eleeski

While the early Stargazer I (tried to) ski behind felt like it was making up .12 at the end of the course I did understand your comment. Of course if it ran every segment .02 slow and lied about the end course.... I think the boat should be shooting for the closest to actual on every segment of the course - not making up on segments for earlier mistakes. The end course time is not the perfect measure of speed. Given the sophistication possible with GPS to manipulate the end time, it is not even the best. How do A, B and C translate to KX and PX? Specifically what feels closest to the KX- PX10 that I like? Or the Normal 0 that many of the people I pull prefer? Thanks, Eric

That is a problem as I see it. If something is missed, a driver goes to the correct speed. The time is not perfect but the only error is the initial deviation. When the driver tries to make up on a later segment, an error is intentionally introduced - now there are two deviations. But the end result is perfect despite a worse pass. Unfortunately, people don't understand tolerances. Would the powers that be accept a system that had a wide error scatter on the final time - even if the speeds were more accurate? It's tough to say it's broken when the times are perfect, but it seems to be. Getting hammered at 6 so the time can be perfect sucks. Eric

Times should not be perfect! Skiers are not perfect and their pulls will vary. The autothrottle should aim for the closest possible times but it should never calculate reactions to get a perfect end course time. This fixation with perfect times all the time is giving an awful feel. Especially when 5 and 6 ball run hot to make the end course perfect. Do I have to practice at 36 on my PP classic to make it feel like 34 GPSed? Bummer... Eric

One ski had the bottom substantially delaminate from the core. I drilled a few holes in the ski and blasted compressed air in the holes. This blew out lots of water. Some heat gun (or a sunny day in your case) and some compressed air got most of the water out. Then I injected resin into the holes, blew it out and reinjected resin. The quality of the bond was good enough that Kirk has been using that ski for a full year - after I had gotten two seasons out of it earlier. Maybe you should use a bunch of screws to hold the laminate together while it cures. Screw holes are easy to repair. If there is enough material on the bubble maybe you could use stainless screws countersunk in a ways. After everything cures you could fill the countersinks with JB weld and sand to a good finish. Jump surfaces don't need to be strong. They need to hold together. A bubble that ends up a weak spot is OK. A repair patch might present an edge that can peel up the whole repair. Especially when there is wax and water to degrade the adhesion. Of course, a new panel might be necessary. Eric

My skis often blister. I inject epoxy under the blister. I use a heat gun and slow cure epoxy so the resin gets thin and wicks into all the edges of the blister. I then weight the blister down so once everything cures it is flat. Sometimes the blister has stretched the skin a bit and a substantial cut is needed so the end result is flat (a small finishing repair will now be needed). I would try a repair before cutting and patching. Good luck. Eric

Mecca: http://terraserver-usa.com/image.aspx?t=1&s=11&x=1468&y=9277&z=11&w=1  Shrimp farm: http://terraserver-usa.com/image.aspx?t=1&s=12&x=761&y=4631&z=11&w=2  Eric

I've often filed too much on my skis. And some skis have needed material added rather than a file. No big deal. That's what bondo or superfil is for. But since you can't easily measure or reset an edge, filing is an art - not a science. Exhaust the other tuning options first. Then do the fine tune with the file if you really need it. If none of that makes the ski feel right, get a new ski. Eric

5 psi turns into a couple of tons of pressure. And it does squeeze a lot of resin out of the layup. A vacum bag would let me hand squegee some more resin out of the layup - regardless of how much pressure is on the layup. I actually turn down the pressure after it quits dripping - this keeps the mold from flexing and having the ski set up with a flexed mold. I made a Hy-bor reinforced trick ski today. The MSDS doesn't show any health issues but the stuff is dangerous. It is so stiff that my hands are like pincushions. Fortunately, the fibers are so strong that they are easy to remove. The stuff wets out nicely and after I got careful with the ends it was easy to use (but expensive). I'll see how well it holds up. Eric

OK, John is a great tricker and he does care. What year was your Nationals medal in tricks? Who was running AWSA then? I apologize for any misunderstanding. Eric

It is a tuning issue. Most of my skis work best straight, straight. But before I ground on the edge I rotated the rear on the current test ski. I'll have to try moving it back to straight - I might have filed too much. But I can tune the onside/offside feel a bit with rear foot rotation. I have tried both rotated and it was too imbalanced. Tricks are best with the front foot straight (ankle bone over center) and the rear foot 45 and back about 3cm. But John doesn't care about that even though he is a great tricker. Of course his trick experience helps his slalom but that's another thread. Eric

Clinchers! Except I put a rubber band around the base of the fingers. This makes it easy to release the grip. I trick in garden gloves. Or if I can find them, old Maha gloves. If I'm stressing about the grip, I put a little surf wax on the handle to make it a bit stickier. Eric

My pump was supposed to be big enough but I'm not sure what is wrong. It pulls lots of vacuum but the volume is so low that it won't deflate the bag. Maybe I have too much leakage. In any case, I can't build with it being so sensitive to sealing or with such a long evacuation time. The airbags for my trick and slalom molds are quick and easy and effective and generate little waste so I'll stick with them for most of my skis. San Diego is a long way from Orlando but I appreciate the offer, Rod. Eric

I refer them to my Nigerian bank account.

Maybe we need an accelerometer. That might replace the seat of the pants feel that the good human drivers used to be able to use. Same idea as a strain guage (load cell) on the pylon but cheaper. Something other than a slavish quest for exact times. Eric

I run my molds at about 5 psi pressure. Vacuum bagging should give me lots more pressure on the laminate. But my pump won't even deflate the ski size plastic bag. I think it is sized for model airplane wings. Since I am too lazy to build another airbag mold I will try squishing some upholstery foam to get a little pressure on the layup. It might be a bit heavier but I am building a prototype ski for the disabled skiers where the binding cage weighs way more than the ski so we'll hopefully get some good feedback despite a couple extra grams of weight. The Hy-bor is just taunting me. Hopefully soon I can bury it in a cutting edge trick ski. I'm out of my fancy graphite unitdirectional so I'm counting on the Hy-bor. The double tunnel worked surprisingly well on my test bed slalom. Maybe the double tunnel is solving some of the problems from an overwide ski front. Or maybe it's just getting to ski behind PP classic with a switch and KX- PX10. Eric

Sharp edges lift, round edges suck. A sharp bevel will resist rolling the ski on edge and a round edge will roll it over. But Horton is right, the edge is just one small factor in ski performance. The days of "file on" edges (a real ad from one of the LaPoint designs of the past) are gone. Now you fine tune with binding and fin settings. The modern skis don't have much material to file on the edges. Also, the edges can be important for structural integrity of the ski. So be very careful before filing your edges. With that said, I add material to my edges so I can grind on the edges. My edges are asymmetric. The edges are a smaller effect than fin adjustments but they can be better tailored for onside offside. I have gone too far with the grinder but some Superfil cures that problem. Don't pick any ski based on physical properties. There are so many balancing factors that the only way to really know how a ski feels is to demo that ski. The file is the last tool to use to perfect a ski. Eric

Those skis look a lot like the OBrien competitor I sawed in half (just down to the front boot) and wedged a block of wood in the slit to widen the front and filled with glass and bondo. It worked pretty well. Now that I think about it, I haven't seen that ski for a while. And I thought that the only thing missing after the break in was the trampoline. Marcus??? Vacuum bagging sucks. Well actually not enough. My new vacuum pump won't pull enough vacuum to mold skis. I hope the HyBor I'm getting soon isn't a bust also. I could save a lot of money if I would just buy a ski. But I have a fun new double tunnel ski to try this weekend. Eric

That base looks kind of textured. Like wallboard? Eric

I was told that there were no skier inputs (I prefer KX- PX10 on the old setup). I do not know what settings were used. An earlier set had different settings and was unskiable. The new settings made things fine for Pat who has perfect form. My style is all over the place and the Stargazer didn't like me. Are there user adjustable parameters? And can the program adjust to accept whatever errors occured early in the course and just adjust to the correct speed - not slavishly make up to get a perfect time? I was a guest skier so it was not for me to change settings. Paul Donnat (who was doing the setup) did listen to my issues and hopefully will relay them to PP Eric. If you have PP Eric's ear please get him to have user inputs - and shoot for the best speed (not a perfect end course time). Eric

My brother Stan is one of the worst slalom drivers around. His times might be perfect but it never feels good and I never ski well with him. Phil Adams in his prime was just the opposite. His times were also perfect but his feel was great and I seemed to get an extra 6 buoys behind him. I want my speed control to emulate Phil, not Stan. I skied a Stargazer today. Slow third buoy time (but in tolerance) and a perfect end course time. Horrible feel! I couldn't make 6 ball - ever! Philosophical problem: we want perfect times. But when you get an imperfect skier (like me) things happen to throw off the times. Should each segment be as close to perfect? Or should the end result be right on with segments hot (or soft) to achieve this result? For me the feel and buoy count suck when the end course time is the goal. I vote to let the time fall where it may when the boat tries for the proper speed. Another defect: there is no skier input into the feel. Some skiers prefer as steady a speed as possible. Others prefer as much speed variation as allowed. PP had it right with the KX PX setting adjustments to accommodate these preferences. Stargazer's lack of this feature makes the pull quite inferior. PP is going backwards. My 04 MC has an excellent system. The DBW systems are all quirky (and unuseable for tricks in a short lake). The new display is just more complicated. And Stargazer feels like Stan (and still doesn't turn normally at trick speed). The folks at PP are very bright and they do listen to the skiers. But they have a lot more innovating and listening to do before I open my checkbook. Until then, I will have to practice out of tolerance hot times to adapt to the feel in tournament conditions... Eric

I put an old Carbon Fin on Kirk's new Goode 9800. HO soft? was written in magic marker on the fin and I set it to the old scribe line on the fin. No numbers as I don't always use a caliper - I put a scribe line on the fin after a good set so I can get back to that setting. But the ski was noticably better. The turns were smoother and I got more angle. Kirk liked the feel a lot more also. Nice product, John. I'm worthless as a testimonial as I have no idea where the fin came from, what ski I used it on, how well it skied or anything. I had to put a layer of electrical tape to get it to hold in the fin box and grind down the mounting grooves to get it to fit the Goode box. But Kirk wanted me to try something and this was hidden in the bottom of my junk drawer so... I'm happy. Thanks, Eric

While the balance issues are similar, snow skiing (especially racing) is very different from waterskiing. Snow ski racing requires preservation of all the energy gravity gives you to maximize speed. Getting through the course is rarely the issue - unless you cut corners too tight in a quest for winning speed. In waterskiing, there's 100 unused HP in the boat to add as much energy as you can balance against. Speed is gps controlled. Making it through the course is always a problem - every run ends with a fall or miss. Carving? Not on waterskis! Hook that radical turn and get to the next buoy. Adjust the wing on your fin to get the right amount of tailslide, slam dunk, set the edge and hold it through the pull position. Carving is for the prime rib dinner after waterskiing. I will concede that the balance issues are similar. Body balance, knee reaction and ankle flex work in the same manner. But the positions are quite different - your feet are locked in the wrong position for your offside turn. And gravity pulls differently than a rope - and water has a lot more drag than snow. Your body needs different positions to resist those forces. Still that was a very cool video. And thinking about the similarities and differences is good training - especially when the water is too cold for practice. Thanks, cool link. Eric

Careful, Chuck. That is how it gets started. Soon you'll be unable to ski on a stock ski and you'll have to take that sawzall to everything you buy. Too much customizing and you might end up like me or Horton. It looks you need a bit of bondo (or superfil - lighter) for that gap at the end. On second thought, try leaving the gap and see what it does. Report back, my grinder is standing by... Eric

I can't build two skis that are alike - so why should the real manufacturers. Of course I don't know how to use calipers properly. And I can't tell exactly what grit my sandpaper is... Eric

From a test skier perspective, I liked the number rating system. It made me really quantify how I felt about a ski. Maybe a 1 to 10 scale could be better but the 1 to 5 scale meant that there was a lot of leeway in assigning a "3" (or any other number) - close was OK. Skis I liked clearly stood out with high number counts. The numbers were pretty close to my "feel" rankings. Of high value would be buoy count numbers as well. The writeup from this year's test was a bit too fuzzy. With some numerical data, you could pick a winner in acceleration, stability, carryout, turns, etc and give a bit more useful decision making results. Using numbers to pick a winner overall IS flawed as different skiers have different strengths and weaknesses. Pointing out the strengths of a ski through a numerical ranking is useful. But numerical analysis should not be the prime focus of the tests. John, your handling of the tests has been fantastic. While nothing is ever perfect, I haven't seen any serious flaws. I am planning to do trick ski tests and will use your tests as a model. Eric