DefectiveDave

@Than_Bogan , I disagree. At 0 mph, I'll swim the course at 43-off while dragging the boat behind me. Of course, path might be a bit off. 45-off will be tougher, I don't think I'm tall enough.

@Drago, Everyone is a pretty absolute figure. Surely at least one person with a Nautique 200 will upgrade and sell their old boat to help cover some of the cost. In which case, increased supply! :-) I do agree with you, I believe many people who would normally upgrade will choose to hold onto their current 200s given the sharp increase in cost. I mean, we're talking matching Corvette money here. This means the deflationary pressure on the used market will not be as pronounced as previous generations. It's also possible that more people enter the used market because they were waiting for the new boat, decided they couldn't afford it, and choose to buy a used boat. That scenario could generate inflationary pressure in used boats for a period of time. However, I have no statistically relevant samples or hard evidence to infer the most likely outcome. The above are just my opinions of possible outcomes. Still, it has been ~8 years since a new Ski Nautique and I would hope CC did some market research before they made their decision to build a $105K boat. They must think they can sell a decent number of them for some reason. Time will tell. I simply hope that this boat has a modest deflationary effect on the used market.

It's expensive, but if CC have misread the market then MC and/or Malibu will capitalize on the opportunity. I guess we will have to wait and see. Regardless, there are lots of good used boats out there for those of us looking for a deal. I expect the supply of available 200s to go up in the near future. :-)

The only data I'm aware of to help answer this question would be Wade Cox (53.5 MPH @ 38 off and 36 MPH): https://www.ballofspray.com/forum#/discussion/17093/short-line-how-critical-is-gate-speed @Horton (~50 MPH @ maybe 35 off and 34.2 MPH): https://www.ballofspray.com/forum#/discussion/comment/183607 @Tap (~44 MPH @ 28 off and 34.2 MPH): https://www.ballofspray.com/forum#/discussion/17730/pylon-tracking I don't think any of the data is perfect. @Horton is on record that the Trace couldn't keep up and the timing is off in the videos. Also, while I trust the measurement's on Wade Cox, I don't think we know where the peak velocity occurred. With @Tap's data we see a constant radial velocity of something like 0.7 rad/s for a period of time with the peak velocity occurring significantly after centerline. I think this makes sense because we are measuring absolute velocity, which would increase if angular velocity remained relatively constant (or decayed slowly) during the start of the upswing. While Wade Cox's 53.5 MPH would imply an angle of attack = 47.7 degrees if it occurred at centerline, it would be less if it occurred later like @Tap's data suggests. I'm excited to see more data from @Tap's pylon tracking if possible.

I'm just glad the market is still healthy enough to allow companies to release new ski boats, even if they are getting more expensive. 10 years from now I'll have the opportunity to own one of these babies.

Regarding @AdamCord earlier comment, "You can easily have 600lbs of load in the rope on the 2nd whitewash, but no load on the ski. In fact, you should strive to have that." This can be verified with a little math and I think it's informative to walk through it. Radial acceleration (the acceleration you experience when traveling around a fixed point at a constant tangential velocity) is represented by (velocity*velocity)/(radius) or v^2/r. Say you approach centerline @ 38 off with the boat @ 36 MPH while traveling at an approximately 45 degree angle (which should imply you've built good velocity into centerline). This means your velocity tangent to the rope is equal to the boat's speed of 36 MPH. So doing the math: 36 MPH = 36 MPH * (5280 ft/mile) / (3600 seconds/hour) = 52.8 ft/s v^2/r = (52.8 ft/s)^2/(75 ft - 38 ft) = 75.3 ft/s^2 (75.3 ft/s^2) / (32.2 ft/(s^2*G)) = 2.34 G So you would be experiencing 2.34 G just due to the radial acceleration. This would translate into a centripetal force of: (Total Skier Weight) * 2.34 For a 200 lb skier (counting ski, vest, etc.) that's 468 lbs. You can readily get to 600 lbs if you add a little weight, get more than 45 degrees going into centerline, or shorten the line. Even repeating this exercise for 15 off @ 34.2 MPH you get 260 lbs.

The boat pulls us and provides all of our energy, we push on the water in various ways to facilitate the desired relative motion.

Awesome location, thanks for sharing! Maybe one of these days I'll make it out there.

I use an isolator and shock tube on the wake eye to reduce shake. I believe it works well. I've discussed it before here: https://www.ballofspray.com/forum#/discussion/comment/221785

@adamhcaldwell , I've flattened the bottom of my boot and trimmed the material around the bottom-cuff hinge to prevent impingement and allow better forward/aft motion, but I've never trimmed down the top-cuff itself. I've been running this setup for the last two seasons. Instead of trimming down the top-cuff, I've run my top-cuff rather loose with the assumption that this allows better lateral motion and makes up somewhat for having a high cuff. It still seems to release effectively due to the bottom-cuff straps. I've also set the back nylon strap to ensure that my maximum forward extent with the loose top-cuff is about the same as my maximum range of motion (so hopefully I won't get injured that way). Is this sound reasoning or is there something I'm missing about cutting down the top-cuff?

@adamhcaldwell , Based on your suggestion I tried to visualize the gate from the top-down using stick figure skier. Here's what I came up with: *The dashed green line represents a reference plane traveling at the same velocity as the boat. The light dashed black lines represent the handle paths assuming no slack. Glide At this stage, the skier is edging out slightly following the arc of the handle to gain width and move further up on the boat. The handle is in close. Apex Here the skier has reached the point where they are as far up on the boat as possible and at maximum width. By the green line it can be seen that the skier has moved further up course relative to the boat. The skier should be traveling down course with the same velocity as the boat. Furthermore, the ski, at least momentarily, is traveling straight down the course. The handle is still close at this stage. Below Boat Speed As the boat starts to pull away from the skier (as seen from the green line), they get pulled naturally and gradually to the inside edge due to the fact that they are constrained to the handle path moving back towards centerline. The handle is kept close while the boat is allowed to pull away for a brief period of time. Reach (active-extension) Once the boat has sufficiently advance, the skier actively shifts their COM and clears the hips with the "reach". The skier begins to gradually build load and move towards centerline.

@adamhcaldwell Based on your suggestion, I've tried to visualize this from a top-down view with stick figure skier. Here is what I came up with: * The dotted green line is a representation of a reference line which is traveling at the same speed as the boat. The light dotted lines in each image represent the handle path assuming no slack. Glide: The skier is edging out slightly to follow the handle path outbound in order to reach a point as wide and far up on the boat as possible. The handle is close in to the skier. Apex: This is the point where the skier is as far as they will get up on the boat and at maximum width. The skier has advanced slightly from the previous glide stage as can be seen that they are relative the green reference line. They should, at least momentarily, be traveling straight down course. Below Boat Speed: This is where the boat's speed exceeds that of the skier. The skier is now falling behind and being pulled naturally and gradually onto the inside turning edge. The boat has advanced relative to the skier (as seen from the green line) and the handle is still close. Reach (active-extension): After a slight delay to allow the boat to pull away, the skier now extends to shift COM and clear the hips. This is the active part of the initiation to the gate. The down-course velocity of the skier continues to fall even further behind the boat and load begins to build.

@adamhcaldwell , Thank you very much for the feedback. I think I mostly understand, but I have a couple of questions: 1) You mention the reach towards the pylon allows you to "lead the ski over the inside edge toward the gate". I'm not sure I understand this fully, but do you mean that the reach itself initiates the move towards the gate? I'm struggling to comprehend how the dynamics would work, but something like stick figure skier below is what I'm imagining: * Images are looking at the back of the skier and down-course right before the move towards gate, with the blue arrows representing forces of water on the skier, gravity on the skier, and the load through the handle Or are you describing something else entirely? Hopefully I'm not missing the forest for the trees. 2) You also mentioned that the "reach should happen simultaneously with the boat pulling the handle away from you". I've been trying to understand this in the context of your earlier statements (previous posts) regarding "ample glide distance" and "higher overall level of energy at the point of turn in on the downswing". I think achieving what is stated would be critical to a strong gate, but I'm not entirely sure I get it. Do these statements, taken together, mean that we want to be far enough "up on the boat" after our pull out such that we have a) more potential energy due to our position "up on the boat" and b) enough time to begin the move towards the gate after the boat has started pulling away from us and our down-course speed is slightly less than the boat's? Also, what type of angle relative to the path of the boat is necessary to achieve this? I've played around with fiducial markers on the side of my boat before and tried to infer from videos of much better skiers than myself, but really I have no idea what this angle should be. The closest I've come to actual data was from this video of KC Wilson with a good camera angle (pretty close to pylon on a wakeye): For 32-off, the relative angle appears to be 59-63 degrees based on the mastercraft logo on the interior. I compared against a top-down view of the prostar on their website, but there are many assumptions built into this measurement and it could be way off. 59-63 degrees seems a little low to me for 32-off, but I really don't have much context.

This thread has gotten me thinking again. As I'm gearing up for this season I've been contemplating the importance of keeping the handle close, low, and vertical during the glide. This seems like it might have some benefits: Close It gets your COM near the final "attachment" point so that it theoretically becomes easier to get the handle to the hip and become stacked while approaching centerline. When the handle is close to the body, the skier is along (or very near) the handle path, but with the arms extended the skier is a couple of feet outside of it. All else being equal, the skier with arms extended would need to catch up with the handle path by either initiating at a higher glide speed or doing some work (W=Fd). Also, keeping the arms extended means that when you need to get "free of the boat" to initiate you may be forced to move your shoulders inward and bend at the waste. Most of the pros appear to keep the handle close, but it's difficult to tell from boat video. Also, as a potential counter, Nate Smith might keep his further away (especially in older videos). Is keeping the handle close during the glide absolutely critical for a strong gate? Low The rope load in the down-course direction exerts a less of a moment on your body (relative to the COM), allowing you to be a little more forward while maintaining balance (this is apparent in a force-moment diagram). This is assuming that other skiers, like myself, have some load on the rope during the glide. Is there more to it or am I missing the point entirely? Vertical I'm not sure what this accomplishes on its own, but it definitely makes it easier to get the handle close and low. Is there more to it than that?

Here's a website to make links even longer: https://longurlmaker.com/extend/

I've flattened out the bottom of my boot with a reflex 750 release. I haven't had any issues with release due to the flatness of the bottom. However, flattening the boot does change its profile and this affects how the boot fits in the toe loop. Mine had a lot of wiggle room after doing this and I had to wrap some duct tape around it to fill in the gaps. I also had a few cases at first where my boot slipped out at less than ideal times because I didn't have a tight enough fit into the toe loop, even with the duct tape. Still, seems to work well now that I've got it dialed in.

@skialex, Thanks for the help! I hadn't realized the washer was preventing the receiver from opening during disassembly, so now I've gotten it all back together with new parts. I was able to use a pair of tweezers to place the nut in the receiver. It seemed to help me maneuver it a bit better than the screw.

@skialex , @Cam , and @aupatking , After reading this I decided to refurb my 750 release. However, I'm having trouble with with the t-nut. It appears to be jammed down in the receiver clamp and is not cooperating. This has the effect of wedging open the receiver clamp so that the new spring won't fit over it. At least, that is what I think is happening; it's hard to see down in there. Is this a common problem? If so, how do I get the t-nut out? Long M5 screw and a lever?

Regarding software simulation with computational physics, there's no economically viable method to accurately model the functionality of a water ski in anything but the most trivial scenarios (example: acceleration of a ski with a fixed angle and load). The required feature resolutions, time-scales, and domain sizes are just mind-boggling for explicit codes, even for the trivial scenarios. Agreeing with @Than_Bogan, since most actions on a ski are highly dynamic and tightly coupled to what the skier does, I don't know that the results would be very meaningful.

Why the CP video? Is it because he's RFF when in reverse?

Those courses are owned by the Lake Norman Ski Club. I'm not sure who in particular skies those courses, but feel free to use them while your'e in town.

Awesome, thanks @lcarnes!

We can't just be giving away triple panda's for such garden-variety silliness. They need to be earned through pure, mind-boggling stupidity. @Wish hasn't earned the coveted triple panda. I'd say one panda, max.

@AdamCord, Following up on your comments, to maximize the energy for the gate, ideally we would want to pull out as efficiently and intensely as possible for just the right amount of time. Summarizing ways to potentially accomplish that in order of importance: 1) Lean forward and left to move the ski efficiently 2) Pull out with as much intensity as possible until reaching approximately 30-40 degrees relative to the boat path (seems like 1.5 seconds or so) 3) Start as close as possible to centerline (gives more time to pull out before it becomes inefficient) Gives me plenty of stuff to try next time I'm out on the water. Thanks!

Thanks @AdamCord, @Wish, and @mwetskier, I very much appreciate the advice. For my part, I've been trying my best to maximize my energy entering the course. I've been thinking of it as: Potential Energy: Some function of height on the boat Kinetic Energy: Function of the skiers velocity Both are built during the pullout using the boat's energy through the rope. However, as soon as we stop pulling out we are losing energy to drag. Ideally, I would think that I want to get as wide as possible very quickly and turn-in at as high of a speed as I can manage without slack. One thing that seems to make a difference building energy during the pullout is where I start relative to the port wake. If I start closer to the wake I have a larger work zone and can build more speed. However, since I'm starting closer to the wake I have a lower initial starting energy. In the past, I thought that it was an equivalent trade off, but at the shorter line lengths its starting to seem more efficient starting closer to the wake. I'm still not certain of this, but it seems plausible.