Bruce_Butterfield

OB and Bud, Let's turn this around for minute. Can you explain exactly why you consider speed and angle to be a bad thing? With the laws of physics being the being what they are, if you are going to get out the end on a shorter rope, you are going to have more of both. Sorry, you might as well try to repeal the law of gravity as run a shorter rope with less speed and angle. I think what is driving this train of thought is that many skiers get out of control when they get lots of speed and angle, or they will bite off more than they can handle and give it all back to the boat. This may not be as solid as the law of gravity, but its darn close. So, I think a better answer is that you want absolutely as much angle and speed as you can get while maintaining control and being smooth. The bad news is that this is a lot harder than trying to ski “efficiently”, but will get you more buoys in the long run. Food for thought.

 Brad, if you loose speed when you're early, its because you come off the handle too soon. Holding the handle longer will keep your speed and energy. MS, you need to switch from Southern Canadian to English and get rid of that Shiner Bock accent. Maybe then, the rest of us could understand you. You also need to quit pulling like a junior girl. 6balls, note that we are talking about “ideal†path. How many of us, including the high end skiers, actually ski an “ideal†path all the time? When any of us get to our harder passes we turn more downcourse than we would like and get farther away from the “ideal†path. The goal is still to apex well in front of the buoy and backside every turn, even though that doesn't happen every time. If you can ski the “ideal†path on any given line, you probably won't be swimming for another 2 loops. One of the biggest “Ah ah†moments I've had is from Andy's video a few years back where he talks about creating space in front of the buoy. When you have space, you can deal with all kinds of mistakes and still backside the buoy. More space gives you more margin for error.

 MS, what makes you think you want the apex at the buoy at shorter lines? That is a surefire way to get late. You want the apex to be as far South as you can and still get around the buoy. Put another way, you always want to be finishing the turn when you get to the buoy, not be in the middle of it. It doesn't matter if its -15 or -41. I think the main reason you don't see high end skiers really wide at 32 off is that its and easy pass and they are using less than 100% effort. They are also capable of very sharp turns with little effort, so they don't need the big school bus turn to backside the buoy. If you look at the sketch of ideal skier path in my last article, it shows what I think is the ideal path for a relatively long line. If it was -39, the apex would obviously be narrower (E-W), but at the same N-S point, and the completion of the turn would be at the same point. Its also key that with the shorter lines, the skier will carry more speed and be able to carry a flatter arc (narrow E-W) while crossing the buoy line at the same points as a longer line.

 Dan, you need to think in terms of Hp being a measure of an engine's ability to accelerate and the torque as a measure of its ability to maintain rpm under load. So if you have an engine that outputs 100 ft-lb of torque at ski speed and a strong skier pulls hard, the rpm will drop like a rock. If you have an engine that outputs 1000 ft-lbs of torque at ski speed and the skier pulls the same, the rpm will stay nearly constant. The combination of high Hp boats and speed controls are part of the problem - the speed control reacts to a reduction in speed and the engine is capable responding with LOTS of acceleration. As the boat tries to return to "constant" speed, it is the acceleration that makes the pull feel so damn hard. If we had the proverbial tug boat that was capable of maintaining a very constant speed under load, the pull would feel very soft compared to ZO Put another way, the freight train doesn't care if there a skier back there or not, so its pull will feel much softer than the pull from the drag racer trying to recover 1mph in a fraction of a second.

The 2 things that cause the most grief to skiers and speed control guys are 1) prop slippage and 2) reduction in engine rpm when the skier loads.  A good solution, and one that I think would be a huge improvement for both slalom and jump, would be a high torque engine (turbo diesel) tied to a pair of very large props. There is a show skier somewhere up north who made transmission to drive 2 props from one engine. A great idea with some obvious implementation challenges.  This is the most practical way to ever get close to "constant speed" that the rulebook calls out and makes the speed control's job very easy - the boat won't even notice the skier's pulls.  Yes, there will be a sizeable weight and cost penalty for the diesel, but if you are looking for innovative engineering solutions, this is at the top of my list.Â

Horton said   "Maybe I should just close down the site and go back to drinking." When did you stop? Nevermind, no one would believe you did anyway.

Scoke - you need to get on the water below 70F while you're still young! How does that Goode do at 33F? You may need to go to southern Canada to find out. Its NOT the ski. Its that you and the ski do the vast majority of your skiing in the LA hot tub. Its only natural for us to adapt the our technique and the ski tuning to the conditions we ski the majority of the time. That dang Guassian curve hits again. Yes, the water temp makes a "difference", but we naturally adjust both the ski and our bodies to when we ski the most. h2oski1326 - good stuff. Maybe someday, someone will quantitativly determine the problem is on the dry side of the ski! BMiller Wrote "I think the reason alot of skiers performance drops when the temperature drops is due to the how frequent they are skiing." Nail, meet head. PS, I'm with you on the heels on both feet and 10 toes. I think Horton is mutated somehow.

I rode the Z7 for about an year and tried the Strada for half a dozen sets early in the year. The Z7 is the most stable and predictable ski I've ever ridden. On the Strada, I don't think I ever had 2 turns that were the same. Obviously, others love the Strada. You definetely have to find the right ski that works for YOU. Paul and Eddie are about the best customer service guys you will ever run across. Try before you buy is the best deal, but if you have to go blind, you won't be sorry on the Z7. If you're worried about $50 demos to try a $1000+ ski, you are in the wrong sport. Those demos are a bargain.

Two words; lucky lowe, why bend Two more words: Rough water Horton (the blind squirrel) hit a key point "As long as your back leg is not more bent then you front." Many skier with stiff knees lock the front knee and let the back knee bend, so the knees are side by side. This is a cardinal sin. If both legs are stiff, but the back knee is behind the front and both are "slightly" bent, you're probably ok. Sorry, but Wim's knees are always bent. Its just that the variation in his knee bend at any point in the course is very small, i.e. his knees are firm, not locked and stiff. (IMO, he has the closest thing to perfect form I've ever seen)

Yes, definitely worth the trip. Andy set it up for 6.860 and 0.78. Seems about right.

I was blowing the tail occasionally at 2.505 and increased depth to 2.515. Bindings at 30, but I may try moving them back 1/8 or so. The new 68 is a totally different ski and overall the best ski I've ridden in at least 5 years. (Four sets so far)

What do all great skiers have in common? Only 1 thing: http://www.ballofspray.com/vanillaforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=23&page=1#Item_0

I are an engineer two. What is a Holiday Inn Express????? The problem with either a speed control or a steering control is not that it will keep a dead nuts speed or perfectly straight line – neither will do that - EVER.  The problem for both is that there must be a change in speed or direction for the control system to know how to respond. How hard and how quickly the system responds is where the complaints are and the real world difficulties lie. I can only imagine a boat getting pulled off center by a few inches and the response of the control system as it tries to compensate. Sorry, but I’ve been in the boat with some of the world’s best drivers and developing a steering control that can sense the amount off center and compensate anywhere near as fast as a human is a huge challenge. Steer by GPS? No way. Differential GPS is the only way that the speed control sort of works. It is using position changes of feet to determine how to respond, not inches. Lasers and radar? Maybe. But again, it’s the math in the computer that determines the quality of pull.  Keep thinking and no one should quite their day jobL If there was a system that could keep a dead nuts speed (i.e. big turbo diesel with a 3ft diameter prop) and dead center (i.e. a boat running on submerged railroad tracks), I’ll bet a paycheck skiers would absolutely love it.  And this is the ONLY way that the claim of “the same pull for everyone†can be accurate. If there is a control system that is reacting to skier input, it is by definition providing a different pull for everyone. That is the real issue.

Great discussion! I’ll add a couple of points to the fray.  Years ago, when the speed drop hit at 35 years old, 35 was considered OLD. There were very few really fit skiers at that age and the reduction in speed was appropriate. Today, the fitness level of the over 35 group is an order of magnitude above what it was 20-30 years ago, and many skiers can easily continue at 36. So bumping the speed up to 36 for M3 should be easyJ. (Boys 3 should go 38!)  On the MM and sandbaggers, the really sensible way out is to have the top 3 finishers at Regionals and the top 5 at Nationals in M3 and M4, required to ski MM for the next ski year. I don’t think anyone is going to stand up and avoid a placement just to avoid having to go to MM and it would really open things up for the next tier of skiers, plus make MM a really exciting division. Yes, go ahead and make it a 36mph division while we’re at it.  But that would be too logical….. won’t happenL

Tsixam, Without seeing you ski, and looking at your settings, my "guess" at getting slack on both sides is big school bus turns ending up turning right into the boat. Bindings too far forward will cause this. The Elite loves to backside the buoy and the bindings being back certainly contribute to tight turns. Andy's setting for length is 6.850 (tips). FWIW, I'm running 6.900, but I tend to like a longer fin than many others. So, I'd recommend bindings at 29.25 and longer on the fin to get the tip down and see how it works.Â

Move the bindings back. 29 1/4 is Andy's recommended distance on the 67. (yes I had to confirm about 3 times. That is way back from most 67s) A little more length wouldn't hurt either.

Ideally the time to release and reconnect would be the same, but only the smoothest skiers manage that. Most of us will snatch the handle back in much too quickly. The goal should be to have the speed out and back in the same. I would not use the buoy as any sort of midpoint. If the skier is early, he will be fully reconnected at the buoy.

67 Elite settings: Bindings 29.25 L 6.898 D 2.512 DFT 0.78 flat Andy's settings L 6.850 DFT 0.79 flat Note that the fin clamp does not have set screws, so I don't sweat a few thousands, but I did intentionally add the 0.050 to the length as I had trouble turning the off side when I demo'd the ski. I haven't felt a need to change anything else yet.

Yes, I have been riding the 67 Elite for the last 2 weeks and I think it will work better for my style (I stand by my high opinion of the Z7). Its no where near as smooth as the Z7, but the Elite loves to create space and backside the buoy. Acceleration out of the buoy is also better, but you have to be ready to hang on. The Elite works great if you ski aggressively and with a lot of angle. When I skied with Andy, he recommended the 67 vs the 68 for me and did not mention a new 68, so the rumor mill is alive and well.  AB, the 67 Elite is pretty much the same width as the Z7, but the Z7 is a little wider than some older skis. My 67 Z7 ‘felt’ like the same size as my 68 Monza, FWIW.

tru-jack, 68 for sure. I'm 195 and ski onthe 67, but I'm on the border. I keep thinking I should try the 68, but haven't got around to it.

I rode the Z7 all last year and tried the ST for a half dozen sets this spring. My impression of the ST is that is closer to the regular Z7 than any other 2 skis I’ve ridden that were “suppose to be identicalâ€. I think that says a lot for D3’s manufacturing processes and tolerances – they are making intentional changes that are smaller than most other companies manufacturing tolerances.  For me, the ST did some things slightly better than the regular Z7 and some things slightly worse – but those were well within ‘my’ day to day variation in skiing. On net, I think it was a wash.  The most remarkable thing about the Z7 is that for every skier I’ve watched on it, the ski is doing exactly what it should. I have never seen that in any other ski.  I think it is the easiest to ride, high performance ski out there.

Time to clean out the garage again - both skis in great shape:  2008 68" Monza, approx 2 months use - $450 2005 65" Monza - $350 email bruce dot kim at texoma dot net

You are generally correct, including the not all the way cooked part/vanillaforum/js/tinymce/jscripts/tiny_mce/plugins/emotions/images/smiley-tongue-out.gif  You have identified a real situation, now the hard part is to determine what is the cause, what is the effect, and what can/should you do about it?  I think the reason most skiers turn with more pressure on the front toe on the offside and back heel on the good side is precisely because of the way the body lines up with the ski –it naturally shifts the weight distribution on the ski. The reverse image photo of Terry is a great example of how the body lines up differently and affects the way we turn the ski on each side.  If you pretend for a minute that from the waist up, your upper body could behave exactly the same on each side, for example, Terry’s reverse image would be exactly the same as the regular one. How would that affect the way the ski turns on each side? It would probably turn very symmetrically and it would be much easier to stay balanced on the ski.  I keep coming back to the similarities between snow and water skiing. The really good snow skiers are very still from the waist up, with the shoulders facing perfectly downhill while the skis and knees go back and forth. The Olympic mogul skiers were flat amazing in this regard. I believe the same principle applies to slalom skiing. The goal should be to keep the shoulders facing perfectly down course all the time. Counter-rotation is automatic if you do this. It is much easier to keep the shoulders and eyes level. Angulation between the upper and lower body can actually happen on both sides. If the angulation is the same, the ski roll will be the same on each side. Weight shift from front to back foot will almost disappear.  Of course as long as we have one foot in front of the other, it will be next to impossible to keep the shoulders ‘perfectly’ downcourse, but that should be the goal and the mental picture to achieve.ÂÂ

No joke. Just think how bad it would be if we didn't have all this global warming! The first 2 photos were yesterday, 12 Feb. We also froze solid last month. This is in Texas of all places.ÂÂ

IMO, just about any Denny Kidder ski is the best beginner ski out there. The most critical feature of a "beginner" ski is that it is stable and comfortable for the skier. Of course others have great success with other brands, but as a rule of thumb, a Kidder/KD/D3 is the first choice. MS is correct about the length. The 64 would be great if she was at 32-34mph. Bumping up to a longer ski, even as much as a 68, for the lower speeds will help her progress without sinking.