klindy

@unksskis variable frequency drives (VFDs) are extremely sophisticated with programmable accel/decel profiles. Multi-phase motors and even servo motors can react incredibly fast. Motor control will be infinitely more sophisticated than what we see for an ICE today. Here’s some detailed engineering specs on why the Tesla motors (copied by others) are different - https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Lauric-Garbuio/publication/347293927_Modeling_and_design_analysis_of_the_Tesla_Model_S_induction_motor/links/604869cb4585154e8c8ae003/Modeling-and-design-analysis-of-the-Tesla-Model-S-induction-motor.pdf?origin=publication_detail The multi phase induction motor is why the motors can produce amazing power with very low weight and flexible design conditions.

http://www.iwwfed-ea.org/classic/22AUS028/ -

Danylo Flichenko is Ukrainian and ULM alumni. He can be found on Instagram and is asking for support.

@RAWSki and to add to @lpskier point, the rules define the number of rated judges required to run the event. This language clarification essentially allows a rated TC to work in a position of a judge. It’s the same rationale as a boat driver being allowed to act as a boat judge to accommodate a pin person and a video person in the boat (no room for a 4th person).

My vote has to be Michael Jordan. His amazing talent and unstoppable will to win made him literally invincible. Averaging 30.5pts per game over a 15 year career (33+ ppg in the playoffs). 6 NBA titles (with him winking MVP each tome). Scoring champ 11 times (winning defensive player of the year in 1989 along with scoring title - only player ever). 10 triple-doubles over an 11 game run (scoring 40pts, 14 rebounds and 7 assists in the 11th game). Never losing a finals series when he played a full season. Only fouled out 11 times (all on a second technical foul, I believe). And the only player to have his number retired by a team he didn’t even play for (the first jersey number ever retired by the Miami Heat). And for those of you who said Bo Jackson or Wayne Gretzky, MJ played along with Bo and Wayne in a cartoon series called ProStars in the 90s. MJ did his own voice where Bo and Wayne didn’t. Maybe ProStars all their connection to the waterski world. For waterski athlete, I have to pick a different Wayne - Wayne Grimditch. Incredible all around athlete who would be amazing to watch today with todays technology. Wayne reminds me of Joel Poland now.

@horton jump boat? They have too many fast segments now!

@behindpropellers its always shareholder value (more accurately stakeholder value). But to your point, short terms profits typically come at the expense of long term shareholder value. Of course premium lift ticket prices are important but they can only do that if the quality of the experience is valuable enough to the customer. Obviously it still is. I recently went to Disney and it was $168 for a one day basic pass to one park! I thought it was expensive but I paid it and the park was packed (40-60 min waits on all rides). People are paying the prices without much slowing down.

@GaryJanzig you said “skiing is getting too expensive” yet you’re the only tournament skier with one of the oldest boats. The other 599 are buying up properties, tearing them down and using $200k surf boats to pull a tube ….. sound to me like you’ve got the most cost effective option! When I was growing up we scrapped and saved and did what we had to to get a pull. If we wanted to ski, we found a way. Malibu Boats had $265.9 million in sales for the second quarter. MasterCraft had $153.7 million in sales for the second quarter. Correct Craft is a private and I don’t know what their sales are. I’m know all three make multiple models and have several brands. The average price per boat for any of these companies is well over 2-3 times what a fully loaded waterski boat costs. And they build very few ski boats. Lake properties around the country sell about as fast as they are listed. I’m having a really hard time understanding how waterskiing is “too expensive” when it’s literally cheaper than anything else you can do on the water.

@ToddL have you taken the SS training?

@igkya while I appreciate the sarcasm, clearly it’s best not to assume anything in this thread.

@Bruce_Butterfield u asked Monday and was told they are waiting for an answer from the screening company. I know it’s actively being pursued.

@igkya first, if you don’t know the answer to that question, you don’t need to worry about a background check. Second - see here for more official information - https://www.teamusa.org/USA-Water-Ski/Three-Event-Water-Skiing/Officials For more than 50 years AWSA has had 3 levels of judges, scorers and drivers. Those are Assistant, Regular and Senior. Each requires certain number of events worked, a written test and a practical test. Additionally, each officials RATING is available for each of the three events. Tech Controllers and Safety had different but similar ratings. IWWF also accredits a “PanAm” rating for those of us senior judges who reside in the Western Hemisphere. To even be considered for an Appointed or Assigned judge (or scorer or driver) you need to be rated a senior level official in all three events (sometimes some exceptions apply but rarely). To be considered for any international event you must be a PanAm rates judge (and now scorer). IF you want to be considered and you meet the qualifications you submit your name when they request volunteers. For Nationals the officials are APPROVED by each regional council from those who submitted their name. So for the Nationals this year there are 2 Appointed Judges and 1 Assigned Judge from each region (15 total unless some split a week so add accordingly). The number of officials are described in the rule book depending on the number of lakes and duration of the tournament. As I’ve said before, MANY of these same officials are already board members or other which means they already have the background screening done. Here’s a current directory of all the officials within USAWSWS - https://www.teamusa.org/USA-Water-Ski/Officials-Directory

@sunperch ONLY those judges (not scorers, not safety, not TCs, not drivers) that are “selected and approved” as judges for the above events. So … ONLY Appointed and Assigned judges. Volunteer officials of any kind are NOT required to have a background check. Note: some volunteers MIGHT have to have a background check for other reasons - board involvement, coach, etc - but just Mr Regular Judge or Ms Senior Judge that shows up onsite or gets asked AT THE NATIONALS (not Regionals!) do NOT need it. EDITED - To correct that onsite volunteer officials do NOT need the background screening.

@ski6jones …. I’ll try again and I’ll refer you to probably 2-3 replies per page back at least 10 pages for additional information …. The USAWSWS policy regarding SafeSport training for adult members is identical to that of USA Curling. Any adult member who may have regular contact with a minor participant must take the training. In addition, coaches, team managers, board members, etc. must also take the training. The difference, as I see it, is in administration. I have no additional details on how Curling knows who’s an “Applicable Adult” vs a “covered adult” vs something else. For USAWSWS they have decided to look at each sport division separately. For example, if you declare Show as your first choice - no options, no options all members must take it (full stop). For 3 event, if you COMPETE (which isn’t necessarily a “participant” or a “member”) must take it. So if you are a club skier who has to have a USAWSWS membership to be a club member, you do NOT have to take it. If you’re a supporting member who doesn’t compete, you dont have to take it (unless you’re on the Board, etc). That means that LESS THAN 50% of AWSA members will have to take it. So what does administration have to do with it ?? Well, if you are a member and never register for a tournament the flag Thats set to “inactive” won’t matter at all. As soon as you sign up for a tournament and you register (or the registrar downloads the latest membership roster) it will show you ineligible to ski. It’s no different than not having your dues paid or waiver signed or tournament entry fee paid. Maybe Curling has some way to separate adult members into various categories, maybe they’ll have to make some adjustments to their policy, or perhaps that means everyone takes it now, I don’t know. I do know that the changes made to the USAWSWS policy has cut in half the number of MEMBERS who have to take it. And the background check changes reduced the potential of 1,800 “officials” down to, at most, a couple dozen that haven’t had it already.

If your involved with minors they do. “ Applicable Adults: Adults to whom items regarding minor athlete abuse prevention in Section 2 of the USA Curling SafeSport Handbook apply are referred to as Applicable Adults. Applicable Adults always include: • Any adult authorized by the USCA to have regular contact with or authority over an amateur athlete who is a minor (e.g., coaches); and • Adult staff of USA Curling and USCA board members. Some aspects of the policy also directly apply to all adult members of organizations that are members of the USCA. Specific requirements that are applicable to USCA member organizations are detailed in Section 2. Applicable Adults are also Covered Individuals, but all Covered Individuals are not necessarily Applicable Adults.” https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5f34a2ea0d87a44cac1ebfb0/t/61ccbccfd6b79b24c4d296bc/1640807633802/USA%2BCurling%2BSafeSport%2BHandbook%2B%2801-01-22%29.pdf Looks like they also have approx 50 people on the disciplinary action list …. Pick a better example @The_MS

@igkya SafeSport did NOTHING for gymnastics! If it wasn’t for the problems that gymnastics did essentially to themselves by not having proper policies and safeguards in place, I’d suggest SS wouldn’t exist. That it does exist, in the generic form that it is, is due to a LOT of NGBs not having clear policies in place. Again, if you want to get a really good idea I’d what happened and how, watch “Athlete A” on Netflix. It’s a documentary produced in 2021 (I think) that shows just how simple things go off the rails due to a 1)real sick doctor (who was loved in the sport and was wildly popular), 2) a real desire to win in international competitions and 3) when you put the care and safety of the athletes somewhere down the priority list. It became easier to “deal with it internally” and keep it quiet. Once 1 athlete came forward it became clear that hundreds had been molested for decades. Literally right under the nose of coaches, managers, officials, even parents. To the point where he literally justified his actions during a taped deposition (shown in the documentary). I’m not suggesting this problem exists anywhere else especially within waterskiing but how this was able to take place deserves attention. We can argue about the requirements all day but @UCFskier has the right idea.

Thanks @RichardDoane. I also hope to see @The_MS and everyone else around this summer. @Not_The_Pug the initial SafeSport training is pretty general and almost too vague. That said, SafeSport is “generic” to all sport just not USAWSWS. The annual follow up sessions are much shorter (30 min or so), more focused on very specific aspects and likely more relevant ultimately.

@ski6jones show and 3-event are definitely look at thru different lenses. It’s true that both the SafeSport and background check decisions were made assuming the lowest common denominator. The push back from AWSA quickly changed the direction to a “division specific” solution. As I’ve said before, the biggest complaint I had was that we (AWSA leadership) were not included in the discussion early enough. Some of the one-size-fits-all solutions just didn’t make sense for AWSA at this point. As I detailed above, significant changes have been made to make things far more palatable. To the defense of USAWSWS and Nate as Executive Director. Each sport division has its own way of doing things, it’s own terminology and it’s own challenges. We’ll never align everything but there is real sense in coordinating where we can - membership, sanctioning, officials to some extent, etc. Admittedly it’s sometimes difficult to determine where those synergies lie and we’re differences are legitimate. I will say that the USAWSWS Chairman, President, VP and secretary are all affiliated with 3-event so AWSA interests should continue to be well represented at the USAWSWS level too.

AWSAs leadership has always been solid. In recent years with @JeffSurdej as President, he introduced several initiatives which were successful to slow/stop the loss of members over the years. Certainly not everything was successful but net positive for sure. The AWSA format was replicated for USAWSWS (not that it’s perfect but it has been tested for decades). Several AWSA directors and committee members are active here and several are also part of the USAWSWS governance. Not sure what shift you expect but, good or bad, it’s not likely to be a huge shift.

@ToddL I’d disagree and I suspect many other would too. Not saying there aren’t issues to deal with and situations that are frustrating but AWSA is still the largest sport division and, as such, has the most votes at USAWSWS. Therefore, by default committees at USAWSWS have more AWSA members than all the others. Influence and control require those who care to step up and into roles which can make a difference.

@rayn thats because it’s a ‘virtual’ event where it’s the total score of all three individual events. Gymnastics deals with it differently by making the athletes literally perform in all events to make it a true event. It’s easier to televise since the storyline is usually different. Waterskiing never did that. Instead, Hot Summer Nights focused on slalom and jump since they were both easier to understand and (arguably) more exciting to watch

@ToddL first I recommend you don’t “buy trouble”. Sure, keep an eye on the future but if you want to make ‘decisions’ on your level of support based on what *might* happen in future years that’s a shame. Tell me all the totally prevents another Nassar type event and I can better predict the future. No one saw him do what he did for 20+ years. We ultimately react to changes as the come forward (which is precisely what the last 56 pages of posts reflect). Second, you’re right to get skeptical, even cynical. It does keep things in line. Don’t, for a second, think you’re the only one. Again, if you want to make a difference, step up … you can have my job.

@lpskier they were all great (some are STILL great)! Regina, Dorian, Joel Poland, the Miranda’s, Adam S and others are all at the top in one or two events and very, very close to the top on the third. With todays scores you can’t be a dominate overall skier without being one of the top 5 (or so) in at least two events. The battle between Dorien ans Joel at the Worlds this year is a perfect example. Along those thoughts, my question is how to we reenergize overall in the US? The rest of the world puts an emphasis on overall and supports single event dominance. Here in the US it seems we emphasize single event dominance and support overall. I recall back in the 80s/90s when Patrice Martin was a world record class trick skier. We all knew he could ski all three events but watching him slalom and jump with the best to win overall at the Masters the first time was fantastic.

@dave2ball we can agree that much of the communication from USAWSWS has been lacking. However, the very first post almost a year ago was triggered from a straightforward, clear communication from USAWSWS that SafeSport would be required for all members. The driver was then and is now, federal and state laws which require ALL organizations that include youth participation to take proactive steps to protect the youth. Our affiliation with USOPC makes compliance ‘easier’ since they do have SafeSport which can be used as a training/investigation/training tool. The decision to use SafeSport as an active part of the requirements for USAWSWS still stands. All active members who participate in events where youth attend are required to take the training. All current members have to have the training complete before they participate. New members have 30 days to get it complete. What’s different from the initial announcement is that members that do not compete (approx 50%) of AWSA members and those who are members to meet local club obligations, etc where no youth participate do not need to take the training. The membership system and tournament registration process has been updated to check the SafeSport status before showing the member “ready to ski”. There’s 56 pages of comments here where there are many that have explained the above multiple ways. There have been questions and even changes but it has been pretty transparent. As for background checks, it’s true that communication has been less transparent. However that’s not because of some desire to “screw the members”. Background screening is another requirement that exists in the general requirements to take steps to protect the youth and other adults members. USAWSWS (and the sport divisions) have been doing background screenings for years (I’ve personally had my third one just over a year ago). A USOPC audit finding compelled USAWSWS to add some additional groups of members to the screening process - namely “officials”. Between debate in what was actually meant as “officials”, the update of the membership software, and clarity that whatever we did would also be agreeable too insurance carriers (which have changed) clear, direct answers have been somewhat of a bouncing ball. I’ve personally been quite critical of the lack of communication as have others. However, I’ve since come to realize some of the legitimate reasons. Again if you go back thru this thread you’ll see lots of questions and answers about this throughout. So I’d again agree that the communication could have been better. Leadership at AWSA also wasn’t as involved in the process as I would have liked. But as we learned and asked questions, our voice was heard, changes were made and information more clear. In fact, I’ll bet the additional members required to have a background check are fewer than a couple dozen (maybe even less) which is a long way from the initial thoughts. If you have more questions about any of this feel free to ask. I’ll do my best to answer and if I don’t know the answer I’ll find it.

@NameUnavailable Mike, as you know melanoma is exactly what I was talking about above too. I combined all “skin cancers”, but ‘The Beast’ is a tough road.