jdk99

Yeah, the photo is deceptive. I'm standing about 70' above water level and the iPhone photo makes it look narrow. Lake is actually 3400 long but western 900 feet is <175 wide. Eastern 2500 feet ranges between 215 and 275 wide. Great input guys. Much appreciated. @OB1... Really like idea of using portable as starting point. Also like cross course cables as described by @bry....that's how our club lake is set up. Might combine the 2 .... Use the portable to establish location for cross course cables. Thoughts?

Just picked up a new lake and we need some advice on installing a course. 2500x225. 30'deep. Sits 50 feet below grade with steep walls but 5 :1 to 10:1 at water level from erosion. @oneski suggested I look to you all for some pointers for permanent course installation. Would appreciate any input you might have, from the very basics of installation to subtle pointers. Links/previous threads would also be appreciated. Thanks all.

Count me in as having this problem as well. I've tried rubber cement, vinyl adhesive, super glue...and the stupid things keep coming off. Will try contact cement. HOWEVER, I absolutely love these bindings and wouldnt ski on anything else. I bury my tip frequently on my offside and have released every time. My injured ankle from last year no longer hurts at all and I've skied harder this year than ever before with not a single issue with the ankle. Great product ... just have to find a solution to the rubber coming off. Anyone tried tacking it on with something other than adhesive? Small buried screws or something like that?

Get LASIK. Worth every penny and then some.

@wawaskr....yes, you can bounce back without surgery. As stated by @oneski above, we quote our patients an 85-90% chance of recovery without surgery in the case of isolated soft disc herniations. HOWEVER, as per @6balls, if there are additional anatomic factors such as foraminal stenosis, that likelihood goes down. My rec is to to try nonoperative measures (PT, Injections, traction) and avoid activities that place you at risk for hypermobility of the neck until your symptoms have resolved. @DaveD...7 weeks with persistent weakness is pushing it. You might get away with it but if you have an OTF with neck hyperflexion it might put you back at square one or worse. @oneski...foraminal stenosis can either be due to 'bone spurs' or disc protrusion/herniations. More often than not a combination of both. You may get relief as the disc resorbs depending on the degree to which the disc is causative in your particular case.

@Than. Current settings: 185lbs .75 turn cw from factory both front and rear. Presumed L/M (60 ft/lbs). Torque not tested. Front: 0.262 Back: 0:292 Again, I'm either type b or c so still a little conservative NB. The factory mark on the rear doesn't quite line up cleanly w the mark on the housing so not sure it's accurate. Might explain length discrepancy

@Than...here are the data for the settings during the crash. (See other thread for current settings). More info than you need but here goes: 185lbs, 5 11 Rear binding .5 turns cw from factory to presumed L (56): 0.314 Front binding had backed out to .25 turns cw from factory: 0.304 So as you can see I had set my target setting accurate for my weight but for a type A skier. I'm probably at least a type B skier and maybe type C (not short line but stupid aggressive!). Further the front had backed out .25 turns (4 ft/lbs). Clearly too conservative hence the blowout.

@Horton…. NO! @Than…Yes

Big crash free skiing this week while trying to dial in my OB4 Binding position. Came into the first wake flat and my front foot popped out resulting in a pretty good OTF (see video. sorry for quality and my dramatic teenage daughter's yelling while I fall! Might want to mute it :) ). Learning points: 1) Don't set the tension too low. I fractured my ankle last year and therefore set my bindings 1-2 settings below recommended tension to ensure early release. Not a good idea! 2) Check the setting before each set. My front foot tension dial had backed out 1/4 turn from my original setting but I only recognized that after the fact! 3) The bindings work well! While the crash looks bad, you will notice that my rear foot disengages immediately. I put the ski back on and continued skiing. A little sore the next morning but otherwise no issues. regular speed slow mo

@Than …didn't have my calipers with me last few sets. WIll get you my data this week.

SUCCESS! Thank you @Than and @OB. Bindings back, closer gap and problem solved! [Disclosure: I also intently focused on hips forward/glutes contracted in preturn which I am sure was a big part of the correction]. Final question: On side is now slower coming around than off side. So, to quicken up on side turn without changing offside, is it better to 1) increase DFT or 2) decrease depth? Thanks again.

@than ....agree binding position is likely key. Yep...Crazy loose top buckle...like it might as well not even be buckled. Not sure what you mean by new gasket? Thx for input so far guys

@Than...have tried numerous positions and agree the widest just seems wrong even though it feels best. Maybe I do just need to narrow the gap and shift way back and work forward from there as suggested by @ OB. @ MS...was on stradas as close together as I could get them. I've already cut down the rear Roxa to simulate and that closeness was an absolute disaster

I've varied it from toe-heel touching to 1.25" separation with front boot slightly forward of factory (29.75). The latter has been best but still very touchy.

@schafer…tried every conceivable separation option. actually further apart has been best. that was one of the questions i had actually: how does binding separation play into off side turn. @Horton…yeah I know. unfortunately last set in course the camera was way out of focus. All I have are free ski videos and those won't help you much. I noticed in your A3 mid point review you had shifted bindings back with similar problem then corrected with shift forward. I may try that. what I was looking for in my post was whether there is a major binding position/setting issue that routinely leads to the problem i presented. yes I'm sure its Indian not Arrow but the Indian was way better before he changed his Arrow.

New bindings this season (OB4 w Roxas). I love the release system but my offside turn is a train wreck since the change. Seeking any advice you guys might have to offer. On both sides the ski is slow to come around. I can make the onside work but the offside just delays delays delays then BOOM 90 degree turn and I'm bent over at the waist. Absolutely this is partially a technique issue but I didn't struggle like this before the change. I can't seem to fix it w technique changes. I've bounced back and forth between old S2 and new A3 to see if it mattered. Affects both, but more pronounced on A3. Thoughts? Thanks in advance.

@ewishan and anyone else purchasing the OB4, read @than_bogan's posted manual. Excellent reference.

Bought the OB4 w Roxas due to ankle fracture last season. Two releases so far this season, one OTF, one OTR. Released perfectly both times with absolutely no ankle torsion and not even a hint of pain in the previously injured ankle. ECSTATIC with this system! I was surprised to find that so long as the lower boot straps are snug, the system will release even if the ankle strap is only modestly tightened. The slightly looser ankle strap is imperative for mobility, as suggested by @Than_Bogan.

2nd the muriatic acid. Dilute it, spray it, wipe after 2-3 minutes. works great and cheap. must wax after.

I used the Radar Vice gloves for 2 seasons and loved them. I no longer use them. PROS: Phenomenal for reducing strain on medial epicondyle (golfer's elbow). Essentially eliminated the problem for me. CONS: Regardless of what some mights say, there is not doubt that in a fall there is a split second delay in release (at least if you leave the dowel in). Invariably this results in the rotator cuff/labrum being overloaded if only briefly placing those structures at risk. Both my brother and I suffered cuff injuries and labral tears while using the gloves when neither of us had shoulder issues before nor since discontinuing use. He required surgery, fortunately i did not. CONCLUSION: I have kept the gloves and will wear them when my elbow flares but try to be more intentional/earlier with my release to prevent shoulder injuries.

Ravi …. and skiing! Interesting combo :)

@mwetskier - to be clear, i never said a helmet would prevent brain injury during a slalom ski fall. That remains to be seen. Now, as to your request: Non penetrating brain injury (blunt trauma) is the result of rapid deceleration and rotational forces that result in macroscopic injury (torn vessels, contusions,etc) and microscopic injury known as diffuse axonal injury (essentially torn neurons). Helmets serve to decrease the rate of deceleration of the head as it impacts a solid and hence the brain as it strikes the inner service of the skull irrespective of what the source of the deceleration is. This has been demonstrated objectively and applies to all blunt trauma to the head. i.e. helmets are effective in prevention of blunt head trauma - that is not in question. The questions here are 1) are the head - water impacts of sufficient enough force that a helmet could make significant reduction in the rate of injury and 2) is any benefit a helmet offers in blunt force brain trauma offset by the increased risk of neck injury. My response to your post was not to inflame but rather to point out that helmets do in fact prevent brain injury in the deceleration mechanism you describe (blunt head trauma). If we are going to have a rational debate, factual errors must be addressed. No offense intended.

Characteristics of water skiing-related and wakeboarding-related injuries treated in emergency departments in the United States, 2001-2003. Hostetler SG1, Hostetler TL, Smith GA, Xiang H. Analysis of injury diagnosis was consistent as wakeboarders had significantly more traumatic brain injuries (12.5% of all injuries) than did water skiers (2.4%) (P < .05; relative risk [95% confidence interval], 5.27 [2.21-12.60]). Strains or sprains were the leading injury diagnoses for water skiing (36.3% of all injuries), and the majority (55.7%) were to the lower extremity. Lacerations were the most common diagnoses for wakeboarders (31.1% of all injuries), and the majority (59.6%) were to the face. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15888722

Geez guys! We (myself included) sound like a bunch of grumpy old men. "idonewanna", "get real", "bubble wrap", "body condom"…. I couldn't agree more that we've evolved into a wuss society but I do think it rational and intelligent to at least weigh the pros/cons of safety gear in a sport where we reach velocities of 50+ mph with the potential for serious injury. For the record, I am not advocating for or against helmets just asking the question.

@mwestskier…what you've described is precisely what happens with all blunt force trauma to the head/brain and helmets do help prevent that. @Than_Bogan…agree it is a risk/benefit question. Again, not sure I buy that the modestly increased weight of a helmet increases the mass at the end of the lever enough to make that big a difference in terms of c spine injury risk. Conversely, the possibility of the edge of the helmet being "grabbed" and decelerated with subsequent cervical hyperflexion/extension does make sense. Perhaps the solution is a release system where the helmet would pop off in a "grabbing" situation but stay in place with a direct impact to the head.