Gloersen

good share @Skoot1123 if I may respectfully add... an indelible inspirating influence... 03-2014

if mounted at angle in cup holder, will need ZO head unit for angle mount functionality; accelerometers oriented properly.

@Lovell - could be that the toe bar is mounted on the plate too far forward. also the toe bar may have been supplied with spacers that need to be placed between the toe bar and flange mounting nuts; this gives the bar more height and allows the bar to be mounted on the plate properly further back (perhaps 1 hole back from where it may be currently improperly positioned) such that the toe of the shell protrudes through more (if recalled correctly, could be the spacers are needed for >/= size 8 shells). Follow the supplied directions closely if available or refer to their .pdf Reflex User Manual

@JeffSurdej - based on the brief entry of the AWSA news release, (3rd item from bottom) it still seems confusing as to how ZBS is to applied to score for "C" tournaments. Assuming LOC approval, will scores above age division max be scored at that speed and applied to rankings? E.g.; the scenario posted above based on the "clarification" seems invalid. It'd be good to know definitively, and stated specifically, for those who may be assuming otherwise if planning such for a Class C. Clarification Regarding AWSA Rule 10.06C With the changes that occurred in changing the ZBS rule, the American Water Ski Association Rules Committee discovered that when the rule was amended the following (below) portion of rule 10.06C should have been kept in place. There may still be skiers who want to ski above their age division maximum speed and accept the lower speed as their score. It will not put them on the IWWF ranking list this way, nor use the new ZBS matrix, but it will allow some skiers, maybe for health reasons, to use this option. The scoring program has already been upgraded and to have two types of scoring for the few that want this option is not a procedure that will be offered. So to score this option the skier will be started at the age division maximum speed and the times will need to be verified manually. 10.06C: A skier may elect to start at a speed higher than his division maximum speed, up to his respective Open Division maximum speed, and may not return to his division maximum speed on subsequent passes. Any passes skied at that higher speed shall receive credit for buoys as though they were being run at his division maximum speed.

@jhughes - Concur. Oil filter location could much improved too.

PCM Manual H5/H6 @jhughes - page 23 for type 6 quarts. https://goo.gl/K3OPxD

Used it but would much prefer the feel of the trick mode slalom values. Pretty sure the current “+” setting is basically the original release version of ZO (pre rev P101?) with the exception of the 1.6% above baseline higher pre-gate speed (vs 0.8%). IMO the “+” version would be more swing friendly (like trick mode slalom) if the Kd gains were similar to current “+” but with clipping values similar to the non “+” settings. As “+” is now the clipping values allow too much speed deviation which lessens the RPM range in response to load. It would feel better with higher RPM deviations and tighter speed tolerances (clipping values). Also the higher gate speed makes no sense; why come in at 34.8(vs 34.5)/36.6(vs 36.3) and have the boat not respond as much to efficient load for the gate shot? I’d prefer a response more similar to a good 2B to 3B. It sounds like from other’s info that the original ideas behind a “+” setting would have potentially been better at creating more of a swing mode slalom (Higher Kd's with lower clipping values?) but the engine revs in response led to some uneasiness; who knows? It also seems that perhaps some of the original engineering minds involved with ZO may no longer be in the picture. Perhaps something positive (no "+" pun intended) will shake out eventually.

ditto on prompt Class "C" roll-out

This is clearly a departure from what is stated for Class "C's" The rule language should again be amended to reflect what is stated in the AWSA post. Thanks for pointing this out @ntx : Clarification Regarding AWSA Rule 10.06C Posted by: usawsOn: 04/05/2017 15:19:41In: Water Skiing With the changes that occurred in changing the ZBS rule, the Rules Committee discovered that when the rule was amended the following portion of rule 10.06C should have been kept in place. There may still be skiers who want to ski above their age division maximum speed and accept the lower speed as their score. It will not put them on the IWWF ranking list this way nor use the new ZBS matrix, but it will allow some skiers maybe for health reasons to use this option.

may be too late - Russian skiers have a contract on it pending verification of USIgnite gigabit internet access.

@jackrash - Trick Mode for slalom feels like having the throttle in the handle for the skier (especially an "A" setting imo). Load; throttle applied, unload; throttle lets up quickly. Engine RPM spread is significantly greater and more acute, speed spread is tighter (less); unlike PP classic. It does not feel like a "constant-speed freight train", imo that is when the pull has very little RPM spread. For some skiers it feels more functional in producing a "swing" compared to current ZO settings. Definitely easier on the body imo.

@shyskier – put it simply accurately, octane is just a standard measure applied to gasoline that indicates its resistance to knocking (higher octane = more knock-resistant; that’s all) and various additives, cleaners are present across the spectrum for the most part. The terms “Super”, “Premium”, vs. “Regular” etc. are misleading since they connote greater energy delivery with higher octane, but that is simply not the case. Lower octane fuels are actually more volatile, that is, they ignite more easily. In fact they ignite so easily (lower octane fuels) that the ignition timing has to be retarded to prevent pre-ignition (knocking) which is harmful to the engine (big time in severe instances). In fact EtOH can be added to make fuel less volatile and thus yield a higher octane rating (but it doesn't release more energy upon ignition for a given mass). Since the advent of ECMs (“engine computers”) along with an array of sensors, including the knock-sensors, lower octane fuels can be used since the sensors will relay to the ECM any pre-ignition and the timing will be retarded accordingly. A higher octane fuel is simply harder to ignite under pressure thus the timing can be advanced by the ECM (since no pre-ignition is detected) and the burn (ignition) of the fuel can take place under a more optimal phase of the piston stroke (maximum compression). Thus an engine such as the H5/H6 discussed can deliver more torque and more HP if the timing is optimized for a given octane fuel; the ECM makes use of MBT (Minimum advanced timing for Best Torque) tech. That is for the given compression ratio of the H5; 93 octane makes the most of MBT. PCM will likely reply by indicating using 93 octane will maximize torque and HP (it would be good if PCM indicated how much percentage increase with 93 vs 87, - don’t hold your breath for that data) but 87 (not less) is perfectly safe and will not reduce the life expectancy of the engine (assuming no knocking). It’s pretty straight forward stuff – 93 octane/EtOH free might be most suitable for your peace of mind but it’ll leave less $$$ for consuming other EtOH based fuels (which may or may not enhance performance)…

pretty sure that's a dismount score of 90 with ZBS - regardless of speed

@B_S is correct in that higher octane (93) will yield higher performance (more torque, more HP). Minimum advance timing for best torque (MBT) is not limited in the H5; higher octane - more torque. However, the chosen statement, "no advantage", holds true in that these engines have an ECM tune calibrated to run effectively on 87. The engines's HP though is likely rated using 93 fuel and "optimal performance" may be at 93 (as stated in the manual linked for reference, page 22) but it would be debatable if such yields any advantage. That is will the pull be better or the fuel economy? Both probably negligible in terms of pull or fuel consumption/cost. If short set-ups and/or high altitude (although engine knock is less likely at higher altitudes - less compression, and timing advance not as much a factor with higher octane) are issues then 93 is something to consider. FWIW I run ethanol-free 91 in the H5-5.3DI promo for peace of mind but 87 E-10 in the group 196 343. For our application (running buoys) there is no notable difference in performance; after all, it's all measured by buoy count isn't it?

higher octane would offer no advantage. if compelled to purchase more expensive fuel, choose ethanol-free (probably 89 octane), especially if the boat sits for extended periods.

@Horton - the new GT in that photo above appears at least to have a beveled top edge (compared to the 90° top edge of the prior GT) above the already thin sidewall through the tail. Will that give it a little tail lift through the turn comparatively? The topside view of your photo sure makes it appear so (the angular deflection of the graphics along a bevel above the sidewall), and doesn't appear to be the same as the GT tail pictured below ('16 GT with '17 graphics?) ride it and tell us about it.

@Horton - both 67's? the tail of the new GT appears a bit wider?

just wanna stand like this... and have a 1/3/5 like this... ...AND...never do the walk of shame in Leida talk about standing tall though in the glide...

@Wish - spot on.

@jcamp - as currently stated; correct.

Lengthy thread and maybe missed it, but how does the ZBS rule as currently cited affect current Records? E.g. if an M3 skis 1.5@41/36mph (115.5 buoys) does this exceed the current record of 1.25@43/34mph (115.25 buoys)?...and so on... To reiterate, compromise; retain the current division speed limits, implement ZBS up to those limits, and maybe even just class C (mandatory) for 2017 and re-evaluate at the end of the 2017 season.

zbs=123=3@43/36? Nautique or Malibu? (classified?)

When the proposed ZBS rule was cited it was surprising to see an allowance for current division speed caps to be exceeded up to 36 (M only). For the most part skiing ZBS below cap speed made sense to entice < level 8 skiers to participate in tournaments more. The effect on >level 8 skiers does present a strategic debacle. What Chad states, keep the current division speed caps, makes sense. Maybe a reasonable compromise would be to amend the proposed rule to follow the ZBS grid but only up to current division speed caps. I doubt skiing a speed lower than the cap would have much impact on level 8 skiers, certainly not mid-level 8 on up. This preserves the current higher level competitive status among all divisions but allows less competitive skiers (for the most part level 7 and under skiers and it's applicable to all, so "fair") a chance to run a few more passes at shorter lines and derive some vindication for their effort; more fun for more skiers as well as retain current competitive cachet.

.