Gloersen

@ESPNSkier

Check skier weight/crew weight?

The 33.7 is based on end course times?

PPC or PPSG?

Also 3025 seems low (though that would yield slow times) for 32.3 baseline RPM, but depends on the prop, etc.

Sometimes a prior heavy crew weight entry gets overlooked. You may have ~ 150 lbs too much.

Thanks @John Brooks for pointing that out. Maybe the RC should re-examine

If the Advancement and Scoring matrix (used for Juniors in “C”/”F”) were used for all divisions it would provide what some (many?) are searching. Anyone could choose to ski 36 (including women) in any division or at lower speeds if so desired.

Just have to keep moving either to the Right and/or Down in the matrix. Would there really be a downside if it piques additional interest in tournament skiing?

Variations in speed using GPS data only would be sufficient in itself to initiate brisk throttle up/down responses based on the Kd gains (A-B-C) at trick ski speeds, assuming a reasonable GPS signal response rate.

Point here remains the same; if slalom skiing in ZO trick mode offers a better pull with legit ABT’s (as of yet undisclosed), then it would be quite informative to know what parameters are being used. For example, knowledge of the A-B-C/1-2-3 parameters (used in slalom mode shown below) is very informative and helpful when trying to understand what one feels behind the boat.

I’ve emailed Enovation Controls inquiring as to what parameters are used by ZO in trick mode:

support at zerogps dot com

The more email inquiries received maybe the greater likelihood of response.

well heck, maybe ZO can throw in 9 more settings choices; X-Yeti-Z/1-2-3 to emulate ZO trick mode slalom skiing.

Add the "+" option to each of those while were at it...

At slower trick speeds and no need for ABT, modulating the throttle response with accelerometers wouldn't be as critical.

If G's data is used in Trick mode and the clipping values remain the same for the given 1-2-3 as in Slalom mode, then other than the gate speed = to baseline speed, the pull should feel the same.

If clipping values are indeed used and different, it sure would be good to know what those differences are, if reputable skiers find them "better".

However, if the ABT's are not in tolerance, why practice in this mode? Again it would be helpful to know.

The fact that pro skiers, or the like, are practicing or trying this, continues to show a need for further evolution of the speed control for the better.

This is among the most frustrating aspects of ZO; a complete lack of representation by Enovation Controls in educating a rather sophisticated, highly particular, if not quite peculiar (based on photo above), subset of consumer-users of their product! A reasonable technical manual publication would help.

Using ZO in Trick mode for Slalom skiing, speed based, I believe does not make use of the system’s accelerometers; i.e., it is strictly speed based. The selected A-B-C/1-2-3 settings in trick mode really only apply to the letters (accelerometer feedback data for selected clipping values 1-2-3 is not in play in trick mode); skier pull quality is essentially just A-B-C.

Of course a skier can select Recreational Trick mode and choose an RPM based speed setting, e.g., 3540 rpm, but no pull type setting is available, so not sure how the engine responds with the throttle (default B?). But there's not much good to come of slalom skiing in RPM mode (unless a PP equipped boat with dysfunctional SG).

Just doesn’t seem like much point in pulling (if that much different/"better") a slalom skier in ZO Trick mode if the pull is purely speed based (no g’s used). It’d be interesting to see what the ABT is just out of curiosity, but as has been stated, no timing data.

Pretty sure this is the case, could be wrong.

Edit –

Also, it’s possible (conjecture) that ZO’s new ECI antenna, with a higher sampling rate, may allow a quicker response using purely speed based feedback compared to older ZO versions (Garmin pucks). This might obviate what would otherwise be too much variation in speed; might be fun to try behind a DI boat, depends on one’s buoy chasing goals.

It would be good if the RC would consider implementing the 2016 Options for Juniors rule [10.06 (d-g)], therefore using the Advancement and Scoring matrix [10.06(g)], page 49, for ALL skier divisions in class “C” tournaments for 2017.

Something similar may have been suggested in another thread.

Some may argue against it citing an unfair impact on Level 8 status, Nationals eligibility, etc. Considering the low level of participation in Nats; it’s moot.

@solski – the T&B format (13.03) provides one “fall” (fail) per skier per tournament and is a reasonable innovation in effect that provides what you suggest.

Granted, T&B is “C/F” only and not mandatory for a skier, they may choose to ski all sanctioned rds singularly, (an additional 3 minutes is generally planned/skier/segment when selecting the T&B option).

However experience indicates it is most effective/efficient running these T&B formats when each skier opts to utilize it; essentially providing a mulligan to each skier’s final round; a 2nd rd with a shot at redemption (3rd rd).

More innovative ideas are always welcome.

if a screw can be threaded, consider epoxying it in place; maybe it can then back-out the insert, won't hurt to try.

Can also try to use a drill bit just barely greater than the i.d. of the insert being sure that the insert doesn't advance forward. If the bit grabs tightly, reversing it may back out the insert.

Finally, can try advancing drill bit diameters until the insert fragments, being careful not to advance the insert or drill through the bottom laminate sheet. If the insert is brass, should go quickly.

I acquired the OB4 release & plate prior to awareness of the split but am using the MOB boot plate with OB4 release.

The ability to use different hardshells has been a plus (the fit/comfort/compliance of the GPS being the best imo), but the main reason for the switch was the added safety (conceptually) of the multi-directional release. Been on the system since August (~75 sets) released smoothly maybe 3x with offside tip stuffs, 1x with a buoy impact; all good.

About 6 weeks ago, while experimenting with the OB4 plate (alloy/pie slice shaped) when loading from 3 to 4 (LFF) I pre-released and the plate trashed the sidewall of my ski. I since increased the load on the spring to ~68 ft-lbs (it was ~50 ft-lbs{170lbs/6’0”}). The MOB plate (shape/height) seems to perform better so I have stuck with it since.

However, today I pre-released again (this time with the MOB boot plate), while max loading about 10’ inside the buoy line out of the onside turn. I was trying a different fin setting and was needing to jump on (pressure) the front to get the tip to engage out of the onside, in any event it was manageable and certainly not a “release force” scenario. Nonetheless, what resulted was a high acceleration, pre-release faceplant OTF/scorpion (@Wish nomenclature); I don’t have too many of those left in my c-spine.

I noticed after collecting all the parts on-board that the “friction pad” normally adhered to the bottom of the MOB boot plate was missing; thus done skiing for the day. I describe it as a friction pad because it seems without this frictional coefficient (interface between the boot plate and aluminum (mounted release plate – blue in pic) that forward slide may be too easy allowing the plunger to be compressed with less force. Could be with the MOB aluminum plate (less holes cut out compared to OB4 aluminum pictured) that the frictional component is greater. Either way the pad below the MOB composite boot plate would preferably be more assuredly affixed. Maybe that desired texture can be incorporated into the plate itself.

As much as I would like to stay with this system, it’s not giving me the confidence that it’s not going to do this again. So back to my prior hardshell and more conventional release mechanism.

Finally, I’m riding a T3 (best ski ever!), each pre-release was at high load inside the line coming out of the turn. If indeed the torque slot does allow the ski to twist more than the conventional ski, whether this causes a loss of integrity between the boot plate and aluminum plate enhancing a pre-release scenario; who knows?

Lots of variables.

It’s a system with great promise, but like all high-end slalom equipment; the user needs to be aware of many different aspects of that equipment, assess the risk/benefit ratio, and choose accordingly.

...just my opinion.

Concur with availability of hard data to corroborate driver ability. Maybe in the not too distant future ECV can be archived on line (at least for a season at a time).

Of course “C’s” should remain less complex, but if the tech can be made readily available; every tournament should be used as a means to educate and improve our driving skills.

It's always favorably impressive to witness top-class drivers take the time to review their ECV on site at the completion of the event.

Correlating performance results with drivers and making such readily available would be good as well. I assume the data is buried in the WSTIMS database. @Roger – (looking forward to you at the helm again soon, haven’t seen 11.25 since) that slice of spreadsheet posted was compiled (edited by me) from the online scorebook and the knowledge that you pulled that T&B segment, but not a direct online file that could be found. However, it would be good to have that kind of info tabulated and pdf’d from the database.

@Horton - guessing Dave ought get some pre-preg out of the freezer after posting that result.

Stock settings?

"Clipping Values" determine the system tolerances above and below baseline speed; 1 is the tightest tolerance (least delta speed), 3 is the most tolerant (greater delta). The system only responds when out of tolerance.

"Kd Gains" determine how the system responds when tolerances are exceeded (either above or below tolerated deviations from baseline speed).

Most of the explanations put forth in online forums regarding what the letter and number actions imply have been inaccurate.

The chart is accurate and thus best to focus on what those parameters actually impart.

Otherwise, just ski a setting that gives the best results.

Check the timing if you have access to diagnostics (Diacom).

The timing may need to be advanced, especially if the engine is loping at idle (though there is some tendency at proper timing for this to occur with the Enovation Controls ECM conversion in an Excalibur 330).

@PT Mike - Chances are your ZO system was operating on one functional puck for a while. Among the reasons ZO went in-house with its proprietary antenna is due to the high failure rate of the Garmin pucks as well as Garmin changes to the firmware which created ZO compatibility issues.

If you can find a Garmin compatible puck, it may well cost about the same as ZO's ECI puck, so it makes more sense to go with the ZO (time will tell if more reliable) ECI puck, especially if you can borrow a $250 ECOM cable to re-flash the head unit.

Reputedly, the ZO ECI puck has a greater frequency response rate, which may be an advantage, assuming you're looking for the most up to date ZO type pull, considering the re-power on your MC.