jpwhit

Most of the newer boats have hulls that create a lot more drag in order to have very little spray and nice wake characteristics even with a larger and heavier hull. I think that's where the additional power is needed. I think proof of that is what @Horton mentioned. Even in a 200 for example, which is a high drag hull, Zero Off will always get near perfect times at sea level. The 5.7 in a high drag hull will struggle for folks that ski at higher altitude lakes. More power is also needed for pulling jump. So, these newer boats do need significantly higher power engine options to cover all the disciplines and situations they encounter. I tend to think the difference in the feel of the pull of modern boats has little to do with engine power. I think it's almost all about how ZO relies heavily on accelerometer data to be able to respond very quickly to skier loading the line. If I were designing my own modern speed control system, the main thing I would try to change is to accommodate the feel of the pull for the skier, while still keeping the ease of use and consistency of staying within the time tolerances. But I do also recognize that this could be a very expensive and time consuming thing to accomplish. Because "feel of the pull" is a pretty subjective thing. And designing a control system to a very subjective parameter guarantees that you'll have to spend an order of magnitude more testing and tuning time and user input collection time developing the system. For a business, that can be a very hard thing to justify, because someone has to convince the accountants that the additional investment will result an even higher return on that investment. That's where having competing companies working in this space, and giving the end users the ability to pick between the two, would tend to lead to continuous and steady improvement.

I have a 2019 ProStar at my lake house and a 2012 Nautique 200 at the ski club near my main house. And even as a 35 off skier, I also am bothered by the differences in the pull between these 2 boats. It's not at all unworkable for me, but it is somewhat annoying enough to cause me to try to minimize it. I do use different ZO settings between the 2, but still notice the difference. @Mastercrafter and I have messaged about this some as well, because he also has a similar situations. We're both in the process of trying the 3 blade "jump prop" on the ProStars to see if that equalizes things somewhat. Eric at OJ props suggested trying that. So clearly ZO isn't a magic bullet for making all boats ski exactly the same. And like @Horton, if I had my way I certainly also believe that ZO algorithms could be modified to make the situation even better. And when the patents expire, which is only a few years off, a competing system could be developed that had more emphasis on consistency across boats and engines as well as other improvements. I think this goes to show just how much very tiny differences in the control systems can be felt by a skier. And the difference boat to boat with ZO is tiny compared to the difference I've felt skiing behind a PP Stargazer / zbox setup. I think it's also the case that some people are much more perceptive and / or bothered by these small differences. If you're not, and you're happy with zbox, that's great I think you're fortunate. But I don't think that means everybody will be happy with that setup. In terms of why the differences, I don't think it's fundamentally because of the different ZO tunes between boat manufacturers and engines. I think it's mostly caused by differences in transmissions ratios, propeller designs, and small engine tuning differences. But I also think it's the case that ZO's design goal was to make the system very easy to use for the end user and to almost completely eliminate out of tolerance passes. I doubt they had any intention to try and make the system feel as close as possible boat to boat and engine to engine. And with their near monopoly on the speed control market at the moment, there is absolutely no business incentive to spend money changing anything right now. I also may sound like I'm a big supporter of ZO and anti-perfect pass. But that's not really the case. I think the transition from perfect pass to ZO for tournament skiing was handled extremely poorly and did cause real harm to the sport. But I blame that less on eControls and more on how the governing bodies of water skiing handled the transition. eControls did in my view "invent" a better speed control system than what existed in the market before it. Especially in terms of end user usability and more consistently in reducing the occurrences of re-rides from out of tolerance passes. And I can't really blame them for using patent law to protect their innovation. Let's not forget that Perfect Pass was also protected by patents such that another manufacturer couldn't easily step in and replace them either. And if I'm not mistaken, PP sued ZO over infringing on their patents. In most cases similar to this in the industry, two companies like this with both valid but related patents, most often agree to cross license the intellectual property. And it's typically a win-win for both the manufacturers and the consumers. The governing bodies for waterskiing could have, and should have, taken a stand that they would only accept such an arrangement for the tournament approved speed control they would support. If they had taken this route, the transition wouldn't have been so detrimental to the sport, and we as skier would likely have an even better speed control system today. Years ago, I was a much bigger fan of looking for alternatives to ZO. But now I think we're past that in the market because ZO boats can be had for cheap enough IMO. Part of the reason I have that view, is because with the most recent downturn in the boat market. I think it's getting pretty hard to buy an older boat, convert it to ZO, and actually spend less money than buying 2008 - 2011ish ZO boat. Especially if you're really honest about making it an apples to apples comparison. By that i mean really having equivalent boats in terms of the condition of the interior and all aspects of the boat. Also, it's a different story if you also already own a Pre-ZO boat than if you have no boat and are getting into the market. I fully expect someone to bring up ... "wait didn't you post earlier that you're converting an 1999 bubble butt Nautique" to a modern engine and Zero Off. Yes I am, but to @Horton's earlier point, I know exactly why I'm doing it. It's not because I'm trying to create the ultimate slalom boat for anybody. Actually, I fully recognize the opposite. Given the current state of Zero Off, it'll probably ski differently than any other boat out there. I'm doing it because I just think it’s fun and interesting. I doubt I’ll even keep it in this configuration long term. I’ll probably rip the 6L Ilmor back out of it later for another fun project I have in mind.

If you're talking PP with mechanical servo vs Zero Off with DBW, then there is no comparison in how quickly the system can make changes to the power output of the engine. I'm personally a little confused now about what PP does and doesn't support relative to DBW, but I really don't care enough to call them and ask. ZO uses high update rate GPS speed data, accelerometer data, mapping of the course so it knows when it's approaching gates and skier balls. Therefore, the control algorithms it uses are quite sophisticated. And they are also considered proprietary by eControls. Zbox adds accelerometer data to perfect pass in an attempt to try and duplicate the behavior of Zero Off. But it's at best an approximation. Unless you budget is super tight, I just don't see any good reason to do anything other than Zero Off. Zero Off doesn't require any tuning or messing with parameters. That in itself is huge IMO. @Scott Russell have you ever skied behind a ZO boat so you can see for yourself how different it is from hand driving or legacy Perfect Pass. If not, I really think that should be your next step. First-hand experience with skiing behind a ZO boat is likely to be a little eye opening. Just post up here locations where you can meet someone to ski. I think there is likely plenty of time left in the season to get a test ride in. I typically ski into November for example.

The stuff I've been collecting and have sitting in various garages for one of my projects this winter. Looking to take about 500 lbs out of the hull.

The ZO head unit does not interface directly with the servo on the throttle body. The eControls ECM reads the data from the throttle pedal position sensor (PPS) and it directly controls the throttle body serve motor. The ZO head units talks to the ECM via the CanBus interface and it can send commands to override throttle control. For safety reasons, the ECM will only allow commands to alter throttle controls within the range of zero throttle up to the current reading from the PPS. So if the driver moves the throttle lever to say 70%, the ZO commands can set throttle between 0 and 70%. If the driver returns the throttle lever to idle, the ZO cannot control the throttle at all.

Personally, I think we're at a time now where it's getting pretty hard to justify converting a boat to ZO. There are enough older ZO boats available now in a price range that it just makes more sense to buy an older ZO boat that needs some TLC. Otherwise the numbers just don't work out very well in most cases IMO. Especially when you factor in how soft the used boat market is at the moment and will likely to just continue to get softer in the near term.

This is my understanding of the situation. They did at one time, but the patent suit settlement between Perfect Pass and Zero Off divided the market between ZO covering all DBW applications and Perfect Pass covering all Mechanical throttle applications. Basically PP had patents on mechanical throttle and ZO had patents on DBW. So PP discontinued their DBW support.

Camaro Blacktec is all I use these days. Nothing else really compares IMO.

Of course there is no warranty, but often a manufacturer will help you out for the good will. My view is it can't hurt to ask nicely.....

If it's worn pre-maturely, I'd contact the manufacturer and see what they'll do for you.

@mlange If there is no mapped course, you're not going to get a bump in speed as you enter the course and you're not going to get course and ball times. That will be the case whether you're in Rec or tournament mode. And in Rec mode you have to switch screens to see the ball times anyway. So I doubt anyone ever looks at them.

I don't think this will be same as speed control. I think the majority of drivers didn't really enjoyed handling the throttle manually. So, when perfect pass came out, I think most people really wanted it. It was also the case where speed control isn't really that tough of a technical problem, so the solution wasn't terribly expensive to develop. I know people will say it was expensive, but I think compared to self-driving technology, it's going to seem cheap. I'm going to ignore the transition to Zero Off because that's an unfortunate situation where technology change and patents caused what is hopefully a "one of a kind" misstep in the transition. But I think factoring that in, skews the fundamental question did people really want speed control in boats. Which I think the majority did. Self-driving is a much harder problem to solve. Hence the ultimate solution will likely involve a lot of technology. Personally, I don't think you'll ever have self-driving technology for boats that approaches human drivers without leveraging computer vision technology just like self-driving cars. That will also make it possible to handle floating courses which I think will be necessary for a solution to be economically viable. I think it'll also be required to handle situations where something enters the course. Such as a kayak. I think without this, liability will be an issue. As others have already pointed out, the driving outside the course in many cases is just or more important than inside the course. And again, I think for a solution to be economically viable, that will have to be handled as well. I think it’s at best 50/50 that self-driving boat technology will ever become the norm. I think the solutions, that will be good enough to be worthwhile, will end up being too expensive to allow for widespread adoptions given the size of the boat market. Also keep in mind that speed control applied to the entire boat market. Wakeboarders needed speed control just as badly as slalom skier. This technology will only apply to an even smaller market of just 3-event boats. I think if self-driving boat functionality does become the norm, it won't be developed by someone specifically for boating. Just like with engines, it'll likely come from the automotive industry. There simply isn't the revenue potential to support the R&D cost for truly ready for market solution to be developed natively. You'll need to use already developed technology re-purposed from the auto industry to make the economics work IMO.

Vince retired.

What engine? PCM EX-330 5.7L. Assuming it's the EX-330, as other have already said, change the distributor and rotor if it hasn't already been replaced in the last 100 hours. The Vortec 5.7L engines are notorious for hairline cracks in the distributor cap to cause issues. You won't be able to see the cracks with the naked eye. I would do this before spending any further time diagnosis the issue, because it's so common to cause issues like you describe and is a general maintenance item. It's also pretty common for the ears on the distributor that has the threads for the cap to break off. If that happens or has happened, you can order an inexpensive repair plate from Amazon. https://www.amazon.com/Dorman-90449-Distribution-Repair-Plate/dp/B00BQAJNWO/ref=sr_1_1?crid=C6DEDV3NICSZ&keywords=dorman+90449+vortec+distributor+repair+plate&qid=1695153236&sprefix=dorman+vorte%2Caps%2C142&sr=8-1 If fuel filters haven't been changed in last couple of years, then that's a good idea too. Boats engine management is based on the J1939 standard. Which is the same standard used for heavy equipment. An automotive ODB II reader won't be able to talk to the marine ECU at all.

Sorry to hear about the stolen ski. But it reminds me that I have a friend of friend that wants to get an adaptive waterski. Anyone have any pointers to where you can find used equipment? I have found https://liquidaccess.org/ via google for new equipment. But it's out of the price range they can afford. I realize it's probably really hard to find used equipment.

I think the driver panicked because they were tearing up the course and slammed it in reverse.

There are only a small number of standard speeds in tournament mode. So it would be easy to develop the software with key tuning parameters to be pre-defined in a table for those set speeds. And we do know there is different tuning for different boat / engine combinations baked into the Zero off software. In recreation mode, the number of speeds that can be selected is more on the order of 200 speeds. So it would be much more work to handle that with pre-set values. They would have to be calculated values. Therefore they would probably use an algorithm to calculate values for those speeds even if it weren't quite as precise. I'm not saying that's how it works. I think there is a better than not chance that it is exactly the same. My point is there are pretty plausible reasons where it would be cheaper to develop with a different approach to recreation mode.

As a software developer, I can think of a lot of reasons the Tournament and Recreation mode could be different. And I've often wondered if they are different. The problem is that the only people that could give us a definitive answer are the software developers at eControls. But it's unlikely that they will answer the question. The only other way I can think to definitively answer the question would be to instrument the boat with another set of the same sensors that Zero Off is using. Which would be the same GPS pucks for speed, accelerometers, RPM sensor on the engine, and Throttle Position sensor data. Then collect data for both modes and compare it programmatically. That's an amount of work that doubt anyone will be willing to do to answer the question.

Is it single or dual puck Zero Off. If it's dual puck, and the pucks don't have updated firmware. It will randomly do that because of the GPS Week Rollover bugs.

Which boat, engine, hours, and prop?

I'd email Radar and ask them.

I store the original carpet for resale, then I cover it with Deckadence and it looks great!

The slalom course at my lake house is very shallow at one end. So I damage props now and then. I’ve probably been through 4 props in the last 4 years. I’ve had 3 of those repaired by OJ for free when buying a new prop. They are never like new and I only use them while waiting for a new one to arrive. I sent one of the rebuilt one back to OJ to see if they could make it better. And it improved some, but still not like a new one. My theory is that the reworking process changes the tensile strength of the metal. Typically one blade takes the bulk of the damage, so gets the most rework. That causes that blade to flex differently under heavy load than the other blades. The reason I think it’s related to blade flex, is because the reworked prop feel the worst under heavy acceleration. My best reworked props feel fine running at speed without a skier. But they don’t feel good under load.

My 2012 has a gland and packing. I've replaced it a couple of time. Can also confirm it's 1/4 packing, not 3/16.

On most boats, including my 2012 200, the depth and temp are both provided by an Airmar bi-ducer. I expect it's the same setup in a 2019. These bi-ducers aren't terribly robust and fail pretty often. Are you still getting a depth reading? I've seen them fail where you lose temp or depth readings. But it's most common to eventually lose both depth and temp readings. They connect directly to the boats CAN network. If you're getting either reading then that proves the wiring is all good and it's still talking to the LINC screen. If you've lost both, that either means the bi-ducer has completely failed, or you do have a wiring issue that's disconnected it from the Canbus. Not sure if this is the exact right one or not, I'd get the part number off of yours and call before ordering one. https://nautiqueparts.com/bi-ducer-depth-temp/ You can buy these directly from Airmar, but for MasterCraft I know they have MasterCraft specific part numbers and Airmar isn't allowed to give you a cross reference. I expect the same is likely true for Nautique as well. They are specific to the tilt angle of the hull where they are mounted.