DefectiveDave

Voted again!

Boot is unmodified in barely used condition; I used it for 3-4 sets. This boot does not come with a liner. The size 8 is equivalent to a 9.5-10.5 foot size (I think, but check Reflex's site for the sizing chart). I'm thinking $80 for the boot (seems reasonable), but I'd also be willing to trade for a white-cuff boot of the same size. Feel free to make other offers. I need to get a new white-cuff to modify with some of the ideas sure to come out of the "Boot Performance" thread while I keep my current white-cuff as a control. Here are some pics:

I remember she was up for the same thing back in 2013, does anyone remember how she did? I want to say she got second, but I didn't find it in google. How much harder do we need to try?!

Voted!

@disland, Maybe that indicates that the ideal lateral support may be closer to a rubber binder than a hardshell? @dchristman might have put it better by saying that more lateral support provides the "greatest potential leverage" rather than "highest performance". I probably should have put it that way, because there's no guarantee that anyone could use the leverage provided by very, very stiff lateral support. Of course, based on some of the subsequent comments maybe the greatest effect of lateral support isn't during the leverage to the first wakes but during the pre-turn.

With respect to lateral support, my current though process is that that very strong lateral support would offer the highest performance while weaker support would be more forgiving. Here's my justification in picture form: This is an image of the cross-section of a ski, boot, and skier's lower leg. Imagine the skier is stacked and heading into the first wake. The skier is traveling into the screen and the boat is traveling down course to the right. This means the water is heading at the ski from the left in the direction of the arrow. In the case with perfect support, the lateral angle of the shin with respect to the water explicitly defines the angle of the ski in this plane. However, in the other two cases this relationship is offset and the skier needs more shin angle (which I would argue translates into more lean angle overall) in order to accomplish the same amount of ski angle relative the water. Therefore I would argue that for the perfect lateral support, the skier needs to lean less to accomplish the same amount of ski angle (though they must still deal with the same amount of load from the boat with less body angle). If that holds true, then the absolute performance of the ski should be higher as the ski can "bite" more angle with the skier in good stacked position. However, if the skier is out of position or unable to achieve as much lean then they won't be as ready to hold the load and the ski will not perform as well, hence it will be less forgiving. Likewise, for the cases with less than perfect support. For a given amount of lean the ski will bite less angle and probably not accelerate as well (all other things being equal). However, this also means that there will be less load overall which will allow the skier more time or the ability to use less effort to lean into position. I would think that there is probably an ideal amount of lateral support for every skier and it will probably vary depending on personal preference, skill level, and body differences. To generalize, novices may do better with less lateral support while more advanced skiers might do better with more support. However, I would think even the best and strongest skiers would need or want some lateral wiggle room. Of course, this assumes that this thought process holds. Granted I am focusing on a very specific relationship in a very complicated system of complementary and competing dynamics, so these generalizations might not hold overall. Also, at this time I have no idea how or if this would apply to other stages of the course such as the pre-turn or turn. However, it is fun to think about these things. :-)

I actually injured myself multiple times in stock reflex boots last year despite having tested the release on land. Nothing really terrible just three ankle sprains (two requiring crutches and 1 month each off the water), but the problem ended up being that the top latch was coming undone while skiing or during the fall (it's hard to say). Thus my foot wasn't loading the release mechanism properly when I fell and hence the numerous ankle sprains. I made a slight modification to prevent de-latching at the beginning of this year and have had no issues whatsoever since. In my case I have skinny shins, which might have changed the geometry of the latch mechanism outside of reasonable parameters; so that might explain why I had issues with the stock system. Still, I took care to set the release mechanism correctly and followed the available documentation explicitly. I still love the reflex system, use it, and recommend it. However, I don't fully agree with @Horton when he says "For Reflex users.... If you get your release setting right you are good to go". Definitely make sure the release is set correctly, that is very important, but then make sure that the latch on your top-cuff is secured and can't come loose in a fall or while skiing. I'm not sure how prevalent the issue is but it sucks when it happens to you. There is a post detailing my modification in this thread

@adamhcaldwell, This is a timely topic for me. Recently I've been thinking of my ankles as pieces of equipment that I want to "upgrade" in order to increase my range of COM movement over the ski. I've been doing some strengthening and stretching over the last two months which have yielded some good results. However, regardless of flexibility I have noticed that my front reflex liner is very resistance to ankle dorsiflexion and lateral motion. While I can force my maximum range of motion in dryland tests it is quite difficult and it would definitely hinder me to some extent on the water. It is pretty clear to me that I am going to be making some "adjustments" to the boot itself, but at the moment I'm waiting for Spring so that I can assess the changes one-by-one as I make them. So having a control boot lying around sounds like a good idea. :-) Right now the only two modifications I have considered are: 1) trimming down the white cuff to decrease it's leverage 2) taking some material out of the liner where the bridge of the foot meets the ankle (I've noticed this material is constrained by the buckles and must be compressed significantly to put the ankle in even minor dorsiflexion) Number 1 should help with both lateral and forward movement, while number 2 is kind of a forward movement only modification. Anyway, I'm sure this problem affects some people more than others and as with all things it is likely possible to partially or fully compensate with modifications in technique. However, it would still be more ideal to allow the extra freedom of movement on the ski. So like @Chef23 I would love to hear what modifications you have made to improve upon the reflex boot! The more ideas come spring, the better!

I don't think that the idea I've presented is patentable as it is not really novel (it's really just a method of indexing position such as used in stepper motors and a host of other applications) and it is quite obvious if one defines the goal. Anyway, since all I'm doing is suggesting that people could put stickers on their boat and take some basic measurements, I don't have any commercial aspirations. :-) However, that's not to say that someone else isn't trying to patent something similar that does meet patentability criterion. I'd definitely be curious to see what they had in mind.

@Horton, Awesome! Are you referring to the updated Trace or the Xensr?

@scotchipman , @dlokshin says above they're using 2nd gen hardware in the current Trace. It's kind of buried in the website, but it looks like they updated around the July timeframe. See here: http://support.traceup.com/customer/portal/questions/12914119-new-trace-model-2-15- It's a little confusing because they didn't change the name for the new hardware. The claims are: * 10x more sensitive and accurate * 20% smaller + 20% lighter * 20% faster syncing with the phone * New locking mechanism that is easier to use and much stronger mechanically * A handful of other goodies too! I'd love to know which is better as well. Both Trace and Xensr appear to have 5 Hz GPS update rates and utilize IMUs with significantly higher data collection rates. I suspect they will perform similarly well for skiing. As for the immediate future, my money is on Trace to be the more mature product given it's longer history and being on it's 2nd hardware cycle. However, I believe that for our sport it will boil down to the device for which our resident data junkies develop the right tools. Given that @bbirlew and @Kelvin both have Xensr's maybe the smart money is there so long as the API is decent. Time will tell. I can't wait to hear what @bbirlew and @Kelvin have to say. I know I will be getting either a Xensr or Trace in the spring!

@thager, Are you talking about flag slalom? I remember seeing it on BoS but can't find the thread at the moment. Here is the facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/Flag-Slalom-Water-skiing-without-a-slalom-course-180609865334333/

@Bruce_Butterfield , Point taken, more height equals more potential energy and more time to achieve body position before being loaded by the boat (assuming all other things are equal such as turn-in velocity). I definitely have my best gates when I'm widest which is why I need to hold myself accountable, haha. I'd still love to see how high on the boat a big-dawg gets. I don't know that 90 degrees is possible, but if I see someone do it then I couldn't make excuses for myself. At the very least, it would tell me what width at minimum for which to shoot and I'm confident that it's wider than I currently am.

@dchristman , I see what you did there, haha. I don't think a video system is in the works here. I believe this is useful for getting some basic information and maybe for qualitative comparative analysis, but I don't expect to be deriving velocity/acceleration curves. :-P While I'm sure that's possible with enough work, I don't think the temporal or spatial resolution would even begin to approach something like RAT-IPA. I will probably just use this method to get approximate measurements at points of interest. Things I've thought of so far: - How high on the boat at gates and buoys - Angular velocity at centerline (needs some markers on the aft wall) If you have any ideas on how I might be able to get more out of it then I'm all ears. :-)

@dchristman , I see what you did there, haha. I don't think a video system is in the works here. I believe this is useful for getting some basic information and maybe for qualitative comparative analysis, but I don't expect to be deriving velocity/acceleration curves. :-P While I'm sure that's possible with enough work, I don't think the temporal or spatial resolution would even begin to approach something like RAT-IPA. I will probably just use this method to get approximate measurements at points of interest. Things I've thought of so far: - How high on the boat at gates and buoys - Angular velocity at centerline (needs some markers on the aft wall) If you have any ideas on how I might be able to get more out of it then I'm all ears. :-)

Hey guys, I had an idea recently which I thought I would share in case it was useful to others. I'm sure others have done it, but I didn't see it elsewhere in the forums. Essentially I placed fiducial markers on my boat which can be seen in my video. Since I'm using a wakeye which is pylon centered, I can get an excellent idea of the relative angle of the rope with respect to the path of the boat's travel. Currently I'm only using them to gauge how high up on the boat I am getting during the gate pullout, but they could be used for general spatial reference for a variety of purposes. For now, the fiducials are simply black marks on masking tape which are spaced at 0 ft (where the rope is at 90 degrees from centerline, so maximum width) and then 1 ft, 2 ft, 3 ft, and 4 ft back from 90 degrees along the side of the boat. I also performed some measurements from the pylon and using simple trig know that approximately: 0 ft = 90 degrees from centerline 1 ft = 73 degrees " 2 ft = 58 degrees " 3 ft = 44 degrees " 4 ft = 36 degrees (this is the one we see first in the video when pulling out) Here is video from the only day so far where I used the fiducial markers. Forgive the skiing, it was the first time on the water in 2-3 weeks and it wasn't pretty. The first 2 passes are 32 and 34 mph at 15-off, 3rd pass is 22-off, and the rest are 28-off. I think it's nice to have those reference points and I can now tell that at 28-off I'm probably somewhere between 50 and 58 degrees up on the boat during pull out. This translates to a gate width of between 36 and 40 ft. For me that means that I'm close to where I want to be on the pull out, but that sometimes I'm not getting all the width I need to get out to the buoyline. However, I was also able to determine using the markers that glide speed may be my bigger problem. A friend who is a significantly better skier than myself had a much stronger gate (body position, speed, everything) at 28-off but with a gate width of only 33-36 ft. This appears to be because he has more speed when he turns in for the gate. So I already feel like I've learned something significant to help my skiing. If you would have asked me before using the markers I would have guessed that I was further up on boat during my gates, but the video doesn't lie. Additionally, I wasn't sure that my turn-in speed for the gate was too low, but having compared gate height and other results from another skier I'm now very convinced that I need more speed at the turn-in no matter how rushed the gate feels (I'll get used to it). Anyway, data is good and this is very cheap and easy. Moving forward, I think I might need a camera with a wider FOV (maybe a gopro) in order to better record the fudicials higher up on the boat and I may need to get a shorty shock tube so that it doesn't block the fudicials. More fudicial markers for higher resolution wouldn't hurt either. I'm at the end of my season this year, but I hope to explore and improve upon this next year.

Cool idea, apparently there is one in Charlotte, NC as well. However, it's about a 40 minute drive for me so probably something to try on a weekend.

Old thread, but why not: I tried the 5.0mm Blacktec recently. It seems to be made a bit differently than the 2.0mm, but is still a quality wetsuit. While I did notice more initial water infiltration into the 5.0mm, I was overall slightly warmer in the 5.0mm than the 2.0mm in very similar water conditions. It was only in 59F water with the 5.0mm so I can't really say how it performs into low temperatures, but I felt like it would have handled low 50's very well. Still, I chose to stick with my 2.0mm wetsuit. The 5.0mm was a little bit more restrictive than the 2.0mm (obviously), but it wasn't enough to affect my performance. In fact, I actually skied unusually good that day. The deal breaker for me was that I felt the collar was too tight. While I was getting ready to ski, I actually started to get light-headed and my ski partner commented that my face had actually turned very, very red. It loosened up once I got wet, but I never really felt as comfortable in the 5.0mm as I do in the 2.0mm due to the neck. It is worth noting, that I have a rather slender body-type but my neck is relatively thick. So my experience with the neck tightness may not universally apply to other people. In fact, I would not be surprised at all if I'm one of very few people with neck tightness issues. In summary, Camaro makes a quality product and I think that most people would be very happy with the 5.0mm. I just like my 2.0mm better. :-)

If I had only one piece of equipment: First Choice: Kettlebell Second Choice: Doorframe Pullup Bar Third Choice: Rowing Machine I would then supplement with bodyweight exercises such as: Planks Pushups Jump Squats Box Jumps

It depends on the doctor's orders. If they are cool with me skiing then I'll absolutely listen to them, otherwise my record is much spottier.

@2tracmind, I totally agree when you say that holding the hips at 10 helps maintain the width. It appears that to a large degree the skier goes where the hips are pointed. Thanks for bringing up the 10-2 idea in the S-initiation thread, it's been very helpful to my skiing since @Wish first described it to me. I probably should have elaborated a little more on my previous post. I don't think the hip clock itself is directly the cause (in fact I'm still sure it's part of the solution), but it's more of the way I initiate the hip clock. I actually free myself of the boat momentarily after the pullout because I need more rope to allow the outward hip rotation (otherwise there's too much load for me to do it effectively). I think I would be much better off it I was able to exit the pullout with the hip clock already initiated, which is very similar to what @gregy was saying. Anytime I'm free of the boat I think I'm loosing speed a little faster and drifting inward. @gregy, Thanks for the kind words. I think you just perfectly described my strategy as well, haha. I want to develop a good gate shot so that I can develop the skills for a proper transition, pre-turn, and turn into one-ball. It's hard to do that when you have bad body position going into the gates. Two-ball would be next and then hopefully the rest of the course would just be repeating the lessons learned at one and two ball. Right now I'm afraid I'm just building bad habits because at no-point in the course am I ever in an an ideal body position.

Haha, does it matter that I'm trying to protect a wetsuit and not my own skin? I can scrap up my leg with a wirebrush before putting it on.

@ShaneH, It sounds like Asher was saying something similar to the hip rotation method @Wish brought up early. It's a nice way of thinking about it too. It sounds like it might encourage more of a COM shift towards the gate than just a 10-2 rotation (where 12 o'clock is facing directly down course). I'll have to try this way of thinking out on the water. @gregy, I'm glad you picked up on that. It's something I've been told, but I haven't been thinking about it at all lately. However, now that you mention I totally agree with what you are saying. Looking at Terry in the video, when he comes out of his glide he is in position and ready to go, no need for a quick hip rotation to get ready. It could be that my hip clock is what is causing me to lose the width so early; in fact I would say it is almost certainly a contributor if not the primary reason. @Ali, That's an great idea and something I can definitely use. In fact, if one is fast enough, they might even be able to do 2 practice gates in the same run by using 6 ball as well. @TallSkinnyGuy, It's definitely humbling. I felt like I had improved so much this year, and then seeing how effortlessly Terry blows me away is a reality check. I have so far left to go and so many things left to improve, lol. It's a good thing. Still, when I think about it, at some point in the distant past Terry Winter had to have been near our respective skill levels. There is hope for us yet!

Skied yesterday in 59F water and 51F air with the 2.0 Blacktec. I felt great until the sun started to set.

@Marco, @Wish, @Chef23, @ToddL, @Drago, @A_B, @Texas6, @matthewbrown, I've been a while since I posted here and it feels like it is time for a check up. I've been working about 80% on my gates since the last time I've posted to this thread and made some good progress. Most importantly, I've been able to internalize mostly everything I learned here to some extent. My 28-offs are more consistent and I'm starting to get deeper into 32-off now (practice PB is 4 balls but there's lots of scrapping). However, I'm starting to bump up against the wall again and I'm not sure what is the most important thing I need to work on at this point. My gates still aren't where I want them to be so I've been trying to compare my gates against Terry Winter's. Here's a comparison pass at 28-off, 34-mph: *I only got 5-balls, but this was the best 28-off video I had from today's session It starts off pretty good. I appear to pull-out at the same time and for the same duration (this is just a coincidence). I would even guess that I might have a bit more speed in the glide based on the intensity, but that's where the favorable comparisons end. I start to drift in before turn-in, but I don't think Terry does in this case (though it's hard to tell from his camera framing). Which to me is kind of odd given the intensity of our pullouts, but maybe I'm missing something here (wing angle maybe? mine is at 9 degrees per Rossi's Green Vapor settings). Anyway, from the point of turn-in it's clear that he is in a much better stack within half a second. He's traveling faster by the first wake and his ski has started to move out in front of him for the transition. My ski is still behind me at this point and though I have intensity into the wakes, this makes it very difficult to maintain direction after the second wake because I am blocking the transition. After this point Terry blows me away through the course at every buoy, but that's a problem I'll work on next year, haha. I'm initiating my turn-in using @Wish 10-2 method, which works great getting the ski pointed across course and I don't think I can do it with much more intensity. I've timed my pullout such that I still get relatively wide and I've made progress minimizing my drift back towards the boat. Anyway, I get the sense that I'm still missing something critical in my gate turn-in that I just can't see. My observation from the video is that I'm tail turning, which is where I think the vast gap first begins to form. However, I cannot seem to prevent this from happening. Some of the things I've tried are: - COM extremely forward before the turn-in - Driving my COM forward during the turn-in - Putting weight on the balls of my feet and trying to keep it there - Straightening rear leg per @Horton I'd very much appreciate any ideas or thoughts which might help me out. I've got maybe 3-4 more sessions this year and I'm hoping to put 32 down! Thanks ballers!