ZO Off Solution Part 2

[Horton]

I am coming around to the point where I just do not know what to think about this whole thing. If I was the only one confused, I might just drop the subject. So here is the history of my experience with ZO.

Last fall I skied behind a very early version of ZO and thought it was freak’n sick fantastic.

I skied 4 to 6 sets a week behind Gazer all spring with no complaints except strange segment times. The pull was just fine.

In May I skied in Florida behind a ZO boat for 3 days and had no issues. This was a boat that I think Andy Mapple had personally tweaked.

I have skied about 6 to 10 sets a week behind Gazer since then

First two tournament this year I skied about my average behind a Master Craft with Gazer and 6 balls less behind a CC with ZO. CC round felt totally foreign both times.

3 weeks ago I spent an afternoon with a MC Promo guy and a M5/55k skier that I have huge respect for. We spent the day just trying the letters and trying to get a handle on it. I left there skiing ok but not really happy about the pull.

Last Saturday I had a round behind a MC with Gazer that felt like crap. If I had not asked for Gazer I would say it felt like ZO “B”. I then got a round behind a CC with ZO “A” that I have to say felt pretty good. I did not ski very good but in that case it was not the boat (CC ZO).

I am sure there are those who think I am just mental. Your wrong. I am not the best skier around by a long shot but I am consistent and am aware of what is going on. There are not a lot of non-pro skiers around with more water time on different skis, at different sites with different …whatever.

Now I am wondering about different versions of ZO and Gazer. One old time guru tried to tell me that maybe it was all about what props are on the boats. I do not see it but why not? Nothing else makes more sense.

All I want is for the boats be as similar from brand to brand and year to year as they were with PP Classic. Last year you could get a ride behind an early 90s MC then go ski behind a 2007 Malibu and get nearly the same pull. Until this year I never cared what boat I got in a tournament.

[Director Darwin]

John:  I think you could add that SG is not a refined product.  There are so many variables with regard to setting up SG and that leads to inconsistencies in how each boat operates/pulls.  ZO behind MC is different than Nautique.  Different props on MC makes the boats pull different regardless of cruise systems.  I've been behind them all this year and I'll take ZO behind a Nautique over anything else.  At least I know it will be the same each time.  Any other boat/cruise system and it's a crap shoot.

[Horton]

For those of you like me who are annoyed with the state of speed control, please remember that this forum as well as The Water Ski Forum (Nichols) & SkiFly are read by headquarters and by a lot of the membership. If you think I am full of crap or if you agree, please make your opinion heard.

 

I have read opinions that just thrash USA WaterSki and ZO. That really does not help. I assume that the state we are in is the result of unanticipated consciences. What I hope to archive here is make sure that those in power do not assume we are happy. I am a squeaky wheel.

[Horton]

Joe,

I can not speak to what you say about Gazer but it does not matter next year..... I am adding another option to the poll because of what think your deal is. Let me know if I need to change your vote.

[Old MS Accout]

The issue is finding out what version of ZO is in the boat. ZO feels much differant behind the MC then it does behind my 196. SG feels much differant behind the RLXI thenit feels behind the MC with SG. I now ski ZO behind both the MC and CC, SG with the Malibu. I am fortunate enough to have some time behind the 3 boats and I understand that most people do not.

    

[Horton]

Last year you could get a ride behind an early 90s MC then go ski behind a 2007 Malibu and get nearly the same pull.

[Horton]

FYI  - From what I have heard ZO is the best thing since sliced bread for Pro Jumpers. Siemers told me that with ZO it is a way more even playing field.

See, I am not ALL Doom and Gloom.

[Roger]

Ok, here goes....

We all just spent the last two decades skiing behind PP classic and we're all used to how that feels. There were a lot of complaints when it hit tournaments as well, I'll concede that. Here are the differences that make the current state of affairs unfair (I use 34.2/55k as the reference speed):

1) ZO enters the course more then 1/2 mile an hour slower than PP (remember, two decades of 34.7 gates and now 34.2).

2) If you got behind on an otherwise 16:95 pass and pulled like hell to make the pass, you probably pulled the boat down to a 17:XX, still in but slower than actual. With ZO, you're going to get a 16:95 +- .01 no matter how you run the pass.

3) You can't install ZO in older boats, some 2006's but no older.

So... what does that mean?

For numbers:

1) It means missed gates from people who never missed their gates before (14 in our first tournament at Okeeheelee). It also means the gate and one ball feel quite a bit slower than we're used to. Currently, it also means a somewhat slow one ball time and the boat picking things up on the way to three ball.

2) If you get behind now and start pulling harder, the boat reacts with more throttle. What you get is more velocity into the next buoy (that you were already late and probably narrow into). Maybe your ski turns at the higher velocity, maybe not.

3) This is the biggest issue for me. For better or for worse, ZO feels different than PP (SG feels pretty close to PP Classic to me, so I'll combine them for this) and that means you need to practice behind it to sort out the new feel. We'll, with the original PP, you could add it to any boat, not the case with ZO. Therefore, you're left with begging rides with someone who owns a newer boat or dropping 40k on a new boat for yourself. This alone should have kept USAWS from approving the system for exclusive use in tournaments.

Now, lets add insult to injury. For the Nationals, the boat companies get to choose the speed control for their boat. For Correct Craft and Master Craft (vote still out on if Mastercraft will allow a choice of ZO or SG), it's ZO, for Malibu it's SG. Therefore, if you happen to have an older boat and draw the Malibu, your golden, but if you draw the Mastercraft or Correct Craft, you're getting that other feel you don't practice behind much. How is that fair? Why should Men4 get the SG Malibu while I (Men 5) am FORCED to ski ZO in the biggest tournament of the year???

I have nothing against ZO at all. I do have an issue with the unfair application of it's use in tournaments without the option of equipping our practice boats with it!

 

[ski6jones]

I have one set behind each speed control system and can say I didn't have a problem with either SG or ZO, however one set is not enough to know anything for sure.

Having followed these speed control discussions regularly for a while it seems pretty clear that development was NOT anywhere near finished before either of these systems were rolled out to the skiing public.  It would seem most of the issues people are discussing could have, or at least should have, been discovered and corrected before product release of either system.

The speed control companies are taking a page out of the play book of software companies.  Get it to market quick and we'll fix it later.

The governing bodies should have been the check in the system to ensure the systems were really ready before approval for use in sanctioned tourneys, whoever the manufacturer.

 

[Director Darwin]

Roger - I agree 100% that the application of the new systems was unfair at best and unethical at worst.  But, I take issue with your analysis regarding ZO vs. PPSG.  The gate issue you refer to is determined by how the boat is set up. 

1.  PPSG does not necessarily hit the gates faster than ZO.   Depends on the pregate setting that particular boat is using.  And, ZO P-101 does come in quicker than previous versions.

2.  If you get behind w/ ZO, it is more difficult to make up time.  That I grant you.  But if the PPSG is not properly set up, it will give you a slow(er) mid   time and hot(ter) second segment.  That makes it more difficult to make up time - and most of us need to make up time in the 2nd half of the course.

3.   I would agree that the application of ZO for older boats is a major issue.  It has caused me to reassess my current boat situation and look for a 2007-2008 boat w/ZO that I can keep current for years to come.  PP has a unique marketing opportunity to release an upgrade that has a similar feel to ZO.  I've heard that may be coming and I hope it does.  

4.  PPSG's various presets make each boat individually programmable (suitable) for the owner and those he pulls around most frequently.  This does not translate well to all skiers.  As a driver, I must make not only changes regarding N and L, I must lower the crew weight when pulling some light skiers.  I've had to do this at all of the tournaments I've driven this year.   So, PPSG does not provide the same pull as PP Classic.  It was never intended to.  This is the main reason PP Classic was left in the SG upgrade.

5.  I agree that having ZO only in boats at Nationals will provide an advantage to those who have experience with it.  I'm fortunate that M4 will ski behind Malibu due to the fact I have access to one.   But that doesn't mean that the boat I draw at Nationals will be set up similar to the one I ski behind each week.   I think this, coupled with a convergence of many other issues, will have a downward impact on participation at Nationals.  For this, I believe USAWS made a mistake in forcing these changes on us - whether they be ZO or PPSG.

[Horton]

If I made this into a T-Shirt would any one wear it - buy it? Edits?

Last year you could get a ride behind an early 90s MC then go ski behind a 2007 Malibu and get nearly the same pull.

Maybe this is better? What do ya think?

All I want is for the boats be as similar from brand to brand and year to year as they were with PP Classic.

I am totally guilty of hammering some subjects.

[Bruce_Butterfield]

For those with short memories, just how many years did it take PP so that "the boats be as similar from brand to brand and year to year as they were with PP Classic."? 

 From my memory it was at least 5 years depending on what level of "similar" you wanted, and it made a big reduction in the consistency of my performances.

 I agree with most of the complaints / comments here.  These systems were forced on us with little or no thought of how it would impact tournaments, or those of us with older boats who want to train with same system we will get at tournaments.  My guess is that the non-skier decision makers bought into the "same pull for everyone" story and ended up making the pull much different for everyone.

The only reasonable near term solution I see is to require the promo boats to have multiple speed controls and let the skier choose.

Longer term, the ONLY advantage of GPS based speed control is that the driver doesn't have to input any weights or compensate for wind.  This is extremely poor justification for the debacle we have now. 

The speed based concept requires a much harsher pull to compensate for the heavier/harder pulling skiers instead of letting the boat enter the course at a slightly higher rpm/speed for the heavier skiers.  The "same pull for everyone", it is not.

[ktm300]

I definitely fall into the category of one who has bashed ZO and USAWaterSki.  ZO did not come stumbling out of the woods and yell check mate in this game.  They had a high profile industry player damn good slalom skier as a mouthpiece to help convince people that it was the best thing ever.  In my book, this person's opinion is now mud.  Apparently, if you put enough dollars in his pocket, the mouth will say whatever you want.  Am I going to win friends and influence people with this view.  Nope.  Is it really how I see things, yes.

 

On a positive note, Scott Snape of the speed control committee voted against this BS and should be commended for taking a stand, alone, on this issue. 

[adam]

I didn't see a voting option that fits my opinion.  I like the ZO behind the two Nautiques I've tried.  I hate it behind the one MC I tried.  It is the hardest pull I've ever felt.  I wonder if it ZO was designed before they removed the muffler.  I believe they removed the muffler to meet the 0-36 acceleration test.  It had to change the power band some and it could be the reason for the hard pull.  Or maybe it could just be that particular boat.  SG behind the same boat feels good although I don't like SG behind our Malibu.  I do like SG behind a different Malibu.  I have tried to set both Malibus up the same.

It would be nice for ZO to have a calibrate mode where it could learn and adapt to the boat it is in or to a new prop that was installed.  These parameters could be determined from how much throttle it takes get to accelerate to a given speed in a given timeframe.  I'm sure there are a lot of parameters they could come up with to make the boats feel the same.  ZO is easy to drive, but I wouldn't mind entering skier weight or skier type (hard puller like me, smooth skier unlike me, etc.) or any other settings that would make the pull feel the same from boat to boat. 

 I do like the idea of GPS systems, but I would to have seen PPC available during the transition.  The way the rules are written, skiers don't have the choice between SG and PPC.  It is a club decision and only SG can't be used if PPC is chosen by the club.  I really don't understand the logic behind forcing the manufacturers to choose a cruise control and take that choice away from the skier when they had that choice at all the tournaments.

My division has the MC at Regionals and Nationals, so I changed my mind about going to both of them.

 I really hope ZO feels good behind all boats next year.  I also hope that ZO and PP work together to come up with a similar pull for PP that is available to the rest of the skiers out there.

 Adam

[animal]

I do not agree with the way that the speed control development has been handled.  I am not so sure that I like the pull I have gotten behind Zero off (too early to tell)  That being said, I do not place all the blame on USA Waterski for the zero off mandate starting next year.  It would appear that Zero off was forced upon skiers because of the patent dispute for drive by wire boats.  If Zero Off had been successful in their patent enforcement case, it is my understanding that they could have blocked PP from use in any drive by wire boat.  This would have left us with no speed control at all for some of the boat manufacturers.  I don't think the decision makers had a lot of choice in the matter. The skiing community had this forced upon them by non skiers (patent lawyers).

 

I do find it interesting that the hard pulling or heavier skiers are crying foul because of the harsher pull they receive with Zero off.  They feel that they are not getting the same "pull" as other skiers.  I guess this means that they are unhappy about losing the advantage they had with PP classic in being able to slow the boat down to their advantage when they needed to to complete a pass.  Smooth style or light weight skiers are less able to do this, thus they were disadvantaged under PP classic compared to harder pulling skiers.  I view Zero off as a leveling of the playing field.

[sixamss]

Ok I'll bite.

 PP gave the heavier skiers more RPM's so they have to handle more speed from the beginning all the way through the course. PP also returns to that baseline at the same speed each time. ZO assumes everyone weighs the same and reacts to get back to speed as quickly as possible. So skiers who have a smooth style don't take away time and don't get the backlash. Heavier skiers take away time and are rewarded very quickly with some gas (whatever is needed to get back to 34.2). So the light weights being disadvantaged. I don't think so. Speed based cruise is a great idea for jump not slalom. This sport at short line requires consistency othwerise we will all be paying for the higher insurance costs in a year or 2.

[animal]

Don't get me wrong.  I do not think that the way Zero off applies power is great.  It is not.  Often it is applied at inappropriate times.  However, you cannot say that the pull must be the same between all skiers.  This would result in a heavy skier skiing at 33 mph and a light skier skiing at 35 with equal application of power.  Of course the heavier skier gets a stronger pull, they are pulling harder on the boat.  Like it or not, our sport has always been and most likely always will be speed based.  If that means the boat has to apply greater power to keep the heavier skier at speed, that is what it means.  My point is that a skier should not be able to gain an advantage over other skiers to slow the boat down just because of their bulk or strength.

[adam]

Animal,

 Like sixamss, I don't believe anyone was at a disadvantage with PPC.  The skier wieght leveled the playing field.  I do like ZO behind the Nautique.  It is consistent at what it does.  If I get late though, I haven't figured out how to get that next buoy.  If I pull my ass off, I can't make the next buoy in most cases because the boat has access to so much power so fast.  In an effort to figure a way to get that next buoy, I've tried changing edges earlier but I can't get the width to clear the buoy.  I'm still looking for that majic combination to get the extra buoy that I could with PPC.  I try not to ski late, so I don't get to try it too often.

The MC with ZO is the pull that I don't like.  I can't imagine light or heavy skiers like it.  I do acknowledge that it could be the specific boat.

YMMV. 

[Horton]

Clearly I am unhappy about the current state of speed control but I think we need to be careful about placing blame.

 

My assumption is as follows. ZO, PP & USA WaterSki had no idea that ZO would take over all at once. If there had not been patent issues we would have had years of a competitive environment between the two companies. That would have been great. The skiers would have had a hand in the product evolution. We would have voted with our wallets. As it stands I have to assume that Andy and ZO were doing their best to develop what they believed was a better system.

 

When PP and eControls stepped on each others patents and went to court (again this is an assumption) ZO came out with the tournament skiing piece of the pie. Blaming those involved is a little bit of Monday morning quarterbacking. The only thing I think USA WaterSki clearly goofed on is getting us get off PP Classic so fast. I am sure there is more to it than we will ever know.

 

I do not personally know Andy but I do know a number of skiers and industry folks who have been around him a lot. All of these people hold Andy in the highest regard in terms of honesty and integrity. Unless some one knows otherwise I am uncomfortable reading anything negative here about a man who I believe is a pillar in the sport.

 

As for USA WaterSki I have heard a number of ugly accusations from some people in the know but seriously ..... If there is a smoking gun, lets see it. Otherwise it is all just slander.

 

My goal in pushing this is to be the "squeaky wheel" applying pressure toward a solution. I have already spoken to my EVP. If you are unhappy call or email somebody.

[Horton]

I think the above poll says a lot. 20% are happy. 5% don't care and everyone else is unhappy in one way or another.

[sixamss]

Animal, the sport has never been speed based. The system has been RPM based and set to run an end course time

[skidawg]

Just like when the first cruise came about years ago, it was not a good feel, skiers adapted so did the system..  this to will evolve.  stop whining and clean everything up a bit till the engineers get their act together and make it better.  this means you jth.

[boarditup]

Actually, there is a speed based tolerance - .5mph.  Rule 8.05  As a general rule, we are supposed to be at actual and the tolerance are only for uncontrollable conditions.  So, if we allow for a skier to pull down the boat and the boat to lag in coming back up to speed, are we really in compliance?  Should there be a rpm surge timed for when the skier hooks up after the buoy so that speed stays constant?

 Please keep in mind my intent is to have a discussion that ends up with clear direction for the software designers that is in compliance with whatever rule is stated by the regulating bodies (USA Waterski and/or IWSF).

[eleeski]

Karl, the 1/2 mph rule has been ignored for so long that it is not the driving factor in speed control. Jump even has timing tolerances that are wider than 1/2 mph variations. Finding a fair speed response that feels right is critical.

It is physically not possible to have perfect speeds. A skier will pull down the boat and the boat must lag in coming back up to speed. The magnitude and timing of these variations is what the programming addresses. And it must be historically consistent for every past record and performance to be still relevant.

Eric

[GAJ0004]

I have skied behind both PP SG and Zero Off. As long as the speed is steady an consistent I don't care which system I use. I always start at 15 off, and can get into 35 off(2@35 off is my best). I have PPSG on my 1994 Ski Nautique. Friends of mine have a Master Craft with both Zero Off and Stargazer. My boat only has 240 HP, verses my friends Master Craft that has 350. It sounds like most of you guys who post on here are better skiers than me. The pull on my boat feels firmer than on the newer boats. Start at 15 off and work your way back down to the rope. By then you should be able to get the feel for the boat and the system on board, and adjust your technique accordingly. My observation is whether you have someone driving manually for you, or using cruise control you will get a better pull if you concentrate on technique and staying smooth. Don't overthink it. You will go crazy... 

[ScarletArrow]

GAJ0004 your presupposition is wrong in that you assume we're not already crazy to begin with!

[GAJ0004]

I have dain bramage from too many pace flants while farebooting. /vanillaforum/js/tinymce/jscripts/tiny_mce/plugins/emotions/images/smiley-tongue-out.gif I am not crazy, but close...

[Gern Blanston]

Perhaps I'm guilty of stating the obvious, but the reason that ZO doesn't work in boats older than 06 is that up until that time, the engines were mechanical.  MC had the first drive by wire engine in 05.  The industry standardized in 06.  In other words, the computer controls the engine and ZO/PPSG controls the computer whereas before, all you had was the PP servo controlling the throttle cable.  For me, the real question is why did it take indmar and PCM so darn long to make the switch to DBW when automakers had done this years before?

Thus, as I understand it, ZO controls the DBW segment going forward while PP controls the mechanical segment going backwards due to some patent issues.

Change is hard - but it happens.  Those that adapt best to it are most likely to succeed.  I'd be interested to see a breakdown of those that don't like the new stuff versus those that do in an age demographic breakdown.  I'm betting we'll find that the older guys (of which I'm one) are the ones most resistant to change.

[Marco]

The only time I am able to ski zero off is at tournaments, which I only ski a few time per year.  This year at regionals, I skied behind the Mastercraft, and ran in the neighborhood of my average. 

The next tourney, I skied behind the Malibu first, and again skied near my average.  My second set was behind a Natique, with the same settings I used on the BU and MC, but on my pullout on my opener at 28, I had rope in the water, as if the boat slowed down during my glide.  That has NEVER happened to me before.  I was able to scrap through the pass, but went down coming back.  I could get no rythm with the boat. 

I was blown away at how different the pull was between boats.  The Malibu and MC skied similar, but the Natique felt entirely different.  If I had time to practice behind ZO, I'd be able to figure out the different settings for each boat, but it is tough only having the opportunity a few times per year.

 Its not that I don't like the change to ZO, it is just hard to get used to something you can't practice behind.

[GAJ0004]

I got to ski behind a Nightmare Edition Master Craft with Zero Off. They asked me what letter I wanted. I just said to go with the standard of default setting. I started at 15 off and ran the course into 32 off with no problems. I have found over the years, concentrate on skiing as smooth as possible, and whether you have a cruise system on the boat or a manual driver you should have no trouble adapting to either system on the spot. How many times have  you been to a different lake and the water felt different under your ski? If you are in a tournament I would start with a pass you can run in your sleep. When I first started going 36 MPH in my younger days I started at 32 miles per hour 15 off to get warmed up. I would run every consecutive pass until I got into 32 off. On a handful of occasions I would get into 35 off. The course on my lake is out in the middle of a lake that is 2 1/2 miles long, and 1/2 mile wide. We get all kinds of conditions good and bad, and many different boats of different vintages. We get headwinds, tailwinds, crosswinds, backwash, and I have even skied in 6 inch whitecaps. After my first pass I can't tell the difference between the two systems. So far I like both systems...

[scoke]

 

What's your height/weight?

What are you feeling in the tourney boats if all three boats are used?

 

[Marco]

GA...I completely understand the need to adjust to variables, it is the nature of the sport.  My point is that it is difficult in a tournament setting to find out the pull of the boat is waaaay different than the pull of the previous boat, at the same setting.  Skiing is a sport of rythm and finess, and adjuting to a variable that is completey unexpected can take more than a single pass.  I had no problem adjusting from PP classic which I train behind to ZO with the BU and MC.  The Natique was so different, it requierd more than a minor adjustment.

Scoke- 5'-11" 185, 55K.

The MC at B2 and B3 felt really strong from about 10' past the buoy to the wakes, setting up nicely for an early and easy edge change and good speed out to the bouy.

The Bu's timing was about the same, but the intensity of the strength of pull was a little softer.  The MC had more hp than the Bu.

The Natique at B2 slowed after my pullout for the gates, which I corrected for on my second pass.  What got me was the lateness of the pull out of the buoy.  I was expecting the boat to be there for my hook up, but it hit me later.  The lateness of the load prevented me from keeping a tight line, as my rythm wasn't set up for a late pull.

Some of the better skiers at the tounaments I go to ski completely different settings with the CC than with the other 2 boats.  With limited sets behind ZO (tourneys only), I haven't had the chance to test many options.  I'll be skiing behind the CC this weekend, and am at a loss as to which setting to choose.

 

[ForrestGump]

I recently switched from C1 to A1. I always thought that if the boat pulled you farther towards the ball, that you'd end up fast and with slack. So I never tried it before. I found just the opposite, though. I found that even though the pull is closer to the buoy you're approaching, the boat advances farther on you as you're in the preturn and through the apex and for me it kept me on a tighter line into and out of the buoy. I downloaded the zo Q documentation the other day and they actually have a statement in there saying the exact same thing. That the boat will advance farther on the skier in the turn on A. 

[LeonL]

Marco,  I can't say with certainity, but the results that you describe on the SN would lead me to say that you experienced bad driving.  Unless of course you had the same driver in all 3 boats.  The drop off in your glide can be attributed to over throttle and then ZO takes control and settles in.  AS to overly soft in the course, you may have not gotten what you asked for setting wise.  People make mistakes.  I feel that your next round behind a SN will feel more like MC and BU.

[Marco]

Leon...You may have a point.  I hadn't thought about it before, but the drivers were different.  I skied behind the same boat twice (with the same settings as before) at a different tourney this weekend, and the CC felt great.  The timing was the same as the other 2, the only differece I noticed was the pull on the Natique felt much more "buttery".  It felt like a completely different boat from what I described above, and I matched my TPB twice behind it.  I never blame my skiing problems on driving, but it would explain why the boat felt so completly different from one weekend to the next, especiall at the gates.