buechsr

Lp, I never said anything to the contrary, but Hopefully no more portopotties get blown over today! From the looks of the flags now it’s debatable. Lol. Probably not fun for the vacuum crew yesterday ? Everyone up here has been great. Props to everyone busting their tails.

Storming now. Rain isn’t that heavy but the wind is howling!

Irony on full display. Some voices in opposition who haven't even watched the video blame a younger generation, think the program and the issues raised therein are purely common sense, and that they can spot a "perv" trying to make a move. Between the Boy Scouts, the Catholic Church, Nasser, and Sandusky, I would have thought rational people could all agree that if it's possible for those thousands of examples to go undetected, that there's more to learn about how this works than spotting a 60 year old chatting up a 17 year old girl in a bikini out in the open. But, I'd be sadly wrong. If it has to be made about defending lawsuits, if there's no lawsuits to defend because inappropriateness (or worse) was prevented, the mission was accomplished. Keith, I applaud your post and restraint. USAWS cannot (and should not) rest on its laurels on this issue. Those so vociferously opposed are on the wrong side of this, long lineage with USAWS or not. If a poster in this thread drops their membership as a result of USAWS's requirement and you're made aware of it Keith, contact me. I'll pay for up to 5 dropped memberships for a year. Personally, I find it shocking to see some of the posts herein. Proudly signed, Sheep

Travers has done their Grand Prix for a few years, which is not only a team event, it also incorporates some non-skiing events. Seems like a super fun idea. My club had a pro am a few years back where everyone skied against their average, which, while not a new concept, would be easy to convert to a team format, either random or planned, as suggested by OP. That seems like a great start to team grouping. You could also ski one round as a seeding round, and then do a team buoy count total for subsequent rounds depending on how many teams were wanted. Heck, even just two teams could spice up an average class C. Although my college was rarely (never) in the running for winning anything, it was fun to pull for your teammates. I hope this is a thought-provoking thread!

Fellas, This thread isn't about any other past proposal, bureaucracy, or frustrations. It's about a one hour video to help recognize and prevent situations that "could" help protect our most vulnerable. I'm surprised that it's endured 8 pages, let alone 2.

jayski, with all due respect, a one hour video to educate on the subject issue is the definition of "ease" of "adaptation", and, like it or not, "progress" was demonstrably needed in sports. The request and implementation from USAWS was as anti-bureaucratic as it could be. The video is simple, yet worthy of everyone's time, USAWS member or not, in my opinion. I griped when I got told I had to take it, and justified my position the same way many in this thread do (I already do enough, I already spend enough, this doesn't apply to me or my team, I'll recognize the signs if I see it, I don't need to be told how to be perceptive, I don't need this organization, they should be glad they even have my time and money, etc. etc.). After I did it, I was glad I did it. And even more importantly, was glad our entire soccer club's coaching staff did too, as there were times I couldn't hover with just my kids and team. There is not a better, more self-less group of people than those involved in organized waterskiing. I've been around a lot of competitive sports and I firmly believe that. That was the case 25 years ago, and I've been reminded of that during my re-entry into competitive skiing through my kids recently. But, it is unexpected that people who have done so much (and gotten much) for decades, choose this as a reason to quit an organization that through thick and thin continues to strive to do its best, arguably now more than ever. It's not the 1980s anymore. Issues are different. People with decision-making authority, who were voted upon, have decided that it's important that USAWS members be aware that these situations are not kidnappings, and there are things to look out for. Of ALL the issues that I would have thought we can ALL agree is that prevention of an inappropriate relationship deriving from a waterski related event should be paramount to all of us. I find it sad that that's not the case. Y'all with contrary opinions can quit, gripe, whatever makes you feel better. Maybe you're even right that this is the last straw for bureaucracy run amok in USAWS. I have no beef with a one hour sacrifice to be on the right side of awareness on this issue, and don't mind saying publicly that it's deserving of your time, whether you're fed up with sanctioning, insurance, rules, or not.

I've taken the safe sport training for another sport, soccer. I'll gladly take it again in '22 to be USAWS compliant. While not every minute is groundbreaking, it is eye-opening, and I found it not be a waste of time, especially knowing that many others would be on the same page. I've counted 2 people in this thread who have taken in and found it to be unproductive. Many more in this thread have taken in and at least report some benefit. But the plurality in this thread appear to be folks who liken this requirement to "wokeness" (even though safe sport training was created well-before that was even a term), and justification for cancelling USAWS. To my occasionally-flawed way of thinking, that reaction smacks more of a childish temper tantrum than reasoned, presumably well-intentioned adult, who is merely being asked to spend an hour to hopefully contribute to the collective goal of reducing if not (hopefully) eradicating predatorial behavior stemming from a sport you love. Those opinions would have far more weight if they they took the course, and concluded it was as misguided and pointless as they allege. Seems a strange hill to die on, even if folks are right that they've given more than received from USAWS. Personally, I'm willing to accept that USAWS does a lot more than provide a site and ranking list, and trust that the decision-makers make decisions to the best of their ability. If they have determined that safe sport compliance is integral to USAWS relationships, and, much more importantly, can help membership be (more) aware of the potential for problems that can arise from or at events that are very unique in terms of attire and age diversity, then I'm willing to trust them, send my money in, and comply. Maybe I'm a sheep, but maybe some opinions expressed herein are deserving of some more reflection?

To my knowledge, as to metal fatigue, only for stainless props. Reports of several of those losing blades, some allegedly even through the hull. However, I see no reason why traditional nibral would suffer any performance decline from use.

As I proposed in another thread on this issue, if the goal of the current system is to ensure strong regionals numbers, which stimulates participation in local events throughout the season to acquire scores to qualify for regionals and nationals, but comes at the expense of the most complete field possible at nationals because 2 of 3 weeks are consumed by both, perhaps A solution is to allow people who have skied x number of events skip regionals. For example, 6, with 3 different sites required. Some people would ski 6 anyway, and regionals, and nationals, which is great. BUT, if someone skied 6 events (or more) they've demonstrated the requisite commitment to supporting events, and if their average were high enough, could go to nationals and skip regionals. This avoids the problem with someone skiing one event, getting a score, taking the 10% penalty, and just showing up at nationals without supporting events along the way. It also ensures that if someone has demonstrated a commitment to multiple events, that they're not precluded from nationals if they have a financial, schedule, or geographical barrier to regionals. In essence, either strongly support your region's tournaments throughout the season or you need to come to regionals. Seems to check multiple boxes to me.

Be careful on a sslxi, you may need a vdrive boom because the windshield, as I recall, goes well behind the pylon.

how much for everything?

Horton, all I was saying was that increasing the size of nationals seems inverse to increasing its competitiveness. Just the top 5 skiers in each event in each age would be more "competitive", but would be an unfairly small penultimate annual reward. I agreed with you that I like the concept of a large nationals. There have been multiple threads in which people have expressed their opinion that nationals was too easy to qualify for and was too big. For some reason I thought you were of that belief. I'm glad that's not the case. In any event, to avoid the problem in which people can't ski nationals because budgets and time get exhausted going to regionals, see my second post, which would allow people to both get nationals the traditional ways, but also allow some to skip regionals with a sufficient number of scores. As for the opinions of 3 boat companies and ski manufacturers, I didn't say their opinion didn't matter, but I think the opinions of the 700 skiers, and the untold number of others who wished they were there (like you) are more relevant.

Another idea: How about amending the penalty rule such that the current model and regional requirement stays, but someone who skis 6 events can "clep" their way out of regionals? Obviously the intent of the penalty rule and "NCQ-PRP" (or whatever the acronym is) is to avoid a skier posting one score and showing up at nationals, but someone who shows support of multiple events wouldn't be pushed out of nationals simply because they couldn't make regionals.

As to your last line Horton, maybe, but is the opinion of 5 ski manufacturers and 3 boat companies the 8 opinions that should drive the ship? Maybe I'm wrong but I had the impression it was your opinion that when nationals gets bigger, it also becomes less competitive and that nationals qualification was already too "easy"? If that's not your opinion, would you not agree that size and competitiveness are kind of inversely related, save for a few slalom divisions? For the record, I support a large nationals which serves as the aspirational goal of a ski season, particularly for the kids. How about expanding the number of auto-qualifiers so they don't have to decide between regionals or nationals, but still allow the more borderline skiers the opportunity to ski nationals if they've jumped through the hoops to get there both by season scores and regional participation? In theory, size would go up but you're less likely to lose any of the highest ranked not come due to time/money already spent on regionals.

What a bummer. My young'ns were sad to hear this. Regina has never been anything but gracious, encouraging, and nice as can be to them. While this is a setback, Karma will hopefully speed her recovery.

anyone have the running order? per tournament info on USAWS appears open slalom is tomorrow and rest of events are sat and sun? Kind of a bummer as tomorrow east winds are going to get up there (18 mph) (lakes are E/W). Sunday dead calm.

I think defending champions had automatic berth? So, 3 at SRB, 3 at Drews and 2 at ITS + defending champ= 9

do we know anything about what it will cost?

how long have you owned it? old gas? I'd start with fuel filters and cap and rotor.

If they're saying a GS22 will be getting 3 hours of runtime, with far more power demand than a ski tug, the run time of the same battery would be far longer in a ski boat. I look forward to the future. From chainsaws to cars and now boats, hard to argue that electric is superior for a lot of applications.

dbutcher, the Graves Amendment bars vicarious liability claims against owner-lessors of vehicles (including rental car companies).

Another one here! Looking forward to getting it wet this weekend!

I repowered a zero off 196 2 years ago for less than 5k. New long block, risers and manifolds needed. And labor. Less than 5k. 350, obviously. Interior pricing can vary but assuming a 190 or 205, I'd hazard a good average is 2500.

philippe, If you don't believe me, call nautique back and ask why, since your boat is essentially a v drive ski nautique 200, why they sent them (some) from the factory with a 12.5" diameter prop (the 1868), and now recommending a 13.5" for you. The answer is that they are giving correct advice for most sport 200 owners. You're seeking a very specific purpose and a smaller prop will be closer to that goal than a 13.5. Huge difference, maybe not, but pose them the question and please report back their answer. Lifting strakes are longitudal "lines" of hull shape that serve to create lift, thus reducing the perceived weight of the boat on the water at speed.

381 is still 13.5" diameter. My suggestion was a 13" diameter. I'm not saying its ideal for most sport 200s, but if you want the absolute best wake/wash, I'd suggest going smaller. YMMV.