At 43 off, how could Nate get wide enouph to almost hit the jump ?

[swbca]

You all saw Nate abort his S turn after the 1 ball at 43 off because he was going to collide with jump.  Was the jump anchored inside the line of skier bouys.  The rope is about 6 feet shorter than the width of the course ?  and he was still holding rope.

[ETskier]

Everybody knows it's there, been there for a many years. It's  not width, its how far down course Nate went. Nate originally was going for more, then changed his mind too late.  Freddy saw and knew what he had to do.

[ScottScott]

I don't think the question should be whether the skier knew the ramp was there or not. The question is whether he was too far down course have possibly made it back to boat guides or not. If he was too far down, then it is what it is. If he could have made it, then the course and jump setup was done poorly and he should have gotten a re ride.

[swbca]

My question was . . . at 43 off Nate was held inside the line of skier buoys by the rope.  How could the ramp be in his way ?  Unless it was inside the line of skier buoys.

[lpskier]

I would bet that Travers is one of the most homologated sites in the world. There’s probably five LR three event tournaments there every year, and two going on three World Championships. I strongly doubt there is anything questionable about their set up. 

[Obrienslalom]

I get your point. You can see the setup pretty clearly every 6 ball. Here's Nate's right before the 43' off (and one other as I scrubbed through). It seems inside the buoy line. I'm sure there's good drone shots too.

You can also see it from the s-turn itself. Personally I feel like it got in his way. But who knows what Freddie would have done in response.

[Onside135]

@swbca …The ramp is inside the buoy line.

[Drago]

I don't think that's uncommon 

[APB]

I love that Freddy won but Nate def should have been given a reride. I’m always blown away when the ramp is in the direct line of the skier. What if Nate would have skated around that ball and hit the ramp. I can’t believe they would want to take a chance, or the liability of leaving the ramp in the water. Just seems crazy to me. 

[MISkier]

There were no unfair conditions to necessitate a reride.  The ramp was in the same location for every skier.

[BraceMaker]

8 hours ago, swbca said:

My question was . . . at 43 off Nate was held inside the line of skier buoys by the rope.  How could the ramp be in his way ?  Unless it was inside the line of skier buoys.

it's in the way but it's basically where a backwards course turn ball would be so if you are close to hitting the ramp you're so far down.

the reference is in the TC handbook but when installed as an integrated course the jump course shares a few bouys with the slalom course and that dictates where the ramp sits so it would be in the same place on lake 1 at bennetts as well.

this is also what caught out Jim Michaels in bouygate as the two courses were surveyed into each other in line but when one moves compared to another line of bouys....

[ScottScott]

You can tell in the 3rd frame of obrienslalom's post above that the jump is well up course of where a backward turn ball should be. At the location that Smith is throwing the handle, it certainly seems possible he could have made a cut to get in before the boat guides had he not altered his S turn to avoid the ramp. I don't care whether thats the same setup for everyone, or how common this setup is…..a skier shouldn't have to navigate obstacles within a slalom course. This may not have resulted in anyone running into a ramp and getting injured… yet.....does that mean its ok? We're risking injuries and affecting competition....because its convenient for the jump course to share some buoys? Smith should have gotten a re-ride, and this setup needs to be re-considered. I have skied in places with a jump similarly placed, gotten lean locked through my gate at 15 off and gotten a pretty closeup look at a jump ramp….I didn’t really ask any questions about it, but if its that standard, how has no-one gotten injured? Especially with skiers skiing 36mph on longer lines.

[Nater]

2 hours ago, BraceMaker said:

it's in the way but it's basically where a backwards course turn ball would be so if you are close to hitting the ramp you're so far down.

the reference is in the TC handbook but when installed as an integrated course the jump course shares a few bouys with the slalom course and that dictates where the ramp sits so it would be in the same place on lake 1 at bennetts as well.

this is also what caught out Jim Michaels in bouygate as the two courses were surveyed into each other in line but when one moves compared to another line of bouys....

This jump was not in the same position as where it was for the Malibu Open at Michaels. At Michaels it was further away from the slalom course to where the jump boat lane guides lined up with the slalom balls. I believe at Travers the boat lane runs up on the opposite side of the slalom boat guides which would place the jump away inside the buoy line.  Maybe someone here can comment if I’m correct on the Travers jump location.

[coach3]

The ramp may have been there but doesn't matter. For slalom is should be moved. The presence of the ramp may have determined the outcome. It is not that tough to move it over to the shore. The ramp may not matter at longer ropes, but it sure did at 43!

 

Simply move it!

[B_S]

One of the ladies nearly hit the ramp as well. Can't remember who, but I definitely remember thinking wow, that was really close!

[BraceMaker]

**simply move a jump ramp**

[BraceMaker]

52 minutes ago, ScottScott said:

You can tell in the 3rd frame of obrienslalom's post above that the jump is well up course of where a backward turn ball should be. 

When surveyed in the FACE of the jump ramp is where the turn ball would be.  The ramps are bigger than you think when you factor the front of the ramp surface extending under water and the skirts extending behind they take up a significant chunk of water.  And there is surely a safety issue with that.  The prosthetic "Flex Foot" that is now so common came from a waterskier who smacked a row boat.  That's a real issue in the sport.  Nate could have lost a leg from hitting the skirt and maybe the jump ramp should be moved or they should disallow combined slalom jump ramp lakes - but then again.... how many of the top ski lakes use the same surveying data to position jump courses and slalom courses together (all of them) So if what you are saying is that overlapping 3 event sites should pull the course to slalom that could be implemented if you mean it.  But how many lakes would have to stop pulling jump to avoid this issue?

 

I assume there was a TC and it was surveyed in the TC handbook spec

 

 

[addkerr]

All skiers bar one pass seem to manage just fine with it, and even then the skier after managed to negate it just fine. Iv skied plenty of places where the shore is well within running up if I pulled long to get a half., doesn’t mean that it should be skied. It was same for all skiers and we had one of the best tournaments ever. Stop moaning and enjoy the amazing spectator position we are now in with TWBC. 

[Nater]

3 minutes ago, addkerr said:

All skiers bar one pass seem to manage just fine with it, and even then the skier after managed to negate it just fine. Iv skied plenty of places where the shore is well within running up if I pulled long to get a half., doesn’t mean that it should be skied. It was same for all skiers and we had one of the best tournaments ever. Stop moaning and enjoy the amazing spectator position we are now in with TWBC. 

As for me.  I’m am certainly not moaning.  I’m only speaking from experience. Here at our lake (Stillwaters in WI).  We placed our jump in this location when the ice broke a few years back,  where the left jump boat guides line up with the right hand slalom boat guides. We did this  when we moved our jump to the south for the first Pro tournament later in the summer that we were hosting.  After a couple of months and a handful of real close calls, we decided to move the jump boat path to the other side of the slalom boat guide which would put the jump further away from the slalom course.  This is the way it’s been at the north end for years and don’t recall any close call issues in 20 plus years. 

[lpskier]

The location of the ramp relative to the slalom course is to some degree a function of the width of the lake. The wider the lake, the further you can move the jump from the slalom course. 
 

How long has the jump been where it is, and how many people have hit it? My guess is a long time and zero. Slaloming on a lake with a jump can be distracting, especially for folks that ski on lakes without them, which is to say probably 98% of us. But they are less in the way than you think, and less dangerous than they look. Unless you voluntarily go over them, in which case all bets are off…

[buechsr]

Main lake at Travers has not 1 but 2 jumps deployed virtually all the time (as it has for decades), as it did this weekend, in the same positions.  Would also strongly suspect the setup will be the precise same in 2 weeks.  If for nothing else, I'd bet they wanted to create the precise same sightlines for Worlds.  It is not an uncommon set up.  The set up is such that the far side boat guides (from jump) is the inside jump course buoys.  Absent that setup, that lake would be chock full of buoys, and trust me, it's got a lot going on already, and no more width to move it out.  Nate turned a fast (bad) 1 and couldn't get back to boat guides.  Jump is virtually where a right sided 2 ball would have been.  He just didn't make it to the wakes.  While it may have caused a distraction for him yesterday, it was a bad one ball.  Given the number of pros who ski this site daily, if there were complaints/safety issue, it would have looked a lot different there than what it has for years.  

[mbabiash]

Doubt he would’ve made it to wakes from this angle. 

[BraceMaker]

@mbabiash the argument would be that if he could have put his ski out where the side skirt is that he might have made the boat guide.  An extreme example for sure.

If you take the many 3 event sites that have overlapping slalom and jump courses they probably are all following the published T/C handbook in terms of survey data for the position of the jump and jump course.

So you're probably going to be saying that to pull slalom at a certain level the jump must be pulled but that's going to make quite a few single lake sites with jump ramps and slalom courses have to pull their jumps.  I can just see how many of the European sites wouldn't be in compliance due to the ramps being surveyed in similarly.  Could be wrong but I cannot imagine that thing isn't surveyed into spec I just think Nate sent it way further down course than would typically be expected and you're now stuck debating if there was a chance at all that he was going to make the guide or if he was just missing it anyway.

 

On a side note that corner of the skirt should probably just get rounded off?

 

 

 

[buechsr]

JT is a respected TC.  IF there’s a place that’s dead on, I’d take his backyard in prep for Worlds.  

[dvskier]

Absolutely Travers is in spec at all times. Note that if Nate had taken a pass at 9.75 on Saturday he would’ve been familiar with this situation.

[OldboyII]

Another lucky boy

[Nater]

32 minutes ago, dvskier said:

Absolutely Travers is in spec at all times. Note that if Nate had taken a pass at 9.75 on Saturday he would’ve been familiar with this situation.

It’s not about “they all know it’s there” or “being familiar”.  For the two months that we had our jump in that location and had a hand full of “that was close situations”.  We asked our selves… is it safe? Could it interfere with the path of a skier pushing the limits with the slalom course.  The answer for us was not safe and we should move it

[Than_Bogan]

The jump is inside the buoy line and I don't have a particular problem with that.  However, I do have two things to add related to slalom geometry:

1) An S-turn sometimes actually sends the ski wider than the course width.  Remember the problem is carrying to much speed, and the second move of the S turn is to go back outbound to lengthen your path.  Of course, at 9.75 it's not possible to be any significant amount wider than the course width!

2) It's surprising how late you can appear in an S-turn and still make it back before the gates.  The sneaky thing is that you'll be travelling quite a bit backwards relative to the boat as you swing from up high to back behind the boat.  I think theoretically, with enough momentum coming in, the path could actually go backwards, but more commonly it just goes forward much less than you'd think.

[Kelvin]

That’s not Nate’s first close encounter with a ramp. In 2019 at Okeeheelee’s Americas Cup the ramp was very close to the boat guides.  
 

https://youtube.com/clip/UgkxA2xiM-bGGj6PHDOtKM5ulgmcwE2LLHKQ?si=hUgVcIjQ9eG2_ihl

[APB]

All it takes is one crash. Is that worth it? The wing of a ramp would cause serious injury or death. Especially with more 39’s and 41’s for ladies and 41/43 for men. 

[Stevie Boy]

So there has been several top events at Sunset Lakes (Travers), if I  remember last year there were some top scores.

I am sure somebody put up a score into 43 Off ( 9.75m )

Maybe Will Asher

What I  would like to ask is why nobody, has brought these opinions to the fore, in previous events ?

[Mastercrafter]

18 minutes ago, Kelvin said:

That’s not Nate’s first close encounter with a ramp. In 2019 at Okeeheelee’s Americas Cup the ramp was very close to the boat guides.  
 

https://youtube.com/clip/UgkxA2xiM-bGGj6PHDOtKM5ulgmcwE2LLHKQ?si=hUgVcIjQ9eG2_ihl

Sweet balls of fire. That's terrifying. 

[Nater]

25 minutes ago, Kelvin said:

That’s not Nate’s first close encounter with a ramp. In 2019 at Okeeheelee’s Americas Cup the ramp was very close to the boat guides.  
 

https://youtube.com/clip/UgkxA2xiM-bGGj6PHDOtKM5ulgmcwE2LLHKQ?si=hUgVcIjQ9eG2_ihl

Kellen,  I remember this.  I had a pit in my stomach about it and shared my thoughts on the jump location of that event with several people.

Regarding some of the other comments in this thread:
“They all know it’s there”.  “ They should be familiar with the site”.  But, when you are in the moment or pushing the limits within the course. You may not be thinking or see the big obstacle that is in your way until it to late.  We got one goal in our mind….. GET THAT NEXT BUOY!  We learn from our experiences & situations.  We need to keep our athletes safe!  The saying of “that’s the way it’s always been”, just doesn’t sit well for me.

[rfa]

Two "conversations" going on here.

1. Whether the jump ramp potentially affected someone's (Nate, in this case) slalom pass/score? I have no opinion on that based on what I was able to see (webcast and photos)

2. Whether the ramp location is a potential safety hazard? Here the answer seems to be an obvious yes. Maybe less obvious that in the video posted by @Kelvin at Okeeheelee, but still in the potential path of the skier. 

I am neither criticizing nor advocating for any action here. Don't know other important factors/considerations.   

 

[UWSkier]

4 hours ago, mbabiash said:

Doubt he would’ve made it to wakes from this angle. 

I believe he would have.  You could see from the video he was looking downcourse at the ramp.  He could have swung his S out a bit wider and a bit earlier.  Seems like it was a bit of a situation where he wasn't quite sure what to do.  Not much time to make the mental calculation when blazing past 1 ball at 43... I imagine. lol

[ISP6ball]

He swerved to avoid hitting the ramp while attempting an S turn in the slalom course at 9.75. I don't see how people are saying it wasn't in the way.  He stopped mid S turn to avoid it.

Whether he was getting back to the guides seems trivial.  However, knowing Nate's ability and awareness at that length (better than anybody probably on planet Earth), I'm guessing he would've made it.

I don't take away any of the effort, time, and energy the Travers crew (& twbc) has done to make this event what it was (which was awesome).

Nonetheless, if somebody ever does hit a jump while in the slalom course at any event, I bet Horton's annual salary that the jump gets moved prior to the next event at that ski site.

[B_S]

That was the 2nd near miss of the day. It might be "normal" but it's a very bad accident waiting to happen.

[Killer]

The jump is too close to the slalom course, it should be outside the turn buoys at least. 

I don't think it would have made a difference in Nate's score for this event but from a safety perspective this should be a permanent change in the homologation of events, world wide.

I also made a point about Nate's near miss at Okee, at night no less, at that time.  It was far far too close and an extreme safety risk.

It's not worth the risk, and no argument can be made to suggest otherwise.  

Run your private ski school how you want, but in sanctioned events we can't continue with these close calls.  

[lpskier]

Let’s face it: Nothing that involves a water ski jump is safe. 😉

[swbca]

Its common sense that obstructions shouldn't be located within the area where competitors may to ski to score points in a slalom event.   100's of S-Turns are a regular part of the training and tournament experience for top skiers. 

Even with the possibility of sun glare or night competition skiers should be assured there is nothing to hit between the start and exit gate when executing a skier path used for scoring points.  

The tournament operator would be no defense in a lawsuit.  We have all skied at tournaments where a shoreline or jump could be hit by a skier in a high speed fall when or after crossing the wake.  That not the same as an obstruction withing the slalom course.

 

Edited September 26, 2023 by swbca

[buechsr]

Look no one wants to see anyone hit a ramp, but it's not as if the jump was obstructing "where competitors may ski to score points in a slalom event".  Look at Lymanland's set up for Malibu, or Fluid for Mastercraft.  In looking at Lymanland's setup, I'd concede it appears the jump is slightly wider from some shots, but actually closer to 4 ball than travers was to 1 ball.  At fluid, if someone had a very hot 6, the jump is basically at the gates.  I'd concede a one ball at 43/36 is something I have zero experience with, but these skiers know where stuff is, they've skied around jumps in similar places for decades, they also know what is and is not feasible to score if they're so out of position that a jump is an obstruction.  

All that said, if a site can easily move a jump for slalom, sure, why not do it.  On the other hand, as to last weekend, thats the precise look they'll be getting during worlds, and I bet most would say they're glad to have skied a replica of the set up in 2 weeks.

[bbruzzese]

Out of curiosity, did Nate or any of the other competitors comment on the ramp location?

[ScottScott]

It amazes me the people that think its ok for a structure to be within a potential skier path on a slalom course, and since "everyone knows its there," or "its there for everyone" or "its like that at other places" everything is OK. How many close calls before a serious injury. IF it interfered with Smith making a perfectly legit S turn and making a score of 1 full buoy, then its a problem. However, he should still have just as much right to TRY everything he can to S turn and score that buoy (even if he fails) without worrying about running into a structure at 36mph. 

Quote

if a site can easily move a jump for slalom, sure, why not do it.

Yes, exactly. 

Quote

 thats the precise look they'll be getting during worlds,

Maybe that shouldn't be the loook they'll get at worlds. I think its time to re-think the standards here BEFORE there is a serious inury, and Worlds is the perfect place to start. On lakes that are too narrow for the boat path to be on the jump side of the slalom course (locating the jump more outside the slalom course), move it for slalom. That may mean moving it for slalom classes and putting it back for jump in a 3 event. It will be a pain in the butt, but does that mean it shouldn't be done? OR at a site like travers, they have more than 1 lake.....

[lpskier]

If the jump gets moved for slalom, they have to re-homologate before they can jump. I point this out only to show that “just moving the jump” is not as uncomplicated as it sounds as the process involves repositioning and re-measuring the jump, then resurveying the jump and the reference buoys for the jump distance measuring system, then loading the data into the jump computer.  All said and done, that can be an hour of downtime. Longer if there is a screw up. 
 

 

[ScottScott]

Another consideration for lake owners and liability. While there have been some close calls, there could be some defense regarding the standard, and the fact that its never happened or even considered it happening. Enough light has been shed resulting from this incident and conversations, that if a lake owner chooses to continue with that ramp location they could likely have a more difficult time defending their position in a liability suit in the event that an accident does happen.

[buechsr]

12 minutes ago, ScottScott said:

It amazes me the people that think its ok for a structure to be within a potential skier path on a slalom course, and since "everyone knows its there," or "its there for everyone" or "its like that at other places" everything is OK. How many close calls before a serious injury. IF it interfered with Smith making a perfectly legit S turn and making a score of 1 full buoy, then its a problem. However, he should still have just as much right to TRY everything he can to S turn and score that buoy (even if he fails) without worrying about running into a structure at 36mph. 

Yes, exactly. 

Maybe that shouldn't be the loook they'll get at worlds. I think its time to re-think the standards here BEFORE there is a serious inury, and Worlds is the perfect place to start. On lakes that are too narrow for the boat path to be on the jump side of the slalom course (locating the jump more outside the slalom course), move it for slalom. That may mean moving it for slalom classes and putting it back for jump in a 3 event. It will be a pain in the butt, but does that mean it shouldn't be done? OR at a site like travers, they have more than 1 lake.....

Do you advocate removal of all turn islands?  rip rap?  Docks?  Excess buoys?  Or to widen the shoreline?  Because all of those are hypothetically in the skier's path, too.  

[jjackkrash]

There's nothing safe about boats, docks, turn islands, water you can drown in generally . . .  I have heard of lots of injuries occurring while skiing, wakeboarding, tubing, but I don't recall ever even hearing about anyone hitting a ramp who was not actively jumping.  It is hard enough to get jump ramps approved in lakes generally without more misinformation floating around about jump ramps as general hazards.  Ramps are no more dangerous than a dock on a lake when not in use; lake users need to take care to avoid them.   It looked to me like the S-turn was just as much of a cause of a potentially unsafe condition.  Maybe a rules change is in order in relation to the S-turn when it's unsafe to do it.  

[VONMAN]

Well not to many skiers have had the opportunity to make a play at 43off so getting back to the buoy line is the rule to score 1 ball. We really didn't know a ski ramp would be in the way. Like its been said the course had been homologated. But how old is the standard. Was it standardized back in the 38, 39.5 or 41 era? So knowing what we know now, do we make a change or wait till someone gets hurt. I'm going take a guess that 70 to 80 percent of course skiers don't have a jump next to the slalom course when training. I mean no one else had any problems with the ramp being there. Not even Freddy, after he saw what happened to Nate. Nate should have got a re-ride offered and if he turned it down so be it. So what do we do in the future???.......It's OK, it's fine. I'm sure it will be fine.      Until the next time, stay tune.

[BraceMaker]

11 hours ago, Killer said:

 

I don't think it would have made a difference in Nate's score for this event but from a safety perspective this should be a permanent change in the homologation of events, world wide.

 

That's the question really, personally I think the correct solution is a redesign of the skirt and backside of the jump ramp ignore Nate and 43 off for this argument how many brand new skiers have absolutely no clue where they are on a lake.  A rounded off edge on the ramp would 100% change the risk.  Round off that corner and have it curved and the risk of injury changes drastically.

In the same event minutes apart we have 2 skiers rounding 1 and S turning and you can see very clearly that despite S turning FW didn't come anywhere near that corner of the ramp.  It is impressive just how far down the course NS got.

https://www.instagram.com/reel/Cxng6HAOlC3/?utm_source=ig_web_copy_link&igshid=MzRlODBiNWFlZA==

 

 

But can everyone recognize that a great way to get drowned at a ski lake is trying to manhandle a jump in sketchy conditions on a time crunch?  Moving a jump is not easy it is extremely heavy and well secured, it needs to be level and properly installed and unwieldy they are not commonly moved through out the year multiple times and what is being asked for is somewhat silly.  I mean I think the open bow malibu lawsuit makes a lot of sense compared to this.  No one is trying to install ski jumps on public water with ski courses for the public to run through.  This is a controlled sporting environment with athletes who pay to participate on a private facility. 

 

Safety curtain wrapping around the back? Sure - adding another ball to lakes that have a ski jump and changing the rules about a full ball score?  Sure easy.  Moving jump ramps repeatedly throughout the year so that skiers can be extremely late and score the point?

 

[ScottScott]

15 minutes ago, buechsr said:

Do you advocate removal of all turn islands?  rip rap?  Docks?  Excess buoys?  Or to widen the shoreline?  Because all of those are hypothetically in the skier's path, too. 

I wouldn’t consider those examples equivalent at all…    Turn Island  certainly wouldn’t come into play while a skier is focused on turning buoys or where they may wipeout in the course…. I would certainly hope there aren’t any docks as close to the skier path through the course as we are considering in this case with the ramp (the observation dock at swiss? Not sure how that compares to the buoy line….should that be considered?....maybe) Some narrow lakes have shoreline potentially in play if a skier wipes out while outbound, but I would much rather do a Freddie Winter slide across the water and end up on a shoreline than run smack into a structure on the ski at full speed. Rip rap should be considered on a narrower lake where the shoreline might come into play as mentioned. And comparing a buoy to a structure?