buechsr

1 hour ago, The_MS said:

If a non USOPC waterski league were to develop, I would gladly pay extra dues to stay away from any government backing. 
Just leave USAWS to the elites that need to travel the world to compete. 

Who do you plan on getting to run it and provide any insurance?  USOC mandate aside, this was also a requirement of USAWS insurers.

Awesome to see Jaeden Eade on the RO!  Home lake, home boat, will be pulling for him to ski well!

Try Watching tv in basic downward and upward dog.  Once the big muscle groups get stretched and loose, I’d bet your piriformis can finally then “see” a stretch in those positions and you loosen up over time.  

Low, one leg step throughs after.   Turmeric every morning.  

On 9/1/2023 at 2:02 PM, jjackkrash said:

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.

Because the difference is, by cutting it down at the tail, the “new” tail has way more support (from width), than a simply shorter ski.  Yes, construction and stiffness may still remain, but the ski rides higher.  

Apparently kids skis are like politics, lol.

In my “opinion”, there’s a difference between lower level skiers, and an 80# kid at 28 mph at 15 off, but I would never disagree with someone with more experience than I.  

  Lots of good opinions here OP.

There isn’t a magic pill except boat gas.  Enjoy the journey.

7 minutes ago, jjackkrash said:

63.5" Vapor.  No chopping required.  

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.

30 minutes ago, BraceMaker said:

With out adding balls the technique is to drive down just outside of the boat guides, the skier goes around the turn ball and the opposite boat guide marker for a total course width of 12.65m or 6.325m 

I would say that it does feel quite narrow but it is convenient that it overlaps the 6.4m recommendation as you could just put in an official disability course dimension which is cool.

Double edged sword if you've skied around the mini course it doesn't have the dynamics quite but then if you're splitting the difference you get pretty close to just going for the whole course anyway.

 

 

And then boat path can split towards centerline a bit more and use the outside boat guide to learn even more width. (around 1 ball, around left side boat guide at 2, etc.)

14 hours ago, ETskier said:

Sorry guys on the misspelling. But, yes it is the drive by wire servo. 2006 was the the 1st year, but it was introduced in 2005. Nautique's version was a traditional cable from the throttle to this device, then electronic through the ECM.  It tended to become brittle and disintegrate over time, particularly in warm climates. 

I understand where you're going, and that they can fail, but causing a hesitation?  I'm not following that but seek to learn about this as  I've already done one on my 08.  thx

If the basics dont fix it I'd bet on crank position sensor.

49 minutes ago, LeonL said:

Yeah, what is a "pententiometer".  I'm sure an '05 196 has no such device..

He meant potentiometer.  It's basically the servo that translates drive by wire signals into physical movement on the engine.  Not unlike a perfect pass servo.  I don't think a 196 would be DBW until 08, but could be wrong.

23 hours ago, ETskier said:

Make sure the pententiometer is not cracked and operating correctly. 

 Am I wrong that an 05 would not have one?

I'd hit the fuel filters, cap and rotor, and then put a fuel pressure gauge on.

Its perfect.  No need to overthink it.  Wrap handle will be useful too.

Obviously no reason for a toe hold, so you might as well just use your slalom handle for now, assuming you like its sizing.  I use a 15" width wake board handle for rope-passing ease.  Yes that screams I don't know what I'm doing, but it works fine for a non-toe (hand) pass.  

Jodi Fisher's set up is sweet

1 hour ago, Killer said:

Great show but I need to re listen, there was a lot there and names I didn't pick up on.

Chad got f&-ked, no question.   13 years?  Ridiculous.  Fired, for sure and probably a long time ago, but long term jail seems like a stretch based on the charges, everything else is heresay he said she said from.drug dealers.

Not enough about Waterskiing..

My 2.

Yeah, thats technically true I suppose, but typecasting Carl and Johnny as simply "drug dealers" is incomplete.  They're cops.  In Carl's case, a long-time cop.  

But I am not naive enough to expect DEA agents to be squares, nor to think the world is better with Chad in jail.  

Just now, Horton said:

Anyway.... who has listened all the way to the end?

I have.  Was good road trip entertainment to Okeeheelee.

Battery powered steel pad/wheel.  I think Milwaukee makes it.  Or dremel.

1 hour ago, jcamp said:

Just posting ideas on Ball of Spray, forgive me @horton, is not the real, actual way to propose solutions. 

Did you go to an AWSA winter board meeting? Or your summer meeting? Talk about this with your regional rep? Email Charlotte at SCPB? Or Nate at USAWS HQ? Or even talk with your local inboard dealer about pitching in matching funds? 

People who work and volunteer in the sport don't come across a problem or challenge and say "let me see what posters on Ball of Spray suggest we do." 

 

 

 

Well, it is a "real, actual way" to propose solutions.  Is it the most "direct" way?  Perhaps not, but it is nonetheless a healthy way for ideas to be tossed around and debated without tying up a large groups' time for an extended period at a meeting.  My posts, both last year and this, have failed to stimulate any agreeable solutions, anyway.  Maybe there are no good ones except finding a local wedding dress maker like in Illinois... but I'm willing to throw them out there, and have y'all tell me how dumb they are.  What's your idea, by the way?  Discard Nationals' webcasting because we can't raise $15,000 (the number provided by lpskier last year)?  If so, that's fine, but I want to strive for better.  

In response to your questions directed to me, I'll answer them in order:

I was at my region's winter meeting.   

I was at my region's summer meeting. 

I have a vote in my region.  If you mean contacting my regional rep for AWSA, I did not, as I didn't know this was an issue.

I did not email Charlotte.  If I'd have known that web casting was a budgetary issue that she could resolve, I would have.  I did not know until recently that there would be no webcast, anyway.  To be frank, I don't know her personally, but would have offered ideas, some of which I've offered here in the past, all of which, according to the collective peanut gallery, stink, anyway.  Furthermore, I can also appreciate that a 4 lake setup would too much to webcast regardless of a funding solution.

I did not email Nate at USAWS, as, again, I did not know this was not being webcasted until recently.  Even if I had known, from the education I have been afforded from others as to the shouldering of the expense, I would not have emailed him regardless.  

If I asked my local dealer to contribute, trust me, he would.  I actually offered that idea in last year's webcast funding thread.  Just 15 dealers paying $1,000 would have solved it.  $5,000 from the big 3 boat manufacturers would have solved it.  $3,000 from each region or $500 from each state would have solved it.  I have brought all of these alternatives up previously here.  There's myriad potential solutions.  Only one is needed to work.

I agree with MDB, this is just coming up too late to resolve.  I will be letting the appropriate people know that I'm willing to do all I can to help find a solution for  webcasting next year.  No, that does not mean I'm assuming responsibility for making it happen, but I'll spare time and coin to try.

17 minutes ago, Horton said:

I am not going to literally call bull shit because maybe but I really do not see how.

Is there anyone else who has had a similar experience?

I would love this to be true. I just do not see how. I want this to be true.

I'll find you on the dock Wednesday or Thursday and let my daughter tell you.  Regrettably, my other daughter can't ski (not coming even though she's qualified and skied regionals).  By the way, this is not the first time I've said this publicly here, but I know you read a lot of posts.  

1 hour ago, Horton said:

Ok @buechsr I am a little slow. You are going to have to sell me on this.

Exactly how does the web broadcast of nationals motivate all these people. Are you telling me that you were home with your kids watching hours of Nationals on TV and that got them fired up? 

You are also telling me that kids who were not involved in skiing watched a nationals replay and then wanted to ski?

110% accurate on both (with the exception that I wasn't glued to the webcast all day, I was at work, my kids were after I set them up on the webcast).

I know you must read a LOT of posts, but this is not the first time I've said this here.  The biggest thing for my kids was seeing that you didn't "have" to be a Regina protege to belong at nationals.  Hence, we started laying the groundwork to get there.

44 minutes ago, Horton said:

@buechsr

My pushback is that I think the value of webcast is exaggerated. You have to put it from an ROI perspective. Generally speaking, the only people watching are the families of specific competitors. Do we honestly believe that we're going to gain membership or additional competitors because of the webcast? I do know some smart people that think this will help grow the base, but I am pessimistic.

 I can only speak for myself but I've been to the last 3 nationals as a DIRECT result of the webcast in Zachary.  And by direct I mean direct.  As in, my kids said at the end of each day, "this is way better than watching a pro event with you Daddy, can I do that next year?"  I said sure, skied a fall tournament in 2020, and they've skied competitively since (with the exception of my son who hasn't skied much in the past year).  All this came about literally as a result of watching nationals being webcast.  In the youtube shorts age, I think video exposure, particularly for kids, in invaluable outreach.  

Furthermore, I've taught countless kids to ski since then, as a direct result of watching nationals replays.  Most of whom said 3 years ago "Whats waterskiing?"  Show them a webcast of kids and every one asks to learn.  Some of them now have boats (parents).  Are they competing?  I can't think of any necessarily, but I think webcasting nationals has a profound impact on the organic growth potential.  Certainly way more than another pro event.  Heck my parents thought it was a hoot watching mens and womens 7 last year.  There is NO way they're watching a pro event.

Furthermore, I actually started skiing tournaments (badly) for the first time in 20 years to ski with my kids.  We wound up joining a club, buying another boat, I'm close to being an assistant scorer and judge, got my safety rating, and serve in some other capacities. 

So, as we're all experts on our opinion, my opinion is quite literally that the webcast of 2020 created 4 new consistent competitive skiers, a new official, and industry support.  I respect opinions to the contrary, but I am walking proof of the outreach that the nationals webcast has had.

I looked at last year's thread on this.  Per lpskier AWSA was looking for an additional $15,000, actually much less than expected.  $20 a skier easily pays that.  This year is of course different with 4 lakes.  I get it.  But it seems far from an insurmountable amount for next year when a local charity golf tournament can easily raise that in 4 hours.  

42 minutes ago, scoke said:

LOL socialism much? (Not a political statement)

 

”congratulations for your 3rd place podium finish. Here’s your invoice. We take Venmo or zelle in case you don’t have your wallet with you.”  Hilarious. 
 

 

im all for the thought of contributing-volunteering a few extra dollars to fund the broadcast but the idea at the top. LOL. 

You and I just view things differently.  If an average ski year costs an average competitive skier $5,000 (obviously some way more some way less), I just don't share the skepticism that at the penultimate event of the year, a podium finisher would be offended by being asked to throw in $100 (less than their hotel that night!) to webcast their event.  I don't think waterskiers, as a whole, are 1) that tight 2) that selfish 3) wouldn't want to show friends and family what they've been doing all year training 4) wouldn't see the bigger picture than unless 3 event competitive skiing gets more exposure, there soon may not be anyone to ski against.  

I'm not saying its the best idea.  But it is an idea.  If you've got one to share, lets hear it.  

10 minutes ago, Horton said:

@buechsr

A good webcast like TWBC is expensive ( and I am pretty sure their rates are fair) . If you want it for 2024 then start fund raising now.

West Palm stepped up to do Nationals and for whatever reason ( cost?)  they chose not do the webcast. I suggest we thank them for their effort and pitch in for changes you want to see in the future. 

I understand.   AWSA did in fact fundraise last year in order to webcast it, apparently successfully.  There are solutions to funding problems if that's the reason TWBC wasn't feasible, but the starting point is ideas.  I've offered many in the past, from budget allocation to the regions, voluntary contributions, and event based contribution.  Scoke's responses to me are pretty much par for the course I've gotten here.  To generalize: "That's stupid".  Well, maybe...but unless we start thinking differently, outside the box, how can we expect anything to change, let alone get better?   I've made the argument ad nauseum that webcasting nationals is the best marketing outreach we have.  I'm all for watching the European events but try to get a non-skier to watch more than an hour.  Contrast that with nationals coverage, I got a number of kids skiing last year as a direct result of their watching their friends on the webcast.  Non-skiers can relate to amateurs, and spurs at least some interest, and while we all love watching pro events, it's not doing anything to grow the sport.  

I'm very glad Okeeheelee is hosting, and also that so many lakes will be in use.  People can be disappointed without being critical.  I'm in that camp.  I'd imagine virtually all skiers, families, and fans are in that camp, actually.  It's an awesome place, will be hopefully well-attended, and know it will be a great 4 days, just sad to see it not being webcasted.  Is that unreasonable?

2 hours ago, scoke said:

One of the theories is "if you wouldn't say it on the dock, don't say it on the internet". This holds true.

No offense, if you brought that up out loud on the dock at a bigger ski club with national skiers, they would laugh in your face.

 

Admittedly not on the dock, I said it on the shores of multiple tournaments and regionals last year when there was discussion about the significance of continuing to webcast nationals when funding for 2022 was an issue.  No one laughed, in fact, it had agreement.  Since we're not privy to the exact expenses per day, it was hypothesized that podium finishers chip in a relatively nominal amount, say $100, a pittance in light of the expenses of a ski season to have their event group permanently memorialized.  Balance can be made up with traditional TWBC sponsorship. 

You can disagree.  But I'm more than happy to float ideas to keep nationals being webcast even if some result in online mockery.  I even think a "suggested donation" of $25 or $50 at time of national entry fee would be better received than one would expect.  

...but I'll ask again next week when I'm on the dock.  Admittedly, I'm not skiing, but my daughters are.  They, and their friends and family, are just disappointed there's no webcast.  Webcast from 2020 was the catalyst that caused my kids to starting competing.  

Disappointing, particularly in light of the viewership of nationals vs pro events.  I don't recall any fundraising efforts this year to make it happen. I can appreciate that 4 lakes would be quite difficult anyway, without regard to cost. 

I floated several funding options in the past on here.  Apparently none were compelling. I think the number of people who'd be willing to contribute $100 would be large.  My other idea was that podium finishers were asked, not forced, to pay their proportionate share of their event group.  I got told that was punishment for doing well.  

2 hours ago, Wish said:

$4k+ for a trailer?? Nah. Maybe $2k. 

That sport is a fine boat, problem is, its no good at anything. Yeah, it could be a ski boat, but it likely has all digital gauges that are shot by this point, likely 5.8 (hard to get parts), and the wake, well, not good.  Unfortunately, even though that hull was the original Air Nautique and then later Pro Air Nautique, it's really not a good wakeboard boat either.  But it's a heck of a run around boat for 11k.  

$2,000 for a trailer?  Please provide a link.  Current trailer prices will blow your mind.  

..the driver WAS found to be 75% at fault.