Whatever happened to all the hype behind ZO + setting (A.K.A. the Easter egg)?

[skibug]

Anyone using them? I have actually been playing with the plus on B2 and it seems to be growing on me. Maybe it is just a honeymoon period.....but....for now, sticking with it.

[Rednucleus]

Octane got in the way

[markn]

I thought easter egg was slalom in Trick mode... not + setting.

[MattP]

I the gate speed difference was weird for me. I really liked trick mode, but I don't think they added enough gain? when they did the update. Trick mode was way more on and off than the current +

https://www.ballofspray.com/forum#/discussion/16681/is-there-a-zero-off-easter-egg/p14

[skibug]

@markn that was the impetus behind refining the "+" setting.

[Bruce_Butterfield]

I think there are 2 distinct issues.

 

1. The old Trick mode and the new + setting are NOT the same. Kinda close, but not the same.

2. There is still a significant difference between boat and engine combination for any and all settings.

 

So in my particular case, trick mode behind my ’97 Nautique 5.7l was flat awesome. The new “+” on the same boat was better than normal, but not quite as good as good as the trick mode. About the same time I got a Nautique 200 w/6.0l, same Rev of ZO, but it was definitely tougher than the ’97 across settings. (que @The_MS bitching & moaning).

 

I had been using C1+ for the last 2 years or so and just recently changed to C1 as I was skiing with some older boats that didn’t have the current rev of SW. The difference between + and normal is probably less than the difference from boat to boat with the same setting.

 

And the supposed goal of ZO was to provide the same pull to all skiers. Yeah, right.

 

[skibug]

@Bruce_Butterfield I agree. On our 2021 MC I am now using B2+ (B2 on previous 2015 MC) and I use C2 on any 200 (5.7 or 6.0). The difference in boats, engine, trans, hull, etc. certainly have a larger effect than anything else and I am sure the tuning of ZO with each of the boat engine combos is a large player as well. But, I was sort of surprise that the "+" setting on the MC brought them a little closer in feel. The "+" actually seems to be a little softer feel on the back side of the ball, extra behind the boat, and softer in the pre-turn. Which is what I feel with the 200 on C2.

[The_MS]

All I am asking for is some forgiveness when I get in trouble. An occasional 16.99 will not put ZO out of business and last I checked that is still well within tolerance

 

 

 

 

[Horton]

if I have my chronology right. that early trick mode testing was done when a some of boats still had 5.7 engines. All the new boats are now either 6 L or 6.2 and except for MasterCraft all of the promo boats are 6.2

[klindy]

@The_MS yes it still is within tolerance but the rules are clear - tolerances are for human error and the requirement is to strive for actuals. So what your asking for is the boat to be allowed go slow down for you. You can certainly PULL the boat down to that time (but of course the boat will still accelerate to target actual).

 

I hear what your saying but it seems that what you’re asking for is exactly what ZO was designed to prevent.

[skibug]

@klindy so is there a tolerance or not? If so, why can't I run the ZO at 34.1 MPH, which would be a 16.99 or 17.00?

[ALPJr]

It depends on what octane is used.

[JackQ]

@skibug, you can run 34.1. When I skied in saltwater I would typically go to 34.0 or 33.9 on my hardest pass. Just go to rec mode, set you pull desired before hand, then you can go and save those setting, and in future select skier X, or whatever you saved the setting at.

[skierjp]

I’m a Senior Driver / Senior Judge here in Florida and I couldn’t tell you the last time someone ask for plus. FYI, this may help. A2 is by far the letter and number of choice. Pros, Big Dawg, 150lbs or 230 lbs!

[The_MS]

@klindy Then why is it ok for a guy that is 219 lbs pulling hard and getting a 16.98? At 170lbs I never get a 16.98. Should there be re-rides for anything other then actual?

[The_MS]

We had the ZO system on non-auto course detect awhile back and forgot to move it to lake 4 when we moved lakes. The ZO was at 34 but no segments were pushing it. It felt great but the system doesn’t give you a time.

[dchristman]

Life isn't fair @The_MS , but you are free to gain weight to compete with the 219 pounder.

[Bruce_Butterfield]

@klindy I agree the rules are clear. 8.05 allows for +/-0.5mph during the pass. ZO hammers a skier in an attempt to get 0 variation in speed to the detriment of the skier.

 

So 'splain to me why its ok for the ZO jump programing to INTENTIONALLY slow down approx 1mph below set speed, then accelerate to approx 2 mph ABOVE the set speed to help the jumper go farther? If the same rational used for slalom (NO speed variation allowed whatsoever) was applied to jump, distances would be waaay shorter. This is clearly in violation of 8.05 and goes way beyond intentional use of tolerances.

 

For the record, I think the ZO jump programing is a good thing for the sport. At the same time allowing some speed swing in slalom would help performances, especially for heavier skiers, and STILL be within the rules of +/- 0.5mph.

 

It seems clear to me that the ZO jump programing violates the rules with the intent of aiding the skier, while the ZO slalom programing applies stricter rules with the unintended(?) affect of hurting the skier.

[klindy]

@Bruce_Butterfield i agree with what you’re saying. And I’d be one of those “bigger skiers” that would likely benefit most. The jump speed ‘curve’ was developed by the skiers who would benefit most by that accel/decel curve. The slalom programming was developed in a similar way - what was best for those providing the feedback and development advice.

 

You can’t for a second think that those in the inner circle would agree to programming that was detrimental to their own performance.

 

What your suggesting, I think, is that there needs to be more “flexibility” for style, size,preference, etc. OR you’re suggesting we all need to learn how to use what we have currently. Obviously the one size fits all (with some user variables) works well for some and not well at all for others.

[Horton]

as a long since retired old jumper the current jump boat speed rules do seem wrong.

[Milford]

I gave up on plus mode when I was skiing behind a new 2020 Ski Nautique promo boat in a tournament that was shipped with rev R. Several other newer Nautiques are still being shipped with Rev R, even this year. Rev R and Rev S are drastically different in plus mode. I didn’t want to have to worry about checking each boat in a tournament before I ski.

[Drago]

@Milford EXACTLY?

+ on Rev R is a complete sheetshow, Rev S + is super swingy for us big guys. Absolutely no follow through from the rules committee (?). I was upgrading friend's boats so I could train with rev S, then I go to tournaments with promo boats without it. Pffftt ?

The whole reason I never tried trick mode is I didn't want to know what I was missing.

[skibug]

@JackQ , thanks. I am aware of rec mode. My point, or question, was; why can't you run 34.1 mph in a tournament if you still fall within the prescribed time tolerance? It would still get you a 16.99 or 17.00.

[skibug]

Ta somewhat add to the conversation....now....sure path sets a tolerance band for the drivers....do they get the tolerance or not? I know the answer, but what is the difference? Before drivers didn't have a true measure and real time feedback through the length of the course, only end course video. Now they can hone their boat path skills to maximize the tolerance. Why not speed?

[Bruce_Butterfield]

@klindy what I am pointing out is that there are 2 blatently different standards applied to the ZO programing for jump and slalom. The jump programming is clearly a violation of both the intent and wording of the rules that benefits the skier, while the slalom programming goes beyond the intent and wording of the rules to the detriment of the skier. There should be some consistency in a sane world.

 

IMO, the ZO programming SHOULD allow for more speed swing than it does, i.e. a bigger skier will pull the boat down more than a smaller skier, but the programmers goal was zero speed variation. The end result is that a heavier gets more throttle applied and clearly does not get the "same pull" as a lighter skier.

[VONMAN]

Right on @Bruce_Butterfield how many years do you want to continue to be beta tester in a sport you love. Clearly the weight of the skier should be a factor.

 

[Minelickskier]

I agree with the need for an option on zo for slightly forgiving, more forgiving, and very forgiving, even if for those days when you might be fatigued, or slightly hungover…

[Bruce_Butterfield]

@klindy one more point - when was the last time you heard anyone complaining that a jumper got a time within tolerance but on the hot side? But if a slalom skier gets a 16.98 OMG that's CHEATING!

[klindy]

@Bruce_Butterfield I'm not arguing the premise that the programming for jump and slalom come from completely different perspectives. I will also agree that there are FAR more rerides (read: all rerides) in jump compared to slalom.

 

Ironically, in jump the skier has wide latitude to adjust the letter and, to a lesser extent, power factor. Arguably the letter in jump is to compensate for the expected pull (load) on the boat which can be a function of the skiers weight. Allowing the boat to 'swing' thru accel/decel curves causes the boat speed to get out of tolerance at times.

 

So, hypothetically using the same thinking as jump where you allow the boat to 'swing' thru the speeds would you expect to see rerides in slalom like we do in jump? Maybe with letters, numbers and + in slalom, the accell/decel curve just needs to be loosed up to allow the boat to use more of the tolerance? If so, do the same slalom skiers start complaining that they don't have "enough boat" to get wide of the boat at the buoy?

 

The potential challenge I see with slalom is how to trigger the boat to know you're "in trouble" and need to be more gentle vs. a skier just being a little down course or perhaps has hooked up a little to much at the buoy? I'm not suggesting we need a change nor am I suggesting that everything is perfect as-is. I am wondering what an improvement looks like.

 

Also, remember, for all the "help" a skier gets in jump and the dead on tolerance in slalom, the slalom records for Men and Women have been broken far more than the jump records have been broken in recent years. Granted there are more skiers who slalom but even the younger age groups seem to be breaking more records. Perhaps they are learning how to use ZO to improve rather than fight it.

[The_MS]

@klindy Just make 2 segments for the Slalom course. 1st half and second half and don’t require ZO to get it all back. Allow it to give a 16.99

[Bruce_Butterfield]

@klindy sure the slalom records have gone up, but that's progress. But compare the physical stature of slalom kings today to those of 20-30 years ago. The LaPoints, Kjellandar (sp?), et. al. to Smith, Mechler, Winter. On average the top of the pack today is probably 20-30 lbs lighter than the old crew. Coincidence?

 

I will speculate that if Bob LaPoint was 30 years younger, he would not be competitive with today's speed control.

[jjackkrash]

If you can make the boat go 36 exactly through the slalom course, that's how fast it should go. Same with jump. 35 mph is 35 mph. Tolerances are for error rates that can't be overcome, not for assisting the athlete when they can be overcome through tech. Honestly, just because skiers got used to hand driving and walking the boat years ago and the culture was to "help" the skier using tolerances that does not mean it is the way it ought to be. The game is beating the boat and the course and the ramp at a certain speed. Helping the skier beat the boat and the course and the ramp through tolerances just invites cheating and perceptions of unfairness. Just because the game got harder through tech does not mean it is the wrong direction to take the sport.

 

Of course in practice you can drive with all the love you want, but not in tournaments.

 

Just my opinion.

[klindy]

So a couple of questions to help understand the thinking around this. Assume these are questions you’d ask yourself if you were put in charge of “improving” the way slalom works in ZO -

 

1. If I get "into trouble" in a pass, why do I think I'm still entitled to run that pass and to expect the boat to accommodate my mistake?

2. If the tolerance is softened to 16.99, what happens later on when I need/want just a little more forgiveness? Will I then want a 17.03 or 17.04?

3. Was I one of the skiers that complained about watering down Nationals when the rules changed to allow just one score over the cutoff average to qualify?

 

In other words, what’s really wrong with how ZO pulls slalom today? I don’t sense the thinking is to rework the jump mode to hold a consistent speed. I don’t know the right answer but I’m interested in the opinions of others.

[The_MS]

Why do we allow a skier to continue at risk when they miss the gates on opener? Why do we allow a 16.98 when a bigger skier skis? Getting in trouble is probably the wrong terminology. I can make all kinds of mistakes and still run the pass.

Why do we let kids use smaller diameter ropes?

[Jody_Seal]

My question is does the massive amount of torque required to push these overweight behemoth ski boats in conjuction with the very tight control parameters have a more negative impact on the body then that of the boats and control parameters of say 15 years ago?

 

Reason I am throwing this out there is I feel more skiers are either getting hurt or are taking bigger

harder falls is there any correlation with the above

question..

 

 

[Bruce_Butterfield]

@klindy I'm glad someone is asking some questions, however I don't think those specific questions are relevant. The boat/speed control doesn't care if the skier "gets in trouble". Right now, ZO applies as much throttle as necessary to keep the speed as close to set speed as it can. Its the application of throttle that makes the pull so hard and different for every skier. No one except MS is asking for softening tolerance. The tolerances haven't changed in 20 years or so, but with today's ZO, you could probably tighten the tolerance to +/- 0.03s without any increase in rerides.

 

The problem is not "average speed" or tolerance, its when and how much throttle is applied. Today's boats can easily overpower any skier out there. IMO, the only way to "give everyone the same pull" is to set the throttle input to achieve the correct average speed and leave it. Perfect Pass kinda did that by using an RPM setpoint and gently increasing or decreasing throttle to maintain the set RPM. Drivers had to adjust for weight, wind, and yes some intentionally strived for the slow side of the tolerance, but everyone got nearly the same pull.

 

So to follow the jump programing use letters A-Z for slalom. A would bring the boat in at set speed and not apply any throttle, i.e. for little kids. Z would be for the 200 lb 35 off skier, bring the boat in 0.5mph hot and let the speed swing +/- 0.5mph to keep within the rules. Application of the throttle would be the absolute minimum to keep the swing within 0.5mph.

 

Since ZO measures speed with GPS as opposed to PP that only used RPM, it takes the driver adjusting for wind or each skier out of the mix. Also similar to jump, if I ask for "N" on my first pass and get a 17.05, the driver and boat judge jointly agree on what to change the letter to in order to get as close to 16.94 as possible. If the next pass is "actual" you have the correct letter. If on the following pass I "get in trouble" and dig a hole at 4 ball, I may end up with a 16.98 - well within the tolerance, but I didn't get yanked out the front from ZO applying massive amounts of throttle to "catch up" that happens today.

 

[skierjp]

@Jody_Seal From the info I could find a 2018 Ski Nautique 200 weighs only 100 lbs less then the 2021 Ski Nautique. I see drivers with the other brands running around with 50 to 150 lbs of weight bags. One guy I can think of with promo brand X has 100 in the bow.

[The_MS]

Well stated @Bruce_Butterfield

[jayski]

This isn't gonna be popular but...

 

Y'all want to ski like you have been (or used to) for however long, but with ZO, more powerful boats, skis that are designed more to be fluid than diggin trenches, there are too many factors to try and emulate "what was"...adapt or die they say....the youngsters are doing better because they learned to ski 'light' they all weigh substantially less than skiers of yesteryear...don't wake the monster is the goal @The_MS

[The_MS]

I agree @jayski

My whole goal when skiing is to try and make sure the boat doesn’t feel me. I still think if someone at ZO would actually care or spend some time and cash, they could give us a 16.95 that is softer.

[lpskier]

@klindy @The_MS All I ever ask for is a completely fair advantage.

[ScottScott]

What does "softer" mean? You want it to react later, and be more gradual to get back to target speed (so you want to still be ABOVE set speed as you approach the ball?) "A" settings are generally considered to be the softest (I think...?) but A allows the largest speed fluctuation. You slow down the boat, but it has to compensate to accomplish the correct average, so a larger speed variation from slowest to fastest. More correction throttle (3) will get back to set speed sooner, but may feel harder, less correction keeps boat speed higher closer to the next ball. Or, are you wanting the boat to know you got in trouble going from 2-3, so give you more time 2-3 but then make up that time from 4-5 or 5-6 after you caught up? C1 seems to have the lease effect (doesn't slow much, then makes that little correction the slowest/gentlest)....but hardly anyone uses C1 (or any of the Cs really.)

 

There's already 9 pull settings (plus the plus settings.) How many do we need? Should they add more? I guess one potential is that since the Cs are little used, maybe they could move the whole scale down so Bs become Cs, As become Bs, then the As allow an even later reaction (larger speed fluctuations....?) Of course then everyone needs an update.

[The_MS]

How about no settings. Just put it on ZO and everyone gets the same pull. We don’t want to help the skier in any way.

[Horton]

@The_MS the boat companies actually control the individual programming for their boats. Zero Off only creates the framework. I'm really not sure what you want to change. I can go between my current year 6L ProStar and a 2007 196 without feeling a substantial difference. In my mind that means the system is a success.

 

If you've ever skied behind a boat with a faulty accelerometer in the zero off you would feel what soft feels like. The boat gets perfect times but gives zero swing. You pull your nuts off and never get anywhere.

[The_MS]

It can get better but we have no one setting expectations

[Horton]

@The_MS "shut up and ski"

[The_MS]

Every day

[ScottScott]

@The_MS What pull is that going to be....? Lock in B2 and take away all user options?

 

I don't think everyone got the same pull with hand driving. You don't get the same pull now from driver to driver boat path, even with sure path etc...

 

Theres a range of acceptable deviation. There has to be a line in that range somewhere.

[Drago]

@ScottScott --> congrats, you have come nearest to the Topic of this Thread: revS + is larger speed fluctuations

[The_MS]

@ScottScott if we want to strive for equal playing field then why should there be anything except 1 setting?