rfa

Hi Jason, I saw your Dad (from the boat) and you (from the tower) a couple of times last summer at Pangaea. I wondered all that weekend how/what you had to change to ski with that handle. Likely not much, based on what I saw and your scores. Anyway, just wanted to add to the all the congrats here on the great progress you're making in getting this to a commercial product. Continued best wishes! Hopefully, see you this summer.

Hi John, As usual, but sadly in this case, you are correct...

@Jmoski, I have a Masterline roller bag sitting in my basement for many years. Had two of them early on for travelling with the then young sons. Sold one many years ago when I bought a sportube and the ML is just collecting dust. Pretty much new shape. Very few trips, MA to FL before high school. They're 27 and 30 now... If interested PM me. Had actually forgotten about the bag until I saw your post.

Two "conversations" going on here. 1. Whether the jump ramp potentially affected someone's (Nate, in this case) slalom pass/score? I have no opinion on that based on what I was able to see (webcast and photos) 2. Whether the ramp location is a potential safety hazard? Here the answer seems to be an obvious yes. Maybe less obvious that in the video posted by @Kelvin at Okeeheelee, but still in the potential path of the skier. I am neither criticizing nor advocating for any action here. Don't know other important factors/considerations.

WOW...so much "anger", as @Horton says "about data graph labels." But to answer @vtmecheng question. This is a qualitative graph depicting engine response (RPM) vs. the detection (time) of skier load. The X-axis represents TIME. Starts (left end corner) at the point when the skier loads the line The Y-axis represents engine RPM - magnitude Bottom line it shows (qualitatively) "when/how much/how fast" the engine responds to skier load. Really, that's all.

LOL John! If fin checks out, slump over? Hope to see you soon!

To be sure, the unanimous decision applied only to a specific site under litigation. The more "universal" rejection of the definition, was a 5-4 decision with Kavanaugh joining the minority. (Of course the "I like beer" justice wants to protect the quality of its main ingredient...) One can argue who/what benefits or is harmed by it.

Great news on all counts! Feeling better, looking good, back on the water and designing skis...awesome! And happy birthday to Grace!

Have two LFF. Would be happy to sell one, or better yet, trade it for a RFF

Parents of current juniors or past juniors as well?

My first reaction was exactly as @Mastercrafter. What's the point? Different genders, speeds, lines. A 12-bouy count difference. What are we comparing?Upon reading @Than_Bogan and @Wish posts, I get it. Comparing each against their respective competition, not vs. each other.(In my and @Mastercrafter defense, the data sought and presented, says nothing about the competition, although we all know how dominant both have been for a long time)

I cannot tell if it was a good or bad call. But two points from the webcast and the picture above There was a review. It took some time and the announcers said that upon the review, the two buoy count was confirmed by the judgesthe buoy in the 2nd picture seems to be there but just behind the ski. On my screen, I see a fading red buoy shape behind the spray.

"The church hung a plaque in my honor thanking me for not carrying on like it was the end of the earth" The irony is breathtaking! Yes, that explains the $4Billion and the shamefulness of it all. You could not have said anything more damning of the Church if you were actually trying.

If I were the Catholic Church I would be pretty unhappy with @scuppers. All the turmoil and over $4Billion later, he tells them they could have just told everyone to "grow a pair and drive on". Plus, what's with all that "psychological counseling or special attention"? What kind of people need that? I think the US gymnastics, U. Michigan, etc. and their insurance companies should be interested in his expertise...I believe so far they're still under $2Billion...

@NoahVieke, glad the injury wasn't more serious. Very scary, I am sure. Similar experience several years back. Spotter reacted fast and I ended up with only some rope burn on my neck. In my case, I was totally unaware of the rope coming until it took me sunglasses off my face. Yes, shock tube on my boat always (since then). Rope construction and dynamics beyond my "pay grade", but I agree with @adamhcaldwell that stiffness/elasticity vs. recoil is not likely a linear function. Bottom line, glad @NoahVieke is Ok and thank you for the reminder!

@bruxus, "...so asking a question to gain information regarding a mandate from an association I have been a member with for several years is whining?" In my opinion, no! But what followed your question, has included some of what may be described as "whining", in the context of the previously exhaustive (and exhausting) discussions on this subject. As you noted yourself, "@Broussard: Please post that dead horse thing again" However, I am not quite sure whether your simple "question to gain information" was as innocent as it sounds. Recapping: Your very first post started with "I know I am probably treading on very thin ice." What gave you that impression? The immediately following posts clearly answered that SS was only required to participate, not to renew, to which you replied "@MattP why else would I join?". The the next post (with the dead horse pic) provided links to two previous threads on this very subject. You also replied that you had done searches and nothing came up. I guess that's possible and not the reason why you thought you were on "thin ice". But l also suppose the "thin ice" did not come out of thin air... Now, 3 pages later and after several postings where you made your concerns about "mandates", democracy, etc. quite clear, you just said "I actually don’t ski tournaments anyway". So, at the beginning you say "why else would I join?" in response to being told you did not have to do SS to join, only to participate. Now, you say "I actually don't ski tournaments". Can you understand why someone actually reading your posts might think the otherwise simple question, might seem a bit disingenuous? To be clear I, like you, also "...respect everyone’s choice to do as they wish.". Of course, including yours. But there was NO choice for you to have to make. There was no "mandate" for you! Because, in your own words "I actually don't ski tournaments".

"It's interesting the usawaterski person does not post their name" Really? I don't do the "WTF" click because I think it's "cowardly" to hide behind it. But really, WTF? I was curious and just looked the profiles of @usawaterskiHQ and @scoke since I know neither. Here's what I found @usawaterskiHQ - Real Name - Nate Boudreaux @scoke - Real name - ???? I could come up with a picture too, but I'll just say, pretty sad!!!

Really? how about no one allowed to comment here without re-reading all 59 pages (59!!!) of the previous thread? ha /forum#/discussion/25173/2021-is-my-last-year-of-usaws/p1

Similar situation and experience with the mini course as @Jmoski Except that this year, for some reason, the mini course buoys have been affected with higher frequency than normal. We replace them by just lifting the side arm at the regular turn buoy and follow it to the mini course line. We do not have sub-buoys.

Thanks @Skoot1123!

@Skoot1123, comparing to the #s on page 10, your D (2.55) is quite deeper than that on page 10 (2.465-2.475). Is this right or typo? Thank you! Btw, glad good health and good skiing are back!

@Horton, got it. Thank you!

@Horton, I don't even know what I look at, so cannot provide any insight into this. However, over the years I have been told to "look at" different thigs by different people, so this is an interesting topic. My issue is I am not sure I am reading or interpreting your post properly. First paragraph - "look" but no focus = Low Res 2nd paragraph - "look" and focus = High Res 3rd paragraph - you explain what happens when you're "High Res" and you conclude "your stance is LESS balanced" 4th paragraph - "Hi Res should give your more control and a STRONGER stance" The way I read it, the 3rd and 4th paragraphs are in direct contradiction. Am I misreading it or did you mean to say "Low Res" in the 4th paragraph?

Roughly Started skiing at 40 50 - late 50s: PB 2@35off/34mph 65 - present (68): PB 2@35off/32mph Looks like a full pass lower

Me - RH/RF - LFF Older son - LH/LF - LFF Younger son - RH/RF - RFF