Thomas Wayne

That is EXACTLY the type of fall we invented the ARM-GUARDtm for - she could just as easily have stuffed her arm right through the bridle. TW

Watching the video of that run at Covington, LA (BOS front page) Iwas struck by something that seems very unusual. There appears to beNO crowd whatsoever. No matter where you look on the shoreline youmight see a total of half-dozen people, and not very many of them seemto actually be spectating. What the hell is THAT all about? TW

On Boody's video I loved the pre-release at 2:13! Hard to ride out the glide when your back foot comes loose without warning... TW

A copy of 32 Accounts arrived in today's mail; my wife and I sat down and watched it tonight after dinner. Being quite familiar with the details of Aidan Willers' 2008 arm-through-handle injury, and knowing (from the trailer) that it would be discussed during this film I wasn't surprised by that segment. My wife, on the other hand, had no idea what was coming - and as it unfolded on the TV she began sobbing. She says that seeing his severely scarred arm and hearing the description of his accident brought up a flood of memories from when I had a nearly identical accident in 2006. That injury was, as the emergency room physician told us, just about as bad as it gets. Right before my first surgery our orthopedic surgeon said to my wife, "Remember from your wedding vows the part about 'for better or for worse'? This is the 'for worse' part." This footage can be found within the segment featuring Nicole Aurthur (Aidan's wife). Anyone who thinks they're too good a skier to suffer such an injury needs to pay attention to this segment. Anyone who imagines that they're safe because they'll "just throw the handle away in a fall" should listen to Aidan describe his fall. And anyone who looks at his ruined arm and figures that arm-through-handle injuries are so rare it's worth the gamble is, in my frank opinion, stupid.  TWÂÂ

I second OF's suggestion for the Senate C. Richard D.'s early review of it sold me on trying one, and I skied it for about 3 weeks. Ultimately I choose an A1 for my next ski, but during my time on the Senate I was VERY impressed wtih how forgiving it was. Three of my ski partners tried it, two of them thought it held more promise than either the RS-1 or the Elite (as did I). (For the sake of completeness I should mention that the fourth player couldn't turn three balls with the thing, but we are all at a loss to explain that oddity). I weighed 220 this summer, and the Senate C I tried is a 67". I also tried the 69" Senate, and found it to be too much ski for full speed (34.2 mph). At 32 and slower the 69" was actually pretty impressive; it's huge (a canoe, actually), but the damn thing turns on a dime(!). Ultimately the 67" was better for full speed and shorter lines, and my partner that kept it regularly skied it into -38'. If you try a 69" I recommend that you force yourself to ignore how big it feels - if you ski it as you normally would you'll be very surprised at how nimble that behemoth can actually be. I'm pretty sure the Senate mold is essentially identical in sidecut & rocker to the RS-1 - it's just a little wider. This added width means a 67" Senate actually has 3 sq-inches greater surface area than a 68" RS-1, but the silbing relationship is unmistakable, and I would feel very confident recommending this ski for you. It's very forgiving of technical errors, and I can guarantee it won't hold you back.  TW

You missed the end gate.

I've seen R. D. do better, but he's still fun to watch. For the record, Richard, it might be noted that the sizing on your ARM-GUARD is to your own specifications, and leaves a much larger opening than we recommend - especially for someone not using "clinchers". Just keep your arm out and you'll be fine... TW

I was told most cases of plantar fasciitis can be remedied with periodic taping, proper supportive insoles and consistent self-administered PT. At one point I almost couldn't walk at all, but the above approach worked for me and I haven't been bothered with it for years now. TW

Hire a licensed surveyor - in the long run it will save you time, money and aggravation. TW

Some of the most remarkable footage on the EiW2 DVD can be found in the bonus section, under "Sets 2". Three or four skiers into that section there is some GREAT video of Thomas Moore shot from above and slightly behind. If you ever wanted to witness counter-rotation that begins at the ankles and runs up through the knees, hips and finally shoulders - this is it. Keep your eyes on his 1-3-5 turns and run it in ultra-slow motion. TW <---(wants to ski like T-Mo when he grows up)

Airplane wings are shaped to generate lift on the top side, and for that reason their cross-section is asymmetrical. If a wing's cross-section were symmetrical on both sides - something that is fairly necessary for a ski fin - the wing couldn't generate lift and the plane probably couldn't fly. On a yacht (presume you mean sailboat-type) the keel serves multiple functions, most notably to contain and position the boat's ballast at a low point in order to prevent capsizing. Keels are generally shaped - in fact, its a rather complex science to determine a specific keel's shape. However, the keel is always placed at or very near the pivot point of the hull (roughly centered fore and aft), which would equate to a fin being directly under the bindings on a ski. I can tell you from experience that won't work. A more apt analogy to a fin would be a sailboat's RUDDER, and those are generally similar to a ski fin (flat). TW

I know that the insert location on the A1 is remarkably different from the O'Brien Sixam 2. Measuring from the tail of a 68.75 A1 the forward-most inserts are about 40.1875", whereas the same inserts are about 41.5" (!) from the tail of the 69" Sixam. With that much difference it's hard to know where to start with a binding. TW

We were there (thanks to JH). It was cool. TW

I've seen Bob LaPoint on an O'Brien 66 EP Mach 1 that was airbrushed to look like a first-generation Jobe (in the 70's) and I've seen Chris Parrish on a Sixam that was airbrushed to look like Monza (in this millenium)... If history has taught us anything it's taught us that what they say they're skiing on and what they actually are skiing on may be two different things. TW

I'd be concerned that a front foot lift might tend to move the ski underneath (or even "behind") the skier in a way that would be counterproductive to efficient skiing.  TW

"Or you could just buy a Goode. They don’t break down."  No, they just break up. TW

Due to the top edge design, the fin can't "drop out" of the Elite fin box unless the center clamping screw is entirely missing, but a suddenly loose fin would still suck. Worse than that, however, is a fin that slightly "adjusts" itself without your knowledge... TW

My guess is it's JH in his younger days, looking for some sweet young flower to... um...pollinate. (There may have been alcohol involved.) TW

Are you kidding? Who wouldn't want to... er... hibernate with that? TW

"I paid good money for my gear and it is the best. What ever you guys are using is junk." This principle is fully explained in the link below, beginning at around 2:06. TW http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MvgN5gCuLa (Carlin on the difference between stuff and sh*t)

We brought two new-in-box Elites up for our core group to try, thinking at least two guys would want one (everyone in this group skis in the -35' to -38' range). We only put bindings on one, leaving this one in the box. Ultimately only one guy opted to keep skiing on it, so we never even opened the other box. For the record, we ALL thought the ski has huge potential, and if you're skiing is technically perfect (or near-perfect) it would definitely be a superior choice. Unfortunately, I don't ski good enough for this ski, and my buddies mostly felt the same way. I think time will prove the Elite to be a love-it-or hate-it ski, but I know a lot of skiers - undoubtedly better skiers than I'll ever be - absolutely worship the thing. So rather than open the second black box we're cutting our losses. TW

dsmart, Same block. Thanks for the help - we'll try your measuring methods (& numbers) on his next visit. TW

We just got a new player at my lake, skiing on a 5 year old Kidder 7000, and I'm looking for some suggested fin numbers for this ski. It has the "internal" fin block and he's been skiing it with some [seemingly] odd settings: the DFT was almost nonexistent (fin all the way back to the tail of the ski), 2.453 depth (shallow?) and 6.935 length (excessive tip?). One of the odd things about this fin is that the leading edge of the fin is almost vertical, meaning that the length is hard to change much, unless the tip is shoved WAY up into the block. I realize that it may be hard to find numbers for an older ski like this one, but I figured I'd try for this guy's sake... TW

All right... screw it. I have a brand new, NON-BLEM, never skied on 68.5 for sale - it's nevereven been out of the plastic bag or the black box it comes in. Also full warranty. $1400including shipping. Beat that, JH. TW

Four of us in my group have ridden the 68.5 Elite, and we range from 190 lbs to 220 lbs. No one thought it was too small for that weight range. I have a brand new, NON-BLEM, never skied on 68.5 for sale - it's never even been out of the plastic bag or the black box it comes in. $1600 including shipping. TW