Why can PP not be like ZO?

[Guest]

With rising boat prices I see talk about replacing engines in 1990s and early 2000s boats just so that they can have ZO fitted. Engine replacement purely to get ZO seems like a major expense. Why can't PP behave like ZO?Is the servo motor too slow? If it is the weak link why not a make quicker motor or fit a pulley on it's shaft?I read the Z Box added on the PP makes it sames (similar?). I'm assuming it's got different software ramp rates in it.Sorry, I don't know the history behind PP vs ZO and the differences.

[jhughes]

I believe you've got three layered gaps at this point:

1. Mechanical Servo speed vs. DBW directly integrated to the ECU (and the ECU gets to manipulate more than just the throttle plate position in theory to get the result)
2. Any IP that is the ZO programming and hardware combination vs. PP equivalents
3. And now, the latest Gen V GM motors: Direct injection, variable valve timing. The 6.2 DI and 5.3 DI vs. Gen IV small blocks (6.0, 5.7) which only have ZO solutions right now and are different enough to have different programming than the older engines.

[disland]

There is no way you can make a servo motor react as fast as a computer. Well its probably possible but it would cost a fortune.

[UWSkier]

Faster servo is the biggest thing. In a DBW boat, the throttle opening is still controlled by a servo motor in the electronic throttle body, it's just much more integrated and faster-acting than the servo-cable setup.

Software is the next biggest thing. ZO can get a pretty accurate mapping of RPM vs throttle opening vs desired boat speed and hit its mark dead-on every time. It can know precisely what percentage to open or close the throttle for the desired effect. PerfectPass has to approximate this.

[Than_Bogan]

PP and ZO are fundamentally different control systems that use different inputs and have different targets.

PP takes no live measurements except the RPM, and the control system attempts to maintain a constant RPM. PP with Stargazer adds access to some GPS information, but just to automatically determine what the RPM target should be for a given speed.

ZO has both GPS information and an accelerometer that can detect rapid subtle speed changes. It then uses this information to target a specific speed, and in doing so it may vary the RPM significantly. You can easily hear the difference: PP has a steady engine tone whereas ZO ramps up and down at every buoy.

If you want PP to behave like ZO then it has to have both of those inputs and use the same algorithm to target speed ... at which point it is Zero Off and I'm sure would violate their patents.

[6balls]

Or if you are not looking for best of best tourney scores--run your PP w/out an expensive engine replacement and be happy.
I trained PP, but in one season ran 38 off on 5 different lakes and all 3 speed control systems (PP, SG, ZO) including 2.5@39 at a tourney on ZO.
In my heart of hearts do I think had I trained ZO all of the time my tourney best may be a little better--yeah--but probably only a little--I'm no pro skier.
Depends on your goals (and your finances) as to whether ZO is worth it to you. It's fun to ski buoys behind any of them.

[Clydesdale]

@03RLXi As a -28/32 skier I think PP/stargazer/zbox is close enough for me. That may not be the case for short line skiers.

[DanE]

Servo speed is more than enough with PP. If you go crazy with background settings in Zbox it's easy to get an old GT-40 to be more responsiive than a DI 6.2 .So why is it not the same?Try patent infringement.

[BraceMaker]

Let's not pretend all ZO boats feel the same across all generations and all engines and reversions.

PP with z box has accelerometers. The servo motor responds quickly but your boat will need a stronger throttle return spring on my boat I have a internal spring on the throttle body and then 2 secondary return springs like carbs use. This requires me to have a clamp on my throttle cable to give it enough tension not to creep otherwise you'll progressively get the more throttle sign.

If you watch your PP with out the return spring with zbox you'll see slack in the cable as PP releases which is the throttlebody return having difficulty closing which means you don't get the engine release.

[Ski_Dad]

I have ZBox on my Malibu SSLXi and so does my ski partner on his 05 RLXi - I think it's close enough for 15-28 off skiers that I ski with regularly. I can tell if I change the letter, so ZBox does work. I'll have to put a guy that can run into 38 off behind my boat this summer and get his thoughts. I really like PerfectPass 9.3 with the ZBox much better than classic.

[Than_Bogan]

I did not know zbox added accelerometers! That makes it theoretically possible to be extremely similar, and maybe makes patent infringement the main issue?

[jhughes]

The accelerometer on Z-box goes inline with the Sat signal so it seems to be a modifier of that input based on the accelerometer, FWIW.

[MattP]

EControls (Zero Off) patent expires 6/11/2027.https://patents.google.com/patent/US20080009206?oq=Econtrols

[liquid d]

The easiest way to ski it like zo is to drive by hand and just hammer the chit out of the skier every bouy. ...win the battle against the skier! :D

[Mastercrafter]

@MattP since I don't know patents-- can they re-up once expired, or does that open up the market for others to use the same technology to control boat speed?

[BraceMaker]

@jhughes I know it goes "inline" in terms of wiring. But I'm not sure that really means anything.

For instance if the Z-Box accelerometers just translate change in velocity they experience into a change in the output of the GPS signal and then the PP translates the rate in the change of GPS speed through an algorithm to compute the change in servo position. Well that's no different than taking the accelerometer information in directly as a separate feedback loop, and they may have felt that was the fastest way to implement instead of redesigning the master module itself just change the software to interpret changes in GPS signal as acceleration input.

@Mastercrafter that's not their only patent and different parts of different patents do matter. My suspicion is unless a third party starts building engine controls for these boats (like if Mercury Marine powers a ski boat brand instead of E-Controls) we won't see much change in the market. UNLESS and this is a big thing either an electric or diesel ski boat comes to market and is AWSA certified.

I have seen nothing in the AWSA towboat policy, and see nothing in any of the ZO patents or the PP/ZO agreement that would preclude PP or a third party from bringing a PP or third party equipped electric boat to market. And a PP w/ Z-box could very easily power a mechanically actuated motor controller. This is what I think will be the first and more likely scenario to see PP used in a tournament in the next 10 years.

[jpwhit]

@Mastercrafter once they expire the intellectual property (IP) become open to the market. The purpose of patents is to make it worthwhile for the market to invest in R&D by giving them a period of exclusivity to have a return on their R&D investment. But to also not let companies corner the market indefinitely. That's why there is a period of time of protection and then it opens to the rest of the market.

[Mastercrafter]

It would be really nice if E-Controls would make a mechanical speed control system like PP, but using their software, GPS puck, etc. It may not be able to do the exact same as ZO with the engine ECU, but I bet it would be darn close.

When they're selling ECUs and speed controls to the boat MFG's I'm sure it's not worth their time, but one can wish.

[BraceMaker]

@Mastercrafter would love to see that but at the same time to see PP compete

If PP cannot compete w/ ZO on theirs then ZO shouldn't get to compete backwards

[BrennanKMN]

For my lake, we have a short setup that requires a 60-70* turn into the 55's. PP couldn't adjust fast enough so we always got horrible times for the first 1-3 balls. ZO solved that problem instantly. My skiing improved a ton just due the consistency and accuracy that we achieved.

If I had a long straight setup into the course that allowed PP to settle out I may have not changed boats, but as someone who doesn't really care about tournaments ZO was one of the best things I have done to improve my skiing. However, my use case is a little different than most.

That doesn't even touch on the driver ability. ZO is brainless. Floor the boat once up and forget about it. PP requires a little more finesse and training to get decent times.

[swbca]

Some good skiers successfully practice with ZO and PP

We have a couple of good 38/39off local skiers that ski together every morning with an alternate boat each day. One of them just placed well in the Over-35 world tournament. One has a late model CC with ZO and the other a much older CC with current version PP-Stargazer-ZBox. They say they have found settings where they don't notice the difference in the speed control characteristics. Their divisions ski at 32, probably be a different story at 36mph

[jpwhit]

I'm pretty sure the settlement between Perfect Pass and ZO does not allow eControls to compete with Perfect Pass in the non-DBW market. The history is that both companies have patents on different aspect of boat speed controls and there was a patent litigation between the two companies. A settlement was ultimately reached between the two that divided the market between DBW and Non-DBW boats.

[jpwhit]

To me, the main difference between PP and ZO, is that ZO is much more user friendly from a driving perspective. ZO is largely self-tuning and there are no turning settings that must be set and adjusted. Such as the KDW, NN, CS parameters for PP. And with ZO you don't need to drive the boat carefully up to set speed and let it take over gently, so it settles in nicely on a short setup course. Net Net, the price premium for ZO is something I'll always pay because it's way cheaper than a divorce.

I know someone is going to say A1, B2, etc settings on ZO are tuning, but they are really preference settings.

[03RLXi]

Interesting stuff. It seems legalities are preventing PP or any other company doing the 'same' as ZO. I wonder if there's a different way? Perhaps overlaying in camera with AI, rope tension, using a separate DBW throttle body, etc.

It's all irrelevant to me as I'm just a keen non tournament 15' off skier. Just interested in the concept, engineering, controls, etc

[UWSkier]

@jpwhit You should really try a boat with PP version 9.x and Zbox. You can hammer the throttle to WOT and it'll settle in nearly as fast as a ZO boat, especially if you set the reaction time (Kx) to ++ setting. The only instance in which I could see it being a problem is if you get to set speed, then turn sharply before entering the course like @BrennanKMN describes. If you wait until you're mostly straightened out to throttle up, v9.x settles in very very quickly and overshoots by maybe 1 MPH max with a ham-fisted driver.

[rico]

On very short setups, you must be careful on zero off too. If you floor it, it will overshoot the speed and decrease it while the skier pull out.

[tru-jack]

I have the latest PP with Z box on an 07 Lxi dbw that’s reacts quite well. Is it the exact same as the ZO boats in our club? No. However, the difference between the ZO boats from different manufactures, engine combination and boat generations is as noticeable if not more than from PP Z box on dbw boat.

[Jody_Seal]

being the devils advocate: why would you want Perfect Pass to be more like Zero Off?

Or,Would you more like the idea that it does not matter in competition what speed control or boat is being used as long as all the given playing field rules are adhered too and is all equal on game day?Oh but wait we cant have that, someone on the rankings list might get moved down or the analites in the sport will get there panty's in a wad because it just aint the same as what they run in BFE.

[BraceMaker]

@Jody_Seal I think this has to be approached as convergent evolution.

If the athletes are developing with ZO as well as ZO is designing around the athletes. Then a second product has to develop to converge with that performance path.

Now if we had a disruptive event like a ICE ban in the EU - that would drive a divergent path of development right?

[jhughes]

I wonder if the elephant in the room is that ZO is perceived as the "hardest" speed control. Thus if it's the "hardest" than any score behind PP is lame, easy, "not the real thing", like basketball with a bigger hoop. That's probably more important to people's egos than how the pull feels. If the score is not behind ZO then it doesn't count because PP lets you "get away with too much". This is what people cannot handle or get over, right or wrong.

I've been skiing non-Zbox stargazer the past couple days and it's definitely not "easier". Different, but not easy.

[03RLXi]

@Jody_Seal my thought wasn't really why make PP like ZO. It was a thought why replace perfectly good engines purely because of the control system. Seems so materially wasteful & unnecessarily costly.

[Dano]

I think zbox plays a huge role in making PP more skier friendly. Just as mapping the course properly will also enable perfect pass to provide a better pull for the skier. I'm using stragazer zbox with an old carbureted motor. I have KX set at ++. I'm no short line guy but i ski at 34mph -32 and my buoy count is the same behind my boat or zero off boats. they do feel different but they are not polar opposites. I think PP and zero off are now more alike than they are different. As has been said before ZO isn't always the same from boat to boat either. For Me PP is close enough.

[UWSkier]

I skied behind a SN 200 with a Gen5 motor last weekend. Big difference between that and the last ZO boat I skied, which was a CP with a ridiculous amount of hours on a 5.7. I agree @Dano

[swbca]

The latest PP with Star Gazer and Zbox is better than ZO because I was able to spend the money on a nice 2004 ProStar without being thrown out of the house by my driver.

[Deanoski]

Z box is very close IMO

[BraceMaker]

I think it is also overstating the amount of people redoing engines for ZO most seem to be people with no clue how to deal w/ carbs/points or early EFI systems who complain of things like vapor lock.

[Jody_Seal]

@BraceMaker . I am not seeing to many pure ski/tournament boats for repower but the larger 216, sport nautique, PS205 family and oh you can ski behind it boats. and one 196 is on the winter plate for repower.

[BraceMaker]

@Jody_Seal oh I agree hence my premise if you are a billionaire and want to grow water-skiing don't make a ski boat. Make a bigger round about cross over boat that skis super well but don't advertise it as a awsa boat don't pull tournaments just do events like the amateur nights, radar Nation, ski demos. Then once people go hot damn this Bayliner 21VD is a decent ski boat sell em like crazy to every dentist accountant and realtor who's kid likes to ski.

[Mastercrafter]

Do older Garmin dual puck ZO systems still use accelerometers, or is that just with the new single puck from ECI?

[jpwhit]

The accelerometers are on the PCB in the ZO head unit, not in the GPS puck(s). That's why the orientation of the ZO head unit matters and is why MasterCraft and Nautique head units are often different. In the earlier Nautique 200 for example, the head units are mounted in the side console at an angle. So the ZO head unit is built to account for that.

[Keith_Menard]

@BraceMakerHow to become a millionaire making budget ski boats

Step 1: Be a billionaire.Step 2: Build the boatStep 3: YOU ARE NOW A MILLIONAIRE!

3easystepstobecomingamillionaire

[BraceMaker]

@Keith_Menard watch chapelle on SNL this week?

Kanye to Chapelle - millionaires wear chains billionaires don't carry their wealth on their body.

Chapelle to Kanye post adidas - pop those chains back out!

My point is that easily the number one selling type of boat is a 19-21 foot run about boat. Or a pontoon. how much more money exists to design and reduce cost of a boat that sells to people other than skiers...