boarditup

Before you set them out, use 303 on them. They will fade much slower. If you hit them with 303 every few weeks, they will last the season without too much fade and you won't rub off paint if you graze the buoy with your ski.

John.  Shoot me an e-mail with your price. I am on a regular Senate now and loving it. The Carbon may be even better for my 230 lbs.  info at placidwaters dot com

Not wanting to complicate things - but....  In the upper midwest, we have mostly show ski planks around. They are mostly 8.5 or 9.5" wide, flat, square tail, two thick "fins," and are designed to track perfectly straight. It may be a different class with a lower speed with all of that surface area. I'll try it out this weekend and see how it works. Of course, the skis I have access to don't have a rear binding. That may make it even more interesting.... Plank class anyone?

On August 9, I hosted at tournament at Plaicd Waters. Lots of great skiing. Many skiers set new PBs and 35 off was run several times. The CJ, after tying his PB on his first set, was suspicious. After the tournament he measured the course and the worst case was 3 cm off.  The real story was the novice division. Three new kids in their first tournament. One girl, 10 years old, was not going to ski. I told her that we would be patient even if it took her 12 tries to get up. She got up on her first try and took to the novice course. By the end of the second round she had the green balls down. Her smile was incredible. One of the teens made 32 mph, 34 mph, and then scored 4 at 36 mph. The first time he had ever run either 34 or 36 mph. The other kid, also set a new PB by running the course at 30 mph. It was a great time! We now have 3 new slalom junkies.

Class F tourneys can use any rules. There is no reason why you can't use INT wide wide rules.  Personally, I would be excluded. Not too many older skis set up for size 14 shoes.

The Acme 911 would be my choice for your application. We use it for wakeboarding applications on your boat. However, given what you told me, it should be what you need to move the motor into the rpm range you desire.  www.boarditup.com

Actually, there is a speed based tolerance - .5mph. Rule 8.05 As a general rule, we are supposed to be at actual and the tolerance are only for uncontrollable conditions. So, if we allow for a skier to pull down the boat and the boat to lag in coming back up to speed, are we really in compliance? Should there be a rpm surge timed for when the skier hooks up after the buoy so that speed stays constant?  Please keep in mind my intent is to have a discussion that ends up with clear direction for the software designers that is in compliance with whatever rule is stated by the regulating bodies (USA Waterski and/or IWSF).

Rod - I agree. Here is what it seems like to me:  The software programs try to emulate some of the best hand-drivers - at least in technique. The feel of the pull cannot be quantified and therefore cannot be completely equalized between skiers.  Different skier prefer different pull characteristics. The skiers at the low end of the performace spectrum usually cannot tell the difference between software programs. The skiers at the high end of the performance spectrum usually can tell the difference between software programs. Somebody will always be unhappy.

So the follow-on question is: What is accurate and within specification or tolerance. We now have only times, not speeds. As long as the times are "good" we consider the pass valid. However, there can be a lot of speed variation associated with "good" times. The "best hand drivers" use a lot of English on the throttle to get the right "feel" with good times.

2008 MasterCraft X-2 with trim plate. Has PP Wakeboard Pro with slalom mode - no ability to use magnets, however. I figure that if I can be consistent behind a V-drive with a larger wake, a slalom boat will be easy.

OK - I'll bite. Please give me background on the jump rules. I know nothing.

No arguement from me.  My question is that since the old PP units, the new SG units, and the new ZO units are all software driven, what should the goal of the software be? With PP, it was to replicate the best hand drivers possible. With ZO, it seems to be more of a constant speed. Both are close to eachother in terms of performance. Should we, meaning the AWSA, direct a goal of times or speed with the new technology. Even the old pre-SG units can be changed with a new chip with settings that will do whatever the engineer wants.  From a policy position, what should the intent of the rules be? If there were clear direction and leadership, this situation could be cleared up next model year. Without leadership and direction, there will be chaos and discontent until the market settles out and only one remains.

So distance=speed X time. From the beginning, we had AirGuides with tubes measuring speed. Not real accurate. So, math being better, we used the equasion. Now, we have very accurate ways to measure speed several times a second. So, my discussion question is this. Should the rules be written to ignore time since we can precisely control the other two. Meaning, the course is known distance. The new SG and ZO can control speed within a very narrow range. Should we embrace the new tech and throw out the stopwatch? This question is the result of reading about the complaints about the "feel" of PP 6.5, PP SG, versus ZO. At my level of skiing - 15-off - I cannot feel the difference, so I do not have a dog in the fight. However, what should the goal be - "good times" that shows the average over the course and ignores the slight fluctuations (and allows for a softer feel) or constant speed regardless of the skier's actions (that may result in a harder feel)? My read of the original rules was that the constant speed was the original goal. The use of times simply allowed for a more precise measurement due to the math.  Do we want to go there?

Very different. The rails feel confortable, but not "wrapped." I barely tugged on them. The felt loose, as compared to the high-wrap. However, while on and skiing, I had the same control over the ski and my feet did not feel cramped waiting in the water. I did not feel as if my feet were moving around at all. They stayed put and I could feel what the ski was doing. However, I never really had to pay attention to the bindings at all. I have not taken a fall, yet, so I do not have any information on their release potential. However, getting out of them after the ski run was easy. I liked them so much I bought a set for the wife and daughter. My daughter thought they were very comfortable and supportive as well. She did not like the Comps feel, she really likes the Rails. I may order one more for her swivel ski.

I can't wear the RS-1 bindings - I wear a 14. I put a set of Rails on a Senate. Just a couple of sets on them. So far - very comfortable and good control. My previous bindings are KD Vise. The best way to put it - I do not think about the bindings at all - I just let the ski perform. If you don't like the closed toe of the RS-1, the Rail is a good binding at a decent price.

Today Placid Waters (www.placidwaters.com) was shredded for the first time. I got to take the first run on Bay 1 as part of Marcus Brown's Face to Face Tour (www.facetoface.com). Placid Waters is still an active construction site, but the water is only about 1.5-2' low. Plenty of depth to run well. As of right now, the course record is a full pass at 32-off - Marcus was testing a new ski and boot combination. I am sure this will fall soon - Wade Cox, Jamie Beauchanese, and Jodi Fisher will be here in the next two weeks for clinics. Contact www.actionwater.com for reservations.

The release I use is one for show skiing. It is designed to safely release under loads exceeding any three skiers could ever pull. With typical trick releases, your fear is correct. Different equipment.  What I am looking for is some out-of-the-box thinking. You have the handle end that there are a few ways to make it work. You have the boat end. Anyone else?

On another board, there has been a lot of discussion (disintegrated to say the least) regarding slalom safety. I have been using a trick release for all towed watersports, including slalom. I have a release on the tower for board sports, and one on the pylon for all others. The observer will pull the release at any fall. I have a large scar on my left wrist from 25 years ago when I got caught in the handle. Also, with wakeboarding and kneeboarding, handle passes and 'ole tricks can wrap the rope around the body as well as the arm through the handle routine. Since I am not a real competitive skier, I don't have a problem with the observer pulling the release when they see a potential issue. I don't try to scratch out the miracle save, my lower back is too fragile. I can see the utility of the guard. I also see the utility in the ridgid handle shaped so that you cannot pass the arm through (Accurate makes a one for wakeboarding - not quite, but you can see the potential). I also see the potential of wrist injuries from the restricted area being a pinch point at some angles. My solution is the release, and that depends on an observent and competent operator. What other options are there?

The INT wide ride is a hoot. Get a wide ski and slow down. It is different, it is difficult, and it lets you enjoy skiing another way. You can apply the rules to an "F" tournament on your own.

The Senate is marketed as a wide ski. The ad copy says it is a wider version of the MPD with a different core. Please keep in mind that the max speed in Wide Ride is 30 mph. You will need a longer Senate at that speed than at 34 mph. As for myself, I have a 69" inbound.

John:  What carbon fin on a 69" Senate? Any feedback from other users?

Sort of....  I sell a lot of props for inboard boats (www.boarditup.com). Each owner, hull, engine, and tranny combo seems to perform best with a certain prop for most people. However, there are subtle differences between each combo. There is a profound difference between identical model engines. Some have 20 hp more than rated, many have less. That accounts for the differences between prop preferences. On PP, that can me a differnce between PP settings for resistance, KX, and PX to have the same feel between two identically equipped boats. The boat's owner also has a set of expectations that the prop has to meet. Some like blistering hole shot while others like to max out the top end while others like the best speed holding at a set speed. As for your question between the various boat model comparisons, that would be a lot of data to evaluate an then you have the differences I spoke of to account for. Hard to do and I wonder if there is a good way to get it done. You could go to several tournaments over a period of time and take a survey of the drivers and skiers before and after and compile the results - subjective, but it should average out. Great question - good thinking.  Karl

Here is the latest update on my waterski community project:  www.placidwaters.com On July 9th, we will hold the pre-constuction meeting for the underground utilities - water and sewer off site. We will begin the on-site utilities late summer and should be home site ready by Thanksgiving. A picture of Bay 1 is on the website. The sub-buoys are installed (EZ-Slalom parts). Should be skiable next spring. Hope to have a pro event next summer.

You need to update your Windows Media Player with the Free Codec Package. Go to Microsoft and they will direct you to an off-site provider for the downloads. Takes about 10 minutes.