escmanaze

@Horton I mean like realistic adult ideal weight. High School I was like 145-155. I'm pretty sure that if I ate healthy and hit the gym 4 days a week, I could get down to an "ideal" adult weight of 165. Instead I stand here at 195. I'm wondering just how much damage I'm doing to my skiing with those extra 30. I think it's probably a lot. I voted 6-9, but even that might be pessimistic.

So I'm about 30 pounds over my ideal weight. I'm convinced, that with all other things equal, if I could just get rid of that weight, it would be worth about 6 buoys better on my PB. Am I crazy? How many balls more would you get if you lost 30 pounds of pure fat? Or, if you're already in great shape, how many fewer balls would you get if you put on 30 pounds of straight fat?

85 through 88 I would look the way of Mastercraft. Smaller softer wakes and no wood. Kind a seems like a no-brainer to me. And this is from a guy who owns a Nautique, so it's not like I'm some kind of hater or something.

This actually just reminded me, last time I was out, it was me, a ski buddy, and my 10 year old boy on my boat. I was out skiing, and I had just dropped and my father in law called. My 10 year old answered. He starts trying to ask me questions out in the water in stuff. I told him to tell Grandpa I would call him back in a bit. After he hung up, I let him know very clearly that while there's a skier in the water, phones don't get answered. He was happy to comply, of course. He just didn't know. He's 10 after all.

Shoot man, I can't say I've ever had a problem with a driver messing around with his phone while pulling me. If I ever skied with a guy that did that, I just wouldn't call him anymore - he's crossed off the list. The spotter on the other hand often has a phone in his hands, especially to record the guy skiing. Obviously I have no problem there. If a disinterested spotter happened to be on his phone, I still wouldn't really care, because I really only need him in there for the weight anyway.

Shoot man, I might just take you up on that. I'll PM you.

My recommendation would be to get the 3 event but don't waste your money on the z-box. I say that - and my boat has z-box, but it just makes the pull worse and I don't even use it. I have a 97 SNOB with the 5.7 pro-ski engine. Starting with version 9, they have integrated a mode called "simple slalom" and I have found that to be the best way to go. I might hi-jack your thread here, but it might be a fight you want to see take place as it might influence your decision. I am fully 100% convinced that controls as sophisticated as z-box were made for boats with DBW and simply are no good to cable throttle boats that just simply can't react fast enough to all that input anyway. There are a few guys on here who think they have tuned their cable throttle boat with z-box to be basically just as good as ZO. I don't buy it for even half a second. I am super skeptical that they are getting the results they claim to be getting. Even IF they are - and that's a big IF, then they are total 1 in 1,000 unicorns and chances are really good that you will end up just like me just putting it in simple slalom and let it do it's best and chances are really slim that you will be one of those unicorns who becomes one with the z-box and knows perfectly how to adjust and tune it perfectly and nail it dead nuts on. So in my opinion, z-box is a total waste of money for anybody who has a mechanical throttle. 3 event, however, does bring some nice features that I wouldn't want to live without. Now let the haters roll in baby!! Bring it on!! I'm ready to bask and dance in the rain of the hatorade.

@skispray Yes. As I mentioned in my first post, that was the exact place that made me shake my head. I think the craziest part though, was youtube removing it. Wow!!!

Oh wow. Look at that. Youtube took it down again. Ok, here it is on the website of the original poster's news channel. They say they are going to leave it up and it is their original footage, so hopefully this won't turn into a bad link like the other one did. https://www.turnto23.com/news/coronavirus/video-interview-with-dr-dan-erickson-and-dr-artin-massihi-taken-down-from-youtube?fbclid=IwAR2FtLrj3QBSf-r8HioSDxPtPi-Sci02nB91n_RPibxFEu95Tw0L23Uyf4k

@MarkM Well I will try to be unbiased in my response in either direction. They are essentially advocating for things to open back up significantly and essentially saying that their interpretation of the data is that this thing is turning out to be significantly less deadly than was initially believed. So then, obviously, some folks thing they are wrong. And if you think they are wrong, then what they are saying could potentially be viewed by some as "dangerous" or "harmful" misinformation. So on that premise, youtube has pulled their initial video off, an apparently all sorts of folks have already written big long rebuttals saying why these guys are idiots etc. But the heart of the controversy is when youtube deleted their video.

Turns out, apparently that video is getting all kinds of controversial. Oops.

A couple guys from Horton's backyard. I'm sure many will disagree with them. Even I look at one of their logical conclusions and kind of shake my head. Nevertheless, interesting to consider anyway. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ndL0uSmKTQU

@Horton It seems to me that for ideal testing of this ski, that you would have started at a longer rope length than 28 off. It seems like lots of the readers here are going to be very interested in your opinion of the ski at possible as low as even 28 mph and 15 off. Or maybe better said, I think there are probably a lot of guys who are going to really consider buying this ski who are currently in the ballpark of as low as 28 mph and 15 off. Maybe you will say that then this isn't the most appropriate ski choice for that low of speed and that line length? Or maybe you're such a good skier that those passes are a total joke so you would have a hard time even differentiating between a good and bad ski at those line lengths? Anyway, whatever your reason is, I would love it if you had some commentary on this in your final review/writeup.

I guess I would have thought that most guys that are running 38 are also guys who darn near always have access to a pretty decent driver. @Buxrus says that he's running 38, but he is very commonly dealing with various "less than ideal" drivers. I would think somebody like that would be the exception, not the rule. Am I wrong? I don't run anywhere close to 38, so I don't really know what kind of world that is. I could easily be wrong in my assumption.

I have started graphing state by state results the way I want to see the data presented. It seemed I couldn't find anywhere that was presenting it like this. I figure some of you may or may not be interested. Here is my facebook post showing it. It's public, so I assume you should be able to see it easily enough. https://www.facebook.com/escmanaze/posts/10163305259925290?comment_id=10163305275155290&notif_id=1586667748271111&notif_t=feed_comment

For reference, here was my personal best at one point last year. 5 @34.2. I ended up running it a few days later and at one point even ran two of them in a row. So the ceiling on my skiing right now is just a touch above what you see here. Previously, all conventional wisdom said that this made me a perfect candidate for a Senate (lithium in this case - 2018). So far I have loved my ski for the last year and a half. Part of me wants to be told that I could possibly ski better on, for example, a vapor pro build. Part of me doesn't want to hear that at all. I assume there are a lot of guys out there in a similar place as I am.

Oh boy. I really hope this isn't true. I'm not ready to spend that money right now dangit!!! Were the 28-32 mph skiers adjusting the length of the ski at all to account for the slower speeds? @brooks can you please confirm that Horton is just crazy and I don't need to go blow two G's on a new ski?

My personal un-solicited opinion is that we crossed the point of over-reaction a week or two ago. Oh well, whatever. With that opinion, though, then the answer is, of course I'm still skiing. I skied yesterday. Particularly considering that my most typical ski group is my wife and 3 kids, it's kinda tough for me to see a real big difference between sitting home and watching a movie with them or heading out to the course with them. Unfortunately, I can already see the writing on the wall in my local area. My prediction is that my lake will be "closed" by the government in 1-2 weeks. That is when I'll be forced to test out a very primitive launching location that I have been curious about for years, but haven't ever been motivated enough to really go try. Fingers crossed.

Yes the .2" difference between the senate and the vapor can make a very big difference. I had at one point similar years (2012 & 2013) of Vice and senate, so again, just a 0.2" difference. But it was definitely a big difference for me and I would say it in a way not that the vice needed a better skier than me, but it certainly needed a "stronger" skier than me. I'm back on a senate now, 2018 lithium and that is better for me and my levels (most commonly 30 & 32 mph but sometimes down to 28 and sometimes up to 34.) I would just say that if you are skiing the best on the CX, then stick with it until you find a ski you like better. I'm learning that, at least for me, I can tell pretty quickly if I like a certain ski more than my old one, so I'm not sure there's much use or wisdom in deciding to "fight the vapor and stop complaining."

Wow!!!! That seems like a really big deal.

Utah show this last weekend. Had the new ski nautique and a prostar on display. I was pretty pumped about that. 2 for 3 aint bad for such a small market here.

And the last one that the 8th grade me just loved.

Another fun one from either Bart's or Overton's way back when. I tend to think Bart's.

When I used to wear this one in the 8th grade I thought I was the coolest. when I wore it last week, I thought I was the coolest!!!

Just read the comments from @BCM. It made me think about this video. (I'm also a mountain biker.) Maybe in some way this video might contain some of the answer to the question. What would the waterskiing version of this video look like?