Bruce_Butterfield

Ok, this was last year, but its freak'in Texas! Right now, its 25F outside.ÂÂ

The width on the gate wasn't that bad, but you could be wider. The first thing I saw was that the intensity from about 10' after your turn in to the middle of the wakes was the same. The intensity needs to increase (smoothly) from the turn in to past the wakes - you let up in the middle of the gates. Next item is your arms are out. You want the handle close to your waist all during your leans to the point where you start your reach. Once you get that, you can work on counter-rotation and keeping your head and shoulders level. In general terms, more width on the gates is better. What happens to many skiers when they get wide is they turn in too hard, too fast and let up right behind the boat. That puts them fast and narrow into 1 and they complain that a wide gate doesn't work. The key is to get wide, but turn in smoothly and progressively. Think of it as the speed of your turn in will match your speed into 1, and the width on the gate establishes your angle for the entire course. So a wide gate with a smooth turn in will put you wide, early, and slow into 1.

Predictive algorithms and strain gauges will only make the response much worse. The 'prediction' will be different depending on if the skier is early or way downcourse. How does the computer know? The problem with using a strain gauge is you would also have to measure the angle of the rope - a 600 lb pull at the buoy will pull the boat sideways, but won't slow it down anywhere near as much as a 600 lb pull at the wakes. Horton's idea of the same response behind every boat is what the control SHOULD be doing. Trying to factor in hull drag, engine size, prop, etc, is the reason the pulls are different. If the algorithm ignored those factors and only used change in speed and rate of change of speed as its inputs (like Accuski), we would get darn close to the same pull behind each boat. Any difference in pull would be precisely because the boat was different.

Eric,  I don't see much disagreement there. Even with the Hammer driving, I bet you are still getting a pretty significant speed swing - and her throttle is in sync with the skier. The key is that a 'really good' manual driver can anticipate slightly and match the skier's pull better than a speed control. Yes, electrons move at the speed of light, but any reactive program is only as good as the time it takes to sense a change (GPS speed change, or rpm change) and the time it takes the ECM/engine to respond WITHOUT overcompensating. It is those 2 delays that are the root of the issue - and the intent of my post was that the rate a skier can load and unload the boat is faster than either of those. There is also a key difference with a "stronger" boat. In general terms, horsepower is a measure of how fast a boat can accelerate. More HP is important for the 'reactive control system'. Torque is a measure of how much load an engine can take before dropping rpm (bogging down). If you increase the engine torque, you will have much less rpm swing, and the job of the reactive control system becomes simpler. A higher torque engine can also handle a prop with more surface area, so there would be less prop slippage, again making the job of the control system simpler.

<<<Open soapbox A speed control to match the best manual drivers in the world was developed in 1997 and does provide a constant pull independent of the type or brand of boat. Accuski started out with the goal of matching the pull from the best drivers and gave a great pull to all skiers behind any boat. It even used a magnet on the 55m buoys as part of its control. I maintain that Accuski is still better than any of the other speed controls available today. End soapbox>>> Ok, that's all water under the bridge. The real problem is the delay between when the skier's load is applied and released, and how fast the speed control can respond. A skier can apply and release an instantaneous load much faster than any GPS or rpm based control can sense it, let alone time for the engine to respond to it. Think of a slam dunk skier as an example - the skier has already released the huge load just as the boat is starting to respond to the massive hit. If a skier is nice and smooth and consistent, the speed control algorithm is relatively simple and friendly to the skier. If you have a strong, short line skier that is smooth on one buoy and has a short, hard hit on the next, the speed control response will be rather harsh. Attempting to consider all the variables such as hull drag, engine HP and torque, etc. simply compounds the problem and is what causes the response to be so different from boat to boat. IMO, the simplest approach is the best - find the throttle setting that provides the correct average speed and NOT change the setting, i.e. set the throttle and leave it alone. A stronger pulling skir will have a higher average rpm and more speed swing than a lighter pulling skier, but the PULL from the boat will be the same. That is a much more level playing field than we have now. If folks get upset about the speed swing, the far better solution is to increase the engine torque and use larger props. A turbo-diesel, gear reduction, and big prop will maintain a much more constant speed than any feedback control system ever will.

and the engagement ring is on the middle finger? Hmmmmmm.......

I've been re-watching the video of Wim Decree that Schnitz posted awhile back. The thing that stands out most to me is that his upper body is more still than just about any other skier I've seen. It gets back to the snow skier analogy of the shoulders always facing downhill and the hips doing the turning. Wim's shoulders are nearly downcourse all the time. Yes, MS, he is LOADING the rope, but the hookups are smooth. When I focus on shoulders downcourse, I find that my turns are smoother, most of the work is done with the hips, and its easier to carry the handle longer. Now to just get that engrained.......

Rather than think of "hookup" as a point, I think its better to try be smooth and seamless between the turn and pull (sorry, old term, but still valid). You want to carry speed through the turn, ski into the handle with the handle and free hand joining at the hip, and the pull starting gradually, but strong. There should always be some tension on the line - if you get any slack, try to be smoother. The thing we try to avoid is any stall, or jerk caused by turning too hard and loosing body position. If the transition between turn and lean is smooth you will be much farther ahead than you would be with a massive turn, stall, massive pull. You still have to load hard to run shortline. The goal is to make the load and unload as smooth as possible.

If you have too much drag and think you need less angle, I would recommend staying at 9 deg and using a smaller and/or lower drag wing. Schnitz has his mini-wings and Radar just came out with a low profile stanless wing. Give Eddie Roberts a call. IMO, the effect of the wing in the turn is much more important than the drag it provides.

The ski has 2 design features with great potential: 1. A very thin tail and round bevels that should make the it ride very deep and be difficult to blow out the tail. 2. They are taking material out of the tip so that the flex remains the same in the very front of the ski instead of getting stiffer beyond the forward most measurement point. Should help the tip stay down instead of tending to pop up at the completion of the turn. I'm more interested in the injection molding that should make a ski durable enough that I can ride it for more than a season. All good stuff that needs to be proven out.

Colin, welcome back and thanks for your service! You are on your way to developing a waterski addiction like the rest of us. Eddie Roberts is a class act one of the best customer service reps in the business. Hey Mr. Horton, er, uh, I mean shit head. Now that sounds MUCH better!

 2008 68†Monza blank w/fin. Used approx 2 months, like new.  $600  2004 67.5†Sixam 1.0 blank w/fin Used one season and has been sitting in an airconditioned closet since.  Minor ding on bottom repaired w/JB weld, otherwise great shape. $350 w/Goode Precision fin clamp, $300 w/stock Obrien clamp.  Direct email Bruce dot Kim at Texoma dot net if interested.

For those with short memories, just how many years did it take PP so that "the boats be as similar from brand to brand and year to year as they were with PP Classic."?  From my memory it was at least 5 years depending on what level of "similar" you wanted, and it made a big reduction in the consistency of my performances.  I agree with most of the complaints / comments here. These systems were forced on us with little or no thought of how it would impact tournaments, or those of us with older boats who want to train with same system we will get at tournaments. My guess is that the non-skier decision makers bought into the "same pull for everyone" story and ended up making the pull much different for everyone. The only reasonable near term solution I see is to require the promo boats to have multiple speed controls and let the skier choose. Longer term, the ONLY advantage of GPS based speed control is that the driver doesn't have to input any weights or compensate for wind. This is extremely poor justification for the debacle we have now. The speed based concept requires a much harsher pull to compensate for the heavier/harder pulling skiers instead of letting the boat enter the course at a slightly higher rpm/speed for the heavier skiers. The "same pull for everyone", it is not.

Poor angle frequently starts at the gates. If you are narrow on your gate pullout, you will be narrow and turning downcourse at 1, which will carry on throught the course unless youget a monster turn somewhere.  The same goes for free skiing - you have to get width to generate angle, or you will have to 'kick' the turn like you mentioned (bad habit). Without seeing you ski, or better descriptions of what is going on, being too narrow on the gates is my best guess.

<<So the follow-on question is: What is accurate and within specification or tolerance.>> Very good question - I'll offer some things to think about. There currently is no tolerance on the swing in speed - the tolerance is on the average speed over a segment or full course. If you want to make a specification that the speed has to be 34.2, within (to make up a number) +/- 0.2mph, consider the following: 1) Now how do you measure the swing? GPS could theoretically do it, but you might need something like a radar gun on every pass to check the tolerance. Now we're making tournaments more costly and more complicated. Wrong direction. 2) What do you do if the tolerance is exceeded by a really strong skier? Re-ride? The skier will very likely pull the boat out of tolerance again. Mandate a "stronger" speed control setting? Is that fair to the skier? 3) Many speed control proponents use the argument that "everyone gets the same pull". This is an absolutely bogus argument. The only way that everyone can get the same pull is to use the exact same throttle setting and not touch it. If you give one skier a different amount of throttle than another skier, he is NOT getting the same pull. Trying to put a limit on the speed swing will make this situation worse. IMO, putting a tolerance on the speed swing is not a good idea. The average speed over each segment is adequate and is really giving each skier as near the same conditions as practical. I believe the real issue highlighted by the recent speed control swirl is that the "goodness" of the pull is determined much more by WHEN the speed control responds than by HOW MUCH it responds. The rate at which a shortline slalom skier loads and unloads the boat is simply much faster than even a GPS controlled DBW system can respond to and stay in perfect sync with the skier - there will always be delay in the response. In attempting to keep the speed "constant", the software will either hit the skier hard early, or stay on too long, both of which make the pull feel like crap. This mismatch in response will have a much bigger effect on a skier's performance than any swing in the actual speed will.

Lack of width on the gates is a very common problem that I believe holds many skiers back from advancing to the next line length or speed. This holds true even for kids at 20mph.  So, the short answer is width on the gates is not dependent on speed.ÂÂÂ

Probably the most general mistake is being too narrow on your gates. Getting even with the platform is a minimum, and even with the motor box is better. Different schools of thought, but that's my $0.02.

Sorry Karl, you hit a nerve. The goal of Accuski was to replicate the best hand drivers [which they did hands down]. The goal of PP was to keep the speed as constant as possible [which they f'd up royally]. They tried to do that by considering hull type, engine sizes prop pitch, etc, etc. It took PP several years to get remotely close to the pull of Accuski. Now ZO is at the same point as PP was in 1998 trying to get a "decent" pull out of their system. "Constant speed" was written many years ago with virtually no thought as to what "constant" really means - a 1mph swing was pretty good back then. <<< End soapbox>>> From a policy positon, the ideal would be a bunch of speed control options - the "best" system would win out much the same as the "best" towboat wins out. To answer your question, speeds and times are the same - they are both averages over some distance (nominally the length of the course, or buoy to buoy). It's really the wrong question to answer. Jump is a whole different ball of wax.

jdarwin wrote: "It pains me when Horton is right about something" Fortunately, you don't have to worry about that happening very often!

Weappa,  At 190, you definitely want the 68.

Brent, calipers flat is with jaws. ÂÂÂ

Roger, you nailed the most important part about the gates. Width is much more important than the differences between using 1 hand or 2.

The numbers I got from Eddie were: 2.497 6.845 flat 0.77 flat I got a 68" and don't know if the recommended settings are much different for other lengths. The fin was off quite a bit from these when I got it, but I never trust fin settings out of the box anyway. I put my bindings at 29 7/8". After 4 sets on the ski, I am VERY impressed with it. The 'stock' settings work well and I don't feel any need to adjust yet.

Its not confusing at all. If you're very strong and/or very tall, you can get away with less than ideal technique. Just imagine if Parrish had Wim's technique. On the other hand, if you really want expert advise about sitting on the crapper, MS is your man!

The photo makes it much more clear. You are dropping your left shoulder on the pullout. Your goal should be to keep your shoulders as level as possible at all times - but like most everything else, it starts with the pullout. Instead of leading with your left shoulder, like in the picture, try to keep your shoulders level and lead with your left hip. It can be as simple thinking about moving your left hip in the direction you want to go.