Slalom.Steve

What is "anti roll" anyways? It "prevents the handle from rolling when you grip it or release it with one hand"... but I don't get what "rolling" means in this context. I've never felt like my handle was rolling anywhere lol.

Just wanted to make a post with some praise for Radar. Over the last couple years, I've had several experiences of phenomenal customer service and support from them. From the "business team" to the Radar pro skiers, they just take care of you! Thank you!

Also, ☝️ this is some f'in knowledge. Such an awesome teaching, for any technique/element of skiing.

@twhisper - The idea of keeping the handle connected through/to the hips makes sense to me, in order to ride the full length/path/swing of the rope. The piece I don't understand is that I've heard to not "pull with your arms" even after the 2nd wake. I know during the cut, the arms should be straight and loose, but it seems like to achieve this elbows-pinned-to-the-vest position in the pre-turn, that would mean pulling the rope in with your arms?

Desperately want this ski. Unfortunately don't have the money for it right now, but someday, a used one will be mine. 😀

@dave2ball seems to still be mad about S-Lines. Right when S-Lines came out (and then the bizarre appearance of ZLine), there was some contentious exchanges in a couple threads.

..still so mad about S-Lines lol. And it seems @Wish's handle in question may actually be a Masterline, by process of elimination.

They're only building two a week, so it's a slow roll out.

@UWSkierI still have my old '16 in the basement (on the '22 now). You wanna buy it? 🙂

@Horton I can pop my ski off at the end of a set without loosening, though it takes some effort. I will say I have a somewhat narrow heel so maybe that helps? I also use a Large T-Factor, with a 10.5 US shoe size, which is right in D3's recommendation, but I also know a couple guys with 10-ish shoes that size down to a Medium, so theirs may be less easy to release, though they may also not tighten as hard as I do, I'm not sure. At least we can all agree that Joel Howley is crazy.

@Horton, but @Blofeld is wrong. "Do not release" is a definitive statement. Yet... I've used T-Factors for several years and never had an issue releasing, and I cinch them pretty much as tight as I can, to where my foot hurts by pass 3 or 4 if I don't loosen them and re-tighten in-between passes (which I've taken to doing every couple passes, and whenever I fall until I'm reset for the next pass). While science is not a world of anecdotes, even just one anecdote proves wrong the blanket statement that "T-Factors do not release unless very loose." I also know a number of folks on T-Factors and have yet to hear any "oh s**t" stories of not releasing. On the other hand, do a search through this forum and you'll find drastically more stories (and videos) of dangerous, painful falls due to mechanical release boots than T-Factors. It's simply in the data. Yes, yes, I know the argument, "If you know what you're doing and check it regularly and don't make any mistakes, you're fine!" Except either that's not true, or it's true theoretically (most likely), but in practical reality, there's evidently a whole lotta people who don't know what they're doing.

Oh also, Corey Vaughn with the absolutely hilarious Reserve card interview of Wade🤣: https://www.youtube.com/live/BrJhLwlwbKk?si=miSasz4ldNxH0zBB&t=20646

In a sport where moving a fin .005" of an inch is said to have an impact, I have to think that running over clumps of seaweed at least once a pass would be problematic for the skier. Could that help explain why a number of these elite skiers had unexpected bobbles/issues? Just about every pass, on at least one of the turns, you can see seaweed fly up out of the water, and sometimes during the cut or pre-turn as well. Just one example that I happened to catch and remember: Paige Rini from Round 1, 38', a pass she is usually good for, right before she has a bad turn at 3 ball, throws up 2 different sprays of seaweed: Here's the timestamp for the video: https://www.youtube.com/live/M6BHC4d3Kt4?si=7YDr3xzqe8g4iYdS&t=12778

Ah yeah, @ToddL if the need is just to get the boot closer to the front, there's a better solution, as @Stevie Boyhighlighted - cut down the feather frame. I don't know why Radar has the HRT footbed/frame extend so far forward, it seems to be more than anyone would need. I cut down the rubber and the feather frame on my HRT (and even shaved a bit off the back of my front boot T-Factor plate), so I could get front and back boot closer: As compared to stock: The stock frame has 5 holes, and I shaved mine down to three holes. I have size 10.5US foot and my toe still doesn't go past the end of the rubber footbed. Just use a grinder or a sawzall or maybe even a beefy dremel. As Stevie said, just make sure you have enough length to still reach the back inserts - I'm on the farthest back hole on the feather frame, like in Stevie's image.

Which Radar binding? I did this once with an HRTP, sort of. I tried a C-85 ski, and the front holes on the ski lined up fine with the feather frame, but the rear holes were too far back. So I did this, feather frame on top and aluminum plate under it: The first set of screws is a normal mounting screw (though longer since it has to run through both plates), and it screws into the ski "like normal," holding down both the feather frame and the aluminum frame at once. The 2nd set of screws is a countersunk screw pointing up through the aluminum plate and the feather frame, with a nut on the other side holding it tight. This serves to attach the feather frame to the plate. Then the back screws are normal mounting screws that go through only the aluminum plate into the ski, but now far enough back to reach the rear holes on the ski. Unfortunately I don't seem to have a picture of the bottom before mounting it, but this is how it looked on the ski: This definitely adds height/thickness, since it has both the aluminum and the feather frame. I'd expect that the change in rear foot height would have an effect of some sort, but I don't know enough to comment how or how much. Also the head of the "upside down" screw seemed flush with the bottom of the plate, but the screw head still ended up marking the ski a little bit, I imagine just since the plate gets held down so tightly. That could possibly be mitigated maybe with some kind of pad on the screw head, or sanding down the screw head or something so it doesn't actually contact the ski even when the plate is tightened down. I didn't end up keeping the ski, so I didn't trial this set up in the long-term. I don't see any reason it wouldn't have held up though.

Anyone know how far Nate's gotten down -43 in practice?

Possible? Yes. Difficult? Likely also yes. Not sure if there'd be enough market to make it worth it for a developer, but I like where your heads at.

They do, and that is an option. I actually bought a GoPro this summer but ended up returning it, the issues being: 1. You have to buy a GoPro. Cheaper than a new ski, but more expensive than a $10 app. 🙂 2. The biggest issue is that the stabilization software that GoPro uses crops the sides of the video pretty significantly. This means in order for the skier to not go out of frame at each apex, you have to have the video zoomed out pretty far. This is even more pronounced at shorter lines. I had read that GoPro is too wide angle and always thought, "Whatever, I'll just zoom in while watching it back" but since the skier moves from the edge of the full frame to the opposite edge of the full frame, if you zoom in at any one point, the skier just goes out of the zoomed-in frame when they move side to side. I use video to watch myself back and critique my skiing, and the image was too zoomed out for that IMO, at least when viewing on the small screen of a phone. 3. There's the additional step of getting your videos off the GoPro and onto your phone or other device. You can send it via Bluetooth but it takes a long time or can error out, or you can pay for a GoPro cloud account and once you get home on Wifi it uploads, but that takes even longer, and when you access the videos within the cloud interface, you can only show max quality of 1080p. If you download the file to a device, you can get 4K, but that's yet another step of downloading off. You've also got to always carry the GoPro with you and make sure it's charged. Yes, none of these things is in itself a huge deal, but when I'm taking 12-18 videos multiple times a week, wanting to review them quick a couple times, maybe send one to a friend, and then delete them, the GoPro just added more work/inconvenience, opportunities for something to go wrong, etc. It's quite nice to just pop my phone on, which I always have and is always charged, and just have my videos waiting in my camera roll as soon as I'm done. All in all, using the GoPro felt a lot less convenient than just using my phone, and while the image quality is good, the need to zoom out made even that not worth it. And if a phone app could actually capture in high-quality and be not super shaky, it's just as good as a GoPro and a lot more convenient!

The Wakeye app only records in 720p and only utilizes the main lens on a phone, failing to take advantage of improvements in new phones. Wakeye as a company has gone silent for years. I started talking with a developer friend of mine about making a new app, but I want to see if people are interested and if it would be economically feasible. If we make a new and improved app, with GPS speed start/stop, options for HD and 4K recording, FPS adjustment, and allowing zoom out/alternate lens access to get around the rear camera stabilization issue, would you use it? And would you pay for it (one-time fee, not subscription)? We'd do iOS first, but could also do Android. Also open to suggestions of a snappy name for it!😉 I'm thinking something not only waterski-specific, as other folks may be interested in the same capability (bikers or something?).

Ok I've figured out why @APB's solution of zooming out to 0.9x takes away the camera shake. iPhones have for a while now used 2 or 3 different lenses (as you can see on the back, 2 lenses for regular models, 3 lenses for Pro models). So as you zoom in and out, the lenses aren't actually zooming, but at certain "break points" the phone starts using a totally different lens (though they make the changeover smooth/not noticeable). It seems the main camera (sometimes called the "Wide" camera) has the stabilization hardware, but the Ultra-Wide lens does not. So as soon as you zoom out to less than 1x, it switches lens to the Ultra-Wide and you access a lens without stabilization = no pylon shake. On Pro models, there is also a Telephoto lens that has Optical Zoom, but this lens also has stabilization, so it also won't work for pylons. The problem is of course then, you can't use the Wakeye app and get the auto-start and stop based on speed. There's got to be another way to achieve that?

Just for reference, see the **UPDATE** to my post above. It seems not true that the rear camera is better now 😕

I despise wakesurf boats, or as I call them, wakesurf barges.

You could look into the Q-Collar, a pretty new but seemingly effective device at reducing at least the effects of repeated sub-concussive impacts. It's FDA-approved and has some promising research results. Skiing is certainly less of a "repeated impact" sport as football, but if you want to take precautions, it's something that couldn't hurt. Not sure if it'd float if it falls off though lol.

Oh, there is also the chance that in a fall without any head impact but decent "body flailing," as you are falling/rolling into the water, if the helmet "catches" water (think of dragging a bucket open side into the water), it would yank your neck in an awkward way, again coming down to basically: your body is going fast as you start to fall, by the end it's stopped, so where/how did it go from fast to stopped? If the rest of your body is slowing down at a certain "normal" rate, and your head/neck slow down much faster due to the helmet bucketing in water, that could cause injury (not concussion but muscular, etc). This risk may again be mitigated with a soft rugby helmet instead of a hardshell.

I also had a concussion (from skiing) several years ago and looked into this. There have been a couple other threads about using a helmet. There is a chance it actually puts you at greater risk for a concussion. Concussions happen when your brain moves within your skull and hits the inside of your skull, typically when both are moving fast and then the skull stops suddenly, with the brain continuing to move fast (for a millisecond) and then hitting the skull. So it's not really the "impact" itself that causes a concussion, but the rapid deceleration. Now consider, if someone dives from a high dive with perfect form, they hit the water with very little surface area, breaking the surface tension, and maintaining their speed longer. No pain. If someone belly flops, they hit the water with a lot of surface area and stop very suddenly. Plenty of pain. Hitting the water without a helmet vs with a helmet may be like hitting the water in a dive (no helmet) vs belly flopping (with helmet), due to the increased surface area of a helmet. The diving analogy is a more extreme difference certainly, but just to illustrate the point. Basically, unless you really hit the water, the helmet won't crush (which is what it does in order to reduce the rate of speed change when hitting something like concrete), and actually make your speed change more suddenly. I suspect something like a soft rugby helmet mitigates this effect, as it's not as much surface area and relies just on soft cushioning rather than an actual "crush" of harder material like a bike helmet. BUT, I don't know where the line is on the benefit of padding vs the detriment of more surface area and thus more water resistance/more stopping. As far as I understand it, there's been very little to no definitive scientific research around this though (ie testing water impacts with helmets, etc). Concussion research isn't gonna focus on the little niche of water skiing lol.