Director Darwin

You would love the X5 - and you could try it out up here Labor Day weekend/vanillaforum/js/tinymce/jscripts/tiny_mce/plugins/emotions/images/smiley-cool.gif

Oh sure, John. After I get home, I'll take a set at my place and use that to benchmark my National's score. Sure! Why not?

Thanks for the clarification - I'll stick w/ skiing on Thursday

What is the qualification? That's the question. According the the Ranking List, I'm qualified for MM competition at Nationals because I skied in one Big Dawg event last September and scored as a MM competitor - not because of any particular score. I guess if I wanted to stay until Saturday I could change my entry to MM !ÂÂÂ

I know I'm not smarter than the average "Joe" but I've had the 17th on my Outlook Calendar since the spring. I never looked at the USAWS website for the date - I read the rule book and deducted the date myself. If USAWS posted the wrong date, then they should be held accountable for that. But blaming this error alone for the lackluster level of entries to Nationals is misguided. I've been watching the Event Registration list for a couple of weeks now. There are a lot of highly ranked skiers who have chosen not to register for one reason or another.  Their qualification for an event was never in question. Affording the time off, unreasonable travel for Regionals, skiing behind unfamiliar cruise systems, airline baggage charges, airline ticket costs, etc. probably play a much larger role than simply a misquote of the COD. Although my daughter and I are attending, it was a more difficult decision this year based on the reasons stated.

Ondwater: My daughter (120lbs) likes "A" behind both the SN and MC. In fact, she's one of the few who prefer ZO to SG behind the MC. She skis 34mph mid 32 off. Now, as for SG, there are no presets for 32mph so I would watch the mid-course times and if hot, drop the crew weight to compensate. Whenever my daughter skis behind SG, we have to lower the crew weight by at least 50% to get good mid-course times.

I believe the SkiFly and Schnitz - who cares about either. I would question the Nichols (now waterskiforum info.  Now, USAWS is getting lots of hits regarding rankings this time of year w/ the COD for Regionals and Nationals upcoming. That info is suspect to me.

Roger - I agree 100% that the application of the new systems was unfair at best and unethical at worst. But, I take issue with your analysis regarding ZO vs. PPSG. The gate issue you refer to is determined by how the boat is set up. 1. PPSG does not necessarily hit the gates faster than ZO.  Depends on the pregate setting that particular boat is using. And, ZO P-101 does come in quicker than previous versions. 2. If you get behind w/ ZO, it is more difficult to make up time. That I grant you. But if the PPSG is not properly set up, it will give you a slow(er) mid  time and hot(ter) second segment. That makes it more difficult to make up time - and most of us need to make up time in the 2nd half of the course. 3.  I would agree that the application of ZO for older boats is a major issue. It has caused me to reassess my current boat situation and look for a 2007-2008 boat w/ZO that I can keep current for years to come. PP has a unique marketing opportunity to release an upgrade that has a similar feel to ZO. I've heard that may be coming and I hope it does.  4. PPSG's various presets make each boat individually programmable (suitable) for the owner and those he pulls around most frequently. This does not translate well to all skiers. As a driver, I must make not only changes regarding N and L, I must lower the crew weight when pulling some light skiers. I've had to do this at all of the tournaments I've driven this year.  So, PPSG does not provide the same pull as PP Classic. It was never intended to. This is the main reason PP Classic was left in the SG upgrade. 5. I agree that having ZO only in boats at Nationals will provide an advantage to those who have experience with it. I'm fortunate that M4 will ski behind Malibu due to the fact I have access to one.  But that doesn't mean that the boat I draw at Nationals will be set up similar to the one I ski behind each week.  I think this, coupled with a convergence of many other issues, will have a downward impact on participation at Nationals. For this, I believe USAWS made a mistake in forcing these changes on us - whether they be ZO or PPSG.

John: I think you could add that SG is not a refined product. There are so many variables with regard to setting up SG and that leads to inconsistencies in how each boat operates/pulls. ZO behind MC is different than Nautique. Different props on MC makes the boats pull different regardless of cruise systems. I've been behind them all this year and I'll take ZO behind a Nautique over anything else. At least I know it will be the same each time. Any other boat/cruise system and it's a crap shoot.

Roger: You can contact Mike (my neighbor) who makes the plates at: teammalibu2000 (at) yahoo (dot) com or 318-230-1133 He is on vacation for the next week and is busy filling orders.ÂÂÂ

Bindings at stock - if using HO bindings, put one hole forward - that computes to "stock" compared to other brands.

By the looks of that picture, you're a lot more than "one hole back from stock".

As Cheech and Chong once said: "contestants from all over American and parts of Alabama".  Couldn't say it better myself!ÂÂÂ

Skibug - ZO does not anticipate the pull of the skier relative to where it is in the course. In fact, it responds to the pull of the skier OUTSIDE of the course. When the skier pulls out at the 55's, ZO responds appropriately. Therefore, I can assume that the course has nothing to do with how ZO responds to skier input.

http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/original/Save_Ferris_3.18.jpg Anyone? Anyone? The "blank" Hawely Tarriff Act....anyone? anyone?...the Smoot Hawley Tarriff Act

My boat is not DBW. The others I have set up are. The big issue is "who" you dial the boat in for. If you dial it in for a 180lb skier and get 7:13/16:95, you will get a slower 3 ball time when you pull a 200lb skier. When I say "slower", I mean 7:16 to 7:18. Again, the point of cruise is to provide consistent speed thru the course. As for my boat, I'll just have to dial in the 1 ball first and then chase the 3 ball times. Otherwise, I'm all over the map. Hopefully 'dawg can get a kitchen pass tonight, come over and be my guinea pig! John - Randy would not say what they are currently working on relative to the ZO "feel" but I got the impression that something is in the works.ÂÂÂ

Get a plate from Erb and then you can mount your boots to the plate w/ your spacing and mount the entire plate to the ski. I would not recommend taping each plate separately.  One plate w/ your boots mounted to it is the way to go.

I spoke to Randy at PP yesterday regarding the parameters for my boat. They do not catalog settings for different boats. It's up to the owner to "dial-in" his/her boat. This is not good. For all the hand wringing about ZO, Star Gazer is a much bigger problem.

Best performances behind a 97 Nautique with PP Classic. (The trick wake is better than the new Nautique's.) Eric - my daughter has been saying this for years. And I think the 1997-2001 hulls were the best for slalom as well. The 08 we have on site has a bump at 22 and a slight bump at 28. My 97 is flat from 22 on in. ÂÂÂ

When we upgraded the 08 SN we have on site to P-101, I continued to use "A" setting for a period of time. I'm beginning to feel "B" is more appropriate. "A" comes on later and stays longer. "B" gives me an opportunity to get in position but doesn't carry the pull too far off the 2nd wake. I find this works best for my style. If you like to get it quick and hard right out of the buoy, then "C" would be your choice. I think the smoother and "lighter" you ski, "A" works best. But most of us don't ski "light" on the boat.

If I remember, the 06 Nomad was the "white top" version - first year. I liked the ski but didn't think it was as stable as the X5. Again, you are looking for a ski that can be ridden at 28-34mph with some confidence. Either the X5, Custom X or Tightline versions would be my choice. I have a neighbor who has a Tightline (women's X5 - a bit more forgiving) that his wife is no longer using. I'll ask him about it. Could be a cheap alternative to what's available in the marketplace today.

These are the numbers for the aluminum stock fin: 6.910 tips / 2.505 / .770 needle / 7deg wing For Horton's 88 fin: 6.920 tips / 2.500 / .770 needle / 7 deg wing The above numbers were for a 65.5" X5. Also, I'm not certain that the 04 X5 is not identical to the 05 and 06. D3 has stated that "improvements" were made to the X5 in 07 but not certain what they were. I just know that the 05 and 06 were great skis and if you can find a used one, grab it!

I vote "99 or older" since my personal boat is a 1997 SN. But, we have an 08 Malibu LXI and 08 SN 196 on site that we train behind most of the time.

My daughter tried the Rose for a month this spring. Her regular ski is a 2006 X5. She loved the ski but struggled to run 28 on it. Switched back to her X5 and ran right thru mid 32 first set. Needless to say, she stayed on her old X5. There are differences among the two skis but to what extent, I'm not certain. But, I've watched several female skiers on it and they did not look as good as they did on their previous ski. I would try and find a 2005-2006 X5. Best ski made for females - bare none!

I started to get some lower back pain about 3 weeks ago - borrowed a back belt and it helped. I've ordered a Schiek Back Support Belt from Bart's (best price) - I'll be wearing it from now on.