Metamarine RTK Demonstrates World First Precision Marine Autopilot

[The_MS]

If required for ELR events it would put a damper on people without the system signing up for that event

[bigtex2011]

surepath is old and antiquated. I can't wait to get one of these. This is awesome. I can drink beer while my wife skis. Can it wipe down the boat. I'm mean no one does now but it would be a great perk.

 

[Stevie Boy]

Zero Off, Surepath, Marine Autopilot , More Gizmos on the boats and we want watersking to be more accessible , adding to the cost all the time is going to kill waterskiing fullstop.

All this stuff is going to become so expensive, due to the fact that so few will buy it, this is not encouraging people to buy into waterskiing.

However the Future of Cable Skiing is looking Bright ! You do not need Zero Off/Surepath/Marine Autopilot, the Tow is the same for everybody.

A large Lake is not neccessary, there are systems that go from one end of the lake to the other in a straight line.

 

 

[teammalibu]

I would think that Zero Off Sure Path and auto steer would be combined into one package in the future!

[RAWSki]

I think Ballers are just scared of this tech because it's one less excuse they can use, AND they might have to let their spouse tag along and drive now!

[Wish]

@RAWSki says the guy with a ski obsessed wife. ??

[gavski]

I believe the Cable Ski Slalom record is 1@44’off…this was set in 2012…no speed control - just a solid 36mph and a cable pulling you down the middle…granted, the skier can pull the cable over, but what you take - it takes back with interest..

 

Cable skiing is not my bag, I crap myself going round the turns…but shows what is possible with no frills & no fuss consistency….

 

I still don’t understand how ‘they’ can claim 2.5cm accuracy…in aviation, the best we get is 0.1 Nautical Mile…anything less than that is restricted by the military for obvious reasons and uses. However, a ground based system is another matter..

 

I am all for constituency..everything else in the sport is ‘standard’ - apart from the conditions..the pull is the missing piece..after all, we all have our ‘list’ of drivers..

[paul]

I still don’t understand how ‘they’ can claim 2.5cm accuracy…in aviation, the best we get is 0.1 Nautical Mile…anything less than that is restricted by the military for obvious reasons and uses. However, a ground based system is another matter

It’s actually accurate to less than 1cm. You are referencing actual location. These systems are pretty inaccurate for where they are in the world (probably 3+m) but they know exactly where they are in reference to each other provided the base station is close enough.

[EFW]

@bigtex2011 - You're absolutely right. Sure path is already antiquated. Why would you dump 1,200 bucks in that when you're going to have to spend more for the auto steer.

[chrislandy]

Seems to be a lot of knickers knotted for something that will "simply" just drive the boat in a dead straight line for 16s at a time.

 

 

 

note I say "simply" I know it's not simple, but it's not difficult once you can accurately predict paths, the mechanical part of it is very simple and the corrections needed will be very minor - I know how I would do it and keep the driver in control at all time.

 

As a driver mainly, I was fully against PP for years, didn't see the point of it, the old "you don't need that, you just need experience" argument, then I got it and used it properly, same for ZO and love it. The same will be for this, then from a skiers perspective it's frikkin' awesome, see how technique has changed and the skiers level has increased going from hand throttle to PP to ZO.

[Horton]

RTK GPS is the next big thing. Maybe Metamarine RTK will be the industry leader or maybe it will be some other company. Either way it is the future.

 

When Perfect Pass first came to being I hated it. When ZO became the standard, I hated it even more. In the case of ZO, most skiers did have access to a practice boat with ZO so tournaments were miserable. The pull was completely foreign and took about a pass off my scores. MANY skiers quit tournaments because they did not have access to a ZO boat.

 

15 years later most of us cannot imagine skiing without ZO. Boat times are no longer an issue. Go anywhere in the world and you can expect that boat times will be nearly exact for every pass. The only significant variations are from one boat brand to another.

 

It should also be noted that drivers today must know how to work the wheel but do not have to work the throttle in the course. It now takes much less skill to drive at a basic level.

 

Looking at RTK steering I do not see how it can feel as good as a great driver but if it feels as good as an average driver and is consistent from ride to ride and boat to boat, I think it will be a gigantic step forward. Imagine teaching a new driver to drive knowing that they do not have to do anything once in the course! Imagine knowing every skier worldwide is getting the same ride as you are!

 

Cost is an unknown so lets not worry about that until we know something.

 

As with PP and ZO there will be a few years where some skiers will have it and some will not. It is hard to know how good or bad the system will feel to the skier but I would assume that higher level skiers will have more trouble adjusting than lower level skiers. If it feels super different than there will be years were skiers who do not have access to it will be at a strong disadvantage.

 

I have often speculated that ZO could have become the standard in a less disruptive way. Hopefully the national governing bodies will think about how to make the transition less discouraging.

 

[Metamarine_RTK]

Thank you for all the responses – we were hoping to generate some feedback, and you all came through! Engage Autopilot is designed for consistent, repeatable pulls, and the sport as a whole can only benefit – Horton lists some of those benefits in his recent post. Drivers and their expertise are not being replaced, just being provided with a tool that supports driving. With that in mind, safety is as much a priority for Metamarine RTK as it is for the entire community.

 

We’re listening to your concerns and grateful for the supportive comments. We’ll be posting a driver/skier survey on our website soon. In the meantime, happy holidays to everyone, and thanks again for your engagement in this topic.

[BugHunter]

I love the idea and had expected it to come sooner. I'm not a 'bad' driver but also not one of the good ones. A good driver can keep the boat in the path and at the same time watch the skier to help with coaching. I can NOT keep the boat in the path without being focused all the time. Heck, it sometimes takes me a couple of seconds to notice a fall. Auto path would be a tremendous help.

 

Safety: your throttle is already automatic, is that not a safety issue then?

Affordability: it will be one of the more expensive options on the boat option list at first, but after a couple of years it will come down. ZO is not even an option now after 20+ years and always included. I'm sure that most course skiers would check it off as their first option on the list.

Better for the sport: for sure. A lot more drivers would become available.

 

Metamarine guys: stop posting here, go back to work ;)

 

[Bruce_Butterfield]

@Metamarine_RTK have you done any trials with actual slalom skiers? At what levels? What was the feedback? Are the people developing the feedback control software skiers or drivers that have some idea what shortline skiing is like?

[Adam Caldwell]

@Bruce_Butterfield - We reached out to them last week but still eagerly awaiting a reply!

[Bruce_Butterfield]

@adamhcaldwell I know you are a glutton for a guinea pig, but they may need to be able to crawl before they try to run ;)

[DW]

Autonomy in transportation or any form of mechanically powered form of moving folks around is not an if question, but a when whether we like it or not. Space travel, air travel and soon to be automotive travel are clearly going the autonomous route. Elon even said if computers were around at the advent of the car, humans would never have been allowed to drive.

 

The when may and probably will take a while, the economics of a tiny market are a hard nut to crack, appears Caldwell and team are willing guinea pigs and kudos to them for it. When it is implemented it will be another technical $ solution that will further separate the average weekend hobby boater/skier from the hard core, affluent skier community.

Similar to ZO, as numerous BOS comments imply, all tournament skiers will have to succumb to acquiring an autonomous steering, ZO equipped, tournament approved vessel to ski behind to have any chance at reasonable practice at their home site to be able to effectively simulate what a tournament pull will be. Another technology that will push tournament skiing farther in the niche environment. And no, a $35k affordable ski boat won't be a thing. I am not saying it shouldn't be done, or is not a good feature as a consistent pull from a larger pool of drivers is an awesome opportunity for all of us that search for that excellent driver. We simply have to be aware of what the added technology really means, and as asked, how much will it cost. Pretty much when that check is cut, over $100+k for that new boat would be my guess.

[Metamarine_RTK]

We spoke with the drivers at the 2020 (2021) Pan American Waterski Championships and will be utilizing senior drivers of this caliber in our product development. In addition, top skiers at the event expressed interest and we will certainly be seeking their participation and feedback as well. That being said, the product will be tailored to all levels of slalom skiing.

 

@ahamhcaldwell - I do not see your inquiry in our Inbox, please contact me directly (email in original press release, pg 1)

@BugHunter - thank you for your thoughts ... last comment duly noted :smile:

[braindamage]

I’ll take a contrarian viewpoint on the impact on this driving the further decline of water skiing. I live and ski on public water, and PP/ZO has made driving for an average skier extremely easy outside the course. My 12 yo could drive me as all he had to do was steer. My wife will even drive. I think this could help reduce the fear and complexity of the entry level person and potentially make course driving available to the novice.

 

Just my $.02

[rayn]

It will save some course maintenance also, from less experienced drivers taking our boat guides. Still won’t help with the walleys on our public lake.

[aupatking]

I’m hoping this can be retrofitted to older boats, as autopilot can be put on just about any boat these days.

Any idea on an expected “to market” date? I am excited to get it. No more, I’m having a “bad driving day”.

[EFW]

@Metamarine_RTK Are you going to have a display at the Toronto boat show? Forget

that idea. Cancelled again.

[Killer]

Yup cancelled. Sad

[EFW]

@Killer - this is getting really old.

[ski6jones]

I had just bought a boat and put PP in the year before ZO came out. This was also the same year I started skiing tournaments. So my "new" rig was basically obsolete immediately BECAUSE I skied tournaments. I won't have those concerns this time around. No tournaments = no need to chase technology.

[swbca]

Question for Drivers . . . how can an automated system learn to anticipate what a particular skier is doing to pull the boat laterally. From the little I know, it can't simply be reactive to the pilon being pulled off center. The boat pulls around more easily at lower speeds. It would be fun to observe how it stays in tolerance with a large strong skier at 30mph. Does it just go crazy to be in the right place through the next gate which is 2 seconds later after the skier's pull ? Currently, when the steering wheel is turned to the left, the pilon doesn't immediately move left. It only starts the process of rotating the boat to change its heading to the left and that burns up time when there isn't time to burn.

 

To compensate for the Human Driver's greater ability to anticipate . . .

It might be useful for it to have an input measuring the load on the pilon, rather than waiting for that load to pull the boat off center. That could be done with deflection sensors under the floorboard.

 

And finally before it finds its place in slalom competition, I bet the center fins become servo driven "rudders" providing direct control for the boats lateral position. So overall, to reduce latency in positioning the boat, the stern rudder controls the heading, center rudders trim the lateral position.

 

The ideal location of the lateral force to push the boat sideways changes with speed and the front to back attitude of the boat. The position of the 3 center rudders would have to be operated separately by the computer to keep the lateral force created by these control surfaces from changing boat's heading as the boat's speed or weight distribution changes.

 

A new control-surface design is expensive, but a single rudder at the stern isn't going to be enough without a person at the wheel when gate spacing is 2.5 seconds at 36 mph.

[Bruce_Butterfield]

@swbca and there’s the major part of the rub. I’m not holding my breath on this.

[slow]

I hope they are successful and can bring better driving to the masses.

[Andre]

For those who can't understand how a system can anticipate a skier's pull,well,you just don't.

[swbca]

@Andre The Steering control time of execution for centering a 3 event boat are completely different than speed controls. The automated steering control could maybe give a skier a good pull if the boat tracked like a formula 1 car, or as fast as the boat's throttle, but not with the steering performance of a current 3 event boat. Time will tell.

[Milford]

The prospect of automated steering is certainly exciting. I truly believe that a computer can ultimately do a better job than a human. Now getting is right is going to be hard. Lots of great points brought up earlier in this thread, but once properly programed, the repeatability and consistency will be awesome. I don’t think one setting will ever get the job done, as there are way too many factors involved at different line lengths. The inputs and timing of those proactive steering movements are much different with a skier at -22 vs -39. The reality is that if a computer can be programmed to proactively start turning away from the skier prior to receiving the load, it is possible to give a world class ride. The only way I see that working is you would have to set the line length in the system, so it knows when to make that proactive move away from the skier, because it changes as the line gets shorter. The system would also need to know where the boat is in relation to the buoy, so it can make that proactive movement. Someone at 32 mph long line does not require much, if any, proactive movement and is very easy to keep the boat centered. Shorten to -39 and it is a whole different ball game. Skier weight and the way in which they load the boat will also alter the amount of proactive movement. Without that proactive movement, the skier will pull the boat toward them, and it robs all of the energy, in essence making it feel like terrible driving. If the right programmers talk to the right people, I would think it could be done, but if @Metamarine_RTK is not collaborating with the right people, then it will never be a good system and will not make it into the tournament scene.

[Chet]

I can’t wait. So cool! Don’t care if it’s tough I just want to learn it’s rhythm. If it’s consistent that’s exciting.

[jjackkrash]

The goal of autosteer should be straight down the middle, period. If you tug on the boat the boat should tug back and stick as close to the center line as is physically possible. It is up the the skier to figure out how to beat the boat and the course; it is not up to the boat to optimize the path to the skier's rhythm or to adjust to different skier/skiing styles. Listening to skier's lobby for better "feel" and using multiple algorithms to do it and going down that path was a mistake ZO made, IMO.

 

Trick mode for all and all for trick mode.

[swbca]

@Milford. The complexity you describe could be reduced if you separate boat heading versus boat lateral position. The path between the two end gates is a single precise GPS heading. Currently, the only reason the boat's centerline has to depart from the course heading is to do its own little slalom event where the boat's centerline heading is turned to appose the skier's pull, then reversed when the skier's pull ends, then turned again to get straight.

 

Manual input of rope length and skier weight only has to be considered because changing the hull center-line heading several times is a very slow method of positioning the pylon and it hard to get it right in the 2.5 second interval between gates.

 

Forget about trying to emulate a good driver. Use the existing rudder only to keep the centerline of the boat's hull aligned with the end to end slalom course heading. Use one or more control surfaces below the pylon to reactively appose the skier's lateral force on the pylon driven by GPS position and force sensors at the base of pylon.

 

The current hull design wouldn't have to be adjusted to accept lateral pressure from center foil(s) because the lateral forces don't actually slide the boat left and right, but in near real-time match the skier's pull locking the boat to the course center line.

 

Maybe a lateral control foil left and right of the hull center line would be more suitable for retrofit.

[jjackkrash]

I was actually wondering whether they might use little tuning rudders and a servo on the tracking fins (or use the tracking fins themselves on a servo) under the pylon to make some adjustments instead of just the rudder.

[swbca]

@jjackkrash Exactly There might be turbulence problems with multiple "rudders" in a row, so a single larger control surface near the pylon may be needed. Those are details, but you are on the right track along with putting deflection/displacement sensors on the pylon below the floor board if GPS position alone isn't fast enough. If they actually get automated steering to the ski boat market, I am pretty certain its not going to be by controlling the stern rudder alone. There is too much to do in the 2.5 second interval between gates.

[chrislandy]

@swbca if a human driver can do it in 2.5s between the gates, then even a basic microprocessor will be able to collect, interpret and output a corrective measure quicker than any human could.

 

The servo making the correction would be the limiting factor, but then, even a cheap 5$ servo can do around 20 movements per second. much more than any driver could do

[JackQ]

What may be missed is that driving at 39/41, where the skier is at the buoy at essentially the same time the boat is at the boat guides is inherently different than when a skier at 15/22 is skier buoy the boat is 3 or more meters past the boat guides. The system would be required to know what rope length the skier is at and be programed accordingly. Can it be done certainly, is that the capability currently available, not likely .

[swbca]

@chrislandy IMO Its not the speed of sensors, processors and servos in question. Its the ability of steering mechanism to swing the hull's heading to correct the lateral position of the pylon multiple times in a short interval absent the art of an experienced driver. It's the driver's "feel" for the boat and skier that enable him to anticipate what each skier is doing for each second in the 2.5 second gate-to-gate count down. Attempting to program the stern rudder to learn the skill set of the best driver would be complex and may not be possible. A lateral set of reactive control surfaces to lock the boat on center would be easier to program and may reach consistent record capability standards more easily. Still using the stern rudder to match the boat's heading to the course heading. (not swinging the tail of the boat to center the pylon) it will interesting to see how this system finds its way into the tournament scene.

[Horton]

@swbca did we not think the same think about throttle before PP came out?

[Drago]

⬆️What @Horton said, ➕My guess is it would have to to react unless it had cameras, probably a later adjustment but much faster , in essence feeling very similar.

That being said, ZO, which I love and got better scores with, nearly sank this sport. This is certainly a torpedo if not able to retro with old boats (especially when no one is building new boats)

[A_B]

We need to think like USAWSA.

 

Is the “driver” responsible for a mishap or the USAWSA or the manufacturer?

 

How will we insure this? Who’s responsible when the boat ends up on the turn island because it doesn’t work right? You know, like when the Tesla’s have run over people?

 

How the heck did us old guys drive in tolerance, time every pass with stopwatch in hand, keep the boat straight, and keep an eye on the skier? It’s a miracle we survived.

 

I understand the technological advancements and the desire to replace humans, but I always looked at driving as an art and a challenge and enjoy it almost as much as skiing.

 

In a way it’s like using a computer to create a masterpiece oil painting. Sure it will look good but you can’t appreciate the humanity of the artist.

 

I guess at some point when we all have our digital chips we could self-scan into the boat driver seat to tell if you have had your SS training and BGC.

[swbca]

@Horton The rules for Speed control and Pylon centering control are not comparable. Speed controls rules accommodate a much larger standard deviation than Pylon centering rules. There is no specific moment where the boat's speed has to be almost precisely 55 or 58kph. Speed rules deal with averages. Boat position has to be almost perfect at each gate, not an average of positions that includes locations other than the gates.

 

And as complex as speed control programming has become, the mechanics of boat position pulling a slalom skier is far more complex . . . the rudder pushes the tail of the boat to the right to eventually get the pylon to left. Whereas less throttle has the direct affect of less speed etc. That's why adding direct lateral position controls with separate control surfaces might be the way to go. That is more similar to the direct control the throttle has over speed.

 

The lateral control surfaces may not have to turn like the rudder, but be more like a pair of hydrogate foils that could be modulated in vertical increments, each with at fixed angle left and fixed angle right. Positioned left and right of the pylon.

 

Of course if if they can program the system to emulate the skilled slalom driver using the current stern rudder steering system; no problem.

[chrislandy]

@JackQ have you driven the new nautique? you input speed then rope length for each pass to set the wake microtuners.

 

@swbca I understand what you are saying, but if you were limited to rear rudder only, it can be done already, by an experienced driver, so saying you can't get the control / accuracy / speed etc from just the rear rudder control only is a null argument. Are there better ways for fine tuning boat vectors, most definitely - like you said already, you'd need other control surfaces - of which you already have a set of 3 or 4 mounted midship.

 

The arguments others are making about prediction are showing a slight misunderstanding and naivety on how you can get a processer to work, given with surepath and others, you could collect thousands of passes a day. If you setup a collection network around the world at a few pro sites, "all you'd need to do" is add a datalogger, tiller position sensor and collect ECU & path data. Once the data is processed, I'm sure you'd end up with a few generic correction predictions per speed and rope length with a deviation allowance.

 

If this system comes about, then the big 3 will just modify their hulls to suit during a production change.

 

 

Lets just hope that more than one company will get homologation and the development rights so we don't end up with a Zero Off or nothing situation again.

[RAWSki]

i am starting the new year with a positive attitude about this Not over thinking and praying that we dont wind up with another 18 numbers-letters Why not just take the best drivers and convert their driving samples into algorithms

"give me Will B-2"

or Becky C-1

Chris A-2 etc

[jjackkrash]

When my skiers try to lobby for some "love" on the dock, I can't wait to give this speech:

 

 

[swbca]

@chrislandy You touched on having competition between providers for the steering control market. Its pretty well established that competition skiers have to practice with ZO to be competitive in tournaments. A steering control system would likely be needed for the Pro skier's practice, but its not obvious that everyone else would need it. If my practice driver is far enough off to make a difference occasionally, it doesn't really matter for my competitive success. If this is a reasonable view, the size of the steering control market for ski boats could be smaller than the speed control market.

 

Goes back to the discussion about the future of the sport.

[A_B]

@swbca on point. If we are to grow the sport, how do they expect to pull in a weekend Wally who makes a nice spray and gets through a slalom course on occassion and tries his first tournament and gets a rude welcome to a USAWSA tournament ride?

 

It seems like we are mandating and "advancing" the sport into a very small niche market, yet people ask how do we grow the sport? yikes.

[DW]

I might be going out on a limb here, somehow I think one of Elon or Jeff's bored software writers may be able to handle a 16 second requirement:

Just my opinion, its not the technical aspect as the big hurdle it will come down to cost or sticker shock. Can this (small) market keep absorbing the added technology costs.

[chrislandy]

@swbca the only reason we have ZO as the only homologated speed control is because they got the monopoly on it, they are the only homologated speed control system (whether by design or chance I don't know) and screwed over their competition (PP).

 

The other issue (over in the UK at least) is that Nautique bought the supplier contract for national and international tournament events, so basically any skier who competes here wants to ski behind either a 200 or a Ski Nautique, and most club boats are Nautiques with only a few exceptions with either MC or Malibu, this trickles down to most used boats being Nautiques.

 

 

To ensure choice, then more than one homologated system should be available - the "driver style" shouldn't come into it for setting choice and could be a completely separate system to ZO as it currently is.

 

 

@A_B it's for 16-18s on a course, not for a freeski slasher where PP or other speed control system is perfectly fine. Your analogy crossing to a tournament pull is valid, but also an example of the current situation. IF you've got Uncle Bob running you up and down in an '85 MC skier at 36 +/- 2mph and drifts 12" each way of C/L down the course, then skiing behind a Ski Nautique with a top level driver and ZO will feel like a different world altogether as well. It will be no different, apart from the U14 up and coming in the backwaters of nowhere could get same consistency as a pro tour skier.

 

 

I personally can't wait to see what will happen to scores, with the additional consistency I reckon we'll see deep into or even running 43 become more attainable.