Skiing Increasingly Pricing Out Middle Class

[brody]

Not trying to knock anything but zero off was a big down fall here. Now that you essentially need a zo boat to compete the average person can't afford it. Pp boats are what the average person has.

 

[Horton]

@brody do not get me started

[MISkier]

Those with Perfect Pass can upgrade to StarGazer and zBox to train. Granted, it is still an expense, but not of the new boat magnitude.

 

By the way, I went the new boat path. But, I bought it before zBox was available. I already had StarGazer in the old boat, so I would have been looking at only about $450. Not sure what I would have done had I waited. The old boat was mechanical throttle, so no ZO retrofit either.

[The_MS]

@6balls Lots of families skiing the events in MN. Its great when you show up at the site and you have a bunch of RVs with 3 event gear spread out every where. I think MN has one of the largest contingent of 3 event families.

[6balls]

@MS is there a different mix at 3-event tourneys in MN vs. 3 round slalom or 2 days of 3 round slalom? As you know I'm lucky to hit one weekend a year in MN and typically slalom only so my experience is limited.

[The_MS]

@6balls You will definitely see more of the individuals at the slalom only tourneys depending on where and when.

[XR6Hurricane]

Part of the problem is just the mentality as it pertains to all aspects of our life - that everything has to be fancy, all out, and to the extreme. Look at the bass fishing industry and what has happened to it. You're hopelessly old fashioned if you think you can go fishing in an 18' bass boat with a 150 Merc on the back. A 21 footer with a 250 is mandatory and if the gel coat is a little faded you'll be laughed off the water. A jon boat with a 10 hp Johnson? Forget it.

 

Same thing I see happening with watersports. It's never really been a poor man's sport, but it's definitely increasingly for the rich. It's what the market will bear...there is too much money still out there, even if it's coming from fewer people. Not having to train for tournaments behind the latest boats, I would not even consider paying $60K+ for a 20' single purpose boat. There are literally dozens if not hundreds of old Supras, Mastercrafts, and Malibus sitting within 20 miles of my home that could be ready to go for a fraction of that.

 

 

[ToddL]

@MattP you are the exception, not the rule. Further, I recall that collegiate ski team was the cheapest water skiing access that I've ever had. That's probably the case for many NCWSA skiers. Probably one of many reasons why so many of them don't participate in AWSA summer tournaments. Only the top echelon are competitively engaged year round.

[ToddL]

I've been gathering some thoughts on costs as it pertains to growing the sport and getting new skiers hooked into competition. Sometimes affordability is not the issue. Rather, it can be that the buoy obsession hasn't been nurtured enough to direct the new skiers' funds into our sport. Thus, we need a path to build that obsession at a price point that lures them in. To put it another way, we are all addicted to the hard-core buoy drug. They need a "gate-way" novice drug to get them hooked. Here are some thoughts on what I see that works...

 

Critical Elements for Successful Novice Events

 

1) Access to Practice/Prepare Matters. Skiers must have the ability to learn how to ski the course before they will participate in competition. Provide adequate opportunities for new skiers to practice the course or receive instruction at reduced rates. Programs like the novice “learn to ski a course” events on a slow night or local, low-cost, entry-level ski school options are key elements in satisfying this prerequisite to competition attendance. Anything that ski clubs can do to improve access to course time for beginners and novice skiers will help improve competition attendance. Further, pre-tournament practice pulls are in demand by novice skiers who would take advantage of every opportunity to have more course time.

 

2) Cost per Pass Matters. Novice skiers aren’t fully “addicted” to our competitive sport. Thus, we have to lure them in with some “recreational drugs” of affordable competition. Surveys of Novice skiers have determined that the average price per pass is about $4. So, a round of competition where a Novice skier (who can’t yet run a pass) goes down the lake and then back on a “mulligan” attempt, would be priced at $8 per round. If there are two rounds, this skier would be willing to pay $16 for the entry fee for this format. Consider a different Novice skier who can run their opener pass, but not the next one – this skier’s typical novice round would consist of 3 passes – an opener, a 1st attempt at the next pass, and a mulligan on that next pass. This skier would be willing to participate if the 2 round entry fee was priced at $24 (2 X (3 X $4)). When you add on the $35 USAWS GR Membership, these fees can get over the market demand price for new Novice Skiers. We need to allow the $7/day pass option for Novice competition.

 

3) Total Ski Time vs. Effort to Attend Event Matters. Novice Skiers who aren’t yet addicted to competition will not come spend all day at the lake for 4 or less passes down the lake. Consider practice opportunities – a skier may drive out the lake for a single practice set which is typically 6 passes. So, at minimum, Novice competitions should ensure no less than 6 passes per skier. Ideally, 4 passes per round as a minimum seems to be the tipping point for improving attendance. Anything more than this further enhances attendance.

 

 

Recommended Novice Slalom Format

 

Given the elements noted above, the following format for Novice Slalom seems to be a very successful and attractive offering to Novice Skiers.

Recommended Tournament Fee: <=$25 for 2 rds, <=$35 for 3 rds

Recommended Tournament Round: Minimum of 4 passes per round. First “off-the-dock” score, plus mulligan attempt (best final buoy count) becomes the score for the round. If at the conclusion of the mulligan attempt, the skier has not consumed the minimum 4 passes, the skier’s ride continues until the 4-pass minimum as been consumed. All passes after the conclusion of the mulligan attempt are NOT scored and can be considered “practice” or “fun” rides.

 

If the 4-pass minimum is not used, then consider keeping tournament fees at a $4/pass rate. Given that a typical novice skier might be able to ski an opener pass or possibly 1-2 more, the average entry fee per round would be $4 X 2 to 4 passes, or 3 on average, so $8-16 with $12 as the average per round.

 

Novice takes time. These skiers are typically slower to get ready, sometimes don’t get up on the first attempt, fall more often, talk too much when they fall, take to long to get their feet back into the bindings on the platform, etc. Plan on longer time per skier. 10-15mins per skier per tournament set.

 

Possible modification to the 4-pass minimum – If you fall during your “practice” or “fun” ride pass after your scoring is complete, you will not continue skiing and may have to swim into shore depending up the site and situation. This would reduce the total time of Novice Events a little bit.

 

If you want to grow the sport in your area, consider the above items in your 2014 plans.

 

 

 

 

[gregy]

@mattp when I saw that poll it really made me think that I need to make a career change. I'm cheap, seeing that poll makes me realize why. So seeing that the average income has been unchanged since 1982 middle class may be just disappearing. My dad is a MD, he told me his income was more in the 70s than when he retired a few years ago. My base salary is more now but incentives and profit sharing has almost disappeared, consequently my gross hasn't changed much. So what did a top ski boat cost in 82. As I remember it was about $15K, today $60K that's a 400% increase, so middle class salaries would have had to increase the same to keep up. The way I see it the middle class salary just has not evolving. Solution? don't know.

 

I had a hobby based business that was comparable to skiing. I noticed a trend over the last 10 years that the % of middle class customers was getting less and less. Also our # of sales increased but the average single sale went from about $250 to under $50, which make think people are making do with less. So this problem is not exclusive to our sport. The snow skiing article supports this.

 

Funny story, I had this one regular customer that was infinitely rich. The wealthiest person I personally know, mid 60s. He drove a 10 year old truck, always was buying used stuff. He argued about every bill we ever gave him. He finally bought a new truck last year but got a base model. Probably has something to do with his accumulation of wealth?

[bishop8950]

Is skiing really more expensive?

 

Before private lakes and cruise control we would say skiing was affordable for anyone who could get access to a boat and public water. I am assuming that type of skiing costs about the same today. Get a 91 ProStar, fill the tank, hit the public launch ramp. The bigger growing threat there is access to public water not money eh?

 

Private lakes and the latest comp boats are adding huge expense to this type of skiing. I am fortunate to be able to afford this type of skiing. I could save money and go to the CA Delta but I spend thousands per year so I don't have too. I am a white collar ski snob. To be honest, new boats and private lakes were my main inspiration to get through college!

 

This may be analogous: in snow skiing you can join the masses at public resorts (yes, a budget is required) or elect to pay a relative fortune for access to private mountains.

 

We can argue that competitive skiing is more expensive because it essentially requires private lakes and new boats. But just skiing is still cheap in many places eh? My parents live on a public lake with a 20yr old boat and other than the price of gas the cost hasn't changed for 20yrs

 

[jipster43]

My '93 Mastercraft really hated anything other than private water - much like my technique!

[XR6Hurricane]

I'll build on both @bishop8950 and @ToddL's comments...I looked at USAWSA's site awhile back because I thought that maybe joining and trying to get into some entry level tournament skiing would be a good way to have some fun, get better, and meet some new friends. The high costs per pass and the rules immediately drove me away. You fall once, you're out for the day and so is all the money you put into practicing, lessons, and entry fees. To me those are rules for the Reginas and Nates of the world. If you're going to get more people involved at the entry level, then there needs to be a wider margin for failure and the sole purpose should be having fun. I'd venture to say there are more guys (and gals) like me out there.

[lakeo]

Are you truly talking about growing the sport or getting more of the hardcore skiers who don't go to tournaments to come to tournaments? What percentage of hardcores attend tourneys?

[Ed_Obermeier]

Depends on how you define "hardcore". Is someone who course skis 2 - 3 times a week or more hardcore? Do you have to be able to run a certain line length before you're considered "hardcore"? Do you even have to be a course skier to be considered "hardcore"? I'm yet to see any data provable or otherwise that would lead me to believe that even 10% of what I would define to be "serious" skiers (course skiers, who regardless of ability level course ski with some regularity and are actively working to improve on their ability level) ski tournaments. I see that as an issue if you're trying to grow tournament involvement. But if you're talking about the health of the sport (either maintaining or growing the level of participation) IMO that is entirely another issue.

[jcamp]

@XR6Hurricane Many tournaments offer what's called a fun division (also known as Grassroots division). The entry fee is usually a little less and skiers get a mulligan in one or more rounds. Eliminates the one-and-done downside for beginners.

[gsm_peter]

My 2 cents

 

In Sweden Skiing has declined a lot since the late 70 / late 80ths (when it actually had a boom).

However, I do not think it is the cost that prohibits most folks for skiing.

Average household income has increased a lot even though the water ski stuff cost a lot.

 

It is an active choice not to ski.

- One must be quite athletic to really enjoy.

Folks are not so athletic as they used to be.

The average wight for a (later) teenager has increased by type 12 pounds since early 70ths.

- It takes a lot of time.

There are many other things to do.

Folks tend to travel more and do other things

- It is not environmental friendly.

I get this comment a lot....

- It requires a few buddies or a ski club

Folks are in general less generous to work voluntarily

 

 

 

 

[The_MS]

@skibrain You basically live on a private lake. Looking at the homes on your lake, you could easily sell and move to one of the TLEs and come out with a bunch of cash to boot.

[Horton]

@Ed Obermeier

 

Clearly this is thread of the month.

[The_MS]

@skibrain Sorry, I thought you lived on it. I used to try and ski there back in the day but it was a tough place to put in the portable.

 

[Ed_Obermeier]

@Horton does that mean free Baller tee shirt???

[otisg]

I hate to break this to you but it is the government printing (money we do not have) press that is the cause of inflation. It is the cruelist tax of all...

[crashman]

If you want to see guys skiing on a budget come visit my redneck ski club. Several of our members still use the same boat they bought back in the 80s (there was a local ski supreme deale at the time). Yes tournament skiing has passed them by- probably never heard of zero off but for a few hundred bucks a year we can still ski buoys and talk about hot summer nights and the bud light pro waterski tour. Stop by for a pull but if you mention a push roller you might end up in the drink sooner than you expect.

[Ed_Johnson]

There is the basic problem that a lot of us have become Buoyholics..To feed our addiction, we crave the latest and greatest fix...The cost of that fix is escalating..I know I paid more for my CC200, than I did my first house, or my first airplane, and even my first Wife !!!

 

I even went back a year a go, to playing in Bands again to earn more money to feed the addiction, outside of the Family budget...Not a bad thing though, cause I forgot how much fun that is...Still a lot of work though, but doesn't interfere with ski time.. Anyway, it was either that or be a Walmart Greeter !!!

 

Bottom line, once addicted, you have to find a way to meet the escalating costs.

 

If only I could get those few more buoys I'd be happy $$$$$.

[Horton]

@Ed Obermeier something...

[GAJ0004]

New tournament boats have not been affordable for the average person since the 1990's. If it is not here already the time will be here soon where you will have to have a six figure income to participate in the sport. When I started my career in the information technology industry in the early 90's I was expecting to be close to a six figure income by my 40's. I lost my job in 2001 which destroyed my IT career. That was the time when all the jobs I needed to move up the ladder were being outsourced. I changed occupations. I was 35 years old and had to start from scratch. My boat has to last(1994 Ski Nautique), or I will have to keep my eyes open for a promo boat. I could not afford an SN200, but that would be my first choice. If something happened to my boat, the best I could afford would be a Centurion or Malibu. I have not had enough time in or behind them to know which one I would choose. I have been to the Midwest Regionals two years in a row(Men 3 slalom and tricks). So far for my first year in Men 4 I am in the running to get back there in 2014 in both events. Lake Latonka is like practicing on a public lake, except it is private access to residents which is about 700 homes. Most of my fellow tournament skiers in PA and OH ski on private tournament lakes. I am not that far behind most of them. I would like to think I am proof it is possible to move up the rankings in our sport and you don't necessarily need to have the latest and greatest equipment all the time. I would guess that the sport gets more expensive as you get further away from the Midwest.

[skitocompete]

Is $45/set for someone that skis an average of 140 to 180 practice sets/year too much to pay to train and compete in tournaments? Assume new 2014 boat at man-made site.

[gator1]

$45 seems a bit high. $65 k for a 2014 that will depreciate by at least $20k by the time it has 1000 hrs on it. So there is $20 an hour. $6 of gas max. Then lake costs: pumped/purchased water or spring fed? Taxes? General upkeep on grounds? That depends too much on the lake and number of skiers toting the load to come up with a number.

[hammerski]

I think Cable Parks might a great way to get new folks on the water, what do you guys think?

[Jody_Seal]

I have read through a number of these posts and it was probably touched upon,( I am not going to read 107 back posts) but my perspective is not that "Skiing Increasingly Pricing Out Middle Class" but rather the tournament skiing scene is Increasingly Pricing Out Middle Class! And with that goes growth in the sport. Their are plenty of skiers on our private and public water way's that ski just as hard as any out their and would like to play in the tournament world but the price to play is exorbitant. latest Greatest tow boat to be utilized even at the low club level tournaments. Add the price of the equipment even newer used, Fuel, insurance Bla Bla Bla You know!

If the sport could get away from a performance mind set and put the competition back into it (Mano-a-mano), get the main emphasis off the boat and speed control , put the emphasis on the other end of the rope the tournament level could increase in participation and sport growth might have a fighting chance!

[scuppers]

@Jody_Seal - Well said! But every sport follows this same path of destruction. Ya can't stop it. Name one that got less expensive ever. Just spoke to a friend who is a captain for a major airline (read loaded) who is gently steering his young sons away from organized Hockey this because of all the expense/time/complication.

[6balls]

Pretty soon ZO boats will be more affordable and hopefully there are not then large changes in store that make it obsolete. Due to accuracy of times, I could not see going back to PP even though it was a huge improvement over hand driving for re-rides due to poor times. ZO affordability alone will help some. Friendlier long line wakes now available may help some.

 

@jody is right in my experience, though. I've got a number of ski buddies both from the former collegiate team and also with no background in tourneys with whom I ski buoys but they don't compete...some are pretty good skiers. Not sure what it takes to push them over the edge.

 

Lots of competing interests in life from wife/kids/work make it not worth it to them to roast a weekend at a tourney when they can ski at home site and still do all the rest. Maybe I will flat out ask what it would take for them.

 

[scuppers]

@OB This guy is (loaded) - Maybe captain is the wrong word he was/is a captain but now trains the other pilots. Ex skier - about your age. I just found it interesting that as a family they chose not to get too involved in a sport that would be expensive and time consuming.

[Ed_Obermeier]

...Due to accuracy of times, I could not see going back to PP even though it was a huge improvement over hand driving...

 

Was that ever REALLY an issue? Seriously? Certainly not for the vast majority of skiers IMO. The only issues I've ever seen/heard of with PP not being accurate (well within tolerance at a minimum) were due to improper setup or some other, easily fixed issue. We're talking about HUNDREDTHS of a second and that's not accurate enough? So PP is a little more work to dial in, so what. Have we gotten that freaking lazy?

 

That right there exemplifies the problem - tournament skiing has gotten so freaking anal about the times being ABSOLUTELY PERFECT i.e. that it's become way more trouble than it's worth to a lot of folks to try to put themselves in a position to compete. We used to worry about being accurate to within 2 - 3 tenths, now we're pissed if it's out by 2 or 3/100's. If it's within 1/10th I'm good, and that's splitting hairs AFAIC. If that isn't accurate enough, whatever. We've beaten the PP vs ZO horse to death here, no one rally cares with the exception of the maybe 5% who actively ski tournaments and worry about where they're ranked etc. I'll likely never own a ZO equipped boat and I for one could absolutely care less. I'm totally good with my old school, non-ultra-accurate PPSG.

[DW]

ZO is a perfect example of upward price pressure implemented by an official organization under the guise of an improvement to the sport. Ends up making the sport simply more expensive with a marginal return to the competitor(s). In this case, forcing the competitors to new boats. There are numerous examples of this in a variety of sports, racing is a prime example.

[A_B]

Whenever cost or product is stagnant, so are margins. Introduce cost fluctuations and doodads, and many games can be played with true price. Banks, gasoline, etc., all make more money when costs fluctuate. Lets them tweak margins.

 

I guess we have been tweaked!

[6balls]

@ed obermeier I ski 3 boats w/classic PP primarily. Two Nautique 196's w/GT40 and a Malibu Response. Most often we are ok...but amount of gas, head/tail wind, crew, whether I'm in a drysuit, the style of the skier etc we come out hot or cold on a variance big enough at times to really feel it.

 

Without having acceptable tolerance in front of me for reference the feel of 16.8 and 17.1 is more than palpable and may make the difference in the winner and loser. I'm a pretty good skier at 17.1.

 

I wouldn't count a properly dialed PPSG as inaccurate...times nearly right on the money and my favorite system to ski. Bro Jim had it for years on his MC 197 and the times varied by about 3 hundreths regardless of skier.

 

I'll stick to my guns on this one...the variances seen in classic PP (which are allowed as in tolerance) could give significant unfair advantage to one skier or another on the same day. To the extent possible on tourney day, the playing field should be level. To that extent, I don't favor all of the permutations on the speed control system. I'm ok with equipment permutations...the speed system should be consistent for all and ready accessible for the masses who have inboard ski boats.

[Ed_Obermeier]

@6balls wrote "...but amount of gas, head/tail wind, crew, whether I'm in a drysuit, the style of the skier etc we come out hot or cold on a variance big enough at times to really feel it."

 

Likely more true with Classic. SG takes that issue pretty much out of the equation.

 

I wouldn't count a properly dialed PPSG as inaccurate...times nearly right on the money and my favorite system to ski. Bro Jim had it for years on his MC 197 and the times varied by about 3 hundreths regardless of skier.

 

My experience with SG as well. I rest that particular case. So let's leave Classic out of the discussion. Times gotten with a properly dialed SG setup can and should be (IMO anyway) considered reasonably equivalent to ZO.

 

...To the extent possible on tourney day, the playing field should be level. To that extent, I don't favor all of the permutations on the speed control system. I'm ok with equipment permutations...the speed system should be consistent for all and ready accessible for the masses who have inboard ski boats.

 

There is the issue. The speed control system of current requirement, due in very large part to the pontifications of AWSA, IS NOT READILY AVAILABLE TO THE MASSES to be able to practice with it. Tournament day yes, practice day generally not. You either have to buy a newer ZO boat (leaving out a significant percentage of the serious course skiing public), know someone with a ZO boat with whom you can practice regularly (leaving out a significant percentage of the serious course skiing public), or spend a bunch of $$$ to do the necessary modifications to be able to run ZO on your older but still perfectly capable boat (leaving out a significant percentage of the serious course skiing public). If SG were allowed to be used in tournaments... (yeah yeah, I can feel all you certified tournament boat drivers cussing me right now. I get the "I don't want to screw with having to tweak the damn speed control" issue.)

 

Any way you look at it the vast majority of the serious course skiing population who MIGHT otherwise be enticed into the tournament scene is effectively locked out of being able to operate on an equally competitive basis just because of this ONE issue (speed control). So with respect specifically to the speed control issue, what incentive is being offered to the serious skiing public to make them want to compete in organized tournaments, including INT tournaments? And this is only one of the issues that come to bear on an individuals decision to ski or not ski tournaments.

 

As someone else stated earlier, the ONLY way we'll grow organized tournament participation is to lower the barriers, not increase them. Totally consistent speed control needs to be there at some point - IMO at the upper most levels of the sport where splitting hairs is absolutely necessary. At the lower levels of the sport (35 off and down perhaps???) can some workable modification of the speed control rule be installed that makes it easier for someone on the fence to be induced into taking the leap? If you want to grow tournament participation something has to change. Or stated another way - If you do what has always been done you'll get what you've always gotten.

 

 

 

P.S. Dave, please understand that my comments are in no way intended to take issue on any personal level with anything you've posted, and if it comes off that way my sincere apologies to you. I just think this is a worthy discussion to have and a lot of good points are being brought forth here on both sides of the discussion. Just wanted to make sure the air is clear between us my friend.

 

Ed

 

 

[ForrestGump]

Ed, No offense, but you're completely misguided. The rules allow Perfect Pass in a class C tournament. Submit a tournament sanction and in the notices say that Perfect Pass will be used for all rounds, and then send in the exception for whichever boat you want to use. Done. How many people do you think will show up? Not many. You'd be better off sanctioning an F tournament within a C tournament and using a PP boat to pull the F rounds. I still don't know why tournaments don't sanction F also.

 

 

[jcamp]

AWSA did not pass an edict that required ZO. ZO and Perfect Pass entered a business agreement that gave ZO the drive by wire market and PP the throttle cable market, effectively making PP obsolete in tournament skiing as all the promo boats have transitioned to DBW. AWSA didn't want this and really couldn't do anything to avoid it.

[Ed_Obermeier]

None taken ShaneH. We're having an open discussion here. Did get off on a bit of a rant though didn't I...

 

Functionally PerfectPass IS excluded from tournament usage. While maybe not excluded specifically by rule, it is excluded in fact. AWSA to my knowledge requires use of new model or fairly new model boats, none of which have come equipped with PP for several years now which functionally excludes PP from tournament usage. Thus my reference "due in very large part to the pontifications of AWSA". As you stated no one who puts on a tournament wants to use it in a tournament anyway, so the bias again is to ZO. Which actively excludes a very significant percentage of the course skiing public (who has no/limited access to ZO for practice) from feeling like they're able to compete on a level playing field.

 

If I show up at a tournament and I don't ever practice behind ZO I'm probably at something of a disadvantage, be it real or simply perceived. If I'm competitive enough to want to go to tournaments in the first place but I perceive I'm at a disadvantage, what would be the point in going if I don't think I can compete on an equivalent basis? IMO that is one boundary that holds down tournament participation. There are many others but IMO this is at the top of the list and for many, perception being reality, that's enough.

 

I'm not personally much of a tournament skier so I could really care less, and FWIW I ski just about as well behind ZO as I do SG. The discussion at this point is "is the middle class being priced out of tournament skiing"? IMO this is one significant barrier (the speed control issue) that is a negative to the growth of tournament participation, assuming tournament organizers really do want to grow the numbers who show for tournaments.

[Ed_Obermeier]

PP does have a DBW version. I've skied/driven it, it works awesome. According to the PP website it's only available for boats 2008 or older though. I assume due to the engine computer control systems?

[Horton]

@Ed_Obermeier I am adding the _ to your account name so you can get @replies

[Ed_Obermeier]

Thanks @Horton.

[Horton]

@Ed_Obermeier & @ShaneH

 

As I understand it USAWS does not say what system has to be used. The lawsuit between ZO and PP states that PP will not sell as OEM equipment anymore. What that means is boats are no longer certified by USAWS with PP.

 

You can get an exception from your Regional EVP to use about any boat for a class C but this is mostly frowned upon. Since PP boats mean more balls for a lot of skiers, we have come to a place there it is outside the standard. Since almost all scores in the rankings are now ZO it would be basically cheating to submit a PP score but I do not think it is impossible to do so within the rules.

 

Personally I do think that ZO is one of the major factors in the shrinking of the sport. The inability to train with older boats discouraged a lot of skiers.

[Horton]

@ShaneH I would be cheating my rankings but if went to a 3 round tournament with PP. I would expect higher scores. So take integrity out of the formula and I think a LOT of skiers would show up for a PP class C.

[ral]

@Horton, really?

 

At this stage, you can get a fairly cheap ZO boat, and an even cheaper repower.

 

IMHO, the shrinking of the sport might be more related to ball chasers that do not ìnvolve their kids (as i saw in a couple of postings). I can see the logic behind not forcing kids, but I find amazing that anyone would decide not to involve his kids because of selfishness.

 

Realistically, most of the guys concerned about the ZO/PP issue are over 40. And, in my books, shrinkage in any sport is not defined by senior quitters. Anyone hear many 13 year old kids whining about how different the pull is?

 

By the way, here the sport is tiny but growing steadily. And we have our own World Champion :-).

 

 

 

[Horton]

@ral

 

If I could use PP I could be very happy with a sub 15K boat. A friend of mine is selling an 90s MC for like 5k. It skis GREAT but looks like heck. The best deal on a used ZO boat I have seen is over 30K.

 

My new deal with Centurion solves my boat problem but I am pretty sure there are not a lot of folks paying for their ski habit with a web site.

[Ed_Obermeier]

Another article on the subject, specifically relating to snow skiing but IMO pertinent parallel to water skiing. http://money.msn.com/personal-finance/skiing-becomes-a-luxury-sport. Kind of echo's the first article link I posted with perhaps a bit of different perspective. FWIW.

[Sethro]

All the years of reading about ZO and how it related to a lower buoy count had me worried for the day I finally got to try it. I kept reading how the larger skier (I'm 6'5" 250ish) with bad technique (I certainly have that) would have even a worse experience. I now have two friends with the ZO equipped TXI, and I simply don't notice much of a difference if at all. Only skied at -22 and -28....didn't even try -32 this year as I only went to the course a hand full of times as it appears my neck fusion prefers open water skiing. Is it only the shorter rope lengths where the difference is noticeable?