HSL

Check out the first 20 seconds of this vivid slow motion video of Caldwell, at short line, coming towards the camera through center; initiating the transition; yawing the ski tip up course towards the buoy; upwsing; and, reach before turn. The one thing that stands out to me is how his upper and lower body stay on axis with the ski throughout. This is similar to a snippet that Cord posted early in this thread -- but better quality video here - also courtesy of Cord, I think. Good stuff and worth reviewing. Link below. https//vimeo.com/232425533

So....@Glorsen, yes, I'm dazzled by the sheer weight and volume of the text above. But a response that included an answer to the questions asked would be even more dazzling: What does the "+" setting in Rev S do differently that the "+" setting in Rev R. We understand that the Rev S + gate speed as been reduced to be the same as "slalom normal" mode -- so skiers will not enter the course at an unfamiliar/faster speed generated with the Rev R + setting. But please explain "Modified Master gains to - RS_Kp 4.0 / RS_Ki 2.5". You've defined and provided Rev S values for Kp and Ki above -- but you don't provide the Rev R values or explain how the Rev S modification affects engine rpm and/or boat speed as compared to Rev R. For what its worth, I can explain what I "feel" when using Rev S "+": The boat is always "right there". I dont feel it gassing me at highest loading into the center line. And I dont feel it backing off rpms as my resistance to the boat decreases. This seems odd because the boat driver hears very quick and aggressive changes to engine rpm while I feel just a constant/consistent - pull. This is great when I'm strong, smooth and controlled. It translates to a great pull. But any mistakes resulting in to much tip grab or tail slide seem to be a lot more difficult to fight through. The boat wins. Anyway, all kidding aside, if you have a explanation of the difference between Rev R + and Rev S +, I'd really appreciate it. I know Horton and others have taken a crack at explaining the modification in a different thread.

These are great candidates. I expect there will be more. Horton, we invite you to act as judge. After a day or two -- please select a winner and runner up.

For ballers who ski tournaments, most of us have had the misfortune of falling at or near the beginning of the course on return from the far end of the lake. We know we aren't going to be picked up by the tournament boat, so we collect the yard sale of equipment spread about the water -- swim to shore -- and walk back to the dock -- a 1,000 to 2,000 ft walk in bare feet. The "walk of shame". Some sites have groomed walking trails winding through bush hidden from observers who are unable to see and taunt the embarrassed skier on the return walk. While at other sites, the skier's walk of shame might require maneuvering through sharp gravel and rocks, prickly or poisonous weeds, broken glass, sharp metal, venomous snakes, gators and a gauntlet of taunting observers. Many moons ago, at a tournament in Latrobe, Australia, a coral snake tried to bite my arm while I was passing through thick reeds on a return walk of shame. Luckily wetsuits back then were pretty thick. So..... Let me start the bidding by nominating Turnpike Lake at Okeeheelee Park in West Palm Beach for this well deserved recognition. It has all of the right features: No groomed walkway -- only a gravel track with the sharpest -- pointed gravel found in all of S. Florida imbedded with all sorts of prickly weeds. The shoreline and steep bank are littered with a host of prickly plants and sharp objects requiring the returning skier to use the gravel track. And to top it off --the walk of shame includes a mandatory pass through a gauntlet of mocking observers AND an endless line of honking travelers headed Northbound in their vehicles on Florida's Turnpike! Is there a worse walk of shame out there?

Pulling for him to sustain that position for many years to come. Congrats!

A question for either Adam on the c-75 and yaw rotation. In your design philosophy piece you state: "Most skis are extremely stable in Yaw, but easy to Roll over, forcing the skier to take a narrow path to the buoy. The c75 takes a completely different approach. A ski that is very free to move in Yaw rotation - like the c75 - will change its trajectory earlier coming off the 2nd wake. This helps the skier to sustain a more effortless connection – carrying the skier on a wider arc further up-course of the buoy. From there, as the pre-turn phase progresses, the Yaw rotation disperses energy in the form of spray. This helps the ski decelerate and lose outbound energy as we approach buoy width." You've done a superb job explaining why yaw rotation becomes critical as the rope shortens. And Caldwell's explanation in the thread "connection and swing" describes how to initiate yaw rotation. So.... to complete the story, please explain the unique design features of the c-75 that enable this ski, in particular, to covert skier input into easy yaw rotation coming off centerline (assume the skier has generated ample speed coming into centerline). What is it about the c-75 design that makes it very free to move in Yaw rotation and change its trajectory with greater ease than other skis? I'm not seeking any trade secret information. I'm just trying to understand the specific design elements of the c-75 that relate primarily to enhanced yaw rotation and are unique or very different from the typical high end slalom ski. I want to ensure my input to the ski takes full advantage of these design features. Is there more to it than the simple yet brilliant design of a ski that is shorter in length than others -- requiring less skier input to generate yaw rotation? Any specific details you can provide would be appreciated.

"I think that's where the confusion comes in. If the ski is still loaded on a cutting edge past centerline and off the 2nd wake at shortline, you are actually slowing your swing and forcing premature separation from the handle." I think you two have been VERY clear on the point above. Maintaining load against the boat through the cutting edge of the ski past centerline and off the second wake to "get wide" = wrong path and separation from the handle at shortline. So no, I don't think this needs to be clarified. Instead, I was suggesting greater clarity would help explaining how to "initiate" the transition at centerline emphasizing the need to maintain the load through the ski as that move begins. I've seen many skiers who give up that energy at this critical moment. They transition from downswing to upswing by simply "standing up" relative to the surface of the water at centerline and simply let the pull of the boat bring them up and out of the lean. And they get dragged late and narrow to the ball. The skier shouldn't give up that peaking load at centerline to initiate the transition. The skier should use that load and energy as they initiate the transition. For me, this translates to nudging the ski forward a bit as the load on the ski -- and my resistance to it -is peaking at centerline. I think the three of you (Cord, Caldwell, Horton) have done a pretty good job clarifying the point. So thanks for that!

Well done, Adam. For me, the most important feature for a short line transition move from upswing to downswing is continued lower body/ski resistance of the load through initiation of that move. So, if you’re still looking for input/edits, please consider deleting the reference to “standing up” (or clarify) as a method of initiating the transition from downswing to strong upswing. That descriptor may confuse some ballers who will focus solely on the phrase and will literally “stand up” as the force coming through the ski is peaking around centerline. Put another way, they will allow the upper body to be pulled forward, up and out of the lean to initiate the transition. I’m pretty sure this is not what you meant. In giving up lower body resistance, at this key moment when the load coming through the ski is peaking, the skier loses the opportunity to harness that energy for the upswing. Even if the skier resists with the upper body and maintains a good connection to the boat on the upswing thereafter, he has already missed the opportunity to harness a good chunk of the energy generated on the downswing and will end up getting dragged narrow and slow to the ball. I know you would agree that harnessing that energy, not giving it up, as the skier initiates the transition move or through initiation of that move -- is key to success at the shorter line lengths. So, to be specific, please consider these changes to your excellent piece here: Drop or clarify the “stand up” description. Consider describing transition techniques, collectively, as "Transition Moves". Re-emphasize the importance of resisting the load through the ski “as the skier initiates The Transition Move” or “through initiation of The Transition Move”. Hope this helps.

I've been on FM Evolution boots for several years -- this year switching to hybrid (lower) rear boot. I ski year round in S. Florida so the boots take a beating from the sun and high humidity (even when in storage). A couple of my ski buddies are on the same boots. We've learned that in this environment with heavy usage -- the boots need to be replaced annually. They wont make it through two full seasons without cracking/tearing (usually at the point were the boots are connected to the plate). If I don't replace them annually, they will remain intact through mid-tournament season before cracking -- usually at the worst possible time. So I'm now in a routine of starting new seasons with new boots. Pricey -- but I think its worth it. The simple design of the boots make them one of the safest hardshell systems out there. Never had a problem with them other than this time limit.

Thanks @savaiusini and @Luzz. Still dialing in the fin -- but think I've got FB position set. Up the line through 12m first set on the ski. I've tried 2019 Goode, 2019 Vapor and 2020 D3 Evo-S recently (all pretty darn good), but I'm off to a more comfortable/familiar start on the Omega. Good to know that Asher, Travers, Adams and Parrish are all kicking butt on this ski. But more interested in hearing from BOS colleagues who, like me, possess none of their superhuman talents. Thanks again.

@savaiusini Searching for boot, fin, wing settings for 67" Omega. 55K skier. 165-170 lbs. Tournament PB 2@10.75. No factory recommendations have been published. I feel like I'm all dress up with no place to go.