jjackkrash

I would not pay for that one using Zelle.  

15 hours ago, Horton said:

Pic two is freaking awesome, especially if you never see pic 3.  

I think I'd need to see the next frame or some slow mo.  It sure looks like a ride over in that still but if the ski just grazed the ball and the ski keeps casting/sliding outward and turns around the ball I think it might be possible for a reasonable person to declare it a graze if it didn't displace the ball any more significantly.  

Is the course mapping function and entrance-gate speed relevant in rec mode?  I was under the impression it wasn't (and specific to tournament mode) but you learn something new every day.  

@tjs1295, my non-expert take:

Without hearing or seeing the context of what Joel was trying to correct with a specific skier its tough to know, but it is quite possible you heard both right and the advice is somewhat inconsistent.  There are different schools of thought in this sport and Radar and Connelly have a different design philosophy on what they want the ski to do.  In other videos, I have heard Joel state that the goal of the Connelly line is to ride deeper in the water but to hold speed.  He has been working on the line for a long time and I suspect it reflects what he is trying to do on the ski.  And the GT/GTR/DV8 is a skinnier ski than the Vapor.  I own both skis and they are very different animals.  The design philosophy of the Vapor seems to me to be reflected more in what Rossi and Trent are talking in about in all their episodes.  Get up over the top/front of the ski and step on the gas. 

I would love to hear a conversation with Rossi and Trent and Joel talking about what they want the ski to do and the best way to get there.  There are going to be many commonalities but I'd bet there are some nuanced differences.  

15 minutes ago, buechsr said:

Respectfully, I would disagree that an 80 pound 28 mph 15 off kid is best served by a ferrari-esque shape and construction.  He doesn't weigh near enough or create the forces needed to to let that ski do its thing.  A 63" Vapor is not necessarily a "kids" ski just because its short.  I understand that your son picked up a pass, but that's as much a function of length as it was shape.  Look if it works for OP's kid, great, but a softer, shorter ski than a 65 would be my vote, not a stiff-riding ferrari with very little forgiveness at 28/15.

Would suggest a call to Brooks Wilson, who may well disagree.

Aren't they talking about taking a high end ski and cutting it down?  I'm not sure how that's gonna be softer than an uncut high end ski.  And we just put a 90 pound boy a one of those 63.5" skis and he's doing great on it at 22/23 mph (I have had 5 kids now have good success on the little vapor at those speeds now just starting out).   I just don't see the advantage of cutting a ski over a TRA or Vapor, but looking at Howley's binding set up for example, I guess there's more than one way to skin a cat.

63.5" Vapor.  No chopping required.  

I assumed when I listened 12 o'clock would be looking straight down course parallel with the bouy line.   On the gates a move to 2 o'clock would be a move forward but also toward the pylon putting pressure on the inside tip of the ski.  

Who knows, it might make you a world champion.  

17 minutes ago, UWSkier said:

 

One must first pay homage to the utopian craft known as the 200 before making a single disparaging comment or comparison lest you suffer the wrath of the Nautique fan clan.  Repent, before they start burning jump skis on your front lawn.

Nautiques get unfairly trashed on here in MC land more than any other boat, hands down.  (And they objectively do track the best).  

I have heard decent trailers are like $7 to $10k now unless you find screaming deal on a used one that actually fits the boat.  

Not sure if it's MacGyver or MacGruber.  

One of my ski buddies gets pretty deep into -35/34mph on a Senate Probuild and loves the ski.  My boy starts at -28/28 mph on a new Vapor and is working into -28/36 mph right now.  The vapor works fine at slower speeds if it's sized right and you stay balanced on top of it.  So either ski could work for you.   Its preference.  

Order Fin Whispering.  Its worth it weight in gold.

https://finwhispering.com/product-category/books/

For a quick chart (ignore versa-tale stuff) I like the Connelly cheat sheet.  

https://www.connellyskis.com/pages/dv8-adjustment-guide

Spraymakers Gold:

https://player.fm/series/spraymakers-w-rossi-and-trent/dialing-in-your-ski-setup

Damn it, I didn't realize this was going on.  

So you are running more fin surface area than either stock setting.  Is that normal for you or did you get a tip on setup?  

5 minutes ago, dleenhouts said:

So you've got 2 different parties with different definitions of "reasonable". That's the opposite of unambiguous.

Nope.  In any courtroom there is one standard at play and a neutral fact finder makes a determination based on instructions about the standard and the evidence.  Just like in every car wreck case where negligence is the standard.  The jury gets instructed on the standard and then makes a call.  Its tough for me to see how the captain of a wake barge is going to be able to prove he took all reasonable steps to minimize the risk of damage caused by the wake when they are intentionally loading the boat with wake-enhancement devises and traveling at speeds designed to maximize the wake.   Good luck with that.  

1 hour ago, dleenhouts said:

I think almost all of us are familiar with "you're responsible for your own wake", but that is so subjective that it means nothing. Until it's codified into unambiguous terms, nothing will change.

The solution is get the vessel number and file suit if a particular boat's wake causes injuries like in this case.  It's actually not that complicated or subjective in most states.  The general standard has been around in maritime law for decades.  It's easier to prove than negligence in a car wreck situation because the boat with the big wake has the burden to conclusively prove that it took all reasonable to avoid harm caused bv the wake and that the wake was not the cause of the harm.  I would think it would be pretty hard to prove no causation when these boats are doing everything possible to make the wakes bigger not smaller.  

Senate.

3 hours ago, FSSPCat said:

Once again I feel compelled to say this. If you are over your tow capacity (according to the manufacturer) and you get in any kind of an accident, your insurance company will most likely hang you out to dry. 

There's lots of good reasons not to exceed manufacturers recommended tow limits, but unless there is an express exclusion in your policy for towing over recommended limits, I don't see the basis for a coverage denial unless the towed vehicle was so grossly overweight it amounts to criminal recklessness or intentional misconduct.  I've pulled my policy and looked for such an exclusion and there isn't one.  But actual policy terms control.  

Or they assume naked weight plus an allowance for some gear.  Which is what I assumed.  

My boy had a tough time on the ski last night and I suspect setup (possibly my human error).

Last Vapor binding set up for both long and shall and deep and short was 29.25.  This year deep and short is 29.25, but long and shallow is 29.5.  He said it turned fine but was having a hard time getting swing (and it looked to me like he was abnormally tail heavy).  My instinct is to start moving bindings back toward 29.25 or switch to deep and short.

Or does he just need to stand differently on this ski?   Any thoughts?  

A 206 is basically a 196 hull with an extra foot on the back of the hull and a bit more weight.  It tracks great but it's got a bigger wake at slower speeds and longer line lengths and doesn't feel as nimble while driving it.   If you are cutting rope at 34/36 mph I think you'd be hard pressed to tell the difference blindfolded between the wake on it and a 196 if it is properly set up and you are not running an old heavy tower.  Add a tower, add a bunch of wake.  If you are skiing -15 off 26 mph and hit the wakes flat and unstacked you want a 196.

When I owned a 206 we rotated with a 196 and a response lxi of similar years and none of the skiers who cut line at max speed complained when it was my turn to haul the boat out.  I do recall one female long line skier in our group hated skiing behind it.  She skied slows speeds and -15 and was flat when she hit the wake.  

The 206 is a good trick boat as it tracks nice and the wake is a bit bigger at slower speeds.  

Punchline:  In this era boat, I'd personally take a 196, but a 206 isn't a horrible compromise if you want a little more room and don't ski slow/long line speeds a bunch.   But skip the tower.  

If you put 50 hours a year on it that boat might need a repower in the next 10 years but you may never need a repower in your skiing lifetime.  Again, it comes down to your personal usage.  My ski buddy has a '92 Mastercraft he bought new and skis on every season; it's on its original engine and still running strong.  Also, the 6.0l is the GM HD truck service engine and it's built to last.  One of the PNW jump-school guys told me he does not think those engines really even hit peak HP until after 1500 hours when they start to loosen up (really break in).  I would not personally think about a repower until it needed it or until gas engines start getting scarce.