BRY

STOP! let me say that again STOP! Assumption: You know the toe came/comes out because of a release with the heel remaining cocked. If heel uncocked, i.e. released, other issues can be at play. Also assume purchased new from real dealer (you said "ordered"). There is no way with a properly set up Reflex the toe can come out as described unless the heel releases. The toe is in the horseshoe a couple inches and should get dents where it pushes against the horseshoe. If it is as you describe then something is very, very wrong and very dangerous. Set up properly I believe (and have severely tested the theory for years) that the Reflex is very safe and reliable when properly set up. It takes a very firm push on the heel piece to clip in the boot. Three or four fingers won't do it, solid push required. If less or way more, something wrong, don't use, investigate. I suggest you first check the size of the boot (should be stamped somewhere). Next, using diagrams in the manual @Gloersen posted above, check to make sure you have the proper size plate for your boot (2 sizes). If correct then, using diagrams again, make sure the horseshoe and heel piece are in the correct holes for your plate and boot. If proper plate but wrong holes move to the exact holes in the diagrams , and bitch dealer out. If wrong plate send back, have dealer cross ship a all new proper set up and bitch them out. If all correct as per diagram call dealer for assistance, possibly send you a new plate/release assembly. The above should resolve the issue you describe, sure it's a positioning/size issue. Too high horseshoe and it will bump up/down with occasional pre-release but can't come out at toe. If purchased used from "some dude on the internet" the the above should still help but could just be a worn out or poorly modified system. I got my first Reflex from Remi and have had almost all, including black, white and supershell. Currently on white as works best for me. Very familiar and have set up several friends, no issues for any of us as it just works and skis awesome.

@zman if you are early you want to be wide otherwise you run have to run parallel to the course and that is bad. So just keep moving out with your com and the ski, toward the beach. Don't need to change your technique, it's good if you have this problem. Off the wake ski to the beach not the ball, early edge change, hold onto the handle till the boat takes it (let the boat take it, don't give it to the boat), keep head and inside shoulder up, relax. It will just happen, a nice wide arc out. Be less aggressive but more powerful (don't go soft, be strong in movements). It's OK to ski wider than the buoy line, just be sure you are doing so before the buoy.

@oldjeep is correct about standard glasses, not going to protect anything in a water crash. In fact standard glasses are a hazard, the lens can get popped out and driven into the eye socket. Why goggles are recommended for snow skiing. Std swim goggles are not designed for impact either (humans swim really slow) and can also be driven back into the eye socket. Saftey glasses however, are designed to absorb point and blunt impact and retain the lenses. Ones with the + are designed for high speed impact. ANSI Z87.1 Defined After checking out the Bomber site they have quite a range of inexpensive safety glasses that float, Z87.1+. I had a clear pair of safety glasses that were great in the rain. Seems every year in FL there's a tourny or two you gotta take a ride with some sprinkles. It's an outdoor sport. But I lost them, on a start no less, and haven't found any that work well for me since. Most fit too close to the face (good for safety glasses) to clear the water spots. Some of these Bomber safety's look promising. Want a clear pair for rain and a darker (possibly mirrored) pair for late afternoon sunny days. FL sun brutal late in the day on a N/S lake.

Z-Box seems like a better way to go, close enough. If you upgrade engine/ZO it's still an older boat, won't get any of that money out of it. If must have ZO better to make your current boat truly sparkle, sell it for a little more than you paid for it and go get a ZO boat.

What style bombers you guys think work best?

Slightly more R than C around here, but I typically hit all the C's as cheaper and to help out if needed. Some interesting stats: Interesting the Southern Region put on 62% of the R's. Also the West and South put on essentially twice as many tournaments as the East and the South Central.

@Horton "I firmly believe that we need to rethink EVERYTHING." "If you need a huge amount of cash to run regionals under the old paradigm then maybe the paradigm needs to change. Maybe it is time for a Class C regional. Maybe it is time things like free rooms for the officials to be a thing of the past. Redesign the event from the ground up." I agree 100% with those points. In the meantime, reality. We need tournaments now to keep us going while we figure it out, Lyman does that. We need stability at our core so we can try new things without ceasing to exist if the new fails. Lyman and those like him are doing what works best for them within the current structure, and they are doing. Your doing too with your BOS tourney's. Yours are $150 with 50 skier limit. Lyman's Records are 3 rounds, $125, no entry limit (Tuscaloosa so somewhat self limiting on entries). Different tournaments with different appeal but for a newbie kinda pricey either way. I strongly believe changes to Regionals and Nationals will to nothing to grow the sport, just moves the people we have around. Consistent quality access to consistent quality water at the lower end (max speed and below) is our biggest issue. More tournaments in more areas geographically is needed, so need those who aren't doing need to be doing. Its really not that hard to throw a C, if every L7+ skier stepped up and became at least an assistant judge it would real easy.

@skiinxs What was it about Plus on dual puck you liked and why do you not prefer it with single puck now? Curious.

@Horton @LLUSA attitude and mindset is also propping the sport up. He built a lake, puts on many quality tournaments year in and year out and gives a large chunk of his time to the sport. How many people do that? Very, very, very few. Love him or hate him personally, gotta respect what he does for the sport. I don't really know him but people who know me know I'm not a Lyman fanboy, but I respect what he does for the sport. If every private or controlled water site did a fraction of that, i.e. at least held 1 C/F tourney a year, we would be in much better shape. If every skier who attends 2 or more tourny's a year became an official (assist official stupid easy to become) we would be in much better shape as a sport. It's the people like Lyman who contribute who are keeping 3-event tournament skiing "the sport" going. Lack of suitable water access and the many who participate but do not contribute are crushing the sport.

I'm 215-220 lbs so Plus is supposed to be for me. When I tried it the faster gate speed was interesting, not as bad as I thought, but I would carry more speed into 1 than 34mph seemed to support. That was workable, not sure better or worse. The kicker for me was it came on too quick as I got into it after the ball. Normally ski C1 or B1 depending on boat. Never seemed to have time to get settled and handle down and in with Plus.

@Rpc29 A required States seems good in concept but is no different than a Regionals in application. Example: FL States is in Santa Rosa Beach this year. For me (West Palm area) that is an 8 hour drive (no stops, no traffic) or a 3.5 to 4.5 hr plane ride plus an hour drive each way. For Miami people add 1+ hour. Lotta Nats skiers West Palm/Miami. Orlando is 5.5 hr drive (no stops, no traffic) each way. Last year FL States had 83 skiers in SL alone. As is on multi lake sites it can be run on a weekend, but its a really full weekend. Make it required and likely more days needed. End result for 3-eventers, families, anyone skiing both days is a 4 day commitment, hotels, travel dollars, time off. For me it is exactly the same as going to Regionals, a day to get there, hotel night, ski and long ass drive/flight home with wee hr morning arrival. CA and TX are the same regarding skier numbers and travel distance. Example: NH, RI, ND, SD, WY The little (skier number states) do not have the numbers to even put on a tournament, some don't even have a site. They do have skiers though, some very good, only 1 or 2 in some divisions and none in most. In a State tournament requirement scenario they are in limbo. One way around it is to combine several State tournaments into one larger, more sustainable and competitive tournament but that is a Regionals. In FL, CA and TX if all the skiers going to Nat's are at a States that State tournament would be extremely competitive by quality and quantity of skiers. A win (just show up and win, only skier in division) in a small States (if they can pull a tourny off) is not equitable to a top 5 placement in FL, CA or TX. For myself and may others (have discussed it) I would rather go to a larger, more competitive Regionals that to a States given time and money committed is the same or similar. States as a requirement for anything is not a functional or equitable replacement for Regionals. It does not work.

I really don't understand those that think state tournaments should be the requirement to ski nationals. How does that work for NH, RI, ND, WY? How can a top 5 placement there compare to a top 5 placement in CA, TX, FL? Of course you can co-host (combine) some states like this but then, hey, that's a Regionals. Further, in states like CA, TX and FL it can be a long haul to a States. In FL in can be up to a 9-10 hr drive (Miami to Santa Rosa) and 4-5 hour drive for many unavoidable wherever in FL it is. So time and money (hotels in particular) similar to a Regionals. A States requirement makes no sense in any way. For an idea that makes sense, @Triplett has one; "we should make regionals the qualifier for Nationals. It would be pretty cool, dreams granted or crushed, as long as you are L6 you can go, figure out the placements for each division based on number of people you want at nationals. If you cant commit to nationals, the next guy/girl goes." If there is to be some sort of qualifier, this makes sense, is a change, workable throughout the country. May be better, worse or indifferent vs status quo but it has a solid premise.

WTF! I feel for @JeffSurdej and Co. reading this thread. The OP is for removing Regional's requirement. Reasonable arguments regarding time/money put forth. Now some want to add or replace with a State's requirement? People want smaller National's in fewer days at more varied sites (i.e. smaller 2-3 lake sites). Yet want to get more people going to Nats, with a concurrent Pro tournament, with a C tournament, ect. There's only so many skier rides in a day per lake. Example: Horton's BOS tourney appears to take essentially 50% of the practice time, the afternoon at that (1 to 6pm), for 50 out of 600+ skiers. As SMRR states "practice will be more limited than before." Interesting to see how it all pans out on 4 day 4 lake site. Kansas (2018) three lake site. @LLUSA (Tuscaloosa) has and is putting on the Southern Regionals on a single lake site. My experience is it was a well run tournament and is an awesome skiing site. Goes Wed through Sun. On one lake no time for anything else, add more stuff and great sites like this eliminated. Long truck from S FL (~10hrs) but not as bad as to Padukah, KY (plane ride + 2-3hr drive). Without attendance requirement very, very few S FL skiers going, particularly to KY and vice versa for a S FL regionals (though Okeeheelee's 5 lakes very close to 2 major airports.) BTW I think is is awesome Horton is aware that at his event "50 skiers is a drop in the bucket" regarding Nat's and willing to post so. I also think it is awesome he put it together, gotta be some work. It will be awesome for the 50 that can afford the time and money (addnl hotels, $150 entry ect). The effect on the other 550+ will be interesting. Some people seem to think we need change no matter what. Change is not always good, blind change is usually bad. Some here have made recommendations for "change" where the "changes" are how it's already done! Some evidence there that the way it is may not be so bad, may even be the best way. Need to strive for improvements, better ways that improve the sport for the most individuals (not for a few) and not just blind change.

I like the SportTube 3. I used to have a 1, now have a couple 2's and a 3. The 1 is too small for skis anymore, my snow skis won't even fit and no hope for my water ski. The 2 works great for 1 pair of my snow skis and the wife's (or my snow slalom's) but is a bit tight for the waterski. The 3 gives enough room for my ski in a padded bag with some bubble wrap at each end. I use the Goode padded bag as it is oversize, kind of a 1-event bag. A couple towels, gloves, boot liners, sunscreen and handle go in the padded bag. The vest separate from bag. That's it, nothing else, I don't load it up. TSA can slide the ski bag in and out easy to unzip and inspect. The ski does not flop around inside but is not tight anywhere except for the ends. So I get occasional dents in the tube but the ski can move around enough so the tube just absorbs it. They would have to seriously crush the tube, more than just toss it around, to kill the ski. Any soft solution would die sooner. Anyhow it has worked for me well. Also, a few airlines state ski's only covered if in a hard case. Check the policies before you buy tickets. One thing about Southwest is the tube fly's for free. FedEx and ShipStix probably safer but last I looked quite a bit more expensive. Essentially an entry fee or two to get it there and a hotel room or two to get it back. Go to another tournament for that.

Why, Daddy, Why? This is a solution in need of a problem. Why should Regionals requirement be removed? What issue will that solve? Specifically, not "save the sport" or "World Peace" or whatever. Specifically what and how will the change be an improvement? I truly would be appreciative of someone who can cogently explain it to me, would like to understand. I will submit it won't change anything about the health of the sport as a whole. Pretty much anything done regarding Nationals is just stirring the pot of National's level skiers. It's still the same noodles inside. Pick up a few maybe, loose a few maybe, essentially no change to what is in the pot. I don't see numbers of new members joining because of this. I see two results if this rule changed happens: 1. Regionals will die, turn into essentially a local R. 2. Nationals will get bigger. How much bigger? Could be minimal or could be significant. (I think fewer than you think, many who don't go still won't go as their commitment is elsewhere.) Do we (skiers who qualify for Nationals) want these two results? Seems the current desire is to have a shorter National's at more varied sites with more rides (practice, other tourney, ect.) Fewer days means fewer rides available. Smaller sites (2 or 3 lake vs 4 or 5 lake) means fewer rides available. So more skiers is in direct contradiction to those desires. BTW: The proposal the OP is going to submit is just removing the Regional's requirement. Does not contain anything about any kind of "Regional's replacement." Simply just removing the requirement to attend Regional's to ski Nationals.

@RazorRoss3 "a healthy mix of skiers who attend Nats every year, skiers who have been once but don't plan on a repeat, skiers who are qualified but have never been, skiers who aren't qualified, and non tournament skiers we make up the most diverse collection of waterski enthusiasts you are going to find in one place and to not poll and gather information from that source would be a mistake." Perhaps for many conversations. This one is about limiting who can compete at Nationals. The loudest voices and most of the voices for limiting who can compete at Nationals seems to be "skiers who are qualified but have never been, skiers who aren't qualified, and non tournament skiers." What does it have to do with them? They aren't even involved. They are telling me I don't deserve to go and that when I do go I somehow degrade the performance of the winner. That the act of my skiing my 98 buoys at Nat's belittles the battle the top guys had for the win. I don't see how that is at all, not one has been able to explain it to me and I find it offensive. Nationals is an event paid for and run by those who attend. I don't see how those who don't want to or won't or can't really have any standing, even in just swaying public opinion. I don't want non-participants working to persuade other non-participants (who could) not to participate. Fence sitters tipped the non-participant way. Lots O' Lurkers. I am a long time snow skier, since I was 4, have had many 100+ day seasons, taught for six years, and in years past skied a NASTAR a couple times. That being said, I believe I have no standing in pushing for who qualifies to NASTAR Nationals. I haven't been, haven't read the rules, don't really appreciate what it is for there I am one of the "skiers who are qualified but have never been, skiers who aren't qualified, and non tournament skiers."

"why does it take more judges to count buoys for 30 class C slalom skiers than it does to officiate an NFL football game" Well for slalom it doesn't: Seven officials "on field" for an NFL game (eight being considered) -referee, umpire, head linesman, line judge, back judge, field judge and side judge (8, a deep back judge being considered) Four officials "on field" for a Class C -driver, boat judge and two shore judges For both there are "Off field" officials as well. For slalom C there is scorer and safety. For NFL there are two replay officials, a couple in "Game Day Central", scorers and more. No video, replay delay and the like necessary for Class C. 2 out of 3 and move on. Six officials total for a Class C. If they work the whole "game" like NFL that's all you need. If the NFL swapped out "crews" throughout the game, well, they would need more. BTW it is stupid easy to become an assistant slalom judge. Anyone who has time to get to a tournament has time to sit during that tournament for 6 skiers in a row. Do that at three tournaments (two for L7), dock start once, watch a scorer a little twice (once for L7) and chat with the Chief judge and hey, you are a judge! Now if you are a Level 8+ skier all you have to do is fill out a form and send it in. If every L7 and L8 became a judge instead of a parasite it would be so easy on everyone. Each individual would not have to judge much.

@eleeski Also you state "Maybe people will come to Nationals to watch the top skiers compete with one another." I don't think so. The top skiers who are going to show, show already. Some great skiing to be had there, I've watched it. But I have not seen any appreciable number of people come to watch who aren't already tied to Nat's in some way, even in WPB (5.8 million in metro area). 2018 is in Kansas, metro area almost identical to Boise (664 & 644 thousand in metro area). How many people came out to watch who weren't already there as part of Nat's in Boise? For MM tricks? Just don't see a lot of people flying into Wichita to spectate. "Note, they come to watch Big Dawg." Not that I have seen. At the stops I have been to mostly crickets though awesome skiing. Only appreciable crowd I have seen was when Big Dawg Finals was tied to Nationals and pulled in the Nationals crowd or in Finals in a major metro area that did advertising. Advertising made a difference, any advertising going on for Nationals to draw spectators? I'm all for change but the change has to have value. Needs some reasonable rationale that a defined desired outcome will happen. Just try it and see, hope is works, cause gotta change isn't good enough. Change for changes sake or personal interests is the road to destruction. This rule is in that category.

@eleeski "Making MM mandatory might make the event big enough to give it some respectability" There is a mandatory bump for tricks in all Men's and in Women 1-2. Apparently not enough Women trickers W3+ and rule only needs 4. For this to work at all you have to have the mandatory group big enough. Are there even enough trick skiers to do that? I don't know, you probably do and you understand levels that make sense. Would the rule as is have changed anything in 2016 if it had been applied to tricks? Work the numbers and post for us please. I did for slalom and even with the number of skiers in slalom the rule is pointless as is.

If this rule is about getting more people to Regionals and Nationals, looking at it through a 2016 lens, it's kind of stupid and moot as applied. For M1 & M2 all those with a 114+ who skied did ski Open at Nationals. There would have been no change with the M1 & M2 competitors or results with this rule. For M3 the winner would have been bumped with his 108.17 average so at Nats everyone in M3 would have moved up 1 spot. For M4 the 2nd place would have been bumped with his 108.00 average so at Nats everyone in M4 would have moved up 1 spot. The winner had an average of 107.50 so he would remain in L9. For M5 no change in results. For M6 the winner would have been bumped with his 108.17 so at Nats everyone in M6 would have moved up 1 spot. The guys getting bumped are not Pro's or ex-Pro's, nor crushing the rest of the podium. I just don't see how this, as implemented, will bring in anyone new much less enough new people to move the needle at all. Skiers with a 110 to 113.99 and a 104 to 107.99 are still in the stratosphere of those who go to Nats. Ensuring they are on or at the top of the podium by rule does nothing for the sport, nothing. If were going to have it, give it some teeth and some effect. Put the bump at 110.1 and 104.1 (an average of anything over 2@39). Consistently past 2 ball @-39 is a big deal. Make the real -39 skiers all ski it out, have a top group with more than a handful of skiers. Put the podium in range of -38 skiers, there's a bunch of them and more out in the country to pick up.

So from the FAQ from the news on the front page of www.usawaterski.org the L10 cutoff is set to the following: EM - Open Men (M1-M2) 114 (6@39) 7400 pts 199–6’–35, 187-5.5’-35 2906 NOPS EW - Open Women 99 (3@38) 5690 pts SM - Masters Men (M3+) 108 (6@39) 4930 pts SW - Masters Women 97.5 (1.5@38) Level 10 FAQ Page They really need to update the FAQ page off the Ranking List, where this should be. Still has just Level 9 stuff there. But does reference ZBS....

Geez, so much passion (good) but failing to read the rule (bad). 2017 AWSA Rule Book Check out pages 48-50 No, you can't go down in speed or longer on line. Faster and/or shorter only. Yes, ZBS is applicable to Regionals and Nationals, max speeds were just retained as previous.

@Triplett How is raising max speed in M7 or W5 different from raising max speed in M3-M6? Particularly now it is only Class C (therefore IWWF list issues are moot)? If just a few decide to step up max speed then the rest (majority) will feel pressure to do the same, even though they don't want to. Just as true in W5 and M7 as M3-M6. So I don't think we forgot about the rest as the concept applies to all. 34-36mph was the focus due to the numbers of affected, 1100 M3-M6 vs 190 M7+W5. If most W5 and/or M7 want to raise their max speed, then that should be addressed specifically. Does a large majority of W5 and/or M7 want to speed up? Don't know but I don't think so. Though I know a few do (small minority). Perhaps we should ask them all and know for sure. Specifically for KY, @LeonL speaks directly for 50% of the M7 there and I am sure the 1 (one) W5 there can speak for herself. There is an issue with W5 speed and IWWF rankings. Was specifically brought up by one of the Directors who proposed the ZBS rule as a reason for it. Seems a specific rule to fit AWSA/IWWF speed mismatches would be better than a blanket AWSA speed up.

My read of it is that for ELR the previous max speeds retained: M3-M6 55K/34 M7, W5-6 52K/32 M8-11, W7-8 49K/30 No option or exception to go faster in ELR. For Class C the LOC has the option, but not obligated, to allow any M to go 36 and any W to go 34. In any Class if someone want to go 28mph -38 then have at it, whatever. If anyone knows differently please chime in.

@Horton It seems so for ELR but no for C though at this point I just saw an e-mail that had the voting and motion included. Seems good to get the actual verbiage posted. What I posted above is the heart of it and to my knowledge the complete motion to amend the new rule. :) No interpretations, just the motion.