JackQ

Good luck with getting toroidal reworked after you ding it. If it can be done, I doubt it will be cheap. Someone should do the math, how much gas would you save to cover the cost of the prop and the occasional subsequent rework? I hazard I am not completely atypical and seem to go 2-3 years before my prop gets dinged by an unknown object or being stupid and hit the left when to far forward and not paying attention.

Strong is only relevant in relation to strength to weight. Then the question is strength of what, strong pecs and triceps would only matter if you plan on pushed on the rope. I believe lower body strength is what really matters so I emphasis working my legs heavily and putting miles on my bike, and playing racquetball. However, often strong individuals learn to ski and try to harness their strength to the deterrent of their body position, handle control and edge change. The scrap and crash, and then repeat. The ideal scenario is to learn how to ski properly and then get strong, like Bob LaPoint, running short line when he was a skinny kid and then growing up, I expect that is what will happens to Charlie Ross as he matures. A good regime of conditioning and strength training, may improve one skiing performance but more importantly should greatly reduce the occurrence of injury and if injured, reduce the severity and lessen the recovery time. So there is a utility for bench press, but I see too many making that a priority and neglecting all other muscle groups. Alas, I spend a lot of time in the weight room and cant seem to get any closer to Adam Caldwell’s physique, or skiing either.

It is not hard to calculate what skier’s on average gain by slowing down 2mph. Go to the USAW website, compare you ski m2 one year and m3 the next as well as those going from M6 to M7. Compare there scores. I did this about 2 years ago, I first took each skiers average and compared between those two divisions and the used a ChiSquared distribution to derive a confidence interval. (I used to teach statistics and the U. S. Naval Academy) the difference was just over 3 I recall 3.1. Some skier’s lost buoys! Others gain more. Then I looked for trends and found a break between the 28off and below and the 32 and shorter skiers. The shorter line skier gained less than those at 28 and below. Let the data set you free and not depend on what some think, feel or what they did or hope to.

Ops, Typo. Meant to be 3 1/2@36 MPH not 26

@MISkierBut it is a handicap system in reality. If we ski in the same division and you run 3@35 at 34mph, and I run 3 1/2@32 at 26mph, you lose.

Unfortunately, AWSA pulled a buoy handicap out of their ass, because is is easy, not based on facts. If skiers want to go slower than the max, great! Skiing above the division max with an arbitrary 6 buoy handicap would result in me (and others) having to ski at 34 or possibly 36 to be competitive. The risk of injury would be much higher. Though it may be delusional conceit, I believe that I have been fortunate to held up better physically and in better physical condition than most of my peers and would do as well or better in comparison. But would result in all that skiers at the faster speeds would “fall apart” sooner and be injured more frequently. Additionally we should be more aligned to IWSF not deviating in more areas as basic as the speed we compete at. This is an absolutely terrible idea! I did a comparison of skiers that changed speed, last year at higher speed, compared to 1st year at slower speed. The increase in buoy count was much heigher for the 28 and below skiers than for 35 and up. This make perfect sense as timing, handle path and body position is more critical factor than speed as the rope gets shorter and shorter. I recall that I looked at four different year groups, and the average was 3 and fraction buoys. My experience reflects that, my R tournament best went from 5@39@34mph to 2@41@32, Practice best 2@41 to 3@41. So I would have to run (according to ZBS) 4 or 5@ 41 to compete with myself at 34. This proposal is from those who do not know the reality of skiing/competing or don't care.

@HortonI may not have accurately described my thought. I am referring to some skiers that have a flat ski with minimal to no load at the 1st wake, flat through centerline and then at or past the 2nd wake they struggle to get the ski on the inside edge as the are going straight with little to no load. I always attempt but don’t always succeed, is to transition from the pulling edge, to the inside edge in one continuous motion, and to minimize the time between the tow.

@twhisper, The answer to your question, “Should centerline be your max load, or should it be the point where the edge change is taking place?” I believe the answer is both, at centerline or marginally before, you should have max load, and at the point start your edge change, utilizing the load to assist the movement to the inside edge. Contrast on how difficult it would be to have a flat ski and then make the movement to the inside edge. I conceptualize the movement as rolling the ski from one side to the other almost pushing the inside tip into the water during the process

Some have stated that it make tournaments more of a hassle. I have found the opposite, we have used for all our tournaments C and R, with waterski connect, you don't have to radio in the times and saves the scores a step. We have been lucky using RTK (vice base station) the system has been very reliable. @Bruce_Butterfield has a valid concern, drivers just going for the numbers. A bad pull can have good numbers. In the words of Lee Mershan, "Slalom is a dance and the driver needs to be the lead partner" if not the skier is chasing the boat or the boat trying to find the skier. If you review your path on SurePath with the breadcrumbs, it is much more useful and instructive than the numbers.

It has improved the driving for many (including myself), keeps tournaments ligit ( all most all were) and removes the tenancy for some to question performances when the are good to exceptional. All for the cost of a used high-end slalom ski.

I served on the USS Truett FF-1095 and USS Dixon AS-37. I was deployed during both Desert Storm and Desert Shield, 1st in Sicily, 2nd afloat in the Persian Gulf

A life time ago, being promoted to Ltjg by my Commanding Officer on my 1st ship.

I am with @Horton. As soon as it get cooler and my enthusiasm and performance slackens, I don't touch my fin, but accept than I will be done a pass, and run more back to back passes and work on my weakness. To get better typically when you work on a weak point, you get worse before you improve the “off season” is the time for me to do so.

I had a some what similar issue on my 196. I could run one pass but on the 2nd the boat would die, but would then start up and seem fine. I finally determined that I had debris in the small screen attached to the pick up tube in the fuel tank. What was happening was at idle or slow speed enough fuel was getting through the fuel line and the “fuel cell/pump/reservoir) would fill up and have enough fuel to pull one and 1/2 passes. I thought it was the driver at 1st, then the speed control, which I eliminated by driving a simulated pass by hand driving, then suspected an electrical issue, and finally stumbled on the fuel issue. It is not likely your problem but a possibility.

My understanding is that L and R tournaments are run under IWSF rules and with IWSF your Max speed is the "Maximum" allowed

@Than_Bogan, you are correct. I made a typo. I can barely feel 5 thousandths, and is often more “in the head” of what you expect it to do as much as what it did.

When I transitioned to 32mph, I added .0015 in fin depth to slow down my turn in contrast to lpskier. So it depends on your style, ski and level. I also reduced my wing, from 9 degrees to 8. I don't think any particular ski is better than another for 32mph, but if you were near the upper end of the recommend weight on your current ski, trying the next larger ski may pay dividends for you. I tried a larger ski, but I was on the light side at 34mph for my ski, and the next size up of the ski I was using did not work for me at my harder passes.

I believe there were additional anchors to prevent the course from bending but whatever it was the bouys moved vertically and laterally, enough to see the buoy go up enough to see the line under the buoy and then have the buoy disappear. Some of which was likely caused by the floating tire wall 30 ft or so to the side of the course. One skier got lean locked, and when he bailed he hit the tires. Quite unique site

Just back from France, it wasnt as much the buoys were large and they were (largest in years) but they moved, a lot. A deep float course and the buoys and gates were moving significantly. A large number of gates be missed, including mine were a result of gates, not being in same place when you got to them

Who can run 41 in practice (without regard to driver and sure path) is one thing, running 41 in a tournament in the heat of competition is quite another. I ran many 39 off in practice with good drivers and boat paths, but (and you could call them legitimate) but until I run 39 in a tournament it is not official nor does it count.

@buechsr, We have young one and old ones. If you take Mens 6 & 7 (what was Mens 3 big bubble back in the day, and we had 60 skiers. Part of the perceived demise is not talking into account the bubble of the BabyBomber demographic. Of course the high cost of the sport, loss of water access and attraction of other activities/ sports are all factors.

My 1st Nationals was at De Quoin, not sure if it was 1985. I would argue that skiing then (dual boats, had to pull out through the wakes of the boat leaving the the course), behind a 1985 MC ( I owned one), with blinding spray at 35, inconsistent driving, and the skis of that time; was more challenging than today. However, My wife skied on Sunday at the Nationals and I skied on Monday, and there was glare in the morning and wind in the afternoon that made in a bit challenging. I can not complain as I was only off a few buoys from my season best score, but other were not as fortunate.

Are you all really worrying about enough power for a deep water start! behind a 2020-2022 MC? The last time I worried about a deep water start was behind a 33hp Evinrude.

Everyone that is watching should consider contributing to the go fund me campaign, they are still just short of the goal. I have contributed twice and hope that enough funding is contributed to make this happen again next year. https://www.gofundme.com/f/2022-us-nationals-webcast?utm_campaign=m_pd+share-sheet&utm_medium=copy_link_all&utm_source=customer

@dave2ball, I believe that is a gross overstatement and mixing two issues. I also question the value added for USOC affiliation, but even without it we would have to do SafeSport or a similar facsimile.