klindy

As a guy who likes to look at the buoy too long, I like the concept! Seeing the video above was quite impressive! What do they do for the gate? Or better asked, if it will be triggered somehow to shoot a ball at #1, does it give you a 0 ball to go around or somehow identify the gate?

@swbca Do you have before/after pictures to see what the difference looks like?

@skialex I agree with you. Again it’s the comparisons between tools that becomes the issue. When In the world of precision engineering, different people should be able to repeat the same measurements with different tools. If you “have to hold your head just right” to get the dimension your after, it’ll never be repeatable and, by definition, never be shareable.

What we're calling "jaws" is actually the "root" which is not a machined surface with a known tolerance. The "jaws" and "jaw tip" (see above diagram) are in fact ground and should be accurate. Again, I totally get we're measuring an odd shaped multi-dimensional part (fin on the bottom surface of the ski) but do not expect different calipers to give you the same measurements if you use the "root" of the jaw.

@DW we can start measuring lake depth in fathoms......

@brettmainer understood. I love Goode Skis and have both a slalom and (now) a trick ski made by Goode. However it does make me laugh every time a company that prides itself on precision and technology thinks using a non calibrated part of a high precision tool is acceptable. If you really want to know the difference between the jaws vs tips measurements OF YOUR TOOL, I'd get a small (3/16" or 1/4") piece of keyway stock and measure it with BOTH the jaws and the tips. Make sure it's sitting squarely on both sections of the caliper. Then the difference between the two measurements is what you would add or substract from the alternative dimension (jaws vs tips). It won't be a perfect comparison to someone else's caliper but it's probably a good starting point.

OK since @Horton has let the thread drift (slightly) off-course. I would agree that the concept of having to attend Regionals to go to Nationals should be reviewed. There are lots of threads advocating for one option or the other, so I'm not going to revisit them now. However, similar to how IWWF has retooled how it expects to fund World events, what we really need to do is look at our entire governance structure to effectively make changes. For example, under the current structure, the Regionals is a major fundraising event for most of the regions. Simply saying "do go" isn't the answer and saying "pay the entry fee is enough" doesn't work either if we still expect to have some kind of LCQ type "first 5 places" go to the Nationals. Is there potential solutions - sure there is. Rejiggering the regions so that the West is now 2 or 3 regions also doesn't work as a simple, stand alone solution. I'd suggest that the AWSA board is already too large and difficult to get much done. Adding "more regions" just makes the situation worse unless other things are done at the same time. Allowing a region to have multiple Regional Championships at two or more sites on the SAME weekend might make sense but obviously makes the purists heads explode. Some people hate the ranking list and want only true competition. That sets up a situation where only a certain "top x" competitors move on to the next level of competition. Great for the competitive aspect but even more difficult to plan and/or pay for the needed trips especially with a tight, weather dependent season. My point is, we're open to alternatives. But meaningful changes are not going to work if they are piecemeal or half baked. The above has been discussed on various levels by a variety of people over a fairly long period of time. It's not being ignored, but it difficult to find a consensus to make a change. Happy to listen to any and ALL ideas. Probably best to send a note privately or start a new thread (or 5).

ANYtime you use the non-machined surface of a precision instrument you’ll get varying results. The “jaws” on any caliper are not made to any tolerance, they are not measured or QC’d to any standard and they are NOT meant to be used to measure anything. I get that it may be “helpful” to lay the caliper ‘flat’ on the ski and tight against the ‘jaws’ but you should ONLY compare measurements using the SAME tool between skis or between measurements on the same ski. The results *might* be the same but it’s not the intention. I’m sure any machinist or engineer cringes whenever this topic comes up. All that said, since we’re measuring an odd shaped part using a common tool, trade offs are made. But if you think you’ll get truly accurate measurements using the tools in a way they aren’t designed AND get comparable results with someone else’s measurements, you’ve been drinking too much IPA.

I’ll be at the southern regionals. To underscore @brettmainer above, rental cars probably should be priority #1 for anyone flying. They are very, very scarce currently almost everywhere. Easy to cancel but difficult to find an option.

So @The_MS 8 suppose you think everyone should be on the same ski too? As long as I is a Monza?

So a couple of questions to help understand the thinking around this. Assume these are questions you’d ask yourself if you were put in charge of “improving” the way slalom works in ZO - 1. If I get "into trouble" in a pass, why do I think I'm still entitled to run that pass and to expect the boat to accommodate my mistake? 2. If the tolerance is softened to 16.99, what happens later on when I need/want just a little more forgiveness? Will I then want a 17.03 or 17.04? 3. Was I one of the skiers that complained about watering down Nationals when the rules changed to allow just one score over the cutoff average to qualify? In other words, what’s really wrong with how ZO pulls slalom today? I don’t sense the thinking is to rework the jump mode to hold a consistent speed. I don’t know the right answer but I’m interested in the opinions of others.

@Bruce_Butterfield I'm not arguing the premise that the programming for jump and slalom come from completely different perspectives. I will also agree that there are FAR more rerides (read: all rerides) in jump compared to slalom. Ironically, in jump the skier has wide latitude to adjust the letter and, to a lesser extent, power factor. Arguably the letter in jump is to compensate for the expected pull (load) on the boat which can be a function of the skiers weight. Allowing the boat to 'swing' thru accel/decel curves causes the boat speed to get out of tolerance at times. So, hypothetically using the same thinking as jump where you allow the boat to 'swing' thru the speeds would you expect to see rerides in slalom like we do in jump? Maybe with letters, numbers and + in slalom, the accell/decel curve just needs to be loosed up to allow the boat to use more of the tolerance? If so, do the same slalom skiers start complaining that they don't have "enough boat" to get wide of the boat at the buoy? The potential challenge I see with slalom is how to trigger the boat to know you're "in trouble" and need to be more gentle vs. a skier just being a little down course or perhaps has hooked up a little to much at the buoy? I'm not suggesting we need a change nor am I suggesting that everything is perfect as-is. I am wondering what an improvement looks like. Also, remember, for all the "help" a skier gets in jump and the dead on tolerance in slalom, the slalom records for Men and Women have been broken far more than the jump records have been broken in recent years. Granted there are more skiers who slalom but even the younger age groups seem to be breaking more records. Perhaps they are learning how to use ZO to improve rather than fight it.

@Bruce_Butterfield i agree with what you’re saying. And I’d be one of those “bigger skiers” that would likely benefit most. The jump speed ‘curve’ was developed by the skiers who would benefit most by that accel/decel curve. The slalom programming was developed in a similar way - what was best for those providing the feedback and development advice. You can’t for a second think that those in the inner circle would agree to programming that was detrimental to their own performance. What your suggesting, I think, is that there needs to be more “flexibility” for style, size,preference, etc. OR you’re suggesting we all need to learn how to use what we have currently. Obviously the one size fits all (with some user variables) works well for some and not well at all for others.

@The_MS yes it still is within tolerance but the rules are clear - tolerances are for human error and the requirement is to strive for actuals. So what your asking for is the boat to be allowed go slow down for you. You can certainly PULL the boat down to that time (but of course the boat will still accelerate to target actual). I hear what your saying but it seems that what you’re asking for is exactly what ZO was designed to prevent.

@JeffSurdej has been sending out PB stickers on request for several years. They are small "helmet" stickers like you'd see on football helmets and can be used on helmets, skis or any other hard surface. They're pretty popular.

Tesla Plaid. Electric motor and no more octane issues. ?

@Jetsetr when calling tricks ... "flippy, flippy, twisty flippy sh*t".... haha! He's hysterical.

@MattP love the waterproof mic kit! That would be cool.

I like Tony for his ability to always something "new" even after he's talked for seemingly 36 straight hours. Many announcers get stuck on a phrase and repeat it every couple minutes. Tony typically doesn't. Also his enthusiasm matches what you see 'on screen' most of the time. For technical analysis it's tough to beat Freddy Kreuger but others like Corey Vaughn, Freddie Winter, Matt Rini, and Tyler Boyd are a close second. I love the idea of the dockside mic. Wade does a good job but I'd like to see that mixed up a bit. Now if you really want to have some fun, we need to find a way to incorporate a 'helmet cam/mic' like NASCAR where you can grab a quick word with an athlete between jumps or between passes.

Hard shells.

@lpskier there is no tie. Make a call. In this case I respect those who call 1/2. That said, I would have called it a 1/4 based on where he was when he 'fell' (no longer supported by the ski). In my opinion he was still headed outbound or at best down the course. Where his front binding was located was outside the buoy line in my opinion.

@markn The rule specifically says it is not a fall "if you regain skiing position". In Mapple's case, he did. In Freddie's case, he never did regain skiing position. Perhaps a questions should where the "fall" actually occurred for Freddie? It happens well before he let go of the handle.

@Jody_Seal absolutely points for the dismount! Amazing he got the ski outside the buoy in any way at all!

@ral typo on the time stamp - 3:03:40. Also, remember the ride is over as soon as he "falls", which is when he's is no longer supported by his ski. Sliding another 50' down the lake is all irrelevant.

@Bruce_Butterfield even rocket scientists get it wrong once in a while!! ?