PurdueSkier

@FSSPCat I did this several years ago for my 94 echelon. I have a write-up I did somewhere on how I did it. Send me a PM if you want it and I will dig it up. I didn't use a 3D printer, just used a carpeted 2x3, bolted behind the side panel, using the existing bolts. Then I cut short sections of track from a garage organizer and used removable hangers, cut to size. It works really well. The skis sit flat, instead of at an angle. This was partially done because my sidewall is so short, I didn't have a lot of room.

 

@Bruce_Butterfield it all depends on the site. I have skied some places where 20 mph wind barely made the water choppy. Our local public course is basically non skiable with whitecaps at 10mph.

 

All the rain has raised our reservoir 25' if it's not raining it's windy.

Take a stab at ability based skiing. Here is my thought:

Set groups based on a mandatory (no higher or lower) starting speed and line length. Then set a max number of passes, probably 4, 5, or 6. I would do 4. You could either set the groups after sign up based on who was there or their average or set them ahead of time and people could select their own group. Because of the mandatory start andate the max passes it would force people to ski in correct group. Anyone who skied the max passes and didn't fall would be automatically moved to next group. If scores could count toward ranking list it would further encourage skiing in correct group.

@jpwhit posted a great point about access. I have skied on public lakes all my life, and still do. Until my recent move last year, I helped maintain a course on a public lake. Those courses are few and far between. The DNR and now EPA are becoming more strict on what you can do on public waterways. We need an organization that is actively promoting access and organizing the efforts of others. If our organization is currently doing that, it is not being well advertised. If this becomes are focus, then people who currently aren't tournament skiers may look to support the organization, without needing an event, or a magazine, or shirt. Look at the NRA. Yes, very different organization, but they have over 5 million members (according to Google). I do not know the stat, but I would bet a very large number of those members send in their money, not because of events or competition the NRA puts on, but instead to support the cause. Regardless of your position on the subject, you can't deny the NRA's action towards a goal and the support they have gained.

@JeffSurdej - What is the membership and status of INT? Are they also suffering? I assume that both USAW and INT are directly competing with each other for members. If you want more members, why not look into merging. We are both fighting for the same sponsors and same skiers. In some cases, we are also holding basically the same events.

 

@Drago No, my 3@32 was from state tournament 2016. That is my point. M2 scores are reduced by 6, then carried over to M3 rankings.

@Than_Bogan Thanks Than. I agree, I am not sure a better way to carry the scores over, unless you just carried them over as-is. I had not thought about how it relates at different line lengths. This really only impacts a few skiers each year and once you have more scores in the spring shouldn't matter.

 

@Drago @ToddL Thanks for the comments, but I think my point is being missed. I completely understand and agree with the scoring in M2 and M3 and understand the quick buoy chart. My issue is that scores remain relevant for 12 months. When I moved from M2 to M3 my scores I already had in the score book were all reduced by 6. The quick buoy chart no longer applies.

 

my current score of 93 from a run of 3 @32/36 mph is now an 87. I am not talking about running 3 @32/34 mph in a new tournament, I am talking about existing scores.

 

To put it another way, the day after Nationals, my top 3 score average went down by 6 balls without me skiing in any tournaments.

@Horton Hopefully that happens and it won't matter. My 32s are now very consistent. It just seems like a strange rule that scores are carried over at a penalty. Not sure why a score of 93 just doesn't stay as a 93.

@Horton The issue is when going the other way, you lose 6 balls on a score you already have:

 

Here are my current scores

 

94 @ 34 mph = 4 @ 35 off

93 @ 36 mph = 3 @ 32 off

92 @ 34 mph = 2 @ 35 off

 

Current average SHOULD be 93 (94+93+92/3)

 

However, what rule 10.06c says is that my M2 score of 93 (3@32 off @ 36 mph) is actually carried over to M3 as an 87 (3@32 off @ 34 mph). My average is a 91 (94+87+92/3).

Can someone please help me understand the reasoning behind the graduating skier rule for scoring? This year I transitioned from M2 to M3 and my max speed dropped to 34 mph. My current ranking includes both 2016 tournaments (36 mph) and 2017 tournaments (34 mph). My average didn't match what I thought it should, until I read further and found that all M2 scores (even though listed at full value) are actually reduced by 6 when calculating the M3 average.

 

According the FAQ section on the ranking list:

Graduating Skiers: For the Rolling 12 Month timeframe, those skiers who have changed Age Divisions during that period will be shown in their new Age Division. In most instances, performances recorded in the previous age division will be equivalent and will contribute to the skier's rankings in their new age division. Where the maximum slalom boat speed in the new Age Division is lower than the old one, those scores will be adjusted in accordance with AWSA rule 10.06© to be compatible with the new Age Division.

 

According to Rule 10.06c

A skier may elect to start at a speed higher than his division maximum speed, up to his respective Open Division maximum speed, and may not return to his division maximum speed on subsequent passes. Any passes skied at that higher speed shall receive credit for buoys as though they were being run at his division maximum speed.

 

I don't understand the logic here. I thought the reason for all starting speeds to be consistent is that a score of 94 is a score of 94 regardless of what division it was scored in.

 

 

This has probably already been discussed, but it looks like RADAR changed their rear binding plate and inserts. I have an older pair of stradas on my S2. The new boots/plate don't look like they will work. Do I have to order a special plate or is the standard mounting still an option when you buy them?

@Ilivetoski I haven't tried that. I tried it forward and didn't like that. I haven't tried without the tip weight at all. Are you running stock fin, long and shallow, or something else.

@steve77 I will be up there Saturday and Sunday.

I will be spending a couple days at Crooked Lake near Angola Indiana. I know there is a course there, but don't have any contact info for skiers. I plan to have my boat, but just looking to get in touch with some skiers that use the course. Any Ballers know anyone who skis there?

I understand the idea of no more technology, and I agree. So first lets state that this is wouldn't apply to C tournaments. In those cases, make a judgment call and move on. For record tournaments, instead of trying to watch the turn marker, why can't we just watch the ski? These courses are already surveyed in. It would be easy to relate the exact location of the course and all turn markers to a real world location. Then mount one of these to each ski http://www.xensr.com and overlay the path onto the course on a computer. I don't know how accurate those GPS pucks are, so that could derail the idea. This would add new technology, but then could get rid of some other existing cameras and recorders.

@barefooter2baller‌ is this a new to you purchase? If so congrats on the purchase. Any pictures of the boat?

Its not all about strength. One of my favorite pics.

Maybe not but some may be better than others.

Good comments, thanks. @Horton‌ it isn't so much an advantage, as it is a lack of disadvantages. For those skiers who ski lots of tournaments, averaging the top 3 or 5 scores from all tournaments all rounds will only increase your ability to increase your average and ranking. For those of us that don't get to ski as many as we would like, it allows multiple scores from the same tournament to count and we aren't hit with a penalty for too few scores. For those who ski lots of tournaments, it probably wouldn't change your overall ranking by much (assuming you are a pretty consistent skier). For those that only ski a few tournaments a year it might be a better representation. This also rewards skiers that ski well multiple times in the same tournament. If you have 2 or 3 good rounds, they all count.

My thought was not that ALL scores be averaged, but that all scores be eligible for the 3 score ranking average (maybe this becomes a 5 score average or something different).

Thanks for the input. I see the point related to a "fishy" tournament or score but I overall dont think it shows or promotes consistency. It does mean you have to do it on different days/conditions, but it also means I can ski 3 rounds, blow 2 of them, and still put up a good score. That doesnt promote consistency. I also don't think it impacts participation. I hope we are all not skiing tournaments "just" for the rankings and having multiple rounds "count" might actually increase participation in multi-round events.

 

I don't disagree that for most (including me)it probably does show a pretty good representation of level.

According to AWSA

 

"Skiers will be ranked based on the average of their top three tournament scores in slalom, tricks, jumping and overall. For tournaments having multiple rounds only the best single round score will be taken for that tournament. "

 

Just curious on the logic of this. The ranking list takes the best 3 scores, of the best scores from each tournament. Why not just let all rounds count. They are already recorded, just not included in the average. This comes into play if you don't have 3 good different tournament scores or if you have one really good day at a multi-round tournament and don't get full credit for your efforts.

 

 

@Zman‌ thanks. Great deal. Will the thicker liners work with the older boots. Mine have The thinner liners now.

I am currently riding radar strada bindings and have been really happy with them. My liners are starting to wear out and I have been looking at either some new liners or new bindings. There are some pretty good deals on 2013 strada bindings available, but don't know much about the vapors. So, what is the difference between the 2013 stradas and the vapors? Also, were there any significant changes from 2014 vapors to the 2015 vapors (other than going blue)?