ski6jones

I understand the stock settings are only a starting point. But as I think about this it matters more than a little how stock setting was measured. For example, let's say Radar reports stock setting for Vapor using a Carbitex measured as described on their website. When I go slap my Reflex on the same ski and measure it as Reflex recommends I figure I'm as much as 0.5" forward of where Radar recommends. Sure I can and would try some other binding locations based on what I felt on the ski. However I'm starting a LONG way from where Radar thinks is a good starting point. I'd much rather start where they intended and refine from there.

@ToddL received email from Radar today confirming what is on the website for the old style bindings specifically. Rear most part of heel makes the most sense when comparing to Reflex for example.

@ToddL what I always thought/did. But the website suggests otherwise, confirmed by a query to the website. "Measure from the bottom of the front boot to the tail of the ski." https://radarskis.com/bootplacement

Where on the older Carbitex boots do you measure for front binding position? The goal for this conversation are portable numbers between different binding types, for example where do I measure so I get the same position as a Reflex, D3, Wiley, etc. It doesn't really matter where you measure for relative movements to your own personal setup. Each of the three options have been suggested to me by someone who should know. The difference between the options listed is +/- 0.25". Curious about first hand user experience.

To @BG1 point I'd argue having the goal of getting up to the pylon for example, even if you never achieve it, would be worth while since you'd always be striving to get as wide/high as you're able. Maybe with time you would get to the pylon which isn't too high.

I agree that turn in speed is important @bigtex2011 but you can have the right turn in speed directly behind the boat but you won't have a good gate starting from there obviously. So is the transom high enough? Back of the motor box? What is high enough?

Ok then same questions for high? How high on the boat is high enough? How do you know when you're high enough on the boat?

Couple threads discussing aspects of gate width right now, so what does it mean to be wide on your gates? What is wide enough? How do you know when you are wide enough?

Gate width. All season untill I can't forget about it.

I have been coached on this numerous times, always ski better when I do it, and frequently back slide into a narrower gate. I REALLY struggled skiing this spring. Getting coaching now and this was what we started with. The wider gate fixed numerous problems Instantly..

Wileys are a good setup. I had good performance from the setup lpskier suggested, but also a couple one foot out dismounts. Currently on Radar Carbitex with Reflex R-style rear, really good setup IMO. I've had a minor ankle injury in every type of binding I've used. Have used Wiley, Radar Carbitex and Hardshell. It's just the nature of the beast.

@Gloersen so do you mean there was little to no current being at the change from ebb to flood?

Was his -41 with or against the current?

Trent is sooo good.

Well the first "athlete" submitted for consideration was a horse, so yes we are lacking a criteria at a minimum.

@Jmoski a very specific set of skills but also not possible without insane fitness and natural athletic ability.

There is Chuck Norris, everyone else fights for second. No one fights Chuck and lives.

Bo Jackson, Jim Thorpe.

@klindy I understand and agree all of that is progress. To clarify, my "ridiculous" comment wasn't directed at you but rather at the notion what was implemented is the only viable solution. There are at least as many viable solutions as there are NGBs, and many more that weren't implemented for one reason or the other. As I said, the change that will happen for this year has already happened. And again, I appreciate that y'all have gone to bat even if I'm still not completely satisfied with the outcome. Edited: I said every member in my previous post, I meant every tournament participant. I still don't think that every tournament participant should be required to have SS training. Only those with regular minor contact (Coaches, JD, etc).

To @MS point, it would appear regular participants who DO NOT have regular contact with minors are only encouraged to take the training. For those that clearly DO have regular contact training is required. I don't remember reading any serious comments in this thread that suggested those who have regular contact with minors should avoid taking the SS training. In that case some type of training is required under the law, SS or an equivalent, without regard to the type of organization or affiliation. Tracking training for that subset of membership is very easily implemented in our member database. I understand USAWS is not going to relent on making every participant take the training. That ship has apparently sailed. But the suggestion that training all members was the only way to move forward ridiculous.

I predict the only thing these measures will accomplish is to accelerate the decline of the sport.

@klindy to @ToddL comment, one thing that bugs me each time I read the USAWS explanation of why they've done what they've done is the comment about Show Skiing. They are 40% of the membership and have lots of minor participation. Fine, good even. That is not AWSA, yet we are subject to constraints required by show skiing. Why? Because we are all towed behind a boat? There are clearly compliance issues for both sports divisions. The issues are just different. Even with AWSAs numbers and y'alls petitioning it makes little difference. Majority of the decisions are made literally outside of USAWS. I truly appreciate what you and the other AWSA reps have done on behalf of 3-event skiing, but at the end of the day our destiny is not our own.

@lpskier @dvskier y'all are really comparing getting a concealed carry to volunteer judging? In what world are those two things remotely similar?

The decisions are the decisions. That is what it is. At the end of this there will be (a) documents and (b) implementation. Shouldn't the documents and the implementation agree? Right now they do not. @ToddL is 100% correct. If in my job my supervisor said I want only a specific group of people to be obligated to get a BGC, and I came back with a contract containing the wording proposed I would probably be fired and rightfully so.

So let's turn it around. I would not sign a document asserting I would comply with the verbage Horton posted if I knew I was planning to be a volunteer official of any capacity at any tournament and didn't have BGC. As I read that as a volunteer in contact with athletes I should have a BGC. The verbage doesn't match what people say it means. Compliance with the MAAPP is the same. Lots of stuff in there that the LOC is supposed to do or check, but the explanation of how to address is "send an email to participants".