BK

@Drago It was 2007. ZO was standard starting with 2008 196’s.

@Jody_Seal those fuel stations you see are nothing more than real estate grabs and ways to sell the more profitable items they carry. Gasoline is one of the least profitable…it’s just a way to get customers to stop, gas up, and buy big gulps and taquitos. It’s about the land and getting people in the store. And why gasoline? Because of massive population growth in those areas and the need for gas (the carrot to stop) is strong, and will be for a long time.

@Bruce_Butterfield you might want to research it a little more. Companies are driving demand for EV (fleet) in a big way. Amazon, Hertz and AT&T to name a few. It’s pretty simple to see why fleet vehicles would be a smart investment when their fuel economy would improve 4-7x compared to their current fleet vehicles. Of course government incentives can play a role but the economics make sense. Craziness like Washington state doesn’t have anything to do with these companies’ massive orders…they were in play long before that ploy.

@wettek69 the average miles driven in Australia is 36.4km. In the US it’s 64km. Most people in Australia actually do drive the way you think they don’t. 70% actually. https://www.budgetdirect.com.au/car-insurance/research/average-kilometers-driven.html

Traditional automakers have been getting them for decades: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-toyota-mazda-jobs-factbox-idUSKBN1AK2BI

@liquid d Ford did that years ago with their Ecoboost six cylinders. There was an option so that when you floored it, the sound of a V8 under acceleration would come through your speakers. Maybe they’ll add that to the Mach-E or their F-150 Lightning.

Hey fellas, been gone from AWSA for four year but just rejoined! Super excited to ski some tournaments, maybe watch a video or two What’d I miss!?

@skierjp You say he should show up early? He showed up a day early. And then a tournament official told him when to arrive the following day. And then once again, he showed up early. Congrats on your large nationals. Maybe you could work on your "welcoming into the sport" skills, and reading comprehension while you're at it.

The bummer of this thread is that the event, the Junior World Water Ski Championships, got no play here until there was word of a controversy. The event started last Thursday and this is the first thread on it, and it was posted Sunday night, after it ended. Congrats to Canada and all of the teams. 74 points (7472, 7406, 7398) separated 2nd-4th, and 218 was the difference in 1st-4th. So Ed, our democracy is safe.

Look for cracks or wear on the switches you have. And make sure you're properly threading the jump rope through the switch.

@sgregg I'm on a private lake and I have a 196. I can surf with a driver and an 80 lb ballast. I run as close to the gates (middle) as possible. But restrict me because I'm "surfing"? A 200 at trick speed with a driver and pinner pushes a bigger wake.

@klindy Do you even need to use X to get arbitrary groupings? Rule 13.03 implies (to me) that you don't. I know the CASS tournaments in the Austin area used to group based on ability instead of age. I wasn't a fan because my buddies were in one group, while I was on another dock standing three feet taller than my competition and getting my butt kicked by juniors. I even used to talk smack and it didn't help.

Instead of beating the crap out of this horse again, why not resurrect answers that are already there? Class X. You can sanction a Class C tournament with ability based groupings. 95% of skiers don't need it to be an R/L, and if the argument is better officiating/driving...the beauty is that you get to organize it with whomever you want on the towers and in the boat. After the format gets some traction, it could (hopefully) be a standard option for tournaments. Get after it! http://www.ballofspray.com/forum#/discussion/comment/189706

I'm one that's not a fan of d1/d2 idea. I'd be ok with lowering the barrier to include Level 7, but splitting 100 (or whatever) skiers into two groups and giving awards to 1st-5th, and 51st-55th is lame to me. 6th-50th outperform the d2 top skiers and the 51st-55th go home with nationals' medals? Sand-bagging is another concern I have, and it will happen. The difference at Nationals when they split M4 into two lakes is different than d1/d2; they still only gave awards to the top 5 placements. I've skied four nationals and had no chance at the podium. I was happy to compete with friends and those closest to my ranking. And for me, that along with being at the Nationals with everyone else was the fun of it. The US Open was a huge bonus, too...but that's another thread. Collegiate skiing is smaller than it was prior to the addition of d1/d2, at least it is in the scr. I'm not saying that it's smaller because of the addition of d1/d2, but you can't say it grew the sport in the scr. Qualifying for Nationals is a trophy in itself, give qualifiers a certificate or something. Lower level skiers should think of State and Regionals as an achievement, and a stepping stone to Nationals. I'm not saying we don't need some changes, but I don't feel d1/d2 is the way to go. I think @Kelvin‌ is onto something with allowing officials that aren't qualified to compete at the Nationals in exchange for officiating. Maybe with that carrot, you could drop some or all of the hotel requirements for those officials. Again, I'm good with lowering the barrier to include some or all of Level 7, but a d1/d2 "trophies for all" would cause me to rethink skiing in awsa tournaments. (Edit: rethink skiing in awsa Nationals tournaments)

@swc5150‌ waaay too early to make the claim that this is representative of the market. Only 50ish votes total, and it'd be important to know how many have actually bought a new boat in the near term (2010?) market to know whether or not they're a qualified segment (REAL typical buyers, not promos, or complainers and tire kickers...no offense meant). It's silly to get so worked up about it. The market will dictate what the co's do, not this thread. And the co's will adjust accordingly. Buy new if the deal suits you, or buy used. The Austin boat show had two Prostars, not only the one @ToddL‌ mentioned that started the discussion. And the one not mentioned was $8K less than what Todd showed. But that wouldn't be as controversial to show would it? I was less impressed about the stickers, because I know that's not what you'll pay...and was much more impressed that this sole dealer (Boat Town) brought TWO Prostars; I haven't seen that at the Austin show in years. Good for them, and us!

@webbdawg99‌ If it were the schools with huge endowments funding the scholarships, I might agree with regulating it. But it's not. The fact is there are many programs out there that have the potential for funding scholarships. Start there. Or wherever you want. Volunteering is commendable but it'll take funding (tax deductible, by the way) scholarships to build up programs. ULM won, but not by much. 12830 over ULL at 12415. Would we be having this conversation if ULL won?

Why limit it? If you really want to do something, help to build programs at your alma mater or wherever you want to help. Start scholarship funds, give time at your site, recruit...do something to make skiers (foreign or domestic) want to ski at your school. Whining about ulm's dominance seems like the wrong direction.

Let pro's ski. A college education is worth more than the winnings of cash prize tournaments. Some times the goal is to break even. It ain't pro football. If skiing helps them get to school and get a degree, that's great. Most collegiate skiers do it for the fun and experiences with their teammates. I know I did. Going to nationals was just a bonus for us. And if 9 of 38 (top 20%+) teams are going, how many more do you want? D2 nationals was put in place for this very reason and seems to make it inclusive enough. Plus, it's pretty cool to be skiing in tournaments where pros and average joes ski together. My take anyway..

No doubt USAWS has a responsibility to advocate on our behalf - it's listed under Membership Benefits, Protection: "Waterways Advocacy – Assistance with waterways access and legislation issues to protect your waterways." As @KLindy mentioned, contact you're regional representative - ask what's being done, or what you can do to help. This is where you can find a summary of the draft report, and a link to the full draft: http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplay.cfm?deid=238345 This link has a list of all members of the science advisory board that may recommend amendments to the Act. There are many university faculty members - if you're an alumnus, call them: http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabpeople.nsf/WebExternalSubCommitteeRosters?OpenView&committee=BOARD&subcommittee=Panel%20for%20the%20Review%20of%20the%20EPA%20Water%20Body%20Connectivity%20Report And here's the notification for their required public meetings in mid-December (you don't have to be present to submit comments). At a minimum, I hope USAWS is submitting comments: http://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2013/09/24/2013-23198/notification-of-a-public-meeting-of-the-science-advisory-board-panel-for-the-review-of-the-epa-water There are exemptions under the Clean Water Act that may apply to your site already. But, it'd be smart for some representation from the skiing community and hopefully USAWS will participate. I'm sure boating industry organizations are involved already. I'm not as panicked as some about this and I don't buy that this is to get boats off the waterways, or that the govt cares to have supervision over a trip to the bathroom as @EdBrazil suggests. But, it'd be smart to watch it and participate in the process...whether it's through an organization, or you as an individual.

@ToddL You might want to do another count and take a look at the Tribal Throwdown hosted by the SMRR POA in June. Had you been there, you might have noticed we ran a GR Division. Kudos to the CAWSC for their efforts promoting GR and hosting events to include them, but you're not completely alone in these efforts. During the '13 Summer (May through August) in Central Texas there were really 6 tournaments. Two had two sanctions and were run on consecutive days (or very close), and they were invitational slalom only. Their site, their party, and their rules. So even if someone wanted to pay for an R, they couldn't ski unless they were invited. So there were really only 4 open tournaments in the area. You said 8 is typical for Class C? That's definitely not typical, especially in more recent years with the drought. Of the 4 open tournaments, the only one that didn't have Class C was the Texas State Championships. I'm not part of the Club that hosted the event, but I think part of the reason was to attract some of the elite skiers to participate, including many juniors that skipped it the year before to go to another a record event in Mississippi. Maybe the hosting club could/should have Class C or GR, but you should lobby the club that has the lock on hosting that event every year; maybe even offer to handle all of the GR events.? I think it would make more sense to add Class C to the State Championships, then it would to eliminate E/L. Outside of the debate about the difficulties and expense in hosting or skiing in an E/L, it does attract more high-end skiers; I know we don't necessarily want to cater to the elite, but maybe the State Championship and higher should have a higher bar and be a little more difficult than the rest of tournaments of the year. This was the first year in many years that it was sanctioned higher than a C event. Speaking for myself, it "felt" more like a State Championship this year and we definitely saw better competition and skiing than there's been in a while. Even The Horton skied in it. Regarding the expense of an E/L, come help us with one next year. You'll quickly see where the money goes well beyond one-time capital improvements - we rent a lot of things we can't buy, feed everyone (lunch and dinner), live music!, higher sanction fees, etc. It definitely isn't a big money maker if that's what you're thinking. I'm just a peon, talk to our tournament organizers if you really want to learn more about what goes into an E+.

@eleeski They're great for jumping the wakes but not so good for jumping a ramp. Too small. 58-60"ish, maybe.?

On their Facebook page, one of the pics says that it's 5" longer, 5" wider and 400 lbs lighter. I think that 3300 was supposed to be 2300 for total weight.

@ral What if they're a legal greencard carrying resident, but have no intention (or application completed) of becoming a US citizen? They wouldn't meet the requirement of iwsf. Should they be allowed to ski US Natls?

Kevin, hopefully you'll ski more than one tournament this year, and ski overall for the first time in a tournament. That would be a great place to start, Amigo. Personally I hope M2 and the other smaller divisions grow and become more competitive. It seems like situations like this would be helpful for that IF the skier is on a legitimate path to citizenship. And Kevin, since you mentioned the tax disadvantages and shortcomings of becoming a US citizen, maybe you're not on that path.? Last thing is, our site is hosting the tournament. Many people that aren't skiing Nationals will be working their butts off to help us put on a great tournament. Skiing is one thing but hosting is a major team effort.

Here's a link to connect with the team: http://www.texasstateskiteam.com/HowToJoin.html They have a great set up with smrr: http://www.sanmarcosriverranch.com/Ski%20Team.php