jpwhit

This does seem like news that is relevant to the waterski community. Thanks for posting it @Horton

As someone that both wake surfs and slalom skies, I'm accepting of reasonable restrictions on wake surfing because so many people can't seem to be responsible on their own. And over the last few years, wake surfing is drawing enough negative attention that it's really only a matter of time before more and more restrictions get put into place. 

The reason this is very relevant to the 3-event skiing community, is because 98% of the population doesn't understand or even care about making any distinction between wake surfing and waterskiing. So waterskiing is likely to become a casualty in the process of trying to "fix" the wake surfing issue. So, the important point of action for the waterski community is to try and educate and ensure that waterskiing doesn't get included in future restrictions. And honestly, that's going to be really tough to accomplish. 

In general, I don't agree that you can create laws to very effectively limit people from being inconsiderate or stupid, but that's not really the practical consideration here. If our community's approach to protect waterskiing is to take the position that no restrictive rules should be put in place, then in my opinion we will fail, and waterskiing will likely be impacted as a result. Wake surfing is creating way too much ire in the overall lake communities to stop the trend towards restrictions being put in place.  I think MasterCraft is taking the approach to try limiting the restrictions in general, because that would be best for their business, but personally I don't think that's the best approach for the waterski community. 

For all the folks here, that jump on the bandwagon about how 3-event boats are the step child of the big surf boats, here's your chance to shine!

You can remove the serpentine belt to test your setup. 

The best place to monitor is the temperature of the rubber hose coming off the exhaust manifold(s). That's where you'll see the earliest rise in temp if there isn't much raw water flowing. 

The best outdoor storage boxes I've used are Taylor Made Stow 'n Go Fiberglass Dock Boxes. They meet all your criteria with the possible exception of cost. But this may be one of these cases where you get what you pay for.

I doubt Ski Boats are the target market for this. I think they are likely focused on the fishing market. Since a lot of the fishing crowd go year round, and don't winterize or wrap their boats for the winter, this has more benefit for them. Many of them also drop ton's of money into their boats, a good bit of which is just to impress people at the launch. So this would fit right into that culture. 

I thought you were getting the mini-tower?

@Andre who controls the lake? Who will have the authority to decide the outcome? How does that process work?

I'm not sure you're going to find enough credible information to argue against their claim. I wonder if the better approach is to press them to prove their claim in a credible fashion. If they are basing their claims on research for a different kind of boat than ski boats, then it shouldn't be too hard to explain why that's invalid. 

But again a lot depends on the answers to my first question about what the process is for changing the rules for the lake. 

You can calculate what the (+) curves will look like using the ratios in this table between the plus and non-plus. They are going to be wider and a little taller. The asymmetry of the A and C curves are little more pronounced.  

49 minutes ago, WiscoSkier said:

So 10 years after the thread started, 3 years from the last bump ZO 196s are still mid to high 20s. 

Is this a reflection of less and less ski boats being made? Less new/used boats hitting the market and the price differential to upgrade has only increased so is the 196 worth keeping?

will the depreciation start? I know boats sales are way down but 196s seem to still move in that 25-30k range
 

or is it just a darn good boat that will always be desired? 

196's are really the first generation of ZO boats starting in 2007. And boats before mid 2007 that have the PCM EX330 engines are also easy and cost effective to convert to ZO. You can certainly convert other older boats to ZO, but there will never be that many of those around and IMO it no longer makes economic sense to covert older boats to ZO. So, you're not going to see many more of those converted IMO. 

On top of that, the 196 have really great wakes that rival the wake characteristic of the most modern boats. 

I expect that ZO enabled and capable 196s will always retain a fairly healthy price, because they will always be the most cost-effective option for a ZO boat with very desirable wake characteristics. The price will likely slowly go down as the price and availability of older 200s drops down, but both will likely be very slow declines IMO because there will always be fairly good demand for these boats relative to the quantities available. 

The fact that the MasterCraft 197s in this same timeframe during the ZO transition were great trick boats, but weren't known as MasterCraft's best effort for slalom wakes, especially at slower speeds and longer line lengths, also makes the 196s and early 200 the go to boats in these year ranges. 

You shouldn’t have a red wire connected to directly to the battery that is powering the dashboard. Somebody has modified the wiring incorrectly in the boat. Any dash power wire should be connected via the ignition switch. And the ignition switch power comes through the master switch. 

I haven't been into a PP unit in quite a while so I don't remember what screen they use. The screen used in ZO units is a semi-custom part in terms of how it connects to the ZO main circuit board. I designed and had a PCB made to allow the connection of a standard LCD to the ZO circuit board.

@motorxr glad your 7" ProStar screen is working well !

1 hour ago, BraceMaker said:

Hearing the fuel pump should indicate the lanyard is working typically that's inline with the fuel system's relays so probably that's already eliminating one bit.

Lanyard cuts power to the ignition system, not the fuel pump. 

Is the greatest skier for one person also the greatest ski for someone else? I would suspect not. 

In the post above, I meant to say "even a 5.7L 200 for example, which is a high drag hull, Zero Off will always get near perfect times at sea level. Even when pulling large strong skiers."

9 hours ago, Scott Russell said:

I'm trying to learn how much of the new tournament boat's performance is Zero Off and how much of it is the additional power. I see the word response used a lot to describe the performance of the new boats with Zero Off. Is it Zero Off, or the responsiveness of Direct Injection? I don't know, but I'd like to figure that out.

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. 

5 hours ago, Scott Russell said:

Different servo motors will generate different rpm with the same 12v input. That's where the difference is. Both the motor and the gearing of the motor (there are gears behind the cover on a DBW throttle body) of the motor to the throttle shaft have to be inline with what the ECM expects. Otherwise the throttle will either stay behind the actual throttle input, or constantly overshoot it. That's why I was talking about using stand alone EFI. Those parameters can be tuned to suit in aftermarket EFI systems whereas they are fixed in the programming of an OE ECM.

What I'm thinking is that as long as you have the same throttle body, or at least the same servo motor and gearing as ZO would expect if it were plugged into in a compatible Ilmor ECM (for example), there shouldn't be any issues getting ZO and the throttle body in sync. The wild card is getting the throttle body with specs ZO is designed for. Trust me on this, marine specialty engine builders are using OEM sourced parts. They just build all the parts necessary to adapt them to a marine application (water injected manifolds, etc.). All you have to do is get a part number from a ZO compatible throttle body and go from there. Worst case you could build your own throttle body to emulate the specs of the expected throttle body to "trick" ZO into thinking it's connected to a compatible throttle body. It just depends on how deep in the weeds you are capable (and willing) to go. 

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. 

10 hours ago, Dano said:

Pretty sure PP has a DBW option as well.  If you know what EFI system you are going to install and understand how the parts and programming work.  I’d think it would be possible.  You might have to talk to PP directly to work it out.  They are very knowledgeable and helpful.  I have several friends using PP dbw systems and they work very well.  In my opinion they are very close to zo. 

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. 

2 hours ago, dave2ball said:

@jpwhit there is no warranty for that wear.   

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.