Dusty

My sources say running 38 is really about commitment (or its lack)... They say you must not pull past centerline, and you have to commit to the turn with lower body. I have seen that if your eyes can look down the buoy line at 38 off- to get there you are likely screaming down the lake, faster than the boat and you might soon enjoy one or more of the 'funner' things about slalom- like maybe a huge slack hit, a stylish cartwheel or some other crowd pleaser.

I agree- I believe there are individual 'geomtries' (maybe from 'bad'/previously injured ankles, knees, hips) that should drive the distance between ankles. With that caveat tho, I have noted small movements of one binding to be equivalent to moving one half hole, without effecting leverage/balance or fin settings extensively. Helpful for fine tuning for warmer/colder water etc.

Still have that ski? Am interested.

I was told a while back that that rotating the front binding out unloads/frees up the hips? Rotating the rear opens one hip but doesn't necessarily square both over the ski. On writer talked about taking the "bite" out of the turns. I think that's right- If your feet 'know' what angles to take and you rotate them outward- wont the ski then take a little less angle from the ball at first?

A recurring "discussion" around our group has been prompted by my assertion based on math and physics, that unless the rope got longer, the minimum, down course speed of any skier is boat speed? Any thoughts? dn- I used a 5 meter radius turn at 60K (estimated turn speed at 55K) and get no more than about 1.7 g's. 65K (58K boat speed) gives 2 g's, same radius. Do you feel we can turn the ski at a 5 meter radius? Shorter, longer?

Having a lot of trouble navigating around the site now- scrolling etc. Not all the messagges appear. Is it just me or what? Not having the intuitive grasp of computers like many, please bear with me.

• I'm not sure GPS is accurate enough for the task. My Garmin will not update fast enough, except for maybe gross measurements like every 50+ feet or whatever at 55K. Maybe I can borrow a radar gun, tape a square of aluminum foil to a good skier's vest and get multiple readings at points throughout the course. Then e-mail them or post them here. Computer adept people can 'map' them up for us? I do see the point that the skier is in the same place more or less at the buoy- i.e.- we dont ski 20 feet wider at long line than 28 off. Maybe the difference is that a skier can add energy closer to buoy width at longer lines- The boat is relatively more in front of the skier than off to the side, as the relative angle(s) subtended by the rope changes as the length changes, buoy width and speed constant. Line tension occurs 'sooner'. I've asked good skiers what they do differently at 38 over 35 and received answers like "I have to do less at 38", or like Bud Man says "I have to be more patient- there is no 'pulling' from buoy width at 38 and shorter" The West Coast Slalom video showed a series of line tensions, that appeared to grow as line shortened. I don't recall a huge variance through the middle lines though. Anyone watched it lately?

I for sure will be interested in your results. Some thoughts:  Visualize a pass at long line and then a pass at 38 off. Where is the skier at the buoy in relation to the boat? I know as a boat judge the skier is for sure further up on the boat at the ball at 38 off than 32 off than 15 off. At 38 you have to even crane around the driver to see the skier at one, three, five. Can't tell much about their path from the boat as it's sort of two dimensional from there. From watching a lot of really good skiers at 35, 38, 39 etc- you can see that they have less time to effectively accellerate- They are closer to the white water and are very efficient in adding energy to reach next buoy width. The best are really good at energy (speed)management, and don't need to add as much. From various coaches, I have also observed that you can use a "pulling" edge relatively long at 15 off and not create too much excess energy. At 32 and shorter, "pulling" longer- say past the white water, creates energy in a down course direction beyond that necessary to reach the buoy= slack. I think skis are designed to turn in certain 'window' of speeds. I know if my weight moves forward and the ski tries to turn at a certain threshhold speed, I usually get the OTF eyeball peeler I deserve.Â

Something else to consider? From math, if you add, parametrically and graphically- circular motion, (swinging an arc at a given distance behind the pyon), to straight line motion, from the perspective that shows both components, you get a path that is a derivative of a sine wave. Skier path is not a pure sine wave because a portion of it is not skidded straight-line down-course out near the buoys, the ski is turning and moving mainly unloaded from line tension. Isn't gate to one slower because it is not half the longitudinal distance between buoys? 88 compared to 67 feet. I suspect skiing the same speed would require the skier to turn back across up course from one ball, at very short lines.  There was a formula published at one time that computed skier speed with line length/boat speed. I don't have it any more, but I recall the caveat given that the formula broke down at shorter than 38 off because the handle would never reach any further outside the course width or something.

I have repaired/restrung dozens of handles. At times I've had to scavenge two to make one (end caps, grommet covers etc) but it works. If you can get caps or end protectors, even better. I "unassembled" broken or frayed handles to learn how they were strung, took notes of dimensions  and made drawings fror reference. Various types of ropes tie up differently and dictate 'learning curves'. Old-style, hollow aluminum knitting needles in various sizes make nice splicing fids. If I can do it, anyone can! Being careful, using hot water to soften the plastic, and building a 'jig' from scrap lumber are the only other tips you need. Spectra-type ropes lasts longest, but are pricey, and many skiers don't really care for it as it's "shockey" (no stretch to it) and can be hard on elbows or other joints. If it hasn't been skied on, and knots set, you can restring a handle with the long line section from your (or a 'donated'...) ski rope. Almost "free"... Beta test a practice handle first! Learning the knots is good practice anyway. Ski ropes are way more consistent these days, but sooner or later you will encounter one out-of-spec- maybe yours or maybe at a tournament, as a Chief Judge. As a CJ or Tech Controller, I prefer tournament ropes, all be very close (like plus/minus 1/2"- (1.5 cm?)) to same dimension, same maunfacturer, same type rope etc.Â

Like Eric says- and as one of our best skiers explained to me- with the skis so light already, incrementally taking that last 4 ounces out of the ski might cost $200k in R & D, and end up with a ski that could  give us one(?) buoy but also may not  last very long. For $30 per month we can join a gym, lose 10-15 pounds, and maybe add several buoys. Potential cost benefit/buoy is a lot higher... Wear and tear on skis, body and other equipment is lower too maybe. I think we will all buy the buoys we can, but at some point paying to visit a coach or two, losing the 10-15 and just skiing smarter may pay off better for us.

 IMO- Polyform are still the best buoys out there. Almost no culls that wont inflate/hold air- (less than 1% loss). The material is softer at colder temps too. I've noted here the red ones do tend to fade to a nice orange after a week or so in the sun, and then slow fade after that until about September when they kind of split the gap between yellow and orange. Do you think the orange ones make nice yellow boat guides after two weeks?... The yellow ones get run over a lot more!

Until then- for practice, keep regular spherical balls low in water (well less than 1/2 exposed), so skis can get over them without completely decellerating.

We got the definitive answer on the water from h20ski, so  how do we quantify the skis' change(s). Some materials change a lot w/ regard to temperature- some not so much. Most  plastics for the most part get stiffer with lower temperatures. Does that change ski flex enough to alter performance? Not to make a pun, but- I think once your feet are numb the performance falls off... i know I do. Hate those ice cream headaches!

I'm willing to bet the most significant factor is the skier- wearing more clothing, being tighter, less flexible. Water gets denser until about 39 degrees then gets less dense until freezing (reason ice floats, which is useful in cocktails for example). I'd suspect  denser water would float the ski higher? Less surface immersed= less friction= faster? Are there any pilots or hydroplane drivers out there who can advise?

La Nina is coming...winterize the boat and wax your skis soon!

I was working on the course while they pulled a skier on an older model Obrien with the skeleton fin box- it definitely 'whistled', screamed or whatever. Sounded kind of evil at water level, as they went by...

If you drove outside the boat guides (no skier), and add distance to the length of the course, and got the same splits, then the boat was going faster right?  I am asking the question, I don't have access to a ZO boat right now. My observation as a judge is that skiers who pulled past centerline got throttle after centerline. That caused speed at the buoy, cartwheels, slack or 'slides'. The cause was the skier pulling too long, but ZO certainly did "gas them" into the ball. For now, I am going to contuinue to try to figure out how to ski behind it because we have no option any more. I know what I see and hear.  My observations are no more invalid than anyone else's. Funny though, you ask a question here and you get what? Answers? or more opinions? For now I am not a fan of ZO. It isn't getting any better and likely wont becasue of lack of competition. Oh and by the way, I have not heard anyone say "pretty please can I have some gas"...

Someon with ZO try this- Drive thru gates and then outside, up against the guide balls. Should add minimum 6 feet to course length. Splits should be about 0.02 sec. longer, 0.12 second over all. I marvel at the adaptabilty of the skiers on this forum. You have literally changed the way you ski to confrom to the ZO pull characteristics. Perhaps with enough reps, I will learn to ski it acceptably. As a driver, I'd like to see a 'smarter' system. One where it makes no difference, what skier type- age, sex, weight, height, style not a factor. A smarter system will have to know when and more imprtantly when NOT to add throttle. Driving by hand we learned to NEVER gas the skier into the ball. I remain convinced that ZO can be dangerous given some (skier caused) conditions. You can hear it add throttle when the skier is hoping to unload. I have seen the OTF's and the unexpected slack at the buoy- skier caused- no argument. Early iterations of ZO proved unsuitable, even dangerous for jump. They added a switch. It seems to be working fine. Distances are still going up, records are being set. I hear few argue it is not a superior trick system. Are we in a stagnant period for slalom records, caused by ZO or the physical limit due rope length? If we get some 7'6" skier we may discover the reality there. I don't know. Is this widening our appeal, adding new skiers? In 10 years who is going to be running this show/

My GPS does not update speed every 0.05 sec.  more like every 0.167 sec. Not an order of magnitude, but a bunch of feet down couse as ZO "catches up" with some average speed. i have a healthy skepticism re: ZO's 'virtual' timing segments too. If they are calculated on a perfect speed, and a perfect distance- I guess they will be virtually pretty close... Lets get this fixed so it wont matter if we are big, little, smooth, jerky , slow or ugly!

I too learned to drive from John Goodman and Gary Potter using the tach. I can recall (Bob Hardeman?) saying  that when using the tach you figured a baseline rpm, w/driver, crew, whatever, then added one rpm for each (estimated) pound of skier weight, and 1/3 rd rpm for any additional crew, not in the 'baseline' - I think that is pretty much what PP classic does. W/ regard to skiers staying away from tournaments because of ZO- we can see it here in the northwest, and a lot of the skiers believe the scores are down 4 buoys or so with it as well. I ski  crappy-er behind it, and I have no idea what setting(s) to use behind the various boats. I have noticed it can be VERY different behind boats of even the same manufacture. Radically different. Some setting combinations seem virtually unskiable. Is it props, engine displacement, phase of the moon or what? PP wasn't earth shakingly great at first but it evolved rapidly into a very good driving system, that could be managed by competent drivers to give pretty much any skier a very good pull. ZO may be getting better, but i haven't seen much obvious improvement yet.  Was Accuski may the competition that pushed PP to get better? What is the carrot that will make ZO stop gassing heavy skiers into the buoy? Is there a technical fix? Using the slalom switch, or a pylon mounted strain gauge? What will bring them to market a system that will work with non-DBW boats? Maybe it can not be done? A lot of us are waiting for the 'next' big breakthrough...