Jump to content

Ski Flying Revived?


Edbrazil
 Share

Recommended Posts

I wonder if this event could get revived. Not as a regular event, but as a special event maybe just once a year. With a proper site and plenty of time for training. At least a week-long deal, with lots of practice and even coaching. Thinking of initially just for Open Men and Open Women. FYI, the ski flying records are 312' men and 228' women. An interesting comparison is with standard jumping and snow ski flying. Waterski Mens jump record: 254'. Snow ski flying record: 253.5 meters. Now, if we could only find a lake with a hill in it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In a word: NO. The Ski Fly boats circa year 2000 were special boats, such as the Mastercraft Beast and the Correct Craft USA1. Art Cozier and Rob Shirley would know more details, but they were probably in the range of 500 hp. Note: Men speed 72 kph (44.7 mph) Women 66 kph (41.0 mph). High-hp boats are needed.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Baller
@Edbrazil not to mention it was in a time when the "base engines" were not nearly so beastly as the hulls didn't need it to pull 36 mph slalom skiing. I would think if we're now in an era where 300 hp doesn't get a hull to 36 mph we're also in an era when those boats would need a LOT more engine to give the sort of sustained power/speed needed for skifly to return.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Baller

@Roger What about 45 mph jump? Also how much faster would the skifly jumper want it in that second segment? AWSA lets the 35mph jump speed be ~3mph higher in second segment to allow the boat to stay with big distance jumps, that'd probably also have to be correspondingly a larger number like say +5 over nominal.

 

Be interesting to see if there are many mumpers out there intrigued by this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Baller

Building a ski fly specific boat would not be that difficult all it takes is money. I know of a few jumpers that would like to see some sort of ski fly event maybe once or twice a year.

When we started the program sometime in 97 I installed a Python 502 in a bubble butt. did three more in 98. Then in 99 Ford Marine and PCM teamed up and provided us with 2 Metric 5.4 Lightning engines we ran those for three seasons until in 2002 we ran supercharged 6.0 LS engines till the end of the ski fly run.

Plenty of supercharged LS marine products and even some natural aspirated high HP marine applicable power plants that would suite the purpose..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I share the temptation and excitement around this idea.

 

That said, after a little reflection, it's important to balance this against some rationalism:

 

1. How does this work for the jumpers? once or twice a year we'd like to change the specific conditions you train for in your already-incredibly-dangerous sport. We'd like to make it even more dangerous, and practice for this once-or-twice-a-year thrill-fest requires you to find a specially-built ramp.

2. Yes, waterskiing needs some innovative ideas to grow the sport and build excitement. That said, if you're not a hardcore skier, e.g. a new spectator... is it really that much more exciting to see a guy go 304' vs 254'? It's already an incredibly exciting sport to watch. Except to a few of us, I'm not sure it adds much.

 

Imagine once a year, there was a NASCAR race with the usual drivers, but they have to bring a rocket-powered car with skinny tires. It would be really interesting to some die hard fans, not particularly interesting to others, arguably financially silly, but above all... irresponsibly dangerous. NASCAR is exciting enough. You don't need to work harder to set the athletes up for failure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Note that the Rules (Rule 18 IWWF. Rule 18.07) only time the first segment. And allow the boat speed to climb 8 kph in the 41m segment, although that isn't measured. I wonder if ZO can be set up for a 72 kph boat speed in jump, with the current software version. May need some special ZO software. Wonder what they did for Freddy's jumps at the Throwdown event?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Baller

Certainly doable, not that difficult to get the power needed for a specific event like this one. May not be a mass produced engine with full warranty, but power level needed can be done. It will be quite a bit more than when the thinner, lighter boats pulled. A marinized LSX would do the trick. Jody could do it by months end easily...

 

@andjules : NASCAR actually does it 4 times a year - Daytona and Talladega, that is where the term 'the big one' comes from which usually takes out about 25% of the field.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Baller
@Jody_Seal do you know a guy named Curtis Collie? He was one of the engineers at Ford that worked on the 5.4 supercharged engine and has one of the ski fly Nautiques. It lives on a lake here in Michigan and sees regular slalom use. It still looks like a new boat too.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

How about we not do this.

Boats and ramps could be built but at 45mph, 90' spectra ropes and massive cuts the falls will be horrendous. I love jumping, can't do it anymore given my back and knees, but like slalom the thrill is in the competition and not necessarily in the distance or buoy count.

 

If you don't get a chill seeing someone jump 200+ @35 off a 6' ramp then I don't think you appreciate the skill, danger and dedication of the athletes doing it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BraceMaker, Scott Ellis was a major driver for Ski Flying at it's inception. There were some immediate problems as some sites could not accommodate the wider widths and longer outruns. Scott had plans for modifications for existing jumps if my memory serves me correctly.

One of the big advantages was, and again this is just from memory, was the angle was reduced for the ski fly ramp vs the traditional at 6'. Much easier on the knees.

 

It was an interesting experiment and I believe they even did it at the Masters one year.

 

All I can say is just because you can doesn't mean you should. The falls in Open division jumping are vicious. Add speed, add height, 90" skis, thin margins for error. Late cut, wind gust, any one of a million variables and big injuries can happen. My personal opinion is I just don't see the need.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Baller
Terrible idea. Yeah, the boat companies could put together a boat, but would organizers put together more prize money? What's the point in putting your self at even more risk (6 ft 35 is already brutal enough) for the same amount of prize money? It doesn't make any sense. Leave ski flying where it is and should be -- DEAD!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Baller
I always thought one of Scot's better ideas was the "universal" jump. If I remember, it was about 4' longer and 5'6" or 5'3" high, so the angle was abut what the "normal" 5' ramp was. I think it may have also been wider. (or maybe not) I think he had it figured out so that it was easy to graft onto a regular ramp. Anyone remember what Scot had in mind?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...