skispray

I want to add that I realize that one of the important components of west coast, "ensuring the hips are not trailing the rest of the body [through the wakes]" is not a new concept. I believe that what West Coast thought added to this element was the idea that the best way to achieve this goal was to open the shoulders to the boat during the pull, which allows the "stacked" position with less effort than trying to simply force your hips higher. Ultimately what West Coast has done is emphasize the easiest way for the body to acheive the desired position, even if that desired position is nothing new.

Have to say I completely agree with Ed. When learning about "West Coast" technique, consider that the concepts used to teach it emphasize what is different between it and old school techniques. The heart of the technique is having your upper body open to the boat and countering in the turns, allowing the most efficient stacked position attainable (with ski, feet, hips, and shoulders all aligned). Think about how crazy some of the old techniques sound now that we are better educated in the physics of skiing (thanks to Marcus Brown and Terry Winter). We needed the technical theory of "West Coast" to help us understand the physics of skiing and why all that stuff was wrong, even if we can ski efficiently without knowing a majority of the minor nuances they emphasize. As to the "speed generates angle, angle doesn't generate speed" quote: I believe the key concept that is emphasized by that statement is that carrying speed through the turn is the only way to ensure the ski will finish with the desired angle and the minimum amount of load. That is the ultimate goal. If you have angle but not speed, you have load, which is inefficient. If you have speed and angle, you have a light line, which is what we desire. Taken completely literal, and applied where it was not meant to be applied (from a standing position behind the boat), the quote makes little sense. This tells me that the way West Coast slalom has been taught was to emphasize concepts in the hope of educating people and to change the way people understood the physics of skiing. Anyone who believes that West Coast technique doesn't work has overlooked an area of the course where almost everyone uses the concepts: the pull-out for their gates. I don't know any course skiers running shortline anymore that don't open their shoulders and hips to the boat and lead with their hip in an outward direction on the pullout. That is west coast. If you do it, you have implicitly endorsed the technique. To call it "dead" is to ignore the fact that it has influenced how almost all of us understand movement through the course. I agree that it takes a lot of additional "homework" to really grasp the heart of what West Coast is. And no, we aren't all thinking about step ahead or step behind counter rotation or angulation or whatever, but the mainstream way of understanding technique now relies on efficient movement of mass. No matter where I've gone across the U.S., I notice the coaching almost always emphasizes being stacked and open through the wakes, ensuring the hips are not trailing the rest of the body, and countering through, and especially at the finish, of the turn, keeping shoulders level and open. These are the primary tenets of "West Coast". This is now the norm, and without the efforts of Marcus, Terry, and Mike, there would be a less understanding of this. Their technique educated an entire generation of skiers. The fact that their technique has been integrated into what is considered the "norm" in slalom technique doesn't imply that it is "dead", I'd say it implies that it has been successful. P.S. I was going to post this on thewaterskiforum, but there is no link that I can find to sign up for that website. When I go to "post", it says to enter my name and password, but there is no "sign up" or "register" option, what gives?

I'm in desperate need of some trick coaching but can't get to a ski school this season. Are there any trick coaches out there that do video coaching?

I would greatly appreciate it if any very knowledgable skiers out there that can help me understand the mechanics of how the fin (and adjustments to it) affect ski performance. I'm looking for a deeper understanding than, "If you increase the length, it will lower the tip on the offside." That's good to know, but why is that true?  I have a desire to become a bit of an expert on fin adjustments and I don't know where to start, so here are some questions: DFT: From the D3 website, http://store.d3skis.com/Articles.asp?ID=142: "An adjustment forward (toward the tip of the ski) lifts the front and drops the tail during an on-side turn. An adjustment backward drives the front into the water and raises the tail." Since it is implied that all other variables are constant, I can rationalize the above statement if moving the fin forward makes the ski "shorter" (In the sense that the distance from the tip of the ski to the back of the fin is less as the fin is moved forward). Since binding placement is assumed to be constant this would shift the skiers weight distribution to a point further towards the "back" of the ski. Hence, "lifts the front and drops the tail."  However, the statement only mentions the on-side turn, why wouldn't this be true at all points in the course? Is it really true that a DFT adjustment will not in any way affect off-side turns, or perhaps the degree of angle you can achieve across course, or speed through the course, ect? One of the Adjustment Options on the D3 page I linked to above says, "Difficult to initiate angle across wakes Move fin forward." So DFT has to affect how the ski acts across course as well right... My intuition tells me that a DFT adjustment either makes the ski longer (by decreasing DFT) or shorter (by increasing DFT).  A shorter ski seems like it'd be more responsive but less stable at all points in the course than a longer ski. Is this correct? And, If this is correct, does anyone know why it's true? It kinda makes sense to me that the further forward the fin, the shorter the ski would feel, but why? To explain my confusion, consider if the fin was directly beneath the bindings. The tail of the ski is still back there, and presumably still affecting the skis performance, so although I don't have trouble believeing this to be true, how is it that fin placement fore or aft affects how long the ski feels? Depth: From the D3 website, http://store.d3skis.com/Articles.asp?ID=142: "More depth improves stability and holding power, while less depth makes it easier to turn." I assume the depth of a fin would stablize a ski in the same way that a deep fin would stablize a sail boat, and so this movement makes sense to me. However, I know there has to be more to this fin adjustment since one of the Adjustment Options on the D3 page I linked to above says, "Too much ski tip in water on both left and right turns Increase fin depth." What is the relationship between fin depth and ski tip? Finally, given that you don't feel very unstable, wouldn't it make sense to run as little depth as possible while ensuring the tail of the ski doesn't blow out at the end of most turns? Length: From the D3 website, http://store.d3skis.com/Articles.asp?ID=142: "An increased fin length drives the tip of the ski into the water during the off-side turn. A fin with shorter length raises the tip of the ski. [...] The less the leading edge of the fin is out of the ski, the more the fin will keep the front of the ski up. The longer the leading edge, the more it drives the front into the water." My intuition is that the longer the leading edge, the more water is "hitting" that leading edge and putting upward pressure on the tail of the ski, thereby driving the tip of the ski into the water. Vice Versa for a shorter length. However, this leads to some questions: 1) Why does the description only say this is true on the off-side turn? 2) Wouldn't the Depth adjustment affect the ski in a similar way? I guess is the fin is deep but the length provides for a shallow angle of protrusion from the bottom of the ski, then the pressure caused by water passing over the fin may be less...but I'm just guessing here. 3) Is my intuition actually correct? Wing: From the D3 website, http://store.d3skis.com/Articles.asp?ID=142: "The wing is designed to help slow the ski down as you approach the turns. The more angle you set on the wing, the faster your ski will decelerate into the turns. The tolerances for the wing angle should be kept between 6-10 degrees." I just think that there has got to be more to how the wing affects the ski than this. For example, it seems that a greater degree of wing would drive the tip out of the water while less wing would drive the tip down. So, is there a better way to understanding how the fin works? Perhaps understanding what the fin does on the onside/offside?  Would understanding the fin in a more holistic manner be more useful than the "DFT does this. Depth does this. Length does this." manner? Also, how can I learn what adjustments need to be made to a fin by watching another skier fromt the boat? Thank you to anyone that takes the time to respond to my post.

I guess I should have clarified, I'm not learning 36mph, I have been running 22 and 28 off at 36mph for a couple years now and I run almost all my 22offs at 36mph. I just changed my fin settings and on the first set out they worked great at 34mph and felt bad at 36mph. I was early and wide into 1 ball at all passes but couldn't get the ski to finish. Yet at 34mph it came through almost more than I wanted it to at 1 ball. It seems strange to me, but I though someone else may have had this kind of experience.

What are the general differences in how a fin needs to be set up to work well at 36mph as opposed to 34mph? I just adjusted my settings and took a set - on my opener, which is 34mph, 22 off, the ski worked amazing. Very early and wide, balanced, and the ski came through on both sides great. Held angle well, I was very pleased. I sped up to 36mph and suddenly I couldn't get the ski to come through on the onside. On my offside the ski would finish but it felt like it took a lot of distance and time for the ski to get underneath me and I couldn't get in a good swing. Ran a few not-so -good 22 offs at 36mph and cut it to 28 off, where I thought the ski felt even worse. Very disappointed. I was feeling like I was in control of everything that was happening at 34mph and completely out of control of what was happening at 36mph. I don't think it was a body position thing because these problems were very unfamiliar. Any thoughts?

What's the optimal binding placement for an '08 RCX? Everything I am finding says 29.5", but I have an HO Animal front binding and when it's in the center holes it measures 29" from the back of the boot to the tail of the ski. I'd have to go all the way forward on this binding to get 29.5", which seems a bit extreme. I've tried the bindings one hole forward (2 holes forward is as far forward as it'll go) and I didn't like it; The ski felt like it turned very quickly but didn't come through and underneath me. Anyone got any ideas on where the sweet spot is on this ski? Thank you.

I'm A1 all the way as far as zero off settings go. In my experience those who try it tend to like it, but everyone is different. I can also attest to the strength of some red and black MC's - I almost always ski with zero off and at a few tourny's with those boats it felt like they were always laying down the power and leaving me in the water sooner than usual. I think the boat/prop play a bigger role in that than the speed control.

Are there any metal moving parts that have the potential to lock up if used in salt water? I ski in very brackish water and have had fin screws corrode. I'd hate to think I have releasable bindings that can't release! So are moving parts metal, plastic, ect?

There is a pretty thorough discussion here: http://www.proskicoach.com/forum/viewtopic.php?id=1087 that pretty much disproves Schitz's ideas about that. However, there is a lot of great discussion there on visual cues and gates in general. As for me, I can say that I have developed a sense of how late I can be turning into the gates and still brush the right hand gate ball. Others may have other techniques but I think it's something you just need to get a feel for.

I cant my rear binding, in the sense that the front of my rear binding is closer to the right edge of my ski than the left. This is what I think of when I hear the term "canted". It sounds like Bill raises one side of the binding in relation to the other, so it may be sitting perfectly straight on top of the ski with one side directly on the ski and the other side "lifted" slightly. I've never heard of that before, but is Bill's form of cant more common than I realize?

Haven't tested it but I would think prolonged toning while going through the course would give you a slow time. That beeping is telling you the engine can't react enough to compensate for the skier slowing the boat down. I'm with MS here, it's probably crap. The tolerances are quite tight with ZO anyways.

I've started running recently to stay in shape in general, but I'm also hoping that being in better physical condition will lead to improvements on the water as well. Running and other cardio activities like swimming are, to me, the most enjoyable workouts because I feel more agile and better conditioned - more athletic. In terms of off-season training for water skiing, however, is there any activity that would be better suited?

I find it ironic that many people in the sport are concerned with the safety of turn buoys but haven't raised any concern about the fact that we practically aim dead on for the right hand gate buoy. Have any of you ever hit that buoy with negative consequences? In about 5 years of course skiing, I actually have only done so once. I was trying a new ski and on the first pass my fin hit the right hand gate buoy and absolutely wrecked me!ÂÂ

I've been getting excited about the idea of heading to Florida for a few days this Spring - ideally arrive Thursday and ski Friday-Sunday. I'm looking for slalom and trick coaching, but I'm primarly concerned about trick for this trip. So currently my list of good trick coaching includes Pickos, Matt Rini, Chet Raley. Can anyone comment on any other places I should consider or have any comments about these places?  I also would imagine that at Pickos I'd be getting coaching from staff, so is it safe to assume that the trick coaching would be top level even if it isn't Cory that's doing the coaching.ÂÂ

I would imagine that 43 is rarely practiced. From a competitive standpoint it doesn't make much sense; I've never heard of anyone running 41 in a tournament and not winning that event. Using water time to work on 43 instead of honing 39 and 41 wouldn't be optimal but, just for kicks, I'd also love to see these guys taking a crack at 43.

What company manufactures the "dry" hat you wear for cold-weather skiing?

Makes me wonder how often these top skiers are running 41 in practice! In Edged in Water, Parrish throws the fist after running it in practice and he ran it multiple times that year (2005) so I was under the impression that it's probably not all that much. Maybe twice as often as in tournaments would have been my guess but this video makes me think otherwise. Rossi was looking solid at 41 on both passes.  In that vein, has anyone heard of a score at 43 in practice better than the world record? Not that it'd mean anything, just curious.ÂÂ

This just shows how good those elite skiers are. I'm pretty sure Scot is right - the six people he mentioned are the only ones who have ever run 41 in a tournament that I know of. But look at Parrish, hasn't he ran 41 in a tournament at least four times this year?!ÂÂ

Western regionals - loving the fact that Colorado is in my region too!

I agree with Rossi about the importance of having your fin set up by someone who really knows what they're doing.  I've luckily had the experience of having an expert set up my ski before and it makes a world of difference. However, for many people - including myself - the resources aren't available right now to do anything like that. Since my ski is already set up I'm not trying to change anything major, I'm just wondering about minor adjustments for large differences in water temperature. I have my current numbers written down so I plan to move back to them in three to four months when the water cools down. So is it backward or forward with DFT?  This also brings up an interesting point: What options are available to people who haven't amassed a great deal of experience adjusting fins and don't really have the option of skiing with a pro who can help them out (I'd guess this is 99% of skiers if you include people who don't do tourny's). Even if you do get a chance to go to ski school or florida or whatever, the time between a ski purchase and that trip could be a complete waste if - as Rossi suggests - people leave their fins alone. Video fin set-up similar to Seth Stisher's video coaching? Now that I think about it, every ski company should provide such a service upon ski purchase! Ok maybe I'm getting carried away but wouldn't that be nice?

Hey, I'm just wondering what the general consensus is on what adjustments to the fin should be made for warmer water. The water at my lake is disgustingly hot now and the ski isn't feeling the same as it used to. Thanks for the help.

D3 will let you try the Z7 and return it within 30 days FOR FREE (they'll return the demo fee) through the month of July, according to their website!

Roger, I weigh between 170 and 175, although I believe I am a fairly light skier compared to my weight. Very good point, I have heard the transition is much different for heavier guys. However, I was only trying to convey that there is hope! (in the long run).

I usually ski behind zero off in practice so maybe I've just gotten used to it, but I wanted to share this: For the last month or so I have been skiing in practice behind perfect pass classic instead of with my typical practice boat. I've also gone to a few tournaments where they've had the latest version of zero off in all the boats (which have all been nautiques) and I've skied a couple times behind a friends mastercraft with zero off. Additionally, I skied one weekend behind a malibu with stargazer. To be honest, changing from boat to boat and system to system has had no effect on my skiing. When I'm on the handle end of the rope, I honestly can't even tell which system is being used. I usually ski on "B" behind the zero off system available to me in practice and "B2" in tournaments - I've never even tried anything else.  My point is that if you don't have the chance to practice behind all the systems, then maybe it is noticeable, and the psychological effects could certainly throw you off. However, as the systems become more available (in time) there is hope for all you guy struggling or mad about zero off! ÂÂ