Dusty

Kelvin- Thank you! I was unaware of most of the mechanics that you described- except for the "no support from USAWS beyond that" part- We have learned to live with that! Follow-up Q. If a Big Dawg event is held in Southern Region, and a Western Region skier skis in it, do they get a choice to ski in that Regionals? I could look it up- just being lazy, and as a Senior judge I ought to know the answer too...

Jody is right. How do we shake the ladder? As it stands USAWS holds a monopoly on the representation of 3-event with the IWSF. I doubt there will be any changes from the top down... (Abdicating the throne(s) or even symbolically falling on their sword(s) seems unlikely...) Maybe we have to vote with our feet first. If USAWS had no skiers to represent, then IWSF would be more inclined to look to a governing body that did. Especially one that melded with the rules and practices commonly in use, that kept proper records, set appropriate standards and procedures, and properly enforced them?

AB- I completely agree. We have a list. We can prioritize it. It needs presentation to HQ in an orderly, competent and effective fashion by someone who knows those folks and the pertinent dynamics. My solo letters to Mr. Crowley are just time wasted. They are not listening. Q.'s Are/were the Big Dawg and the (former) Pro Tour stops 'sanctioned' (by USAWS) events? Perhaps as cash prize tournaments? What about the foreign venues? Do they use USAWS affiliation for insurance etc? Are the scores compiled for the ranking list(s) or seeding committees? If not I bet those organizers can provide some valuable guidance about potential pitfalls associated with dealing with (or not) USAWS?

Given the method and mechanism that HQ used (after the fact) to 'inform' the membership of the changes- and the placating responses from HQ after we discovered what they had 'accomplished'- I seriously doubt that our officials have any capacity to listen to the membership. Had they been interested in facts, opinions, history, options or ideas in the first place, this change would not have occurred the way it did. Mr. Crowley wrote earlier this year about what he called "push back" over the driver rules changes. To me his language sounded dismissive- which truthfully annoys me nearly as much as the entire behind our back sell-out they 'accomplished'. Bad form to gripe with no solution- so here is one in the form of a question. As I understand, INT manages to hold their events with their own insurance carrier and policy. Why can't we do as well? We do this stuff safely and we do it well, in spite of USAWS meddling- we might even get a rate! JDWSA sounds good to me! If we build it will they (IWSF) come? I think they would, when they come looking for some waterskiers and not the various other "towed water sports"...

The last time I viewed the USAWS budget report I do not recall seeing income from USOC or the Pan Am organization. So the value of affiliation seems limted- other than potential future positions for current USAWS headquarters officials? I am often wrong though. I am good with that.

The Driver Records provided will go back 3 years- a common car insurance standard nationwide. No DUI's, vehicle assaults, or OPEN CONTAINER tickets allowed... My ratings will expire at the end of 2013 unless something changes- or sooner if I choose not to renew membership. One less Senior slalom driver, and judge, is not going to affect the course of the organization. I get that. My issues are not and have not been the $12.50. It is the way this change was communicated and the 'done deal' blind side. AWSA has a laudable record of tournament safety. Some of the other disciplines apparently do not. We fund the lion's share of operations for USAWS. Instead of creating a tiered system or 'policing' the disciplines in need of it- they sold out everyone. The Trained Driver requirements apparently ARE going to be the end of some long-standing clubs around the country. All for some 'supplemental' insurance benefit? What I see is a common tactic wherein giving away something you don't have or don't value is pretty easy, and easily justified. I still tend to suspect additional motives behind the decisions made- either parochial or financial...

My opinion. Until the H-O Truth came along, the VTR was the most unforgiving ski in the H-O line. Lots of rocker, narrow tail and very small sweet spot. You might look for a CDX- much better ski in every way. Not as fast or as forgiving as newer models but still light years ahead of the VTR. I did like the VTR color though...

All good stuff here. I might add- slack results from skiing faster than the boat- the cause is from pulling too long and/or in the wrong direction as well.

I heard last year that they were going to allow two, non-3 event senior slalom drivers at the Western Regionals. I don't know if it's happened or how it's worked out. The rule Jody posted has been around a while. I'd say that mostly it works out that way. If more end course video was set up and available, I think most drivers would benefit. In the mean time, the boat judge is in charge and has the responsibility to correct boat path, and the authority to grant re-rides for out of tolerance boat paths- even in non-record tournaments... Communication between boat judge and driver is huge. That said, giving a good pull is not just about the times and path. Two drivers with near perfect paths will rarely feel the same, or 'equal'. Steering input, drops, pull-ups, etc.- all affect the skier, and influence their confidence in the driver, and their skiing.

I think you may be stuck with that rooster tail. I have skied a fair amount behind one of those. 'Significant' rooster tail/hard wakes, thru 22 off. Very easy to get it chine locked in a tight turn with skier, too... Always, always, have an observer or at least weight to counterbalance the driver... That said- props, weight distribution, and hull sanding can make a big difference in most boats' wakes. There are experts at all of those out there. (Eric Lee's (bubbler?) solution may work too.) I would experiment with adding some weight on center line, forward of the line of the dash if you can. If I had to guess, about 40#, to start, maybe even more.

I've had coaches explain that rotation and canting tends to work for skiers whose hip/knee/ankle geometry. benefits from 'unloading' the hip tension, allowing them to open up more effectively. For skiers without geometry issues, the effect is said to be less noticed and probably not recommended.

A lot of good advice here. I watched the passes several times, concentrating on the ski/water interface. As mentioned on your set up/turn-in, the line is tight. The one hand gate turn-in, might ideally emulate a 2/4 ball turn. I'd try to carry more speed in your glide, advancing on the boat, so that at turn-in you are not so 'tight-lined'. The ski would turn into more angle. I think you'd find that your weight would be further forward, and the water breaking at the front instep, establishing a better path to one ball, and allowing you to carry more speed through the course. The 'long pulling' should go away then.

Like slmskrs says- try looking at the back of the boat. I've been trying to refine even that, in that I am trying to look at the far rear corner of the transom, as I finish the turn and load.

"Hopefully....fingers crossed.... they are able to fix their issues with lackluster customer support after this. Thanks again for the help, and hopefully I will be back on the water this weekend." I would be more positive on that possibility if they didn't have such a piss-poor track record in that regard. Their record of non-performance in customer support is well documented as you can read from the earlier comments... PP rocks in that realm.

I can't say i recognize that model Extreme- H-O made an "Extreme" years ago (1995 maybe) that was a very high performance ski- not recommended for a newer skier according to skiers on them- Back then, Mach 1's, Turbos etc would have been the more 'forgiving' models od H-O skis.

Um. If you can get a release designed, and want to use it in tournaments- it will require a rules change, because the rope is supposed to be attached/looped over the pylon and a release, (legal in trick right now) is not legal to use in slalom, as I understand the rules. Also some of the trick releases effectively change the length of the rope- legal in trick, but not in slalom. I could be mistaken...

Ron Martin M6... I've been doing some of most everything at tournaments, for about 19 years now- I like to keep busy, because I ski crappy.

GAJ0004- I too am a proud member of that PETA... Saw a bumper sticker not long ago, that said- "If God didn't want us to eat animals, why did He make them out of meat?" Been looking for one of those- they seem hard to find here on the "Left" coast....

Great idea. Empirically, for me anyway- I've found that more rocker = a slower, 'turnier' ski. They usually came with a shorter 'flat spot' and less forgiveness for skier movement fore and aft. Bevels and concaves- not so sure. Some skis with rounder bevels seem to 'hunt' when not edged, if that is the correct term. Narrow tail and lots of rocker made several skis nearly unskiable for me. They weren't around long so maybe others found them that way as well-

Had a goose hit my legs, and swallows nearly take me in the face. My ski partner took a goose in her ribs and didn't ski for several days. Hitting a 10 pound carp at the surface has resulted in some spectacular OTF's too. Not sure how I'd deal with snakes and gators. other than maybe being a little 'proactive' with them...

What Eric writes is exactly right. Only other thing I do is put a release agent on the jam nut, and screw- The JB Weld will not bond very well to them then, and it is easier to get them apart, and off/out of the ski. Lots of stuff works as a release agent- even Chapstick in a pinch, but I prefer stuff that wont 'migrate' to and contaiminate the surfaces I want bonded.

One of the better -38 skiers I have talked to has opined that he can't really load from width- there is 'no boat' to load against. He concentrates on getting the ski turned and pointed and body position set to load where it will be productive. I think he was saying what OB is saying, just a little differnenty, and as a LFF. As a heavier skier, at longer lines, I have to be careful not to be too slow at turn-in, and begin sinking a bit- that can stand you up even sooner than overloading...

What Bruce said- with the caveat that I sure hope I am a way better driver than skier! For Brandon- if you can drive -35 comfortably- you are likely to be OK with -38 too- it is different but being smooth will get you there. Good, smooth skiers are also way easier to drive than scrappy ones too...

Hmmm... I thought a 'tantrum' was a wakeboard trick. Stuff happens- wind, debris, loose buoys...- tossing the handle means you're done right? I saw a guy's wife drive away and leave him once- was pretty funny really.

I think LFF v. RFF makes a difference too. I see LFF having to be higher up on the boat and turn in later, more aggressively. Even the best skiers need some width to start from- at 38, getting width puts you pretty far up on the boat, 39 and 41 more so. Does 'going later' mean an easier or slower turn-in from width?