Edbrazil

Been there, done that. But not many times. Done more yecccch river sites from back on the Tour, that were bordering on the impossible. Dry bottom is almost too easy. Last year, I stupor-vised the dry/nearly dry bottom reset of the Pangaea site in NY state, site of the 2011, 2012, & 2013 Regionals. Can get things super-accurate that way. I sent Horton some more detailed notes.

40 years since Kris set his first AWSA record. 1 @ 38 at the 1973 Nationals. Note: Tim Huston's performance is a tie with Chet Raley in M5.

A bit off the subject, but still exotic watercraft, here's what was in the local McDonald's parking lot the other day. Amphicar X 4.

Good points about noting all aspects of a driver's performance, not just centerline video. Back when the driver ratings were first established, the Chief Driver had to do a report on each driver in the tournament. Not now, and advancement tends to be based on quantity. However, for Record tournaments (Class E, L, R), all the centerline video is supposed to be submitted to the Drivers Committee Regional Representative. See p. 83 of the AWSA Rulebook. http://www.usawaterski.com/pages/divisions/3event/2013AWSARuleBook.pdf "The video tape recordings of non-record passes (on standard size VHS cassette) shall be submitted to the Regions Driver Committee Representative." Quite a monumental task to wade through the tapes, not all with a sound track and driver/pass identification. For every 16 seconds or so of the boat in the course, there will be maybe a minute between passes and likely more between skiers. Running the tape at fast-forward actually tends to accentuate boat path deviations, though. VHS is getting to be old technology, and there probably will be changes coming there. Such as automatic tracking by SplashEye, DVD recording, etc.

Noodles or whatever for a mini marker that can be seen but is not going to wreck skier. Such as these small floats about 3-4 inches in size. Maybe could even install a line of them, in various colors. Even easier than boat video analysis, except for the trip-up factor. Would be EZ to do at a private site that's relatively shallow and warm now. And, make sure that the buoy can break away. The link to the extensive data from the Schnitz site is interesting, but flawed. The skier path isn't such that 1/2 way gate to gate is optimal. Try putting in a marker buoy at 21 feet closer from the entry gate and see how that works.

No firm proposal here; just some more discussion, some math and some ideas for analysis that others might do. So: If we were able to measure the skier's path during a nice clean pass, and then plunk down start gates right where they fit the skier's path, where would they be? From observations back-when at some Tour sites that may have had things in the way during practice/media skiing, such as jump timing buoys, I've noticed that as the towline gets shorter, the skier crosses the boat wake 'sooner'. Which I remember to be a significant amount, such as 15 or more feet sooner, going from say 28 to 38 off. Suppose you could put the gates at the optimum location, where would they be? From back in the early to mid 1960's, there were some tests and experiments on shortening the endgates. Which used to be a full 45 yards or 135 feet longitudinally from the # 1 level. I've heard that Ken White proposed a change, and I remember that such a change was tried about the 1963 Masters. Also from another oldtimer that there were tests after the 1965 Worlds in Australia. The top skiers were having to double-turn # 1 at shortline, as in 24 and 30 off. Of course, all us lesser-talented skiers thought the move was to make the course more difficult. While the tops guys wanted it. When this idea was incorporated in the AWSA rules, the distance went from 135 to 90 feet. Note that 90 feet is about 17 inches longer than what we have today at 27 meters. Back at that time, in the late 1960's, no one was running 38 off. Note that the first US Open Men record recognized in SL was 1 at 38 at the 1973 Nationals. Anyway, getting back to the original idea, how about using some video from the boat to determine where the skier crosses the center of the wake? With frame-counting and using many samples, that should be relatively accurate, especially if there can be good video at a higher framing rate than the 30-ish fps for NTSC video. Probably Nate Smith would be the prime subject for boat video at super-short line. Should be plenty of video that @horton and others have. Should be some math/tech geeks on this site like @than who could put their minds to it. Have a look at the diagrammed example below. Hope it is large & clear enough to be understood. The example is at a line length of 32 off, and where the skier is found to cross the wake in halfway of the time from buoy-to-buoy (2.545 sec at 58 kph buoy-to-buoy). Turns out that the distance is close to the 14 meter amount, or 41-27 meters. But, this is just a theoretical example. Since the handle doesn't reach the buoy beyond 35 off (12.00m), what corrections to use for 38 and beyond? Have fun. Could be a good engineering school project?

I have done courses on dry or mostly dry bottom, but rarely have that luxury. Worked with Bob Avery in Tennessee back several years. Used something like a "Bobcat" backhoe to dig a little pit after first marking locations with dowels & flagging. Then rolled anchors into each pit and packed them in while measuring with the Total Station. Should be able to get everything to well within one an inch, and more like 1cm. In this case, the anchors were 5 gallon cans of concrete with stainless steel eyebolts. Last year, the full re-set at Pangaea in NY state was mostly a bottom job using concrete-filled tires. It would be a serious and costly project to make a bottom-anchored course that could be remotely lowered. The infamous year 2005 incident at Dousman, Wisconsin always comes to mind, and that was just to remotely narrow the 6 skier buoys. I think that the WallySinker design could be modified, and work in depths of 8+ feet, but not easily or cheaply. Back-back when, "Accufloat" had an optional feature where pull-down lines laid across the PVC arms. Was not EZ to make it work right, and is no longer an option. See notes above by others about pulling down courses or individual buoys. I've done courses that are individually counter-weighted that work for somewhat varying water level and removal/re-setting. Might be an option for say, one side off the skier buoys, so they can be out of the way while important functions like tubing are going on. See sketchy diagram attached. At a site with relatively clear water, you just need a boathook to pull up a loop to clip a buoy rig to. Also attached: a picture of an "Anchor Wanker" which is a great tool for working in depths that are not EZ to free-dive, such as 20+ feet. Floatation modules, winch crank, and mount for a survey prism. Shown sitting on a PWC trailer. A waterworker who is a good Wanker can typically get things to about 3-4 inches on the bottom for starters. Then, should only be one dive needed on some anchors for a final adjust.

Buoy size has steadily decreased in the Rules over the years. I remember back in the mid-1970's having to extra-inflate AWSA buoys so that they met an IWSF specification for Record events. I believe that was to something like a diameter of 35cm minimum. (vs. 20cm now). Which would appear humongous these days. When inflating them, some of would EXPLODE. Scared the crap out of my Collie dog "Arf". I've heard that some Euro events back when may have even used something like the "Norwegian Fishing Buoys". See attachment. Anyway, buoys are a lot smaller now, but any size down to tennis balls and less can still trip you. Even a leaf on the water could do that in the wrong place at the wrong time. Until we get to laser hologram-based virtual buoys, we have what we have. For practice, maybe not a bad idea to have extra small and extra low buoys. I believe that blaming injuries on buoys should more appropriately be blaming binding release systems that are 30 or more years behind snow ski bindings. Remembering back-back when, probably late 1950's, and a bit off-topic, but perhaps of some historical or hysterical interest: When there weren't "waterski" buoys as such as we did whatever to make them. One "solution" was partly-inflated auto innertubes, folded twice. On my lake, I experimented around with beach balls, suction cups, eybolts, and glue. One group on the lake found some foam mooring buoys that they used. However, they had a metal "pigtail" on the top with a sharp edge. You could tell who had been slaloming close to the buoys by the scratches on their thighs. Somewhat forgivable is that they were mainly jumpers. Back in the time with no sidecurtains.

I probably have quite a few things to add. But, I'd like to find out more about this project. Originally, I thought they were talking about getting permission for a course on public water, but on closer reading, maybe they are developing a lake. Even digging one from scratch? To the very first question, here's what I've used a lot of the time for a buoy anchor. This is a so-called "cored chimney block" with approximate outside dimensions 16 x 16 x 8. Interior is mostly filled with concrete and a stainless eyebolt added. Keeping the concrete a little below the top so the eyebolt doesn't stick up and they are stackable. Weight is about 108 lbs. The flutes in the block are good for mud to mush up into or to use to pin through with rebar or similar. May not be EZ to find in other parts of the US. But, can also use regular chimney or "pileaster" blocks w/concrete. They end up around 130 lbs.

Sure can't fault Horton for acquiring sponsors. If you follow the link, and keep going, you can find suggested retail prices on boats. As in: WOW. But, that is maybe what the market reflects these days. When we had ski club back in NH in the mid-late 1970's, we were paying around $7,000. for a new promo. boat, which we turned over each year, and carried a bank loan on it through the season for a favorable % that I don't remember. The interest to keep up amounted to a few hundred $$ yearly. How things have changed. When I got my job with a machine tool company, coming out of Engineering school back in 1969, my salary of $11,000. per year was a good amount. It let me be able to buy a 1970 Z-28 for $4538, on a short-term loan with the Credit Union. My father (from the Depression Era) thought my compensation was excessive, and told me so in no uncertain terms.

Happening now, but not much information or discussion. I see one tweeting by Chris Travers. The skiers who have signed up for the event are posted on the USAWaterski website, at: http://www.usawaterski.org/default.asp?Display=1761. Not a large group, and notable there are no "Overall" men there, particularly Jimmy Siemers. Although Freddy has done 3-events, with SL and TR at a competent level, nowhere near his JU. And Scot and Zack can at least 2-event, if they enter. Would be nice to see running orders posted somewhere. Expecting a team with 4 women and 2 men, with the men perhaps 1-event specialists, and maybe even a SL specialist. Comments??

Thanks to the folks at USAWaterski and the AWSEF Museum, they rounded up some pictures for me. The first one is like the device I remember, although not exactly the same as what I remember from the pictures of the Masters in the Water Skier. Back in the mid-late 1970's, we would have a kitchen-size wastebasket behind the driver seat (13 gallon or so), and the Boat Judge would pull the towline in hand-over-hand. Almost always came out cleanly without tangles. Not so practical now, with handle changing and even most skiers in some jump events having their own lines. Some US Patents that may be of interest: 2915259 3100606 3420466

Amen to the post about bindings. Question: would this be a product that would just be used for line storage and transport, or would it be designed to be used during skiing? As in being able to wind in towline shortenings without stopping the boat? There was a product like this used in a Masters tournament from back in the 1960's, with pictures in an old Water Skier. I wasn't there. But the inventor did try to keep up with the product, and I may have met him many years later. I've put out an inquiry to some oldtime officials to see what they might have for information. Meanwhile, if it's just going to be a device for winding and storing lines, we have this:

I likely have quite a few stories, most buried in memory. This one is from the WaterSki Magazine boat tests, where I participated from about 1987 to 1993 in the Traditional Skiing part of the tests, plus did a SL course installation that Tom King later was able to use, on the Butler chain in the Orlando area. Estimate that I drove about 400 boats, and most through at least 4 passes in the course. There were some really terrible ones, and some that had serious flaws. At that time of the year, the manufacturers were just coming out with new boats, and occasionally we'd get one that had zero hours on it. Some off-topic stories there, for sure. This wasn't one of those cases, but was a Big Name from the past that the company was trying to introduce as a modern ski boat. It had its troubles getting up to speed in the AWSA's tests, among other things. At the tests for the Mag, it was a bit of an oink-oink pig of a boat. Driving SL for tester Kreg Llewellyn, and stopping after one shortline run, he pulled out aggressively, and I also slowed and turned toward him. Standard procedure so that the skier could give verbal impressions of the wakes to write down. But, I ended aiming at him in the water as the boat slowed down, and the boat would not respond to the steering. Somewhat like most PWC's typically do. Shut the key off, stood up in the boat, and yelled: LOOKOUT!! Kreg turned around and used his ski as a buffer, with a couple of bonk-bonks on the boat hull. Fortunately, that was all there was to that potentially serious incident. The company struggled for a while over a couple of years, eventually gaining AWSA approval, but gave up eventually. I expect that many others have something similar to relate about close calls when shortening the line. Gotta watch it every time.

And Dave Miller (CAN) had a 4 @ 41. In the "Battle of the Sexes", it was Regina over Todd. Shades of Bobby Riggs vs. Billie Jean King.

Yup: 9.75m or 3 towline loops beyond 38 off, which is where the initial towline ran out of loops. Tech. Controller had to add 3, by my count, which may not be perfect. Back then, before a Rules change (undoubtedly because of this event), for additional ties, you shortened again. Anyway, the last 2 (apparently Hugh Peterson & Tony Krupa) went out at 41 (zero+zero), and came back at 43 (plus zero). Somewhat entertaining and humorous. Yes, that was in the era of plus buoys, which made sustained ties very unusual. And also when they shortened on the return pass even if you didn't make a full 6 on the outgoing pass. Nate's recent performance actually getting to 3 at 43 prompted me to remember back when. Berkeley tended to have some significant crosswinds, as it was just off the Bay, so no surprise that scores were down a pass or so. Other note: it was 1973 Petersburg, VA Nationals with Kris and Bruce Fink. Both running 35, and Kris getting 1 vs. 1/2 for Bruce. For an initial National Record in Open Men. See: http://www.awsasouth.org/history/NatRecordBook1.5.pdf Page 29. That event was run in a pouring rain. Normally, no tournament would run in that condition with raindrops bouncing off the water 4 inches or so, but it was the last day and they had to get it done. The Water Skier from that year in the Fall called it the "Miracle of Petersburg" or similar. Grimditch on the cover. Lots and lots of records set in all 3 events. Many stories about the site, such as the power poles in the water.

Wow, impressive data by @TomD. Assuming its accurate. Maybe one of those people who saved all their old Water Skiers and read every word of them. Like me, back when. Anyway, that scoring appears as a win by Kris, a 2nd by Mark, and then 4 others tied initially for 3rd with 2 at 35. Which helps explain multiple runoffs to settle everything. Best as I recall, when the event was won, I took off for hotel, errands, lunch, or whatever. When I came back, it was still running. With the Technical Controller having to hustle down to the starting dock with and a piece of line. Think I remember that the runoffs took as long or longer as the OM event itself. The Rest Of The Story later.

Keep guessing. No one has hit it yet, but @klindy has some good notes.

Lots of views so far, but not many votes/guesses. Have a go at it. Remember the word "strange". Any Cali people out there who attended as spectators? World record at that time was Kris 4@38 in 1975 at Horton Lake, tied by Bob in 1976. Kris' performance was one factor in designing the Record Capability Tournament Rules. Correct vs. Kjellander in 1988. See: http://www.iwwfed.com/history/displayrecords.php

I was there. One of the appointed drivers, not for OM, but I did pull OW, where Deena won. Horton: your territory, but maybe a bit far back for you.

In Open Men at the 1977 Nationals (Berkeley), what was the shortest line they got into? Yes, this also includes runoffs.

Make that "have L-shaped..." Some skiers will find the "Zero Buoy" before the start gates to be annoying esp. at 28 and 32off.

Nice diagram by Ed Obermeier. I've got one, but similar. With the exit-only gates as yellow round buoys. LaPoint Lake in Orlando is about 1580 ft. on the course centerline. Goode Lake in Ogden, UT is about 1420 ft. on the course centerline. Both sites has L-shaped turnouts at one end at least, which helps a lot.

So far, the surveying has just consisted of establishing a defined centerline pin at the North end of the lake, and taking a shot to the nearest gate centerline. That's all I need to figure the stakeout for the bottom-anchored course. Which will be fully surveyed when done. Might be nice to do a full survey on the existing course, but not necessary. The bottom-anchored course will essentially just be where the existing 8-buoy floater is, displaced maybe 1/2 meter so we're not dropping blocks on the floater structure. Using it as a "template" for the new course, which does save some time vs. going from scratch with nothing in the water at all to work from.

I will be there at the event, but likely I will be much too busy to do any real-time stuff. Right now, we're working on installing a bottom-anchored SL course there, so the event will meet the standards of Class L.