jpwhit

I'll start by saying I have no first hand experience with the 200 and the effects of altitude other than understanding that there is a reduction in power. I do have experience with the 200 and 5.7L engine combo with some different prop configurations at lower altitudes.

It's also a slightly unclear to me if the main concern is the high RPMs of the earlier 1868 5.7L setup or the power loss due to altitude. I guess in the end, it's pretty simple, you want to find what works best for your situation.

My 2012 5.7 200 with the original 1868 prop in pristine shape would turn 4100rpm in the course with a skier at 34.

This may or may not be relevant to your situation. I had to have my original 1868 rebuilt due to some damage. After the rebuild it turned 4200rpm in the course, the boat noticeably lack power, and generally never worked anywhere near as well as the pristine 1868. I think it's pretty difficult for a rebuilt prop to even achieve the same efficiency as a pristine CNCed prop. I mention this because your RPMs do seem a little high and could indicate you have a lemon 1868 prop. If that's the case, in the past it was pretty easy to pick up a pristine 1868 prop because of folks switching to the 654. At altitude I could see a really good sample of the 1868 prop being the best choice.

When Nautique had the 200 5.7L re-certified with the 654 prop, and started shipping it with that prop, I switched mine to the 654. I don't remember exact RPM numbers but it dropped below 4000 RPMs in the course with a skier at 34. Personally, I greatly preferred that setup. Any drop in power was slight and certainly didn't impact my situation. The boat was much more pleasant to use in the lower RPM range, seemed to use a slightly less fuel, and some folks felt it skied a little better. What I can't really help with is answering if it'll give you the power you need at that altitude.

I also played with a 422 briefly, which lowers the RPMs even further. And I know a few folks that like that setup, but the power loss is pretty noticeable and I didn't think the boat skied well with the 422.

I've never played with any 3-blade props.

@bbirlew,

On a business trip at the moment, but will start a new thread when I have some time rather than hijack this thread.

Among the members of our ski club, we have both wakeye and the original skidoc camera mounts. Nobody has the new skidoc orbit mount, but it's probably just a matter of time...

Without going into a detailed review, I would say the Wakeye does a better job of tracking and keeping the skier in the frame. Especially if you're using a camera with zoom so you aren't using at a wide angle view like you get from a phone camera. Wakeye has a feature, that quite frankly they haven't promoted well enough, and I think I lot of folk are unaware and do not set it up. It's called Zoom Plus and helps compensate for the slack at the rope at the ball and helps keep the skier in frame.

Wakeye Zoom Plus News Post

Almost all cell phone cameras are sensitive to vibration. Apple cameras a little more than other phone manufacturers. The skidoc mount has a foam block between the part of the mount that slips over the pylon and the actual camera mount. This cut downs on vibration and results in better quality of video from cell phones.

Summary: Wakeye tracks better, skidoc results in better phone video quality.

As an aside, I have tried putting foam around the cell phone on the wakeye and it did result in a very noticeable improvement in video quality, especially for iphones, but I gave up using phones to record ski videos because the default zoom is much too wide, the wakeye app is pretty slick but missing features to make it really useful, and I got tired of dealing with the vibration issues and having to stick foam around my phone.

So I went over the top geek, bought a used camcorder off ebay for $35, built my own GPS based control box that not only starts and stops the video automatically, but only records from the entry pre-gate to the exit skier gate, doesn't record video when someone falls in the course for the run back to the drop, and controls pre-set zooms on the camcorder for different rope lengths. I also fully automated the process of getting the videos off a wifi enable SD card in the camcorder to a shared google drive folder organized into folders by date.

Not too bad for a couple weekends work. Now we just ski, and then watch the videos later off the google drive web page when we have a few minutes to be depressed about how we felt like we 100% fixed out stack, but the video tells the real story......

For those of us without swivel pylons, do folks put any kind lubricant on the pylon to cut down on friction and rope wear? If so, what do you use.

The other reason I was thinking about this was to make the tracking smoother when using a Wakeye or other video recording setup. Sometimes the rope jumps in increments under heavy load due to friction between the rope and pylon.

@Wish that is a good question and I wish I knew the answer. Is the problem really the 6s phone, and how the wakeye app determines which phone, or is it something related to the latest version of iOS. I just got the wakeye and our phones were already at the latest iOS version and I don't have access to an iPhone 6.

I think one of the guys in our ski club has an iPhone 6 and I may be able to get him to try it this weekend. I have no idea if he's on the latest version of iOS. And iOS 9.3 is rolling out now as well.

I don't have the plus, it's the smaller 6s. I've already tried both restarting the phone and re-installing the app. I've even tried it on two completely different iPhone 6ses with same results. The app already has the option to turn off stabilization and lock both AE/AF. Those options help but my main issue is the slow frame rate and the option to increase beyond 30fps being disabled. This is on the latest version of the app and iOS. (Wakeye 1.7.15, iOS 9.2.1)

Just got a Wakeye and really like how it tracks and the speed based automatic record start/stop, but the video quality is so poor using my iPhone 6s that it's not really usable.

I've seen the discussions about turning stabilization off and increasing FPS, but there seems to be a bug that prevents anything other than 30 FPS on the 6s. Either that, or I don't know how to use the setting. I assume you would click on 30fps to change the setting just like you click on the speedo to change the auto recording speed. When I click on 30fps, it goes grey like it's going to give you options, but no options appear. Sometimes I get a message saying your videos will be stored to the gallery when I click on 30fps. My guess is that the app is checking which version of iPhone hardware is in use, to decide which FPS settings are supported and that logic is not working correctly on the 6s.

I think my curiosity here is really around what people think are the boundaries of what should be allowed. As an engineer by trade, I'm personally fine with the application of technology to improve athletes ability to progress to higher levels in the sport. But it seems clear the current rules would forbid a steerable fin controlled by an actuator and microprocessor. But engineering the use of flex to indirectly control the fin isn't such a completely different thing in my opinion.

But so far it seems the consensus is that as long as it's not controlled directly by the skier during the set, or completely removes talent or fun from the equation, that most folks would be fine with almost any system that indirectly controlled the behavior and characteristics of the ski. Potentially even if the ski were smart via embedded electronics.

Cycling has had to wrestle with similar issues now that many high end road bikes utilize electronic shifting, power meters, and other new technology.

I completely accept that we also need rules just as an agreement of what is allowed and not allowed as a practical matter. But also expect the rules will need to be updated in the near future to account for coming technology. A key one likely being whether skis or other equipment used by skiers must remain passive devices or can become active devices through the use of embedded electronics.

Nobody's arguing that ski's don't flex. And even further, the flex of ski's is part of the engineering that has a significant impact on how a ski performs and I don't see any issue with that whatsoever.

But, I think it becomes grayer, when you engineer the flex to then change the angle of a control surface like the fin. And more importantly where do you draw the line? What if I engineer the center rib, in a design like the flextail, with an embedded microprocessor that changes the stiffness and therefore the effect on the fin angle based on the side to side tilt of the ski? The skier still wouldn't have the ability to change it themselves while skiing, but I could make a "smart ski" that changes it's own characteristics based on all kinds of different parameters.

Playing devil's advocate, the fin itself is a "device affixed to the ski intended to control or adjust the skiing characteristic". Just because clause 1 stipulates that a fixed fin may be used, it doesn't exclude the fin from clause 2 as being a device affixed to the ski. Furthermore, because of the flexing it does "change during actual skiing".

It could also be argued that the rib in the center of the ski, that allows more flex than normal, is also a "device affixed to the ski".

And to argue the other side, all skis flex some degree, so I guess the real question is does intentional engineering of the ski to let the flex and change the angle of the fin violate the spirit of the rules.

Out of pure curiosity, has the subject of tournament legality of the flextail been discussed. Given that Goode advertises that the ski flexes laterally at the tail and therefore changes the angle of the fin, it seems to come very close to violating the spirit of what's in the AWSA rulebook.

C. Slalom and Jump skis:

1. Any type of fixed fins may be used.

2. Devices affixed to the skis intended to control or adjust the skiing

characteristics of the ski, for example, wings on a fin, are allowed as long as they

are fixed and do not move or change during actual skiing.

My 200 had the Linc system and when I was shopping I originally was looking for the analog gauges due to concerns over the long term reliability of the glass display. But most 200s have the Linc system and that's what I ended up getting. There is one big advantage to the Linc system over the gauges. It'll read and display engine DTC codes. Which is supper valuable if you do your own engine work. With the analog gauge set you have to buy the $700 Diacom software if you want to be able to read engine codes.

In the end, both the Linc display or the analog gauge set on a boat may fail over time. Predicting which one a company like Nautique, or any other one for that mater, will still have in stock as a replacement part is kinda a gamble. And it may be an invalid assumption that replacing the analog gauge pack is any cheaper than replacing the Linc unit. Since more 200s ship with the Linc system, it possible that it could be available as a replacement part longer than the analog gauge set which I think is also one integrated unit and not individual gauges like days of old.

I don't get the point people are making over upgrading software. There is no real reason you'd have to upgrade software on any of these glass displays. Maybe there is a tweak or new feature that would be nice, but it's not something you have to have. In the case of ZO integrated system on newer boats. I'm pretty sure it's just the display and control of ZO handled by the glass display. I think there is still an independent ZO computer module under the covers and software on that is what would be upgraded for a new version of ZO software, not the glass display. But that is something I'd want to verify before I bought a boat with integrated ZO. And in any case, supporting software updates on multiple versions of glass displays isn't actually a very hard problem.

The one thing that made me feel better about my year 200, is the engine starting and zero off where independent of the Linc system. So if the Linc did fail, it would just be like the analog gauge set failing. The boat would still work, I just wouldn't be able to see dashboard readings until I got it fixed. But that is becoming less true on newer boats and is the main reason I'm not a big fan of integrating the zero off controls into the glass display.

I may be confusing the pre-drive by wire throttle body and the post-drive by wire throttle body. I've worked on both. On the pre-drive by wire throttle body there is a separate IAC so the computer can electronically adjust idle and the main butterfly is controlled by the mechanical throttle cable.

On the Post-drive by wire throttle body the main butterfly is controlled by a motor and is therefore likely used to control idle speed. I'll have to take a peek at the EX343 in my boat later this week.

In either case, what I said about the position sensors both on the throttle body and the one connected to the throttle handle is correct. They both have dual potentiometers and set DTCs if the two reading don't match or are out of range. The sensor for the throttle handle position also has an idle validation switch that indicated the throttle lever is in the idle position. A DTC is also set if the IVS reading is inconsistent with the other 2 potentiometer readings.

Your problem may be a problem with the motor on the throttle body, but it could also be other EFI sensors so I would start testing stuff instead of replacing parts since some of these parts are pretty expensive.

Have you checked the Idle Air Control? It controls idle speed and can cause the issue you're having.

Both the position sensors for measuring throttle lever position and the position of the butterfly in the throttle body have redundancy. It's very unlikely for either of those to cause the problem you're having and they will both set DTCs if anything is out or range or the redundant sensors readings don't match.

It means the engine computer thinks one of the exhaust manifolds / catalytic converters is too hot. I assume the 1 indicated which one of the two, but I have no idea which side is designated 1 and which side is 2. When you say the water temp is 160-169, that's the temperature of the engine block and not directly related to the temp of the manifolds.

The raw water pump picks up water from the lake and first feeds it to either the heat exchanger for the closed loop cooling systems, or to the thermostat housing for the raw water cooled engine. Then the slightly warmer water exits the heat exchanger or thermostat housing and is pumped through exhaust manifold / catalytic converters to cool them and then exits out the exhaust port.

It takes more water from the lake to cool the manifolds than it does to keep the engine cool. So if the raw water pump is delivering less water than normal, the engine can stay at normal temps but the manifolds can overheat. Especially on engines with catalytic converters which I assume you have because PCM engines didn't monitor manifold temps before catalytic converts to my knowledge.

It could be as simple as trash was partially blocking the water pickup on the bottom of the boat. And if you cut off the engine to clear the code, the trash may have fallen off the water intake. Or it could be your impeller needs changing. How many hours since it was last changed? Or it could be a bad temp sensor. Since it didn't come back immediately, it's more than likely trash or a marginal impeller.

You're suppose to check it with the engine idling so you don't have to worry about the oil draining out of the cooler, hoses, pump.

The steps for checking it are in the Nautique manual. But the basic steps are warm it up, shift into forward, reverse, back into neutral, leave it idling and check that the oil is between the 2 marks on the transmission dipstick.

I doubt anyone here will be able to give you a definitive answer unless there happens to be someone on the forum from eControls that designs both the engine ECU and ZO. But I do have experience in the design of control systems similar to ZO and I think it's fairly likely that the issue you describe is simply that the LPG injection system simply responds quite a bit differently than the stock engine.

When you design a control system such as ZO, you have to have information about how the system responds to control input. You either bake a good bit of that info into the system simply based on testing, you make the system very configurable, or you make a system that dynamically learns what it needs to know. I suspect that in the case of ZO, quite a bit of that information is baked into the tuning of the system. Why they would make that design choice is whole other topic related to factors such as making the system economical and easy to use.

If my assertion is correct, the problem will be greatly amplified in a short setup situation where you need the system to settle into steady state very quickly. Not to be downer, but unless you have solid evidence to the contrary, I wouldn't necessarily assume a Prin's system would necessarily solve the issue. It could be that all LPG system will respond differently enough from a petrol system such that you would need a ZO system tuned for LPG to work well with a short setup.

It's probably a longshot, but have you emailed ZO and asked them if they have any insight on their system working with an LPG converted engine.