sagilbert

Question about the PTM mirror. I have a CC 196 with a conventional mirror on it. I like the fact that the current mirror sits at or just below the mounting point at the top of the windshield. In viewing the PTM panoramic mirrors online, it appears that the brackets are mounted at the top of the windshield such that the mirror has to sit above the top of the windshield. Thus, one would have to look higher---which, to me, is distracting. Does PTM provide a bracket that can position the mirror in-line with where I now have to conventional mirror positioned.

Question about the PTM mirror. I have a CC 196 with a conventional mirror on it. I like the fact that the current mirror sits at or just below the mounting point at the top of the windshield. In viewing the PTM panoramic mirrors online, it appears that the brackets are mounted at the top of the windshield such that the mirror has to sit above the top of the windshield. Thus, one would have to look higher---which, to me, is distracting. Does PTM provide a bracket that can position the mirror in-line with where I now have to conventional mirror positioned. Thanks,

I have a 2009 Ski Nautique 196. The small mirror that came with the boat provides an up-close visual, but I can't see the skier near the turn balls. I tried a wider panoramic mirror for a while, but I had to mount it so high (to the top of the windshield) that I had to look up to see the skier---which was very distracting---so much so that I went back to the original mirror.Some of you have commented about the PTM 140 mirror, but when I got on PTM's website, I saw a variety of PTM mirrors (at various price points (from $200 to approx. $400). Confusing!! I'm looking for a panoramic mirror that will fit lower (so that I don't have to look up) while costing less than $300. That said, what variation of the PTM 140 might fit the bill for me? Thanks!

I'm a Men's 7 skier (68 years old), skiing 32 mph. I'm on a 2022 Senate Pro currently, and making an occasional 28'-off pass, My goal is to make 28s consistently. What appeals to me about the XTR CC (compared to the Senate) is the cross-course speed. All that said, if I were to try an XTRCC, which size should I be leaning towards. If I were to buy one, I would prefer to go the SIA route, but I see nothing shorter than a 66" on SIA. Thanks!

As to aupatking's comments, it is a great ski, and maybe I should be listening to lpskier. As to JJackkrash, the Vapor option is intriguing. It should have similar attributes to the Senate Pro, but should be faster from side-to-side---if I read JJackkrash correctly. At this point, I would have to say that lpskier might be the winner. A 10/1000 change in depth and a1 degree change in wing is a bit cheaper than laying down $1,100 for a used Vapor. But, as aupatking says, "it's always fun to try a new stick"! Based on my research, an HO Omega Max also gained my interest, but I couldn't really find any substantive opinions on the ski, other than the typical blather that the manufacturer provides. I really wish that Ball-of-Spray would provide a place on its forum for people to talk about their ride, while providing their age, weight, height, skill level, speed, and desires. We still might be confused, but at least we'd be getting feedback from "imperfect"s - like most of us.

I am an athletic 68 year-old, 157 lbs, 5'9", skiing on a 2022 Senate Pro (65"). I would guess that during the peak part of the season, I was making my 32/28 pass around 20% - 25% of the time. I'm trying to get that percentage to 75%, and I'm not sure that I can get there with this ski. As to the Senate Pro, it is very stable, turns nicely (both sides), and I can't ask for much more, other than more side-to-side speed. As to my technique, I have been told that I have improved over the last couple years, so maybe I can simply get there via more training. We're all looking for a quick-fix, right! All that said, would any of you have a suggestion on a used ski that I might buy on SIA)---that has the positives of the Senate, but with a little more speed? I've found that this is a good time of year to buy merchandise on SIA, and I have often used the strategy of buying one in the fall, while keeping the old one - and then letting best ski win by early next summer - then selling the other one. Thanks for your feedback!

I have used the MOB system for 4 years. My daughter has used it for about 10 years. I have a friend that has used it for 4 years. We ski anywhere from 15-off (32) to 32-off. (34). We all like the MOB system. It is well-constructed, and none of us have had a failed release. Mike Mosley is very responsive to any questions, and you can't find anyone that has more interest in improving the safety of the sport. The two-sided taping is a minor inconvenience. I would rather use tape than drill more holes in the ski. I use a Roxa binding, my daughter uses a Reflex, and my friend uses a Radar Strada. It's nice that the MOB can accommodate a variety of bindings. Hope this helps!

Thanks for the responses. I believe that the verbiage "multi-port fuel injected boats" was put into the covenants (24 years ago) because a fuel injected engine runs quieter than a carbureted engine. I didn't have anything to do with writing the initial covenants, so I could be wrong. It's funny how just 24 years ago we were talking about carbureted vs. fuel injected engine. Now we're talking about internal combustion engine vs. battery-powered. It's probably going to happen in the boating industry sooner than most of us think.

Our association has had certain "boat" restrictions in place for 24 years (when the development started). Of course, that was before wakeboard boats became common-place. Please read the restriction we now have in place, and suggest any possible changes we might make in order to maintain slalom/trick (only) status. Here's the current restrictive covenant we have in place: Motor watercraft used for all slalom course water skiing activity on __________ shall be restricted to multi-port fuel injected boats with inboard engines, silent muffler equipment and American Water Ski Association ("AWSA") approved tow boats. This restriction shall not apply to watercraft used solely for maintenance of ____________ and maintenance of the slalom course constructed thereon. Any watercraft must be approved by the Association. Obviously, if I were to propose any changes to the covenant, I would want to incorporate any changes that I might see in, say, the next 20+ years. That could be a shift from the likes of an internal combustion engine to battery-powered, maybe a name change with the sanctioning body, and even the definition of a tow boat. We already have another covenant that prohibits the use of waver runners and jet skis, so I'm more focused on getting your suggestions on the covenant noted above. Any particular "language" that you might use would also be helpful. For those of you that don't live in a planned development like this, one of the challenges is the possibility that (over time) home ownership shifts from largely "skiers" to "non-skiers", and a heavy majority can sometimes change the best laid intentions. That's certain not an issue now, but if we would move in the direction of changing the above noted covenant, I would like to make sure that we cover that base.

Horton wins this version of "Jeopardy"! It's a Rawly mirror. Confirmed by the Steve Rawlinson himself. In mentioning Jeopardy---a toast to you Alex. Job well done, we'll miss you!

I am trying to sell a boat mirror. It is approx. 36" long and 6" wide. There are actually five mirrors imbedded (side-by-side) in the mirror. Would anybody know the manufacturer/model of this mirror? It's listed on SIA (in the "Misc" section). It's in great conditions and has all the mounting hardware. I'm just trying to find a good home for it. Never did use it. Thanks!

I would like to tune-in to the upcoming National tournament. Can anyone point us to a reliable webcast? Thanks!

It's a balancing-act between time, audience fatigue, providing skiers with their money's worth, and trying to create excitement for the sport. Here are my suggestions: - 4 passes for everyone (regardless of number of falls), with the exception that if the last pass was a full-pass at that's skier's shortest line length (for that set), they be permitted a 5th pass. Yes, this format will mean more time for the "newbies", but aren't we striving to get those newbies into the sport? This format would also make everyone think twice about their starting line length. As a spectator, that first pass or two for most skiers is a "yawner". Limiting pass count to 4 (and 5 for some, as noted above) would keep the tournament flowing (from a time perspective), and create more "strategy-buzz". I know a lot of excellent skiers that don't participate in tournaments. They don't differ much from the newbies. They aren't going to drop a $50, $75, or $100 entry fee (plus time and travel costs) for a one-and-done format. On a final note, I can appreciate that those skiing above the 35-off level are in a different stratosphere than rest of the world, and that's where a lot of spectator eye-balls are focused. Perhaps skiers in that range be given a choice between the current format and the format I'm proposing---providing additional intrigue/strategy. My idea might seem hair-brain, but the definition of insanity is "Doing the same things over and over, and expecting a different outcome". Relatively speaking, there are simply too many "gray-hairs" in the sport (relative to other age groups), and it would behoove the sanctioning body (which includes "us") to assimilate all the ideas addressed within this post, and start experimenting sooner---rather than later. By the way, I'm a "gray-hair" (lol).

I sold my 2007 S/N 196 this past summer. It had both ZO and PP. As you may recall the "Great Recession" basically started in 2007, and essentially continued for a couple years after that. There simply weren't many new 196s sold between 07 and 09. I would suggest that you coerce TEL to sell--so that he/she can get that new/used 200 at "winter" pricing (haha).

Horton, thanks for the excellent post. I am a life-long Indy Car fan and avid water-skier. Indy Car went through a funk, and is now on a come-back. Credits go to having a spectacle like the Indy 500, having recognizable drivers-who participate in things other than racing (i.e. "Dancing with the Stars"), some of the best racing in the world, and a consistent TV channel (albeit lower/middle tier). As to the general public, what seems largely missing as it relates to water-skiing is a recognizable annual "Indy 500" and a consistent, lower-tier, TV channel. Yes, some water-skiing events moves too slowly, and broadcasters would need to condense those hi-lights, but that's all most people want to see anyway. Side-by-side skiing would add drama. For flare, why not add a big-lake tubing event with a lot of jumps (or something funky like that)? It's all about getting "eyeballs" to the screen---which, in turn, may get the general public more interested in the primary water-skiing disciplines. Yes, promoting all of this will take money, but this is a relatively affluent sport with a lot of brilliant people participating in it. I guess the question is "How hard do most of us want to drive the sport from "affluent" to "mainstream", and how committed are we to supporting the organizations/people that can get us there?