MarcusBrown

@Mateo_Vargas no, but we actually include some 1/4 x 20, 1" long carriage bolts, that allow you to bolt power sticks or extra paraphernalia right through the bottom of the ski!

@Mastercrafterwhat's not believable about Whale Blubber?  Or strong covalent bonds??

@GWaterski happy to hear it...hopefully we can finish development and get this thing in production soon!

@75Tique "want it"

@Horton I'll get you the factory recommended fin numbers and binding placement before shipping your way for review...

@NoahViekethank you buddy. Means a lot to hear this.  @Rednucleus I will not be relocating from The Ridge. 
 

just humbled by the opportunity and hoping I can make a positive difference somehow. 

@Horton  I’ll just drop this right here. Because I think finally you and I are agreeing on something…

https://youtu.be/M535uGHhPFA?si=P1rZaFjSm3jOmot4

@Horton west coast slalom approached this concept from every angle. The reality is, there's some effectiveness to the concept you are raising, but it has to be balanced with the limitations of the human body.

@Horton what load are you talking about?

Load on the Rope?

Or Load through the Feet?

I repeat...can I get 2 panda points for @Horton?

@ScottScott that's usually the best approach....hold the handle the whole way, so that you cannot put your arm through it.

Only problem is, the rope can still wrap around your hand, even when its on the handle... I found out the hard way, in 1997

I'm on site all week... gonna be one hell of an event!

The original Freeride is a great ski...but definitely not meant for anything faster than 30 mph...has smaller bevels and clean edge tech (all contributing to less drag and higher riding ski)

The Freeride EVO was the next iteration, and it was more of a carvy/surfy ski with a flex tail.  It had small bevels too, but more conventional sidewall, except for in the tail. Its intended speed is no more than 30 as well.

Fusion Freeride is a Wide Omni, and its a great all around boat ski.  Bigger bevels than previous generations, still some clean edge in the tail to help with deep water starts and trim angle while skiing, but again, meant for maybe 32mph and slower.

Hard to go wrong with any of them (I'm biased) but definitely some differences between the 3.

DTMB had a nice LFF gate:

@Bruce_Butterfield I hear you on arc length, and completely agree that at 38, the arc length traveled around the boat is much greater than at 15 off (for a given desired width).

However, arc length traveled around the boat (between any two buoys) doesn't necessarily correlate to a longer ski path.

In your river analogy, yes, the skier tied to the bridge at 38 off travels a further distance, relative to the bridge, than a skier at 15 off.

BUT, we don't care just about distance traveled relative to the connection point....we care about distance traveled over the water, or relative to the water, as was mentioned by @AdamCord

Again, not discounting your analysis, just trying to make sure we are on the same page.

Here’s a quick and dirty overlay of 15 off vs 39 off

skiers are @twhisper (39) and Lucas Acondo (15) 

very interesting. 
 

Definitely going to do an overlay of the SAME skier, at long and short lines, at some point in the near future. 

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by Marcus Brown (@marcus_brown_)

@Than_Bogan I have not put much thought into this in some years, but now that I think about it, something occurs to me that is quite clear:

The smooth "Sine Wave" of the skier path at 15 off (between any two buoys) might just be the shorter path, when compared to the necessarily more "Square Wave" of a skiers path at 39 off.  

With that quick thot experiment, and realizing the Square Wave path will probably be longer than the Sine Wave path, I can easily see how average speed could be higher for the Square Wave path through the course (39 off skier)

Still quite a few thoughts brewing...

Now you guys have me overthinking this simple statement I made...I'll have to do some drone analysis at some point, to definitively get answers.

But remember years ago, when David Nelson compared "New School, Traditional and Coordinates Style of Skiing"?

He stated in one of his conclusions "As far as our actual speed is concerned: If you follow an efficient line, it should not seem strange that your speed at 32 off will be higher than your speed at 39 off – your momentum swinging on a longer rope naturally results in a more S shaped path, and allows more distortion than you can get with a short rope. If you ski a longer distance in the same amount of time, you’re going faster."

He did do his analysis with video from the boat, and he was making assumptions....but I still maintain that for a given skier ( @twhisper , lets say), there is a high likelihood that he'll travel a further distance through the course running 15 off, compared to running 39 off.....and therefore, have a higher average speed.

@Horton I don't know if this Spring Cleaning stuff is good for anybody...

@bko its a bit tricky, so I'll try to keep it simple.

Relative to the boat, a shoreline skier DOES have to "cover more ground" in the sense that to run 38 off, they have to get maybe 65 degrees up beside the boat, (instead of ~40-45 degrees at 15 off) to get around buoy 1, THEN do the same thing but on the other side of the boat, before buoy 2.  So relative to the pylon, the skier is traveling a larger Arc, and getting higher on the boat on each side (higher than a 15 off skier would), which is what the Adams have covered at length, by talking about moving the handle as high as possible on the side of the boat, as fast as possible.

BUT, if you actually traced the path of a 15 off skier from a drone, vs a 41 off skier, the 15 off skier is actually traveling a longer path.  They have more rope, and ultimately are able to break the buoy line sooner, AND apex much further up course.  All of this points to a longer skier path through the course, at longer rope lengths, as a general rule.

Its been a Lot of fun having @Mastercrafter on FPM and seeing him make a big transformation!  
 

also, I guess once a grease monkey, always a grease monkey!