negative connotation) doesn't want to deal with or work out of their form or mindset. These are people running 32mph 15 off and buying new fins and whatnot. Nothing wrong with that, keeps the industry going. I've been in this camp on and off over the years so it takes one to know one. Make the equipment work best to a particular form or style.

 

Type 2: Very high level skiers where very small tweaks can make a very big difference. In other words their skill level and technique is not leaving much on the table and thus equipment tweaks are necessary to eek out the slightest edge.

 

Right now I'm at "gimme stock settings, don't hide or compensate for my flaws, let's fix the technique". Not tweaking anything ATM.

[Stevie Boy]

.

[Justin_C]

If you were in the market for a new ski and the sales person at the shop said "buy one top of the line ski from and brand and we'll throw the other 2 top of the line molds in for free" I'm pretty sure nobody would complain and they'd sell a boat load (pun intended?) of skis. Just a different perspective.

[BraceMaker]

@Justin_C I think demo programs show the point, if the DV8 were 3 separate skis are you going to demo atleast 2 of them before buying?

 

What about if you loved your old D3 - going to demo the two skis to see what you liked better?

 

[DW]

This one has just a few adjustments to tune on (and it is the best by far):

 

 

[jjackkrash]

I agree with pretty much all of Than Bogan's sentiment. But on the new Connelly, after watching Joel H.'s presentation, I really, really want to try the ski with tail Option 3.

[Bill22]

@Than_Bogan you’re saying three tail options is a bad idea but advising average Joe to stuff a random size washer under the fin block is a good idea?

[Than_Bogan]

@Bill22 In fact, I am saying neither of those things.

[Bill22]

Your timing just seems odd.

[Than_Bogan]

@Bill22 Read the thread please. I've done what I can to explain myself.

[skispray]

@Than_Bogan I see where you’re explaining yourself, but this isn’t an engineering forum. You must have posted this because there is relevance to the water ski world, no? And the timing seems to imply exactly what that is. You say that more options are a bad thing right after a ski is introduced with more options. Then people call out the connection that no one could miss (whether intentional or not), and now you’re saying the new Connelly with the features you were criticizing in general is not at all the target of that criticism. It kind of feels like you’re gaslighting all of us!

[Than_Bogan]

Sorry for the weird impression. I 100% admitted that the new tail options on the Connelly were a "triggering event." So, yes, the timing is not a pure coincidence. But the straw that broke the camels back was a very small straw indeed.

Try not to read too much into it. Engineers are notorious for simply saying what they mean. We're the sort who were always like "what the hell is SUB-text?" in English class.

[skispray]

@Than_Bogan I’m not trying to be a dick, I hope you don’t take it that way. It’s just that there’s only a point to you saying what you’re saying on this forum if it applies to the Connelly. So people are right to assume you're criticizing the ski and it'd make sense for you to just come out and say that, as you say you're apt to do. But you're not, which is why it's weird. It is the internet, and people get their wires crossed all the time, so no harm, no fowl as far as I'm concerned. I just wanted to be blunt about why this is such an odd thread from the perspective of other ballers.

[vtmecheng]

@Than_Bogan that's why I was so quick to apologize. I've been an engineer for long enough to know that most of us suck at communication and are even worse at subtleties. At least my wife has gotten used to it, either that or after 20 years she's just numb.

[Bill22]

I am not being a jerk, it’s that someone had to call you out on this. Than, you brag on one ski company nonstop for two year. That ski company released two new fins, a new wing, and a fin block that will adjust depth on one side of the fin independently of the other and all that is “good”. Then Connelly comes out with a ski with three different tail options and all the sudden options are bad?

 

How else did you expect us to interpret your post?

 

I agree with post above, I want a ski that feels good at stock settings, but for the skiers who like to tweak, let them have as many tail options as they want.

 

[Than_Bogan]

Well huh. Seems like I've mostly (or perhaps completely) failed to make my point, but instead I have received some education. I appreciate the frankness.

[Adam Caldwell]

@Than_Bogan is dead on.

 

Reminds me of the surface area offset we offered on the original Denali fin blocks. It added a level of complexity which I hated....BUT..it did also offer massive performance gains as well.

 

That evolved into the CG fin. Where without any 'offset adjustment' will provide balance to the asymmetry of slalom.

 

The next objective is to get back to fixed fin design with one dimensional adjustment to make life easier for everyone involved - from customer to sales person to designer.

 

 

[JackQ]

Time will determine if this is a gimmick (O’Brien piezo eclectic tip) or a difference maker (Schniz adjustable fin), don’t understand the negative to options. Tail shapes, are more than a trivial difference, and what is good for one skier is a disaster for another. For what it is worth, I had a prototype interchangeable tail design that I shared with Dave Goode that would allow marginal changes in overall ski lengths as well as shapes. Being able to try both a square tail, vice a rounded one is a welcome feature and if one is better than the other for your offside vs onside, you can than make one that is built that way.

[Bill22]

If this was posted last week, I would have said, "never have I agreed more with Than." :)

[andjules]

Coming at this as a marketer (not engineer), with a human psychology perspective:

Sometimes dialing in parameters isn't a homework assignment, it's an expression of love.

 

Ok, I admit, I'm being dramatic.

 

But let's look at coffee.

 

For people who like coffee, engineers have designed a product (Keurig/Nespresso) with a bunch of best-average-assumptions, nothing to tune (except at the store: choosing your favorite flavor), press one button and go.

 

But for people who love coffee, they immerse themselves in arduous rituals, tuning everything, from obsessing over which grinder to buy, which granularity to adjust to, what temperature to heat the water, etc., etc., with some folks even roasting their own beans. We tend to show love (devotion) through what evolutionists call "expensive behaviours". That includes buying callipers and adjusting fins, even when we shouldn't.

 

@Than_Bogan I get it, the engineer — like a good writer/editor — should keep carving away getting down to the fewest adjustable parameters that can make the most meaningful difference. If the fewest parameters = zero, that's a good day for an engineer (what did Einstein say? something like "Make it as simple as possible, but no simpler"). But for the kind of folks that join a forum to spend all winter talking about slalom technique (and fin settings): well, forgive them, they're in love.

[Wayne]

Maybe a different (automotive) engineers take. In my career as a calibration engineer we adjusted parameters in the software to deal with different operating conditions. At some point we freeze the adjustable parameters, usually but not always, when we have met our performance targets. However there is a section in the software that performs adaptation of the parameters we froze to deal with certain variability that is usually specific to one vehicle/engine/transmission. I look at having adjustability on a waterski as I do adaptation logic in software. It changes the settings based on a set of criteria to correct for variability we as engineers know exists but cannot exactly characterize in the software.

 

On a waterski I think that variability is the skier. Some skiers feel the need to constantly change settings, some find their comfort by staying with stock settings, others make small changes with meticulous care. More adjustments on a ski parallels some things I’ve seen in my engineering career, as technology or capabilities of our tools advance we find new variables that can have a beneficial influence. From a skier perspective, I’m not at a skill level where I want more degrees of freedom for user adjustable parameter but as an engineer I welcome them as it’s an evolution in technology. As skiers we will benefit.