wilecoyote

Well that beats my mooring chain LOL. I knew it was there, just figured the prop wouldn't pick it up off the bottom.

And I just gotta have that speedometer in my boat!

Thanks for posting, from what I can tell, skiing looked more fun in those days. I love the trick runs where the handle pass, toe pass and 2 ski pass are all done at once, we should bring that back.

sailboat, so what?

@skispray, you're right, my mistake. The study I referenced was the one that was referenced in the movie which was done in Inda in '65. Campbell then reproduced that study in different iterations, and the one you quoted above (done in '92) contradicts what was in the Indian study (with respect to the lifespan of the rats). The LP rats in the Indian study appear to have been killed by their susceptibility to aflatoxin and when Campbell reproduced the study in '92 using a different rat model the LP rats didn't die. I think it would be an egregious error to say that Campbell was a fraud, far from it, from what I've read, his work with the rat/cancer studies has produced a lot of quality data. What I said initially, was that the casein study as it was presented in the movie, by Campbell, was misleading. The inferred conclusion that consuming milk products, (and they even went so far as to extend this out to animal protein) promoted cancer was deeply flawed. Again this is misleading. There is a very good breakdown of that research here; https://www.westonaprice.org/the-curious-case-of-campbells-rats-does-protein-deficiency-prevent-cancer/ Also interesting, casein cancer studies have been done in monkeys with more reasonable doses of aflotixin and these do not support the conclusions in the movie, they more or less contradict it. http://repository.ias.ac.in/24650/1/314.pdf All that being said, I wasn't trying to promote or disparage one type of diet over another,and I certainly wasn't intending on a full swing debate on what kind of scientist Campbell is. I was simply trying to point out that I felt the movie was agenda based and misleading. The only example I could come up with off the top of my head was the casein study. Now, being forced to do a bunch of reading to support my claim, I've found all kinds of examples that others (Denise Minger for one) have dug up regarding the movie, not the least of which how Campbell's conclusions in the China study are not supported by his own data. Intentional or not, from what I've read, Campbell has included a lot of confirmation bias in his research, and I'll say it once more, the movie is agenda based and misleading.

Fair enough, but casein is a large component of all milk products, and the movie is about using a plant based diet to combat disease. Watching this scene, one could be excused for drawing the conclusion that milk promotes cancer. It certainly left that impression with me, so much so that I read a couple of papers on the topic of casein and cancer. And what I found was that it wasn't something I really needed to concern myself with as there was no real convincing evidence to the point. As for Campbell being an "ethical scientist" I'm sorry but that too is in question. What is not presented in the movie that comes from Campbell's rat study is that the high casein( HP) population actually lived longer than the low casein(LP) rats. The LP group developed liver disease that wasn't cancer and it killed them. In all, 30 of the HP rats lived for more than a year and and only 12 of the LP rats survived past a year. If only that part of the study had been presented the conclusion would be very different. Since it was his study, the omission of this fact, in this context, disqualifies him as a scientist, let alone an ethical one.

I haven't see the game changers, but I did watch forks over knives a ways back. I'm afraid I'd have to watch it again to give specifics, but several times the movie misrepresented what studies actually said, and drew conclusions to support the thesis of the movie that should not have been drawn based on the data. The one that does spring to mind is the casein study in rats that grossly misrepresented the takeaway for the dangers of consuming all milk products. There appeared to be some good content in the movie, but frankly, once I catch a film maker pulling these kind of manipulations to make a point, I throw away the whole thing. It is clearly an agenda based production (to be fair most docs are) and I would caution anyone taking the claims made at face value.

Peter Attia is the guy who got me serious on proper lifestyle and diet. He's the most balanced, thoughtful, and well researched people on this topic I know of. I went Keto in January and literally had to drop a ski size (my new 65 Senate coming in the spring) Here's his take on the Game Changers https://peterattiamd.com/?s=game+changers

This thread has been fun and informative, but I'd like to point out that my original post was not to say that carb was hands down far better than efi, just better in the case of running a boat that is easy to fix on the spot with minimal parts and tools.

@dvskier The new tech does not make new cars any more dependable than they used to be (with the exception of electronic ignition which I do have on my boat). It makes them more fuel efficient and dummy proof. Neither of which I value in a boat over being able to ski when I want to. Also something to consider in the reliability case, having your car not start when you are out is an inconvenience, having your boat not start when you're out and the weather is rolling in can be literally fatal. Not all of these boats are on ski lakes that you could swim to shore with a tow rope in your teeth and pull it in.

I'll just throw this in. How important is dependability? As stated above the 4160 is a good carb, and I for one don't really care about the cold start issue as it's summer and 3 pumps on the throttle to prime and a little goose when it fires works every time. As soon as you go to any type of EFI it's more sensors, computers, pumps and wiring. My boat(Supra rider PP classic) is only for free skiing, which is at a cottage with no spare parts for miles. I don't want my boat dead for half my vacation while I'm waiting for parts. At home, I ski the course (very poorly) behind brand new Mastercrafts. I'm considering upgrading, and at my level, I'm much more concerned about the wake than the motor. 22off behind my boat the wake is brutal so I can't even compare the pull until that gets sorted.

Frankly I don't think the tournament format is the issue here. As @ToddL pointed out, people like to watch things they do themselves. BTW I've never been to NASCAR race but I've been to F1, and Indy Car races, and if you haven't experienced it in person, you don't get the spectacle of it. The first time all those cars go past you it makes the hair stand up. I think the real reason is wakeboarding killed waterskiing. It's not a criticism, just an observation. Snow boarding killed snow skiing, kite boarding killed windsurfing. You can't fix that with a better tournament format. Without large grassroots participation, who will watch? If you want to start fixing it, you have to look at the cost of entry level participation.

@eleeski I get ya now, I just might check my own out now, thanks for the heads up.

@eleeski this statement about ammeters is new to me. Can you elaborate?

I did it a few years ago, due to knee injury and it took very little time for it to feel natural but I do think I'm in the group who started skiing with the wrong foot forward. I'm a 15offer so not much at stake in my case.

@FLeboeuf wait what? Other site?..

My uncle used to put a hat and sun glasses on the dog.

The idea of putting power back into the grid is not mine, it was something I had read somewhere else and I thought it was something to consider. While I do agree that AC to DC and back has all kinds of losses, so does running generating stations at ever changing levels, so the real question would be do the efficiency losses of putting power back to the grid out weigh the losses created by constantly ramping up and down generating stations. I don't know.

Something that hasn't been mentioned here, @GregHind was heading there, but once all the electric cars are plugged into the grid when not in motion, we have a huge battery that can store excess energy but also provide energy during peak demand. One of the problems we have in our current grid system is that we have no way to store excess energy when demand is low but production is high.

@LoopSki Cessna 172 is so much because of liability insurance. I heard this several years back. The insurance jumped so high that it accounted for half the sale price of the plane (IIRC) and it actually forced a few manufacturers to drop production of their light single engine models.

@Horton, I don't think the issue here is are the new models prices justified by how much change has gone in to them. The issue is, is all this "improvement" worth the added cost? Yes Porsche has made all kinds of improvements, but per @ToddF 's analysis the the 1984 Carrera was MSRP 42,000 CAD, as I've mentioned the new one is 163,000. It should cost 102,000. So a new one costs about 1.6 times today what it did in 1984. A new Nautique is about 4 times today, and the MC 3 times. Why? I don't think they're gouging, I just think they've gone in the wrong direction with development. If we stick with the Porsche example, when you look at a 1984 911 and a 2019 GT3, you can tell it's the same car that has 35 years of development. When you look at a new Nautique, can you tell it came from a 1984 model?

@Horton. By it's very nature a tournament boat is a luxury item, I'll give you that. But this of itself does not justify such a hefty price tag. If it is a luxury item now, then it was in 1984 and we've already established that a new tournament boat costs 4 times as much today as it did then. I don't know, but I'll bet a new bass boat doesn't cost 4 times what it did in '84. Also by this definition, having a dedicated truck just to pull my boat makes that truck a luxury item. It doesn't mean it should cost 3 times more than the truck my local contractor buys for work. Boat for boat, I see no reason for any current tow boat to approach the price of that Chris Craft, and yet they actually cost more.

Chris Craft (it doesn't get much better in production boat quality than them) makes this for MSRP 98,000. https://www.chriscraft.com/models/carina-series/carina-21/ Can you honestly look at this exquisite boat, and compare it to a current ski boat as a luxury item? A ski boat is a tow boat, it should be built as such, strong motor, great wakes, great tracking. Do all the ski schools and tournaments need all that luxury? Most of it gets unused in these two applications, so in order for the serious skiers to be able to train behind a current tow boat they have to either buy or pay the cost at their ski school for ski boat that's trying to be a luxury item.

I get to ski because I have a reasonable 2 income life with no kids. There is no way on this earth I could ever afford a new ski boat. We're talking the kind of money that would buy a brand new Porsche GT3. We make all this talk about how to get more people interested in the sport, and then make the entry price outrageous. I'm not saying that there isn't 170,000 of value in one of these boats, but when my boat was new (1984) it was considered a tournament ski boat and it cost I believe somewhere around 12,000. Apparently that's about 30K in today's market. If I wanted to splurge, and treat myself, that I could afford. Something has gone horribly wrong when we think that 97K AUD represents a "Killer Deal" for a boat.

@PeterAK I went the extra step and heated it because the one it replaced is somewhere on the bottom of the lake, and I just didn't want that to happen again.