When you adjust your ski what is "close enough"

[Skoot1123]

My caveat is that I only check for repeatability on my readings - I'm OCD. More often than not though, once I have a setting, I stick with it.

[ral]

@Horton, ranges are not well designed. I would not sweat 0.002, but 0.010 is too much...

[Horton]

@ral yea

[DanE]

None of the above.

Depends what measurement, does 1 or 2 thou on depht make a difference?

Hell yea! Dft?-no way, lenght -well, maybe if it is borderline of being to short and I make it even shorter.

Jmho

[ral]

Talking about fin adjustment, today a kid was looking at his fin, and he asked some of us old farts that were at the dock if we believed his fin was bent. It actually was seriously bent, and probably the kid had been skiing (quite well...) with it like that for a while. After we made our obvious comments, the kid was in panic. He went to the water and could not get pass ball 2 in his opener...

[Horton]

So this poll is really me being a smart ass about Mikro-Just

 

I noticed that there is not a ton of buzz about Mikro-Just. I understand it but think you guys need to rethink it.

 

Most shortline skiers adjust fins to an accuracy between 2 and 10 thou but think it is ok to move your bindings 3/8ths. Yes, I know many of the Ballers are on bindings that already move tiny amounts but most skiers do not.

 

 

[DanE]

Mikro Just seems like a great idea, but there is one other thing with standard boot plates that really bugs me-

Why are the front and rear plates drilled with different distances between holes?

As in if I move both boots one hole back I end up increasing spacing between boots?

[ral]

Panda or ban, here I come...

 

I would like to hear the opinion of the likes of @chrisrossi‌ on relevant adjustment size in bindings...

[Waternut]

When setting up a ski initially, I put it exactly to stock +/- .0005 and check it multiple times. This is primarily because I have no clue what I'm doing and don't want to wonder if that .001-.002 is really what's making it feel weird. Any change after that is a total guess so I'm not super careful about where I put it as long as I only change the one thing.

[Horton]

@ral‌ no Panda. I would like to hear it too

 

I think @TFIN‌ uses it already

[ozski]

I try not to get cosumed by this stuff, I think its an area where a little bit of knowledge can be a dagerous thing. With regards to binding placements Im not convinced my foot sits in exactly the same place inside my binding every time I boot up.

[The_MS]

@chrisrossi was always a proponent of making sure your back binding was set to the correct DFT and then putting your front on last. Not sure about space.

[Craig]

I have some knowledge of metrology, 0.001" or even 0.002" using a pair of calipers on a series of curved surfaces would never be considered in a manufacturing environment. 0.003"-0.005" is a reasonable accuracy/repeatability target for a pair of good calipers used in this way, perhaps you could get a bit better with practice. Start using Harbor Freight calipers and all bets are off.

 

That said, 0.010" is a lot. I know I can't feel 0.010" but my skill level is pretty low, I can imagine it may make a difference for higher skill skiers.

[xrated]

I've never touched anything on my ski except to put bindings on and even then I was guided by @jlittle. Heck the fin is set at whatever he last put it at.

[6balls]

I would need a lot more water time and more consistent technique to mess around. If I'm not consistent on top of the ski, how can I assess what's going on beneath the ski? I do struggle with the idea given I have some decent scores under my belt as to whether I should try to dial in better...but most often getting a few passes at the buoys are a welcome/quick escape from an otherwise busy life and I don't have the time to be adjusting much. If I did have more water time I would tinker more.

 

I'm sure proper set-up and thoughtful experiments make a big difference for those who take the time to work it. Numbers? Hell...let me count the number of technical flaws I possess (it's a big number). Once I straighten some of that out I may be interested in a caliper.

[Chef23]

I don't worry abôut a couple of thousandths on the binding and if I can get within 2 or 3 thousandths on the fin I figure I am good.

[webbdawg99]

@Horton, I'm confused why you're surprised at the lack of buzz. When you were previously hinting at "the next big thing" to come in the water ski industry, you didn't shy away from implying that most skiers wouldn't need it

[Marco]

I'm with @ral. I can't feel two thousandths of change, but I can certainly notice ten. I think 1-5 thousandths is close enough for me. It is more the indian and not the arrow in my case.

[MrB]

What makes the stock numbers 'THE NUMBER' to shoot for? Are stock numbers a average of a group of pretty good numbers? Are they from 39 off, 36 mph skiers? Why do these stock numbers

have to be so precise?

[Razorskier1]

I need to be in the same position on the ski to notice, and that doesn't happen often!

[Horton]

@MrB‌ Stock numbers are what the dev team came up with as the best starting point. Without good stock numbers you can spend MONTHS trying to find a good balance on a ski. It is set of numbers that the professionals believe are best. Most of the time it is the best place to start.

 

There are times when skiers ski way better with totally different settings. It happens but unless you are pretty skilled at ski set up you want to stay close to stock.

[Horton]

@webbdawg99 I have put out a mixed message. On one hand I discourage skiers from making a hobby out of ski set up. On the other hand if a skiers is trying to run shorter lines they need their ski set up right.

 

If you are free skiing, bone stock is it. As the rope gets shorter the need for personal and exact settings becomes more and more critical.

 

@xrated‌ If your ski works and you are not chasing balls stop reading this thread. Messing with your settings can suck the fun out of skiing.

[east tx skier]

I get mine within 1 or 2 1000ths or recommended and ski it. At times, for me, a couple of 1000ths forward on the DFT has helped, but, after that, its crank it tight and don't touch it.

 

[Steven_Haines]

I'm OCD about fin set up. as for the Micro-Just, I wish I would have thought of it! It is so simple and effective, I can't believe that it hadn't been Thought Of before! I have my own little trick for making micro adjustments but the Micro-Just will be my next purchase after z box.

Steve

[Porkfight]

Short of removing the wing, I haven't messed with anything.

[Adam Caldwell]

I love the concept of micro adjustment. It will catch on as people become more educated about the dynamics.

 

For what it's worth, when I am get dialed in on a ski, I try like hell to control heel position DFT to at least a 1/16. I'll often make a 1/32-1:16 boot adjustment when going to a different lake (after first practice set or round depemding on how the water feels) rather then move a wing a full 1/2 or 1 degrees. In practice and in tournaments it's made the difference between 2@39 and 1@41many times, as it impacts my toeside turn significantly, LFF.... I'll spare the details of the dynamic for now....

 

I also put a lot of focus on boot center and try to maintain centerline (zero canting) as close as possible. Something I played a lot with when running a double boot setup, but now going to a kicker, I want to be as dead center as possible on the front foot.

 

I think there is still a lot to be learned about boot placement, variances between boots, setups and foot size and the effective loaded area ontop of the ski.

 

Is the Micro available yet? I definitely want one!

[SkiJay]

Yes @adamhcaldwell‌, it is now available at: mikro-just.com. It's so simple and effective, you'll love it.

[BCM]

@Craig‌ - I always had a similar thought. Even a pair of $500 digital calipers has an accuracy rating of +/- 0.001 (in science we call this measurement error)(see link below). At this point is that "feeling" of 0.001 (or 0.002 if you consider the entire range of the possible error in the equipment) a placebo effect? Similar to what @ral described with the bent fin.

 

It would be pretty easy to test the placebo effect. Take a set, then have your buddy randomly adjust (within reason) or not adjust your fin without telling you what they did, take a few passes and try to describe the difference. If you make the changes, your head is now involved in the change...

 

If you are using calipers with a level of accuracy greater than 0.001, could you provide info on them? Most of what I have found is in the +/-0.001 range.

 

http://www.grainger.com/product/MITUTOYO-Absolute-Digital-Caliper-6NRA0?functionCode=P2IDP2PCP

[BRY]

When I get a new ski I set it to stock with my calipers. They will measure different than someone else's calipers. That's just the baseline to start with. After that it is all relative movements I am concerned about, not the absolute measurement. For instance if I measure depth at 1:00 at the dock, I measure and move the couple thousandth's. If I measure at 5:00 after the ski has been inside with A/C for a couple hours it will measure different. But I still believe it will be the couple thousandth's different than what it would have been without the change. So the performance characteristic change will remain (though .002 seems to be subtle to me, it's there). With the slot I can repeat measurements at that time very well. Getting it to be where I want after tightening the block though can make me crazy.

[skibumm]

I would most likely adjsut mine if I knew how to use calipers on a ski but have been too lazy to learn oh and buy a set of calipers too. I also do not know what the adjustment does. When I get a new ski I will lay with it until it feels good on boht sides and keep it that way for the rest of it's life.