PurdueSkier

How hard is it to switch out the rope/handle with a guard on it? Assuming the rope stays on the pylon like at a tournament and you have to put the loop over the handle. @RLW I like your idea but not sure if it will allow a handle change.

If it feels better on the tail and sticks when on the front foot try moving the fin forward just a little. Maybe 0.005" that should relieve some of the pressure and let you stand taller. If that doesn't work take your boots off and let me try it.

I recently skied the course behind a sport nautique 200 V Drive, just to see if I could. I skied 34 mph. At 15 off it was not skiable. The wake was big but the rooster tail was huge. It pushed up the back of my ski as I crossed. Not good. At 22 off it was skiable and I ran the course. However I felt I was jumping wake to wake. A beginner would not be able to do this easily. Surprisingly at 28 off and shorter, only got to 35, it was a tournament quality wake. I would not hesitate skiing behind it at shorter lengths. You are in front of the rooster tail and at a very nice spot on the wakes.

Chee is no longer around. He did all of my skins several years ago and it was perfect. He took some people's money and skipped town a couple years ago. I have not used Gabriel but that is who is recommended on the malibu crew site.

@Horton I ended up placing a masterline order with performance. They had what i needed in stock and price was better than others. @perfski Thanks for the fast and great service.

So with an earlier cut off are we still using the 12 month ranking? So most of the 2017 scores will already qualify to 2018 nationals?

Thanks for all the advice. Sounds like I should give in tow a call.

I own a 94 echelon and until recently also regularly skied and drove a 94 ProStar 190. I believe both boats are of similar quality and value. Both boats are all fiberglass. My Echelon has the optional fuel injected 454 so both Boats were also fuel injected. The echelon tracks better than the pro star but as mentioned above the ProStar has a softer wake. Weight changes and a prop change to the echelon made the Wake softer but not quite as good as the ProStar. I would not hesitate to buy either one as a good starter boat.

@Wish was the EP year to year, or rolling? I believe it was each year. I do like that idea, I just don't think it is that different than using an early cutoff date and the ski year ranking. Part of the reason we don't hear "did you get your level 8" is because it only matters on or after the cutoff. You could have it based on a pervious year score, then lose it. If the cutoff was early in the ski year and we used a ski year ranking list, it would be the same.

@Than_Bogan I agree, keep the email, fix the problem. I was excited to get my email, even if I just barely made it in. @JeffSurdej I think the ski year list should be the default view and what is used for qualifications. Yes, the list will be very small for a month or so after Nationals, but it will be accurate. If you want to look at where you are at any given time, then you can still look at the 12 month view as an option (just like the ski year is an option now). If we want to keep the changes small and simple, move the cutoff date earlier and use the ski year for qualifications. You can't just move the cutoff date. One issue now, is that any tournament that happens after the cutoff and before Nationals (this includes small class C tournaments not just State and Regionals), actually count toward 2 National qualifications. That doesn't really make any sense. Why should a class C tournament in late July count twice as much as one in June? If I ski in a tournament tomorrow, the score will count towards a 2017 national qualification (as a LCQ) per the current rules (any score achieved after the cutoff date). Assuming next year's cutoff date is the same or earlier, it will still be on my 12 month ranking list score when the cutoff date for 2018 happens. So it counts towards both. If we use the current ski year list, then all of this goes away. Any tournament after Nationals will count toward next year. Nationals will truly be the culmination of the ski year and the ranking list. We all start over next year. You can set the cutoff date whenever you want it. I agree that earlier is better, to allow for planning of regionals and nationals travel. My one last comment, is I don't like the time and money requirement to ski at Regionals, as a qualification for Nationals. I understand wanting the best to be at Regionals and needed competitors to show up, but from the family perspective it is hard to plan the travel for two major events.

@JeffSurdej. Noting your comment above. Why is everything based on the rolling 12 month list and not the current ski year? I think this adds to some of the confusion. Your ranking could drop just before the cutoff just because a previous year score was there then dropped off. Why not use the current year list?

@bigtex2011 PM sent

@cacman glad to hear new stops are working better. No more excuses!

Cool stuff @tap. Nice work putting that Purdue degree to good use.

@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).

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?