cruznski

I still say the ok drivers name and hit it. I like hit it

That is fabulous and inspirational, congratulations.

This to me is an issue where the industry really has not done well by the user. I like what is described here- at least some standard attempt to define what the foot position is. In snow skis there is a DIN standard and it is the center of weight of the ball of the foot- at least in that industry there's a place on the ski and a mark on the boot to get it in the right place. I just had an issue with this using old HO Aniamals (two layers of thick rubber on the heel) mounting on my Goode which i has used successfully with other binders in the past - i biased the position by the added material vs my old binding and the results were very good but I do not know if it is optimal However, then the next thing that I have commented on before comes up- why for gosh sakes are the holes 3/16" apart and we are arguing over .005" on the fin? This binding mounting plate is like 30 years old, I think and you have to search (and thankfully to the readers) i have input on some micro adjust after market mounting schemes, but really folks. Also, to me citing the distance to the back of the heel makes no sense when you have size 13 feet vs size 6. Horton might be correct, the ankle is the point but I just had to chime in here.

This is a great thread, and it is appreciated. Now I am not an up to date equioment skier, and in fact are on old HO Animals but they are pretty much done. It was my thought to get the most of my time on the course, I am really thinking about Reflex. Ed do you think it would be an ultra shock to the system to jump on these from rubber? I am pretty adaptable. Also if one has a narrow foot, so do the 'thick' liners take care of some of that? Also I am thinking of jumping right up to the new one with the double horeshoes and all as described here.

Hi Mr. Felix, Well my equipment is really considered 'old school' I think by most on this blog,but after a hiatus from tournaments for a while, I am skiing this summer, and I am back on very old Animals- while the D3 leverage is good, and I skied those for years, the Animals outlasted them and there is an issue with the D3 vs the old (and I admit this is old data) where the HO plates are much more robust- like Aircraft grade Aluminun vs the D3 plates (older) which bend with very little pressure or overtightening. Just one data point. My HO animals are ancient but they fit, support and keep on going. Also,and I am a veteran of hitting offside ball at shortline and having a major ankle breakage (on a Connelly binding I was trying) the Animals release better than the Leverage. Wileys release well too. This may not help you at all if buying new. On Nate to say 'they' is not really accurate- it should be 'it' as he uses one for the front.

Yah... 81- and close to 82. and I wonder how many (tournament) 41s have ever been run at BellAcqua Lake 1. The ladies were phenomenal this AM, too (from watching the great webcast). Great job there Ca Pro AM!

Since you are 6.2 and 180 that first link is out of the question. You can not drill 9800 and 9900s at all. Also Mr DW as for a course ski the 9100 is still a candidate, esp for someone just getting into the course. Here's a 9700 that seems to be drilled to sort of regular bindings:= the photo seems to indicate it has inserts which might be good: http://www.ski-it-again.com/php/skiitagain.php?endless=summer&topic=Search&category=Slalom&postid=33190 My advice is get the 9100 and give it a go before the days get short and the water gets cold.

I am with MLskier in that the 9100 is a great ski, and at that price probably worth a try. I skiied on one for several years and I got it used- the more recent ones like the 9600 are lighter and the carbon fiber is thin so they do not hold screws as well as the old 9100. I had HO Animals on mine.

So I am not up to speed on the details of the design, but attended my second tournament in a lapse of 7 years skiing tourneys, and was pleased to see Terry get out there and ski. Here's a link to his 39.5 off pass, first set of the day...coming back at 41 off I swear his ski was out of the water at 1 ball for a few milliseconds but he made it around 3. Wish I had video'd that. https://youtube.com/channel/UC1i1OvZdY320S4ZgeCoCC2w/videos

This is tragic and sorrowful news, I met Andy in the late 90's and was honored to stand next to him at Kris and Jennifer's wedding. He truly was an unforgettable and great person and ambassador of the sport. Heartfelt condolences to his family and all he touched.

Just as a preface I know the preferred course of action is to get an up to date model ski but I broke one ski so have reverted to an older ski I used to use, and it had some nicks and scratches so what is the current preferred way to finish the bottom? Is it wet sand with fine emery paper? I know, get a new ski, but what is a good approach on these repairs? I know there is expertise out there on this.

Hello out there! Now I know most of you all have moved on to GPS based speed control, but alas I have to try to fix an older PP and got a used one, but it seems I am not getting the RPM into it. Does anyone have a diagram of how the RPM signal is routed to module/display? I think it comes off the tachometer to the module?

Here's an idea that would not be an expensive add and would work with inserts in market now.

THanks for the tip, I checked out the micro adjust device- interesting it settled on one would work per plate, which makes sense to me. So indeed some very experienced skiers identify this as an issue, and it is still an aftermarket solution. My point here being that plates have had the same hole spacing for 30+ years. Maybe there's not enough demand for that level of adjustment, and it will remain aftermarket or those that like to modify their gear.

Hello, Forum folks. From NorCal I am writing as since there's so little snow I got my water ski out and revisited front binding location. For example, on an old 66.25" Goode the technical manual recommendation is 29.500" (note the three decimal places!) from the tail of the ski to the inside of the 'horseshoe' that mounts the rubber. Now I run Large plates, and I wonder if that distance should vary by plate size- it seems that the center of gravity of that front foot would be much further forward on Large plates with size 12 feet than small plates with Size 7 feet. I also seem to recall that a lot of folks running large plates run them 'one hole back' but I have no real statistics on this. This has been the case for a long time- that there is a location defined for the back of the front foot, and then you go from there. I understand the counter point might be that with the rear foot then your still centered over the ski. What do you think? One more point on this too is that you would think that if you adjust fins to within .001" the binding adjust would be more resolved than bolt hole selection- I mention this as once years ago I drilled a split between holes on HO bindings as there was a big difference between recommended and a whole bolt hole back (on a Sixam).

I voted Yes on this and at the end of the season in 2012 found an old HO RTP in a box of stuff and mounted it on my ski and skiied around- given a little more time on the water I would go there. There's a good slow motion video of Nate at Shortline Lake and he distinctly lifts his rear heel, not to mention many of the gals. And then the added bonus for us Men6 + class of folks is ease of getting out out of the water!