brettmainer

@Horton should let @Dirt train the skis to run 39 prior to starting each review. That way, when Horton does get to 3 ball, he will have to cede the credit to Dirt.

+1 on @skier2788 comment. Almost voted for Option 1, then thought about whether it was a good idea to allow 1990s boats w ZO conversions to pull events. There is a problem. In NorCal, I think we have it better than most, but still, the only traveling promo boats are Nautiques and Centurions. The Malibu and MC promo boats never leave their home lakes. Consequently, I put 12hrs on my 200 this weekend pulling a 2 day slalom and trick tournament. 100% of the trickers used the Nautique. The overall promo boat problem is making it progressively harder on those few of us who remain, which discourages us from continuing, which imcreases the problem. I empathize with @Chuck_Dickey. I broke even on one boat in the last 10 years and lost money on all of the rest.

I just dropped a boat off at Pleasant Oak for a tourney tomorrow (that I can't ski in due to kid's football). My all time favorite skiing memory happened here. I ran 35 in a tournament for the first time. Perfect little headwind, and I knocked it down 7yrs after running 32 for the first time. I got 1.5@38, then proceeded to watch the skier after me (Scott Papapietro) also run 35 for the first time. He got 1.5 @38. We sat there on the shore by 2 ball, and people started bringing us beer. We sat there all afternoon, singing "Happy Boy" and drank A LOT of beer. I miss M2. Can't believe I'm in M4 now. Hopefully you get 35 in the tournament tomorrow. 35/36 is no small feat.

Pretty much what I did. My back is still sore. Make sure to video in case it goes spectacularly wrong and can bring entertainment to the rest of us.

Do so with caution. Looking at the wing and knowing how airplane wings work, I really do think you had it inadvertently correct. The way I skied it was unsafe at 9 degrees and borderline dangerous at 7 degrees. I won't get to ski again until Saturday, but I will flip it over and try it again.

Measure the line that can be drawn through the two high points.

@Horton, your fin photos are interesting. Your "twin fins" are pointing up. Mine were pointing down. Being as you liked the wing and I did not, it seems I am the jackass who put his wing on upside down. However, I just double checked the mounting instruction sheet Willi gave me and in the instructions, it clearly shows the wing exactly as I mounted it. So, either: 1. You mounted it wrong and are indeed a badass skier worthy of @dirts praise and adulation for having skied so well with an upside down wing, or, more likely, 2. The instruction sheet I was given shows you how to put the wing on upside down. (In this scenario, you can still be worthy of @dirts adulation for being smart enough to ignore the instructions). Looking at the wing closely now without being in a hurry to mount the wing and go so as not to delay my ski partner, it appears that I am indeed a jackass who mounted his wing upside down. That said, Willi may want to recall those instruction sheets before somebody gets hurt.

I rode the profiler wing a couple of days ago, mounted on my Goode XT. It is very noticeable and does the two things I expected it to. Namely, make the ski slower and drive the tip down. The XT is already a fairly slow ski, but rides tip high. I was hoping the tradeoff of making the ski even slower and more work would be more than offset by the additional tip pressure and better turns. I started at 9 degrees (same as my normal wing). I could feel the extra drag going around the island, and then the ski dove forward at one, breaking me over and ending the pass. Tried one more time at -32, and it did the same thing at 1 and 3. So, I went back to the dock and reset the profiler to 7 degrees. At 7 degrees, the profiler was much more skiable. Ran two 32s easily, and could definitely feel the additional tip pressure. Tried 35 and it broke me at 1 and 3 again, one of which put a strain to the lower back, so I quit for the day. The next day, I ran my normal wing again and skied like I ski, which made for a good comparison. Summary is that the profiler wing is definitely noticeable and I can see where it could be a benefit to some people. However, those people would probably be riding a very fast and loose ski, whereby the effects of the profiler would be all positive. Maybe something along the lines of a 2016 Vapor. I also do not recommend any steeper than 7 degrees.

Western Regionals are at Wet Set next year. And yes, the Broadside Harbor team did an outstanding job. I would be thrilled to go back next year.

That is a pretty lofty goal. In the unlikely event that you pull it off, I'm sure Chtistine would be happy to sign the pink slip over to you.

Regarding ROI, @Horton, if you had gone to Regionals, you probably would have beaten @Dirt. You could have possibly beaten him at Nationals. What would that double have been worth to you? Alas, you missed your chance. @Dirt will most likely ski into 41 in any future events you do decide to attend.

I would love to see nationals held at Broadside again next year. Fantastic weather to be outside all day in, which encourages folks to hang around and mingle rather than run back to the AC. Bell Acqua in Sacramento would be another great option for the same reason. Or Laku. Both Sacramento and especially Denver are very airport convenient with lots of great nearby non skiing activities.

I can guess at April's motivation. Chris skied Wednesday (and did awesome, running 38 in the runoff), and W3 also skied Wednesday. They would have had to hang around 2 more days for April to ski Friday in MW or OW. Time is money.

@rico, I do like that idea. I was a 3@38 @ 36mph skier a dozen years ago. I've burned thousands of dollars worth of gas in those 12 years to have a 34mph PB of 2.5@39.

Horton, your preliminary round, semi final and final is of course preferable. That, however, might have to wait until Nationals has less than 400 entrants in order to fit it all into one week. A very small number of skiers at nationals probably wouldn't entice the vendors as much, and it wouldn't be Nationals anymore. There is a place for each format. By the way, this was my first morning waking up is a M4 skier. My back hurts a lot for having only taken 3 1/2 passes yesterday and I can't find my glasses. Is this normal?

I forgot to mention that Nationals is also what passes for the annual waterski equipment expo. All of the new stuff and special nationals pricing. It is not the extravaganza it was 20yrs ago, but I enjoyed taking a look at the new Radar, the new Raptor and the new JT binding system.

I had my shot at it yesterday, but like a bunch of others, I got in trouble early at 38 and went down. Even though the top dozen all had averages into 39, only 3 guys got there. 4@38 got to run off for 5th, which was unexpected, yet seems to happen often in the big one round tournaments. The frustration of "if I just wouldn't have overturned 1 ball, I could have been on the podium" keeps you coming back in hopes that next year, you can put it together when it counts. 4@38 is attainable for almost all of the entrants on their best day. If it was a 2 round tournament, there would be 10 scores into 39 and the 2@38 skier who pops off a PB of 4 wouldn't be in that run off. Even though it worked against me yesterday, I still like the one round format at nationals. It keeps the results from mirroring the seeding list. The more you go, the more people you meet and the more fun the event is, regardless of how you ski. It is the annual "waterski family" reunion. I had a couple of beers after skiing and watched some pretty amazing Boys 3 jump. I watched my G1 daughter make new friends and have fun. I am glad I went to Nationals.

@Horton, to tie your 20th place comment together with my comments on one round tournaments, I note that your typical 2@39 would have placed third. If you could have turned and stood up 3 ball, you would have won. You never know...

@Horton, think of Nationals as a place to rock a red white and blue speedo in front of a larger audience. It has kept your dad coming back for decades.

One other comment related to my earlier post. I well remember my 1999 nationals ride. I remember @"Mateo Vargas" tossing me a beer as I walked out of the water after a PB. I remember Matt Brown skiing mediocre in the event then crushing everybody in a run off. I remember showing up at 6:30am because I was riding with Schroeder and he was first of the dock out of 80 M2 skiers (that's another story; one that includes McNerney getting banned from the state of Montana). Point is, I don't really remember anything else from 1999. What's that worth? In fairness, memories from the Nationals where I skied crappy have faded. I would have to look up the scores to see what I ran in 2000-2004, with the exception of the hurricane year in Houston, where I was in 2nd place prior to the 4hr lightening delay. I (and 50 others) skied in a driving rain and 20mph wind. After the delay, in perfect conditions, in 15 skiers I went from 2nd to 17th. At the time, lots of folks were pissed. In retrospect, great memories, drinking a case of beer on a dock, trying not to get struck by lightning as the water overtopped the lakes and docks. Those stories are worth the price of admission.

There is a lot of well founded griping about the cost of one nationals (or regionals) ski ride. Take a few days off work, fly thousands of miles, $160 entry, motel, car, etc., and you are spending the cost of a new Goode (maybe even a Warp) for one ski ride. The thing is, nobody who wins ever complains. Only those who ski subpar. And believe me, I have been there. I concluded by 36mph career with a 0.5 @ 32' off at the 2006 Nationals and once lost to Scott McNerney at regionals. Maybe that is the allure of a 1 round tournament. If we had 3 rounds, the standings would closely resemble the rankings list. Not a lot of drama. One round though, and who knows? I am seeded 10th (or thereabouts) this week in M3. I am within a pass of the No. 1 seed. 9 times out of 10, he beats me. But I beat him at Regionals (he fell 2 passes below his average) so it's possible. Two round tournament, no way I'm on the podium. But one round? Maybe I PB (I did at the 1999 nationals, so it's possible), and maybe Menasci, Mongomery et al go down early at -39. There is a chance. Kind of like the lottery, except for in this case, first place pays the same as last place, and a day skiing (and looking at new ski products) beats working.

There were a lot of good times at the Bell Acqua Malibu Opens, not all of which are suitable for Internet publication.

If you look to your right, you will see there is a 3rd ball.

I've always liked the idea of MM skiing 56.5k (35.1MPH). Anybody 35+ yrs old who has run -38 at 34.2 can move up to MM if they choose to. The 1.5kph speed increase may drop the MM scores a little. It would be more fun, but without all of the force that comes from full speed 36.

Out of curiousity, does anyone know what the high water mark was for attendance at Nationals (year and # skiers)? I do note that for M3, the qualification cut off is approximately 5 buoys lower than it was 10yrs ago, so it is not like usawaterski has been making it more difficult to attend based on qualifications.