Director Darwin

and tell them NOT to publish a website address in a National publication ad (Water Skier) until the site is up and running! These garage based operations continue to amaze me! Try www.obrienelite.com - TONS of information/vanillaforum/js/tinymce/jscripts/tiny_mce/plugins/emotions/images/smiley-yell.gif

http://dontdatethatdude.files.wordpress.com/2008/07/idiot2.jpg

Watched the Evolve video tonight. Relatively short compared to Edged in Water. Videos were not as revealing when it comes to studying the styles of the skiers. Clips were short, over edited and shot from angles that made it difficult to analyze what the skier was doing. I thought the scenery would be a focus of the film based on the beginning but that was not the case. It looked as if most was shot at H2oz which is a nice place, but doesn't add to the overall scenic layout. The music was obviously targeted to the 18-30 demographic group - not bad but not my taste - next time I'll mute the TV and play some Floyd in the background. All in all a nice effort but just more of the same - Edged broke some new ground - this did not.

Fire up the lard bucket - MS is in the house!!

Dawg wants you to buy one so he can ride it - me too!!

We're just a short plane ride away!

The NSL tournaments I ran were very similar in nature to the fledgling INT League. We had our own handicapped scoring system that allowed the skier to move up in levels without becoming uncompetitive. The levels were well determined and easy to comprehend. Mulligans were allowed for the lower levels as well as the "mini" course (green buoys). Since the tournaments were sanctioned as Class "F", we weren't held to the same standards as other AWSA tournaments. That said, we always tried to provide a "Class C" environment (tolerances/driving) for the skier so when he "graduated" to AWSA tournaments, it would shorten the learning curve. I applaud the efforts of the INT League in general and the State Coordinators in particular. There is no doubt that the INT has provided growth opportunities beyond that of USAWS.ÂÂ

It would be interesting to hear the viewpoint of current / former State Coordinators to determine what the upside is. I was approached by Rick back in 1996. I ran a pretty successful NSL tour in NW Louisiana and NE Texas. The upfront costs of INT didn't make business sense to me at that time. Under the NSL program, I was able to gather sponsors, enlist sites, obtain promo boats, direct mail skiers thru AWSA mailing lists (as well as boat dealer's lists), collect entry fees and the only upfront cost to me was the sanction fee ($20) and my time.

We all should - because the factor that drive the price down - demand - affects us all!

Must be nice to be in the oil business!http://img2.timeinc.net/ew/dynamic/imgs/071112/lhagman_l.jpg

Not sick at all - not happy, but not sick. I'll adjust my investment activity and spending accordingly. In 4 years, we'll see if a Democratically controlled Congress and White House can do what they say. If not, it will be 1994 all over again.

OK - that may be the problem - we all measure flat - needles going to give you a false setting relative to our numbers - needle should be somewhere around .815 (I'm guessing) but measure flat and I think you will find you need to go further forward. That may have been the problem all along - I should have clarified.

At6 - really good points. I did qualify my opinion as saying it may or may not work. Your experience is the same as some folks around me and I've always subscribed to running the minimum length you can get away with. But depending on style and body position in the pre-turn, too little tip will result in lack of tip pressure. In the end, I agree with you and would probably recommend taking out depth first and not adding tip.

Slalomdude - yes, I would start w/ center holes for RTP. I don't have any experience w/ this set up but I would start there. I agree that you don't need to run bindings forward on this ski - they solved that issue w/ a re-tooled rocker. skispray - taking length out may have made things worse - maybe not. Everyone here LOVES the offside turn on the RCX so let's think about some solutions: First, put the length back in to create some tip pressure at the apex of the turn. If the ski is making "bus turns" on the off-side, tip pressure may be lacking. Another may be related to depth. You didn't say what depth you are running, but I would take 3-5/1000's out of the depth. You stated that you are nice and wide so taking out the depth should not have much of a negative impact on protection of width. By taking out depth, you allow the ski to "slide" at the end of the turn and finish quickly w/ angle. Try these and let me know.  jhd

My neighbor is riding a 67" (came off a Fisher). He uses a Reflex front / Wiley rear. I would put your back binding at stock position and then place the Reflex whereever you get the distance between your feet you are comfortable with. As for the fin, start with the following: 6.910 tips 2.505 depth .745 DFT 7 deg wing. If you need further details regarding the binding set up, let me know.

When is Goode going to start putting inserts in a ski for people who use bindings with screws ? http://assets.sbnation.com/assets/5608/beating-a-dead-horse.gif

First - you've already done item # 1 - move your bindings back one hole. Regarding the CBR fin,  I've tried the 88 CBR fin - no good. Waiting on a friend to send me his 106 to try. I used this fin in the RC with some success. Next - your offside problem may not be in the turn but in the pre-turn. If your fin is too long, the ski won't release off the 2nd wake and therefore you are narrow into your offside turn - giving the impression that it is not turning due to being downcourse at the finish. Try these fin number ranges: Length (tips): 6.900 to 6.920 Depth: 2.500 to 2.508 DFT - .745 to .765 Wing: 8 deg is stock for 36mph - try 7 deg. From what you have stated, I would start w/ the length first. Possibly start in the middle of the range for each: 6.910/2.504/.755ÂÂ

Where are your bindings? What type of bindings? What size RCX? LFF or RFF? Speed and line length? Give me some details and I'll provide some help.  We have several RCX's at my site - all with different fin settings but close enough that I think I can give you a range to work within. Stock length is too long - stock depth (can be) too deep.  Stock DFT is about right.

Wskier - you don't need a powerplate to use any of Goode's skis - Scot can give you a good (and MUCH less expensive) alternative/vanillaforum/js/tinymce/jscripts/tiny_mce/plugins/emotions/images/smiley-wink.gif.

Scot - I'm glad it is working for you - but at twice the price, I can't justify it when the RCX is working VERY well and the support from Tadd and Seth is outstanding. Chad's getting me one to try but it will probably be the spring before I get a chance to hop on it.

BINGO!! That's exactly what I've heard from others - "great ski / could run some buoys on it / not worth twice the price". Thanks, Lance. You confirmed what I thought all along - I'll stick w/ the RCX for now and see if economic pressures begin to have downward pressure on prices. It has already forced a "demo" period.

Give me your e-mail address and I will comply. I used the fin once on a 9600 last year - the shape is identical to the stock Goode fin and it fits in a Goode fin box - therefore it will/has worked - but send me an email address and I'll send a pic.

I have a 106 Goode fin - not a redim or other version - pure Goode design. Let me know if interested. I also have a Goode AMF CBR fin - very rare.

I used FM boots on and off for 5 years. I first used the entire system and then when Goode's became "undrillable", I installed a pair on a G-10 plate and dual-locked the plate to the ski. I still have a G-10 plate w/ FM boots mounted on them if someone is interested (cheap!). What I liked best about the boots is how durable they were. I didn't care for the mounting/release system - too bulky and not consistent - the release pin would stick over time. But overall, not a bad system considering the alternatives in the marketplace.

So - am i correct in saying as the water cools, move the fin forward / as it warms move it backward?