Greg Banish

I'm far from a tournament skier, so I'm not really worried about an official score. So for me, it was far easier to shorten the rope at 30mph than it was to speed it up. -28/30mph feels easier to me than -15/32mph.

When I got back into slalom skiing, I jumped straight to double boots for pretty much the same reason. I didn't want a "one foot in" fall and risk the resulting spiral fracture. The only thing I changed was the bindings. Nothing else. I try to keep it to one change at a time and give myself time to get used to that before making any other changes. I currently have double Connelly Enzo clamshell bindings. I have never come out of them in a fall, but last season I did strain something in my back foot on a fall. I don't think I noticed it when it happened, but it hurt all through the winter, so likely a hairline fracture. My solution, based on some of the feedback here, is to upgrade to a set of OB4 bindings and hardshell boots. The nice part about the OB4's is that they will release when twisted in a fall as well. The potential for avoiding injury with these seems worth the price tag to me now.

So Merc basically bought up the rights to continue making the old 4.3L V6, now punched out to 4.5L with a little more power. Nothing shocking here as Indmar also went away from GM Powertrain's new DI based V8s for apparent cost/complexity reasons. Ditto for Ilmor. How long until we see a supercharged version of this 4.5L that makes 350hp and solidly replaces the base V8 in a lot of boats?

I learned the course on my 67" Carbon V. I'm 6'2", 200#. I now run it through -28/30mph and can't complain about the stiffness there, but I did find it harder to to get the front of the ski into the water in the turns at 34mph (free skiing) at -28/-32. I probably need a narrower ski for the next one if I want to get more serious about 34mph. At 30-32mph, it's been great.

Stupid questions, but... Waterproof? (Sealed USB?) Shockproof? (Crashes are inevitable) The engineering geek in me is suddenly interested. Next up, combine data from this GPS device with video the same way Harry's Lap Timer works for the road racing (racecar) guys.

My wife and I just got back from a long weekend down in Ft. Lauderdale. We skied several days with Ann at their site. Day one was probably the most impressive since there were 27mph winds, yet the course was completely skiable due to the location. Ann was a great host and helped me work on the fundamentals as I polish my 22off form. Video from day three with more sun and less wind, still working on getting those hips up to the handle before I load the line as I come around the ball. Thanks again, Ann!

I've been looking at getting a new V-type and am planning to bring my current ski with me on a Delta flight next month to Florida. One can only hope.

Changing from iron to aluminum heads on a small block V8 is a 50# reduction. BTDT on cars too many times to count. It's a step in the right direction, but not enough to move the needle significantly here. A modern 4-cylinder starts around 200hp, and boosting (super or turbocharging) to right around 300hp would be relatively easy, given the unlimited amount of cold lake water available for an intercooler. The package could be smaller than the SBC (smaller engine box needed) and lighter by roughly 300#. Using a modern EFI system, I could probably get it to talk over the NMMA CAN standard so that Zero Off can be added along with a modern dashboard/display. If anyone is serious about actually doing this, shoot me an email and I'd love to consult on it. This is the kind of stuff I do for a living.

I still think the lowest hanging fruit for wake improvement on an old boat is mass. Those iron block/head 350/351 engines are damn heavy. I'm still kicking around the idea of of "repower package" that uses a modern engine that's 300# lighter and still makes 300hp. Another upside is that with modern EFI controls, adding Zero Off capability would just be a matter or supporting the right CAN signals from the ECU on the bus to the dash.

FWIW, I use the pylon at -15 and just behind the bow at -22. Maybe my turn-in is more relaxed/progressive than my "real" buoys, or there's a bit of delay between when I decide to move and it really happens, but it seems to work well for me. Any time I take a shot at -28, my turn in point becomes something about 5 feet in front of the bow, so it just gets more exaggerated relative to longer lines.

I'm 6'2", 200# and currently run a 67" CarbonV. I have skied the 66.5" S2 and it feels very similar in all aspects, with perhaps a bit more acceleration out of the ball than my CarbonV. I also demo'd the new Senate with Brooks last week. It's the Vapor shape, but .20" wider (also wider than my CarbonV) and it took a LOT of getting used to. It rode completely different due to the wider front/middle that made it feel "grabby" and less predictable to me in the turns. I also got into a condition where it felt like the ski was "porpoising" as a result of my front foot pressure coming out of the ball. It felt like a bucking bronco trying to throw me off it all the way across the wakes. Brooks had me adjust how I loaded up coming out of the ball, but I felt like I was now learning to ski around the ski instead of working on fundamentals like I normally would have done on my ski. The extra width makes starts easier, but I wasn't having a problem there anyway. After 10 passes, I wanted my CarbonV back. Bad. I probably would have skied better on the Vapor, but that's pretty much double the price to remove the 0.20" width. I'll stick with my Connelly for at least another season.

That montage will be solid gold. Make sure you share with us, John. I'm where you were probably a year or two ago, working on getting -22/30 right more often than not, then trying to creep up the speed. I really can't get the hang of going faster than 30.4 at -15, but adding some whip at -22/-28 seems to make it easier to speed up and still get across in time. Like you, my best passes are the ones where I'm most relaxed and not rushing the turns/exits.

I would totally sign up for this.

@E_T I still own a twin turbo 6.2L Corvette too. Does that make me an OK guy in your book? @Waternut The 5.7 that everyone is used to seeing in ski boats is iron block and heads, so there is invariably a lot of weight associated with it. All of the modern DHOC V6's are aluminum block and heads, with both being shorter in length, and often coupled with a plastic composit intake, so there are significant weight advantages to be had. Modern V6's also reliably make 300+hp now too. The addition of a supercharger, intercooler, and its water is really only about 40# difference if it's done right. Cost is the biggest factor in this industry. There's no way to avoid the fact that newer engines cost more than an old 5.7L, but there are undoubtedly advantages to be had in weight, power, and fuel economy.

We covered this before... I know I could put together a 400hp supercharged V6 pretty easy. With Electronic throttle, I doubt any of you could tell the difference between it and a naturally aspirated V8 with the engine cover closed other than the exhaust note. Using the giant intercooler resevoir that you're floating on is uber-tempting to the powertrain engineer in me. I'd actually like to put together a ~320hp 4 cylinder that's even lighter and see how that pulls. I'm doing the automotive equivalent of this right now for a training project. I took the 4.6L 4v engine out of a Mustang Cobra and replaced it with a turbocharged 2.5L four cylinder that makes the same (or greater) power. https://www.facebook.com/ecoboostcobra Turbo lag is not an issue with modern turbos and proper system design.

I'm in!

Ah, man... I'm within 10 feet of it, is that close? Seriously, isn't it only a small percentage of all skiers who can even run the course at all? To narrow that group (of likely less than 3% of all skiers) down to the even more exclusive group who can run -38 (probably again 3% of all those who can run the course at all in the first place) makes it an extremely small percentage of those who even get up on a ski behind a boat, let alone the population of the world. Then again, how many here can run the 100 meter dash in under 10 seconds? A sub four minute mile? Swim 100 yards in under 48 seconds? Race a car in the 1/4 mile under 9 seconds? Run the Nurburgring in under 7:40? Score a hat trick in an NHL game? Throw a no hitter in MLB? Return an NFL kickoff for a touchdown? ...all similar feats IMHO.

I have the 5.7 Ilmor in my ps214. At 900' elevation, I am never at a lack of power even in the heavier boat. The only reasons I could think to go with the 6.2 would be 1) weight reduction, or 2) more modern engine design that has better fluid seals (less leaks) and better fuel efficiency. Since most boaters are fairly numb to fuel consumption, I can't see the 5.7 being a bad option at all, as long as it's still available, especially considering the huge premium for the 6.2L.

Hahahahahaha.... whatever. I was personally responsible for powertrain calibration leading and fuel economy development on the Chevy Volt. Anyone want to wager a guess at how many gallons of gas I burned in one year at work alone trying to improve that during development? My personal fuel consumption isn't exactly chump change, but it absolutely pales in comparison to how much I burn at work as an OEM powertrain guy. Funny fact: I drove my ~700hp twin turbo corvette to/from work when I was working on the Volt fuel economy project.

I currently run a Carbon V. I'm right at 200# and the 67" ski works great for me at 30-32mph. It's pretty forgiving at -15/30 and I have stuck the landing on -28/30. I have not yet found that the ski is limiting my performance.

Word on the street is that GM was looking at just about forcing the marine guys into the GenV (direct injection LT1) engines instead of continuing to support the GenIII/IV LS-based engines. The added cost and complexity of the DI system isn't necessary a great benefit for the marine market, especially considering how price conscious they/we are. Even the 6.0l LS engine currently available in marine format is a ~$5000 premium over and above the base 350. This is where I start to see the potential benefit for paying for a boosting system (either turbo or Eaton TVS compressor, both of which have demonstrated long term durability) added to an otherwise cheaper (than a 6.0l LSx, 6.2l LTx, or 6.2l Raptor) base V6 or I4 engine. By pairing the V6/I4 with boost to fill in the low end torque, and picking a trans/prop ratio that exchanges a little bit of RPM for torque, one can make the necessary thrust to satisfy a 3 event buyer. The upshot is that fuel economy could likely get significantly better, weight would go down, package space would be smaller (more interior room in the boat), and catalyst size/cost would also go down. Heck, if you could make an I4 work, you literally cut the exhaust system cost in half and open up a ton of clearance around hot things under the box. I have already given this serious engineering thought, since this is pretty much what I do for a living. It's very likely that I may attack this in the future. With a light enough engine, it starts to make hull choice very forgiving...

One of these days, when I get some free time and resources, I'm just going to have to build a demo boat using a boosted 4 or 6 cylinder engine and give some of the skeptics a pull BEFORE showing them what's under the box and see what they think. If you plan a powertrain system (engine, trans, prop) as a whole properly, the available thrust at the prop really behaves similar to tractive force at the tire of a car, just with more available slip. One can freely trade prop pitch and rev range to deliver an identical thrust with different engine torques. Also, making ~300ft-lbs of torque like many of the dinosaur SBC's that are common in ski boats isn't rocket science today. Given the relatively light weight of three event boats, it just about begs for another powertrain solution. I have every confidence that I could make that happen with less cylinders and still have a reliable engine that drinks less fuel. The elephant in the room that nobody seems to discuss is the rumor that GM wants to eliminate the 350 small blocks. Period. If the supply of those goes away, boat makers will be forced into finding another solution. Indmar seems to be planning ahead by trying a new option proactively. Hopefully, the 6.2L Raptor engine isn't the only one they've been looking into...

In Michigan, the DNR (Department of Natural Resources) has jurisdiction over all bodies of water. Further, the water itself is always considered public, regardless of whether it's surrounded by private land. This just means that you can control access to the water by prohibiting use of the surrounding land, but if someone were to drop a boat in with a helicopter to ski/fish/tube/cruise/whatever, they are free to do so. The upshot is that this just means all public waterway laws are potentially enforceable on any body of water.

@ToddF - not so much... Volumetric efficiency and the resulting torque curves have more to do with port design and valve events (cam timing), which can go either way, regardless of where the camshaft is physically installed in the engine. I've seen great pushrod engines with broad torque curves and crappy DOHC engines that were really peaky. @Ed Obermeier - the turbo can be size matched to provide better torque at the low end (at the expense of top end power). If you look at the size of turbos being used on a lot of today's engines, they're relatively small compared to what you saw in the 80's or 90's. They are sized now to deliver full boost as early as 1500rpm on many applications today, which gives them a very flat torque curve with almost zero lag. Another HUGE potential benefit for marine turbos is that you are floating on an infinitely large liquid intercooler supply, so heat control should not be a problem. Cost and complexity are really just the major barriers to adoption here.

This change _might_ tempt me to actually show up at a tournament. I'm still on the steep part of the learning curve for slalom. I'm old enough that my speed would be 34mph, but even getting -15/32 is challenging for me. Strangely enough, I've run a complete pass at -28/30mph this year. But showing up at a tournament only to stuff an opening 32mph or 34mph pass and be done for the day does not excite me. I have no problem if someone outscores me by running a slightly longer line at faster speed, but knowing that I currently get pretty much no score until I hit 34mph keeps me at home.