Greg Banish

I broke my Syndicate plate in a similar way too this weekend. Luckily, it released properly, likely saving a second broken ankle for me, but it destroyed the toe loop and 3D printed plastic in the process. I already emailed my retailer, who has in turn contacted HO about it. I'm hoping that there is some design change in the works that prevents the same thing from happening again in the future rather than just getting a replacement that may break the same way again. Anyhoo, it's still way better than another trip to the ER.

Late notice, I know, but I have a few slots available if any ballers want to join us with Seth this Monday (6/26/17). We'll be skiing 7am-noon on Pine Lake in West Bloomfield. Shoot me an email for details.

I wear a 10.5 running shoe so I got the 10-11 boot and HO liner. Mine was too tight at the toe and I had to swap it for a larger boot.

90 degree displaced Medial Malleolus (inside ankle) Fracture. At least it happened in the course. Two screws and surgery later, I should at least be swimming again in a couple weeks.

I'm not that far away from you. I feel like I more or less own -22 and usually have a decent shot at -28 (done it plenty of times). Honestly, I run -28 almost exactly the same as I run -22. The only difference I feel is the increased whip and lateral speed means I can change edges just a tick sooner coming across. Everything else kind of feels the the same as long as I don't mess up the fundamentals. The penalty for errors is certainly greater at -28, but if I keep my head up and just be smooth about completing the turn into the pull things fall into place. Easier said than done, but it's true.

Wade is probably the best coach I've worked with as a beginner/intermediate skier.

More flexible (and lighter), PLEASE! This was my concern with the OB4 when I tried them previously. The added stiffness completely changed my ski's performance to the point where I had all kinds of trouble making a pass. I'm all for the added safety, but it didn't help if I couldn't ski normally in the first place.

1) Tie a 10'+ rope and spare handle to something solid. 2) Assume the "stacked" position, leaning away from the anchor point of the rope with your feet in slalom ski position under the handle. 3) Adjust your body position until you feel that shifting your hips a little bit gives you directional movement. Balance in an upright stacked position. 4) Hold this position for a minute at a time in each direct and build muscle memory before you go out on the water. 5) Repeat. A lot.

I had that exact mirror in my American Iron racecar years ago. You should be able to buy them fairly cheap from the typical race car parts suppliers. Here's one example from Summit Racing.

I just emailed both Representative Kesto and Mike McCready (my representative). It can't hurt to have them hear our voices.

You might also look at the MasterCraft 214/X14. It's direct drive with a decent slalom wake and takes weight/ballast well for boarding/surfing. I have mine posted for sale right now (a little above your budget), but you could probably find an older one with more hours close to where you're looking. Only Inboards Link to Greg's Boat

What about dwell time at the apex? Surely if the boat speed is constant and "swing speed" is increased, getting you across the course quicker, then one must "wait" at the apex for a longer amount of time before once again cutting across the course for the next ball. Otherwise, shortening the rope would only put you earlier for each successive ball and one would "finish" the course in less linear travel unless they intentionally waited a bit more at each apex. Perhaps it is in how one manages that "wait time at apex" that gives us trouble? Waiting generally mean decelerating and sinking into the water if exaggerated. I know we want to keep our linear speed up, even as we pass the buoy. So this means that we keep down-course speed high, while essentially stalled at the handle apex. How does one manage the turn-in that must result since it becomes anything but sinusoidal? We don't want a sudden cut, so you must wait longer at the apex, but still be smooth on the beginning of the next cut and accelerate to a higher speed again.

What we more likely need is also a listing of where Ballers ski. For example, I'm on Pine Lake (Oakland County), and ski with my neighbors a lot. You might have some luck linking up with someone who has access to one of the private lakes/courses and come out the occasional session. It's not hard to convince us to ski and we're often looking for a third.

I have a single center tab on the transom of my PS214. It certainly helps the wake at 30-32mph by getting the two rear corners a little further out of the water and pushing the nose in a little more.

Angled will help self-align as you pull in. Start with about 22"-24" in front and about 40" in the rear. This should clear your water inlet and speedo wheel while still giving good support.

Go ahead and order it exactly like that. Best. Dad. Ever.

Wish this was closer to Detroit (and with a little notice). I skied with Wade before and improved a TON from his coaching. I can't say enough good things about his coaching and personality.

The marine industry in funny compared to the auto industry. Margins and markups are astronomically higher on water. The auto industry has beaten suppliers and OEMs down to almost ridiculously low margins by comparison due to the competition between both manufacturers and suppliers. Certainly the raw material cost for some of the newer systems is higher than the current state of the art in the marine world, but the price we pay for a "marine version" of anything does not justify the change in that parts' Bill Of Materials that makes it marine worthy. It's just markup for the most part, largely due to small volumes and high demand.

@Horton Simple... The guys who calibrated them only tuned it strictly based on blade angle, not torque. (Caveman style, by today's standards in the auto industry) Most marine 6.0's don't even use the variable cam angle controls, even though there is significant potential for benefit there. The marine industry has been very slow to adopt new engine technologies. If you use modern controls, you can make either one feel however you want as long as you are asking for anything less than 100% of max available torque at the time. Obviously, the upper limit is the upper limit if you're forced WOT. Since we don't run truly WOT much, having the ability to dial torque up/down at part load (cruise control) is pretty straight forward. You can change the shape of the throttle response curve below 100% too. So if you want something that "feels sporty", just make driver request of 10% throttle lever input equate to 90% of available engine torque and hang on. A bit extreme of an example, but absolutely possible.

@Horton ZO cruise control really just boils down to torque control. (Torque is directly proportional to prop thrust/acceleration at a fixed speed) As long as one knows the torque map for the engine and how to get from one torque value to another (whether by ETC movement, camshaft phasing, or boost change), it's pretty simple to control. All ZO needs to do is request more or less engine torque to execute control. It is up to the ECU to figure out how to deliver that +/- torque increment to control vehicle speed. This is only sorta rocket science, but it's routine for any automotive engine controls engineer these days. We just need to bring the marine guys up to speed. Pun intended.

@GregHind modern turbo systems don't really have any significant lag. (I do this for a living) We run cruise control all the time on boosted engines. ZO is just a CAN based speed regulator. All it needs to do is set a target for the drive-by-wire ECU to aim for and correct toward based on GPS feedback. Temperature is not an issue either other than the need to tool up a jacketed (water cooled) turbine housing to meet USCG surface temp requirements. Roush/Indmar have proven that the TVS superchargers work just fine on the water too. You are floating on an infinitely large intercooler supply, so cooling the air charge should be really easy. This project doesn't need to make the 600+hp that a boosted V8 would make if we are able to take 300-400# out of the boat. Just making the same 300hp (out a a smaller base engine) that we are used to from countless older slalom tugs will feel like 400+ at the lighter weight. The smaller engines also rev higher, so you can trade prop pitch and RPM for a better hole shot while still having headroom to support barefoot top speeds. If you were happy with a 700# 350/351 that made 280-320hp before, you should love the response of a modern engine that weighs less than 300#.

Is this the part where I cue the discussion about boosted, smaller engines? I still firmly believe that a super/turbocharged 4 or 6 cylinder engine would work really well in a slalom tug. Making 300HP is EASY these days, and the engines are about 300-400 lighter than an old iron 5.7L Chevy.

Black (stiffer) bindings, size 10. Ski is 67", I am 6'2", 200# if it helps. It's currently mounted into the factory inserts with the provided double sided tape under the front and rear releases since I haven't added inserts there yet for the slits at the extreme ends of the plate. My plan was to add those soon and remove the tape. I immediately felt a "rougher" ride with more transmitted vibration under foot, so I ASSumed the reinforcement of the aluminum plate was reducing flex. I still feel like I can turn it OK. Maybe we're on to something with the measurement to the ankle bone. I tried setting it up like @Horton did with the line drawn on my leg, but that seemed to result in the plate being almost completely forward relative to the slots. I redid it based on the typical rear of boot measurement and it looked more reasonable. (See above pic)

I posted this hidden at the end of the Carbon V setup thread, but I'll repost a clean one to keep the conversation focused... I've been riding my Carbon V for three seasons now and was feeling fairly confident on it at -22 and even had some complete -28 passes under my belt with the dual Enzo boots on the stock settings. Early this season, I pushed the front boot forward 1/4" from 29 1/4" up to 29 1/2" and it felt great. I owned -22 with lots of space and time to spare. I recently got a set of OB4 bindings, mostly for the safety aspect. I set them up with the same front boot position (29 1/2"). Unfortunately, my season was interrupted by work stuff for the better part of two weeks before I got a chance to ski the new rig. The good news is that they release very clean in an OTF, as I knew in the air I was already free of the ski. Relatively painless, honestly. More to the point, things feel really different. I expected that, but it's not how I expected. The lateral control isn't much different that I had with my Enzo's since I always ran them tight. The big difference is that the ski feels MUCH stiffer underfoot from the addition of the plate and rigid boots. I'm having trouble finding my stack position and leverage now, as the trip from the ball to the first wake feels completely different. What am I missing? Is there really a big stiffness change" If so, how does one adjust? (If I get another ski for next season, is this a factor?) In the mean time, I've dropped back to -15/-22 to work on the basics and my form. But 4 sessions later, I'm not feeling like it's coming back like it did after a 7 month winter. Summer is short here in MI, so I'm open to suggestions.

This is probably as good a place as any to ask. I've been riding my Carbon V for three seasons now and was feeling fairly confident on it at -22 and even had some complete -28 passes under my belt with the dual Enzo boots on the stock settings. Early this season, I pushed the front boot forward 1/4" from 29 1/4" up to 29 1/2" and it felt great. I owned -22 with lots of space and time to spare. I recently got a set of OB4 bindings, mostly for the safety aspect. I set them up with the same front boot position (29 1/2"). Unfortunately, my season was interrupted by work stuff for the better part of two weeks before I got a chance to ski the new rig. The good news is that they release very clean in an OTF, as I knew in the air I was already free of the ski. Relatively painless, honestly. More to the point, things feel really different. I expected that, but it's not how I expected. The lateral control isn't much different that I had with my Enzo's since I always ran them tight. The big difference is that the ski feels MUCH stiffer underfoot from the addition of the plate and rigid boots. I'm having trouble finding my stack position and leverage now, as the trip from the ball to the first wake feels completely different. What am I missing? Is there really a big stiffness change" If so, how does one adjust? (If I get another ski for next season, is this a factor?) In the mean time, I've dropped back to -15/-22 to work on the basics and my form. But 4 sessions later, I'm not feeling like it's coming back like it did after a 7 month winter. Summer is short here in MI, so I'm open to suggestions.