HO 410

If you were to write a manual/manifesto on Terry Winter's approach to slalom skiing, what would be your main topics, subtopics, and possibly of summary of what you feel to be the most important section. be? for example:  1. Getting Up         a. Two skis               i. keep your arms straight         ii. even out the weight on both legs      b. Slalom               i. bend you knees         ii. relax         iii. don't try to stand up too soon 3. Turning 4. Handle Control 5. Building width  etc...

Does resin transfer molding yield a significant reduction in the amount of rejected skis that must be scrapped? Would that decease in waste eventually bring down the price of the product? (and the one question that I would never expect to be answered) What is the material of a Sixaam or Elite?

How legitimate is that statement, "Unlike the major ski manufacturers whose skis stay in the mold an average of 10 minutes."he major ski manufacturers whose skis stay in the mold an average of 10 minutes,

I expect that the bamboo is a topsheet veneer kind of like that faux-leather on the Nitro. But you never know, it may be a functional part of the skis flex pattern. Liberty has been making freestyle alpine skis, with a bamboo core, for some time now.  I didn't want to start the thread, but with as much buzzing as there is about any new ski to hit the market, I would think that there would be at least a little chirping. Is it me or does that bottom profile look pretty similar to the Sauce?

You could upload to a site like photobucket and link, or email it to trauty86@netscape.net and I can put it up. I would think a Connelly Profecy would be much closer in character to your Goode than an F1 would. Both skis claim to be a carbon/fiberglass composite. Both skis cost less than $1000, and you may be able to ask nicely and get their EP discount. I've talked to people at Connelly and, even if it is just talk, their aim is to build a ski that will never break. This has them building heftier skis with a reputation of durability. But, like any other ski (or any product at that) the right combination of unusual stresses will cause failure. I don't believe these skis are "delicate" although I do know of an amusing story where the punchline is Chet Raley, accidently, breaking a Goode 9500 over his knee. I know that having a ski break and being left with nothing will put a sour taste in your mouth. Like I wrote in the previous post, there are companies out there that are excited to stand behind their product (or just realize that replacing your ski now will probably win you as a customer forever). And I do not believe that there is a systematic deficiency in the desing of top-end skis, if this were the case we would all be going through skis like a bad pair of shoe-laces.ÂÂ

There are more factors that go into the durability of a ski than the materials that were used to make it. Handle dings are not really something that any warranty would ever cover. However, for the handle to split the ski like firewood (I'd love to see a picture), that would probably point to some kind of manufacturer defect. I know through personal experience that both Connelly and HO stand tall behind their products and are rather generous in their warranting of skis. Others will tell you that Radar, Connelly, and D3 are also quality skis and companys that will stand behind their product should it fail.  To continue, the problem for you is that just about any ski at or near the top end is carbon fiber. The F1 is a carbon/fiberglass blend, and that Texalium (if I understand it correctly) top-sheet is an aluminum powder coated laminate. If you are avoiding a carbon top-sheet like the plague then you are going to be looking for something like a CDX with an aluminum top, although I've also seen aluminum peel off a ski like damp walpaper. Maharaja might be a good choice. Differences in the F1. Connelly generally hints at the changes they make in their product write up. Since 2007 I don't think I have read anything that hinted at anything more than a small flex adjustment. In 2007 they made mention of a bevel adjustment. Good luck.ÂÂ

http://www.edgeskifilms.com/evolve%20images/Athletes%20images/marcus.gif

Okay I see where you're coming from now. And I am pretty sure that all things being equal, the person with the larger foot will in effect have his or her bindings farther forward than someone with a smaller foot. Now that I think about it, I do remember noticing that skiers with smaller feet tend to have the bindings farther forward than skiers with larger feet. So yes, I think your observation/concept is correct. However I don't think that it is significant enough to make some kind of rule of thumb like, "Size 8 and below start 1/4" in front of stock, size 11 and about start 1/4" back of stock." Stock numbers are not the holygrail, they are a point from which to begin. ÂÂ

No, and I'll answer your question with a question.  What is the more portable measure? a) My bindings are 29 1/8" from the tail of the ski. b) My bindings are one hole forward of neutral. Answer: A Answer A will be the same from boot to boot and ski to ski. Measuring 29 1/8" will always put your heel 29 1/8" from the tail of the ski. If you answer by method B then boot, boot size, ski, and ski size will be factors in the boots location on the ski.

We do know that Jamie B has used Fogman bindings to some measure of success. One skier I know that uses them, runs the release units so loose that it's almost scarry how easy it is to click the ski on after he has fallen. I've never seen him pre-release, and I'm sure he would tighten up if he did. I think they are a pretty good binding system. If I was looking to do double shells I would at least give them a try, but I'm not particularly sold on any of the doubles. The failures tend to come in OFT falls correct? Lots of pressure on the tip of the ski moves the release units closer together giving you a higher spring tension and a more difficult release. Part of me says that OTF falls are generally pretty violent and carry a pretty high risk of injury regardless of bindings. Knowing this, I would look at setting the release units more loose than tight.

Approach to Draft would pretty much be a lateral move. Of course Drafts have the ease of entry thing, and they also allow for much more forward ankle deflection. However, the only way I'd call them a hybrid is if it is meant, "all of the support of a hardshell with none of release options." Although I must say that I have never tried hardshells so I cannot qualify the first part of that statement. Carbon Wiley's are the wave of the future!

Thomas, He did ski with it, and was not bothered enough to remove it. Allthought if you've ever had the pleasure of meeting Mike Bray you'd know that the man could hid a goose and still run -35. I'll let you know if it's still on the handle this weekend.

Speaking of bindings, did you revive you Carbon Wiley's for the Vogue?

Hey Jim, Did it look something like this? I was walking down to the dock on Saturday and thought I was fielding a serious question about the arm-guard, and it turned into a, "look what I made with a $2 roll of duct tape!" Looks quite similar to Rabeneau design. http://i115.photobucket.com/albums/n293/ThomasWayne_2006/Rabeneau1.jpg

Why that appears to be one and only Tony Clifton

I don't think the website is up yet. When it's ready it will be at arm-guard.com (I think that's right) Shoot an e-mail to Thomas Wayne with a subject line something like: Arm-Guard Information Kit twcues@gci.net It's all in there. If you use paypal, you'll essentially write your own receipt. It's a good product, and I won't ski without one, except when I'm stupid enough to placate a bitchy boat crew (something that won't happen again) and forget to locate more some replacement ties. Straight away, it is unlikely that you will notice it there at all. Many skiers have given me strange looks, most were pretty positive once they took a closer look, and most have said it makes sense. It was the most talked about item until a Warp 8 came to the dock. There were a few, "well what about" questions, and the answer always was, "the major things you're trying to protect (your head and your humerus) are worth the tiny risk of hanging up your wrist." Although I personally believe that, if you manage to punch a perfectly flat hand through the opening, either the wrist-strap of your glove will be fat enough to keep the wrist out and that if the wrist manages to get through, the panel is flexible enough to let your hand come out with only a scrape.

I'll bite back. Arm-Guard First Impressions You used the wrong search. If it's waterski related, use the search at Ballofspray, it would have popped right up. You'd also find it over at thewaterskiforum.com but it's kind of difficult to wade past the arguments to find the information.

http://www.ski-it-again.com/php/skiitagain.php?topic=Search&postid=SIA06588 You might be able to buy one of the bags, or just get yourself enough to last you for 30 years. I think Overton's has a few between $30 and $40, and you can always shop around on ebay.

Similar to the wood ski tourney I like the idea of a standard ski tourney.  Tournament organizers choose the ski that will be used and arrange to have two skis on site. Ideally one would be for large skiers and one would be for small skiers, but if it's all in fun who really cares (maybe the 200lb skier when there's only a 65" ski) Ahead of time skiers will be informed of the insert pattern. Skiers will be allowed to use personal binders, provided they can be attached while the skier is next off the dock and it can be done so without modifying the ski. Each skier will be given four passes (no more and no less). The way I like it is for scores to be handicapped against the skiers first round score. The skier with the largest improvement over round one wins the event. Just for kicks I would make sure that the winning skier gets to keep the ski. These are the types of events we should be seeing and organizing at post-nationals tournaments. Events that will be a change of pace and fun for both the skiers and the tournament organizers. Maybe USA Waterski should push, if not sanction only, class F tournaments after nationals. I would love goofy, just-for-fun events. We always talk about it, and play around a bit on the weekends, but we have not taken the step to put it in the tournament.

Just an observation. Can it be as simple as just two aspects of the approach to speed control that have changed that are changing the way these systems pull? (I am not sure if this goes for Zero Off as well as Stargazer, all my experience is with Stargazer) 1. Chasing times. Instead of just running the program it was told to run and then telling you how long it took to get from gate to gate, it will now adjust the program on the fly and speed up or slow down depending on how quickly or slowly it has gotten to certain points in the course. With previous versions of Perfect Pass, if the times were fast or slow, the onus was on the driver to adjust the program by adding or subtracting RPMs. 2. Oversimplifing driver input. The skier weight is the most important that comes to mind. At times it seems like one more weight designation, either a light minus (L-), normal plus (N+), or heavy (H) would clean things up. We have an 06 MC with Stargazer and it is giving actuals at one ball and mid-course more often than not. But when the skier is very light (either by weight or by style) the one ball time is consistently fast. Oh well, I probably won't be skiing at regionals and will certainly not be skiing at nationals. I'm happy with the kinds of pulls I've gotten so far this year, except for the time I was pulled by an 04 Moomba with an old version of perfect pass. It's debatable whether StarGazer or Zero Off were ready when the season began and even still now, but the biggest mistake was making a decision to choose one system as the speed control of the future without providing a three to four year phase in period.

 Just so I can walk by the Goode booth and watch the faces turn red. http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v357/trauty86/102_0876.jpg?t=1212009450

So the grip safety on the Browning 1911 gave me a little inspiration. Create a release mechanism inside the handle much like a grip safety (Yes, the kind that magically appears when you say a concept out loud). If there is not a hand on the handle, one end of the bar would be free to disengage from the bridle. Possibly use some sort of cam to keep the handle together until 10 lbs pulls on the bar: so you could still get the handle out on the tips of your fingers in a turn like this... http://reginajaquess.com/Photos/06Skyview/Copy%20of%20IMG_8904.jpg I've got some great ideas for wing warping technology that would allow for some crazy awesome airplane performance profiles, unfortunately I've yet to run across the metal reforming technology of the T-1000. When I do I'll be ready for a small-scale proof of concept. Ideas free of technology are amazing!

It looks like your shorts are dragging in the water. http://www.overtons.com/assets/images/products/medium/13153_M1.jpg If that's the case then something like these, or not so baggy board shorts, would clear up the problem. They aren't the coolest looking trunks in the world but they will never drag in the water. Gladiator Neoprene Shorts

There is a section on the West Coast Slalom DVD that talks about the edge change.  This is a paraphrase of what I am able to remember: Once you begin to accelerate off the ball, and forces begin to build up, you push harder and harder with your legs (this is not necessarily to straighten your legs, but to maintain your position). As you begin the edge change (on the DVD they might call it a transfer) you release the pressure that you have built up. This will create that slingshot effect where the ski move outbound into the turn. The shorter the line, the greater the forces, the more your knees spring up when you release pressure at the edge change. I probably just butchered a Mike Suyderhoud gem. I'll come back and edit this when I get a change review the DVD and put down an exact quote.

I figured as much, but that comment caught me a little off guard.