Bruce_Butterfield

Kudos for wpb club for stepping up and offering something outside the traditional formats. 
I do like the Adams idea of the 6 buoy adder for over 35 “pros”.

But  I’m holding out for adding 6 buoys for every 10 years over 35yo. Now that would be a fun event!  

American Skier was around since at least the early '80s.  Ben was a promotor and may have had some investment in the company circa 2000 when it had financial trouble.  The mid 80's vintage boats were as good as or better than the big 3 at the time.  I had an '86 American Skier that was awesome.

From my memory hole:

Ski-Ray.  A 3 event boat from SeaRay.  Ricky McCormick had a hand in that.

Infinity - KLP and Rob Shirly in the late '90s

Toyota - good first attempt, but didn't get traction.  Even had the Lexus V8 engine 

Tige - mid 90s

Ski Centurion (maker of Carbon Pro) had some really good boats, and some not so good, in the '90s

Building another 3 event boat is a tough nut to crack.  Huge investment, small market, and you have to stand out.  And be persistent.  Any Billionaire skiers out there with some extra cash?

Interesting topic.  We recently had a driver test for Regular and the Sr testing drivers told him he needed to start driving with 1 hand vs 2.

So I played with this a little and noticed that if I had 2 hands on the wheel my “connection” from the wheel to the boat was at my butt.  So there is a lot of “slack” [go ahead and insert joke here] between the movement of the wheel and the driver’s body – shoulders, core all have to move to move the wheel.  When I use 1 hand (as I have for years), I have much more fine motor control of the wheel, i.e. I can move the steering wheel with just my wrist and have much faster, and more subtle control of the wheel since my right arm is anchored on the arm rest and provides a solid connection.

On the other hand, one of my favorite elite level drivers used 2 hands and moved the Holy Snot out of the wheel.  As boat judge, watching out of the corner of my eye, I have never seen any driver move the wheel more aggressively.  But behind the boat, it was awesome.  I think he was the exception, not the rule.

While there is very high degree of “what you get use to” and “what the driver is comfortable with”, I’m definitely of the opinion that 1 hand on the wheel is better for the majority of drivers.  Too bad so few people learn to drive a car with a manual transmission these days.

@MarcusBrownyes, mostly agreement.  My arc length is a simplification because the actual path of the skier/ski/COM gets insanely complicated and I don't think there is a reasonable way to model and get close.  Overhead drone video may provide some cool insights, BUT the path will vary from skier to skier, AND buoy to buoy for the same skier.

The river analogy is still valid - the boat (current) speed is the same, so that frame of reference is constant and can be ignored if we are only looking at variations between line lengths.  The "distance" changes since the handle is not the classic pendulum and will accelerate/decelerate with the skier and be more of the square wave path discussed before.  Yes the square wave path will be longer than the simple arc.

My point is the math/physics dictate that the minimum path is longer with a shorter rope.  Longer path in the same time requires higher average speed.  IMO, that's the fundamental reason shorter lines are more difficult.  I think we are in agreement that minimum path is not the same as optimum path.  

@dchristman my slide rule doesn't have those fancy graphing capabilities, but if we make it easier and just look at the handle, at 38 off the handle is 90 deg with the boat and the buoy to buoy arc is 35.3m.  Solving the other direction for the same arc length at 15 off yields an angle of 55 deg and the handle being 3.5m (11.6ft) outside the buoy line.  In other words if you ski 15 off and get the handle 11.6ft outside each buoy, you will be traveling the same distance as you would at 38.

Looks Iike the mold for the new $4000 ski

The real problem is that artificial intelligence is no match for human stupidity.

I remember reading David Nelson’s stuff a few years back and he was most definitely wrong in his conclusions.  Skiing a shorter line absolutely requires a longer distance travelled.

I will try to explain without making Horton’s head hurt too much (although that is a nice benefit)

For simplicity, lets assume we are on a river with a 36mph current and the slalom course is floating by and the “pylon” is a bridge abutment.  This lets us consider only the path of the handle from 1 to 2 ball.  The path of the boat is separate and the same for all line lengths, so it is “cancelled out”.  The distance from buoy to buoy is simply the arc length the handle travels.  Yeah, the handle is not the “exact” path, but for comparison between line lengths its perfectly valid.  The change in the skier’s “reach” between line lengths is in the noise.  i.e. the line length change between 35 and 38 is 3 feet, while the change in skier’s reach may be a few inches.  

The length of handle path is simply the radius of the arc times the angle moved (in radians), or L=Rho x Theta for anyone who remembers 10^th grade geometry.  Even though the rope (radius) gets shorter, the angle traveled gets much greater. 

The arc length at 38 off is 40% more than the arc length at 15 off.  The skier has 2.53 sec to get from 1 buoy to the next.  Longer distance traveled in the same time requires a higher average speed.

QED

Other comments:

This a comparison of the minimum distance traveled for each line length.  The “square wave” effect of the shorter lines will increase the distance travelled even more.

The “average speed” in the chart above is ONLY the radial speed.  To get total speed requires vectorially adding the boat speed back in. (now I get to make Horton’s head hurt!)

For anyone questioning the validity of using a stationary pylon and fast current in the river, ask yourself if you are at the drag races, does anyone factor in that the earth is moving thousands of mph through space when determining the faster car?  The movement of the earth is the same for both cars, so it “cancels out” the same as boat speed when only considering differences between line lengths.  For the geeks, this is relative motion.

While is certainly possible to measure path lengths from a drone, I suspect it would be very difficult and have a high margin of error.

I'm pretty sure that Mapple dude could run 39 on a 2x6.  But yeah the Elite was incredible when everything was right.

Sounds like a definite "project boat".  If the price is right and you are willing to work on it, it may be worthwhile.  Otherwise let @RichardDoane take it on😁

@Dragoagreed.

From the scorer's and winner's perspective 6@39NC is the same score as 0@41.  Not exactly fair, but that's the rule.  The last thing we need is ANOTHER rule for oddball cases like this.

So @lpskier is this what you were looking for?

I had disagreement with the slack line rule from the beginning.  Too confusing and way too much intepretation to be consistent.  After it passed, I learned that the reason for it was some ultra short line guys were getting to the line of boat guides AHEAD of the boat, creating an obviously very dangerous situation.  IMO, the better solution would be to disqualify the skier for creating a dangerous situation, the same way a jumper is disqualified for passing between the boat and ramp.  Get back to the line of boat guides with the handle in your hand (behind the boat), let it go, or try to hang on and fail, should score the full buoy.  But my opinion isn't the rule.

@Drago 0@41 is the same score as 6@39, so still a tie if skier B goes inside 1 ball.

@ETskier you raise a valid point that idk if lpskier intended or not.  The so called "safety feature" is another dumb idea IMO and only adds additional confusion.  If the judges call skier A as 5 1/2 if he did not have a "tight line" when he got to the line of boat guides, then skier B is the winner and not a dumbass afterall.  

IMO the rule change to require a "tight line" was a really bad idea, but another topic from what I think lpskier intended?

It’s a tie. But skier B has to buy the beer for being a dumbass. 
Same score for both skiers, no extra points for getting out the gates vs only getting to line of boat guides. Assuming skier B continued and got outside of 1@41 he would have been the winner. Getting outside of 1 is not a given at 41. 

At regionals or nationals that would be a runoff assuming 6@39 placed in top 5. 

at any other tournament the winner would be determined By single highest score but no one would care. Especially since skier B would be buying the beer. 

@Horton I dare ya to try a set on the Maha on the bottom and post video. Excellent choice for your backup ski!

There is a reason it’s called a half jack. 

You’re right. I don’t believe it. 

@swbcaI would definitely go with the Vortex for occasional skiers.  Way easier to get up, very stable and allow you to go slower.

The bindings on any type of combo will suck.  There really isn't a good way (at least what I've seen) to have a wide range of adjustability outside of the ancient design of sliding heel cup.

Neither of these will "turn" well if used as a slalom, but the wider ski will turn much better than an old wood combo and be more controllable.  If your guest is a young, in-shape, experienced slalomer they will want a real slalom ski.

Look for the wide shaped skis. I have a pair of O’Brien vortex that are great for beginners or seasoned citizens that haven’t skiied in awhile. Other manufacturers make similar versions but they are a huge improvement over the combos of yesteryear. 

It would be alot more interesting if they combined it with cornhole.

Thats a great video of @DWin the red mustang.

The Krispy Creme of course

@Horton are you sure that's MS?  An old friend at his new home sent this recent pic

@AdamCord I have a 200 with 6.0l and the standard prop is the 668.  Basically same as 422 with 0.100" more cup 

@Rednucleus the 409 Hp 6L runs on standard 87 octane.  There were a small number of 450Hp 6L that did require higher octane.

@RichardDoanewas the 4000 hr engine showing any signs of getting worn out?  Low power, oil consumption, low compression, etc? Or are you replacing proactively and because you really want the 6l?  

Curious if 4k hrs is a reasonable rule of thumb for when a well maintained engine is getting close to end of life.

@jpwhit ZO has a screen for you to input the engine and it "adjusts" behind the scenes.

Pretty sure RAWski was poking fun at a recent thread https://ballofspray.com/forums/topic/50672-the-60-engine-is-a-dud/#comment-840402