gavski

What perplexes me the most is the ‘source’ that brought this to Hortons attention...of all the people in the ‘elite’ level, who has the most to gain from these scores...why would they bring this to his attention?? It should be about collective performance. If all ski well, then great!!!, If all ski crap, then so what..no one was singled out.. What I don’t understand is what any ‘elite’ skier has to gain from whining to Horton about great scores that make us ALL excited about this sport.... Breaking world records etc is one thing.....but creating huge amounts of excitement in this dwindling sport is another...Park the egos...elite comps should ALL be head to heads..take a leaf out of alpine sports...we are 20yrs behind....and we are waaaaaay cooler....wtf??

Big Aaron Larkin had his telemetry measured a few years back.. at 32’off@36mph, he measured 3G..

Now that the season has started in earnest - any upto date reviews about this rope?

Sorry if this has been posted before, but here is a guy that is neither pushing, pressing or leaning..he makes it look effortless I believe he might be the 2016 35+ world champion..Ivan Morros

Discussed this a few months back....if the gates had a sub-buoy magnet at each end of the course, then the ZO would be able to know exactly where it is at the start & end of the course. Surely this could be used to track the boat path down the course??

Any chance of some comparison video..?

so why bother with mapping the course? what's the point if ZO will always give you actuals? what's the point if the timing is apparently meaningless? gross-error check? has it ever been wrong? if this is truly the case, then i accept what has been said, and i thank you all for educating me. GPS accuracy is a mute point...you may get better than 3m, but highly unlikely and certainly not consistent as that is the preserve of the military...the accuracy that we all enjoy from GPS satellites has been deliberately degraded for obvious reasons. no problem in civil aviation and car satnavs - not so good for projectiles aiming to fly through a window sized hole in a building hundreds of miles away...even then, to get pinpoint accuracy to levels we are used to in this sport would require laser guidance from someone looking at the target...

@rfa timings are based on distance/speed...I assumed the speed was a given in this case...

Yup...posts got crossed...still can’t believe that a 2.5m positional error is acceptable in order for the ZO to base its calculations on... @Bruce_Butterfield talks about consistency..how is that possible when the ZO position is out? Position shift between the satellites and ZO is not linear...it depends on numbers of satellites, position of satellites, quality of signal, almanac date, jamming, military interference etc etc...so bang goes the constancy..every pass is different..

I am not a ZO hater.. just trying to find a way to improve the system.. how long did it take to get the + feature integrated?? The positional accuracy has always been an issue for me.. v easy to fix. The timings are based on a known distance...all useless if the position info is junk...

Noted... so what is the point of timing if it is that irrelevant to the pull/ course?? All I was stating is that the ZO position that it uses is only as accurate as the GPS fix, which is at best 10ft.... If there was a system to zero the virtual ZO position to the actual position everytine the boat entered the course, then the timing would mean something...at the moment, it is referenced to a guessed position... As stated, ZO will give you actual timings regardless of the position error... so what is the point of the timing? I think you will find that there is a relavance to the speed/ pull..it has been shown to me how if ZO is slow at the first segment, it will nail you in the second in order to stay within time/ speed tolerance...

it really doesn't take long for the gps position to wander off from the mapped position...in a sport where lateral deviation by the boat by a couple of inches can be the difference between a world record or not, ±2.5m seems like a ridiculous tolerance to accept..especially when it's random and ever changing.. ZO uses a virtual map of the course that it bases its timings from, so as long as it's holding the speed to ±0.1kt then the time will ALWAYS be accurate and the same as PP, even if the position has wandered off. The ZO can't tell if it's 'known' position is accurate...everything is based around a relative/ guessed position and a virtual course. if the ZO is 3ft behind itself down the course, how do you think this will impact the pull?? what about from the other end when it is 3ft ahead of itself? next time you drive down the course, take a note of where the beeps are happening..then compare from the other end...

ZO will always give you actuals...the accelerometers are very accurate, and the system is very clever. I was just suggesting that the ZO position be zeroed every time that it enters the course by using a fixed anchor point - like the Right hand gate buoy and not a guessed/ relative position based on a gps location that is subject to a 10ft tolerance...once zeroed on a known fixed point, then let ZO do what it does best... I bet that even after mapping the course, it won’t take long before the beeps start to wander slightly from the buoy location..I have seen this happen..even by a couple of feet, it is still a large error...despite this, the timings are spot on...funny that, the ZO will still give actuals even when there is a position shift from where it thinks it is and where is actually is....

That’s the point..even when you map the course, your are mapping it to a 3meter tolerance..therefore every time you come down the course, the boat will be somewhere within 3meters and be different each time...the timings are bang on because the ZO algorithm will tell you that...ZO will give you acurate speed across the water same as your sat nag...the problem is that you are overlaying a virtual slalom course and it will never be more accurate than within a 3 meter radius or the actual slalom course.. @eleeski, how can you say that when we are in a sport that demands courses to be surveyed, boats speeds measured, boat path monitored, ropes measured etc etc all to mm accuracy...geo surveying uses triangulation etc to narrow the positional error - and is static....

Standard GPS accuracy is 15meters...the WAAS - The Wide Area Augmentation System is an air navigation aid developed to augment the Global Positioning System. It is 3 meters...10feet.... Any numbers of factors can degrade this accuracy further...even so, when working well, the ZO can be as much as 10ft (3meters) out....this would account for many of the variables as to the different ‘feel’ of the pull behind the boat... A simple ‘anchoring’ position fix from a magnetic sub buoy would tell the ZO exactly where it is at the start of each end of the course.. A 10feet tolerance is accurate enough to auto land a Boeing 777 onto at 180ft wide runway...compare that to a 10ft tolerance for ZO system and a slalom course....

Quick question. How accurate is the GPS position fix that ZO uses? The United States government currently claims 4 meter RMS (7.8 meter 95% Confidence Interval) horizontal accuracy for civilian (SPS) GPS. Vertical accuracy is worse. Mind you, that's the minimum. Some devices/locations reliably (95% of the time or better) can get 3 meter accuracy. In aviation, we use a ‘blended’ position solution to the problem of accuracy..so the question is why doesn’t ZO? Why isn’t there a sub buoy magnet at each end of the course with a pickup in the boat that the ZO can get a ‘real’ fix on before it enters the course?

Pulling those laces too tight was the reason that i broke my ankle with an OTF fall...if the eyelets are braking all the time, maybe you are over tightening..only your forefoot need to be snug. Everything above the ankle bone is not required - it just makes you feel secure...if i had my time again with the animal, i would cut the laces off above my achilles..

65” 2016 womans radar Vapor. Good ski, but it is not the right ski for her current ability. From what i have seen & read, i think that 95% of our club skiers should be riding the Omni..as opposed to a 41’ off weapon...

@savaiusini - thanks for the info.. looking at the factory setting info for this ski, it gives fin settings...i take it that these are fixed becuase of the drop through fin? I forgot to mention that she is skiing the course. Her goal is to start running into 22’off, but her current set up is waaaay to advanced and unforgiving.

@savaiusini - which model and size would you recommend for a female skier, 100-110lbs, 28-34mph?

Tuning your ski for 38’ and accepting what you get 28-35’ is an interesting concept...and i echo @bradb’s question. I think i inadvertently managed this a few years back, but didnt think anything of it at the time. I was working on my gate setup, using 2 buoy as a 0 ball - so 3,4,5,6 got renumbered 1-4..anyway, i ran down the line 28-38’. Missed my 35’, but cut to 38’ anyway - smoothest pass i had skied in a longtime. Suddenly the ski felt right..typically, I thought this was a one off, so i never revisited or repeated the experiment. I think after this point, i transitioned into a hardshell, and never consistantly skied as well since...until now....thanks to @adamhcaldwell, i think i have finally created a great binding. I will post my set up on the optimal slalom binding thread..

@adamhcaldwell - so how do you know if you have a ski dialed in for your hardest pass? If i am running easy b2b 32’s, working and drilling all the concepts above, how do i know if the ski will perform at 38’ off?

I can feel a easter holiday boot modification coming on.... one of the issues that i had with the pinned cuff - particularly in cold temps, was it was almost impossible to slide my foot+liner into the boot without warming the boot up in warm water first - the plastic is too rigid when cold....i have tried with the liner inserted and then sliding my foot in, but the angles just make it impossible..i have considered making the cuff articulate to get your foot in, and then you lock it in place with a wing nut - but this is just more faff that you don't need standing on a ski dock...any ideas? maybe the warm water is the easiest option.. as an aside, i am keen to try the liner with the bottom cut out - as adam suggested. i even have one pre-made...it is just too cold at the moment to not to have the foam underfoot..

@adamhcaldwell - my boot is cut down and trimmed as per your pdf guide... it is slightly lower than the radar boot.... I cut the 2 notches between the forefoot buckles after I had the rest of the boot cut down.. I think the overall cuff height is slightly less than 6”.. I guess I could go lower - as for lowering the cuff buckle, I just need to think about how the reinforce the area where there is a slot cut into the plastic... I think I have and idea about cutting a lower section out of the rear and incorporating the brace to pin the cuff fwd.... As for the 3/4” holes...sounds interesting....do we even need the cuff? Or is it there to provide a means for the release mechanism to work???