Ed_Obermeier

So a floater properly surveyed so that we "know it's right" with the centerline gates and turn balls secured in place properly and surveyed to make sure they're correct could be an option? Kinda of what we did at the 2008 Junior US Open which FWIW was allowed under IWSF sanction using AWSA certified judges and TC. Would way simplify installing 2 side-by-side courses and reduce costs and labor required.

@Howa1500 that era Supra's were notorious for allowing water to leak down through the floor where the cutouts for the exhaust goes down into and under the floor. Wasn't sealed to keep the water out and there was nowhere for the water to go except to soak into the foam. With wood floors and stringers, assuming the foam is indeed wet if those aren't already soft they will likely go soft and need to be addressed at some point. If so, ripping it all out and starting over is the only remedy. The first boat I ever owned, a well used 1970 Larson Shark tri-hull, had floor and stringer rot with soaked foam. Spent an entire winter ripping it all out (digging all the wet foam out was a total bitch) and redoing it as best I could on limited knowledge and even more limited budget. Good learning experience but I'll damn sure never do it again. Best done by a pro with the right knowledge and tools. In that era Supra was the slalom boat of choice and would likely have been where Malibu i.e. is now if it weren't for this issue. Once people realized the problems with these boats they quit buying them, which killed Supra's share of the tow boat market. They finally too late fixed the issues by re-engineering their boats but by then the marketing damage was already done and the other manufacturers had snagged their market share. Still great tow boats though, just problematic maintenance wise with regards to the foam/floor/stringer issues.

@Waternut your Dixie SS had more of a runabout hull shape, correct? Most OB's and IO's I've skied behind back in the day did way better with the trim all the way down, which would be about the same thing as running the wake plate down on yours. IMO likely the reason you got the results you got with a wake plate on that hull. Entirely different hull designs from the Supra's. The wake difference at different speeds was also noticeable. Slower speeds = larger wakes on that hull. I owned a 2000 Supra Legacy for 8 years, had the hydraulic adjustable wake plate so it was very easy to play with the plate settings. Always went back to running it completely flat (on plane) with the bottom of the hull for best results. Yeah it was a newer boat than being discussed but the Supra slalom boat hull designs were basically pretty consistent through the years. IMO the suggestions that you have wet foam under the floor adding a lot of weight are likely pretty spot on.

Hmmm, all this negativity... I've used one for years and always found it to be very helpful. I also use it to do inverted crunches, seems to hit the entire ab region as a unit, one of the better ab exercises I've been able to come up with. If you go with the type that hangs you by the ankles it's important to get to get one with a comfortable and supportive ankle clasp setup. The cheap ones generally don't have very good ankle grasps (whatever they're called) and aren't very supportive or comfortable. My ankles don't hurt when I'm done and using it definitely makes a positive difference for me, but as always YMMV. Ditto what @MS said about foam rolling too.

$10 says it's the Royals and Cubs in the Series. Well, the Royals anyway... :p

Something along the lines of a Senate C or similar IMO would be appropriate for your stated ability level, but I'd go for a 68" at your size rather than a 69. Especially if you intend to start skiing the course. One opinion for whatever it's worth to you.

We went to a numbering system. Customer feedback was that the colored tape stripes weren't as intuitive as I'd thought they would be. By numbering the collapsed sections and rewriting the instructions accordingly it simplifies identifying which arm section is which, at least until you've done it a few times and get how it all goes together. Feedback is that the numbering system is better.

Folks, at $300 that course is an absolute steal. Looking at the photos I believe that it's only 4 - 5 years old and doesn't look like it's had too much usage. Noticed that it also has the HeavyDuty upgrade (SS spring clips and permanent course buoy lines, $80 upgrade). Even if it costs you $200 in shipping that's still less than half price of a new one. Someone needs to jump on that and get it into use. Ed @ EZ-Slalom

Dudes. I'm pretty sure that if it's made to tow slalom skiers it's gonna have a mirror on it.

This is a price point boat, correct? Giant video screen is out, adds too much to the cost.

@Skihack I disagree that the Theory should be considered necessarily an "entry level" ski. You could/can run some serious short line on it, just can't do it at much more than 30 mph. So IMO it's a different mind set (think INT League Wide Ride division type skiing). Yeah it makes a decent beginners ski too, but with a ton of headroom to advance on line length wise and as such technique wise. As you get older and want/need to slow down a bit you can still get serious on it without everything happening quite as fast. Different mind set.

Looks like you have some gel coat issues there as well. Definitely take it to a pro. A few years back I hit a submerged log with my '05 LXI. Fortunately missed the tracking fins but destroyed the shaft strut, prop shaft, and prop. Somehow missed the rudder, who knows? Shaft strut was folded towards the bottom of the boat at a 45 degree angle, busted all the gel coat around the area, looked like the fiberglass was broken all the way through, though my boat was totally screwed. The shop I took it to (Summit Marine in Kansas City - highly recommended if you live in the area) did the mechanical work but farmed the hull repairs out to another place that works on large offshore boats etc. They took one look at it, stated it was no big deal to fix. When I got the boat back you absolutely could not tell any difference from when the boat was new, appearance wise or performance wise. $5000 in repairs (thank God for good boat insurance) but worth every penny. Definitely take it to a pro, money well spent IMO.

Retro look graphics on the new hull? Totally bad ass.

Weird and definitely outside-the-box.

Agreed @klindy, that is an issue with ANY floating type, single centerline type slalom course. It's just inherent in the design and materials usually used for the buoy arms, which is why such a course can't be considered for use in an R tournament. UNLESS proper modifications are made, which then a floating course (cable mainline, not a portable poly rope mainline) CAN be used for an IWSF sanctioned R tournament. We've had our cable mainlines used in at least a half dozen IWSF sanctioned R tournaments that I'm aware of, with the necessary mods made of course. IMO unless you're a regular 38 off and up skier it's unlikely that 1) you're using a portable course anyway, and 2) it's unlikely you'd really be able to tell the difference (assuming low wind conditions of course). We have several current and former pro tour skiers using our stock HD permanent courses for at least some of their practice and we've gotten very positive comments from them on the feel and accuracy of what we build (listed on our web site if anyone is interested).

Exactly on the money @jetpilotg4. 11.5m = 37.7315 ft = 37' 8.778" It's definitely not that I haven't wanted to come down (trust me!), just haven't been able to ski anywhere with anyone since 2nd weekend of June. Tore my damn left rotor cuff (again). Haven't been able to take the time off to go get it fixed yet, arm is functional enough to keep working but not enough to ski on. MRI in the next week or two, hoping to get it fixed sometime in October. Was hoping to get my left knee replaced this fall but now I gotta get the shoulder working first. This trying to remain athletic at age 60+ stuff ain't for the faint hearted...

No, sent you what I had left @Glydon. I'm thinking the hole pattern for D3 and KD are identical but not entirely sure on that. Pretty sure you could swap a D3 Leverage onto an old KD plate though. Or get new overlays directly from D3.

Hi @WBLskier. I'll offer some input based on my own experience, if you have additional questions, want to get into more detail etc please feel free to message me direct as well if you like. Your questions in order - 1 & 2) Weight and mass alone do not necessarily make a good anchor. Case in point - I've had customers call me stating they have i.e. two 70 lb buckets of concrete on each end of the course but still can't get the mainline tight/straight. The issue is that you have smooth sided, cylindrical shaped anchors that can roll and slide on the bottom when pulled around. Add some pieces of rebar or similar sticking out the sides so something can bite into the bottom, now you're beginning to have a decent anchor. Lighter weight Fortress-type anchors work well in specific bottom conditions PROVIDED that you attach a length of heavy chain to the anchor and that you drag it and properly get it set before ever attaching an anchor lead line to it. So in this case the weight isn't the most important factor, the design is. Ideally an anchor should be both heavy enough and odd shaped enough to dig into the bottom. Once it does and sucks into the bottom muck it's not gonna move. Permanent course anchors don't need to be fancy or pricey either. Anything with enough weight and digging design will work - 3-4 heavy cement building blocks chained together, old cylinder heads, small engine blocks, pieces of old bulldozer track, use your imagination. Something we use locally with great success is heavy hunks of junk I-beam, 70-100 lbs with an eye welded on to attach the anchor lead to. Once those babies dig in you'll never see them again. Cheap and effective. 3) Over the years I've had a lot of feedback from customers who have tried leaving the course in the water, removing the buoys and letting it drop to the bottom, then fishing it up and reattaching the buoys VERSUS installing and removing a portable. The feedback I've gotten indicates to me that labor and time wise it's pretty much a wash one over the other. IMO if I'm leaving the course laying on the bottom subject to all of the negative issues that goes with that (which I won't go into here) and it doesn't save me anything, I'll just throw my portable in and out, thank you very much. As always YMMV. 4) I get variations on this question all the time. I'm just gonna add sub buoys to my floating course, remove the buoys, the course structure can just hover in the water somewhere below the surface but off the bottom, right? It doesn't work that way, sorry. A floating-type course such as we build and such as the other commercially available courses are built, is either FLOATING held up by the buoys, or it's on the bottom due to lack of floatation. Adding subs then removing the buoys (more negative issues I won't touch on for this discussion), the subs just to come to the surface (particularly at the center of the course which is the least restricted part of the system) bringing the mainline and arms closer to the surface with them, which is another problem. The course is either floating or it isn't. Period. 5) No personal experience with this but I've seen discussions on this subject here before and I'm sure several here can speak to that particular issue. 6) Again,if you have additional questions, want to get into more detail etc please feel free to message me direct anytime. I'm more than happy to answer your questions as best I'm able and be helpful in whatever manner I can. Ed @ EZ-Slalom

@Wayne that ski was an Obrien Vision GT. I still have one (standing in the corner of the closet with all my other past ski purchase experiments). Bought it right after I gave up on the Obrien G4, the one with the adjustable rocker hardware and the flex plate on the front? Ah, the ignorance of youth... If you smacked your hand against it the light would blink but never was sure if it did it while skiing or not. Look down fall down, right? Pretty sure it didn't do much, certainly didn't do much for MY skiing...

A 3-event bag works great for storing/hauling the buoy arms. Otherwise I'm like @DmaxJC_ski, it stands in the corner of the garage in two bundles (half a course worth of arm sections per bundle) with the buoy bags and anchors piled up around it. Under the boat on the floor of the garage is another workable option for the arm bundles.

I use the Rotella in my '05 LXI/Monsoon too. Original owner used it, I've continued to use it, never a problem.

Spoke with @klbdiver this morning so if I may Keith I'll add some additional information. But do correct me if I'm incorrect. Just to clarify - unless I'm mistaken I believe that this is actually one of our HeavyDuty permanent course kits, not a portable setup. SS cable mainline, HD perm course buoy lines, all required parts and fittings, instructions etc for building permanent course buoy arms. Also upgraded with our Saltwater option (all stainless steel crimps on the mainline, all hardware etc upgraded for saltwater usage etc). At that age the mainline is not sectional but we can always convert it for the new owner, of course... @mwetskier buoys traditionally sell in sets of 24, always have to my knowledge. I didn't make that rule, I just keep up the tradition. :)

With all due respect @Horton the necessity of having ZO be a part of the equation only serves the maybe 5% of the "serious" skier population who skis tournaments and IMO is something of a disservice to the other 95%. On this site maybe 30% of the active members are tournament skiers - so that's 70% who likely don't care about ZO. If the idea is to bring someone into the fold who may at some point want to ski tournaments, you gotta start with something they can afford or the whole ZO thing ultimately becomes a non-issue to them. If they never get started ZO is just a couple of initials that means zero to them. I can see some sort of speed control needing to be in the equation. However, spending an additional $8K on a repower just to get ZO is unnecessary to the vast majority of folks at whom I'd assume this project would be aimed at and be of primary interest to. I seriously doubt many of the most serious here are going to trade off their late model ZO equipped boats for a project boat like this, so who is this ultimately aimed at?

The original point of this thread was - "I am considering a project for the web site where I take an old boat like a 91 MC that cost $3,500 and update it to be good enough to be a daily training boat. The goal is to get a boat that cost $15,000 or maybe $20,000 and is almost as good as a boat that cost 3 or 4 times as much." This thread has gone completely off subject. If I recall correctly, the original idea was to test the theory that a newbie or someone with desire but extremely limited funds could get into the sport and train for potential tournament participation in a decently skiable/drivable older boat for a reasonable price point. Which IMO should remain at/under $15K. Hello??

@Waternut - your post above pretty much summed up what INT League is trying to do. Yeah INT isn't perfect but it addresses the issues you've correctly pointed out (IMO) more closely than anything else going right now. Just sayin'.