Jump to content

slmskrs

Baller
  • Posts

    42
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Personal Information

  • Preferred boat
    '97 SN 197 TSC1 w/GT40, ZBox
  • Home Ski Site
    www.sccwsc.org
  • Real Name
    Gordon Jensen
  • Ski
    '20 D3 ION 67"
  • State
    CA
  • Tournament PB
    1.5@38 34.2
  • USAWS Member # or other IWWF Federation #
    40697

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

slmskrs's Achievements

Contributor

Contributor (5/15)

  • Conversation Starter
  • First Post
  • Collaborator
  • Week One Done
  • One Month Later

Recent Badges

0

Reputation

  1. Does anyone have a source for weather stripping foam on a windshield? I'm planning on pulling the windshield to have it powder coated and I would like to replace this foam insert. It looks like 1/2 deep x 3/4" wide, but all I've found are self adhesive rolls. No idea if it originally had adhesive and it just wore off or just perss fit. Oe maybe I just don't pull the adhesive backing paper off and press fit as is. Suggestions? Thanks.
  2. @BrennanKMN Thanks. Bummer; Stargazer/ZBox works okay (I've done a LOT of tweaking of settings and it's about as close to ZO as you can get it with a mechanical linkage). But my PP has been acting up lately (losing GPS signal, screen going spastic) and if it dies, I don't want to spend $1,500 for what I have now. I really don't need a re-power (engine has 1,200hrs on it--my last GT40 had 1,800hrs and would probably go 3,000 before a rebuild). I don't know if I'll still be skiing in 15 years, so have to look at the investment. Don't ski that many tournaments anymore, but instead of $1,500 for a new PP, I'd pay a few $k more if there was a way to TBW a GT40 and replace with ZO. Guess not, so better figure out what's going on with my PP. Thanks for the explanation.
  3. Not looking to re-power my '97 TSC1 Nautique; engine block is fine. But would be nice if there was a manifold replacement with TBW that would bolt on to convert to ZO for quicker response than Zbox.
  4. Looking for a slalom course in the area. Lake Mendocino would be nice; rather not have to drive to Reading.
  5. Years ago there was a course on Kelly lake in Watsonville but I don't know if it is there anymore. The closest for all the Santa Cruz folks was actually Santa Clara County Water Ski Club in south San Jose (www.sccwsc.org). However, due to the drought, we haven't had water since April of '21. Pray for rain. We probably have six members from the Santa Cruz / Scotts Valley area. Check the website for updates or ping me on when / if we get water again. The next closest is Berkeley Water Ski Club's Berkeley Aquatic Park site (salt water). After that, you're looking at Delta courses or private lakes in the central valley.
  6. Oh, and this difference in 1 ball times based on mapping was confirmed by PP.
  7. Just FYI, I did some tests on course mapping. I tried mapping from the pylon, the bow, and the stern. The bow ended up in almost all 1.75. The pylon was 1.75 and a few 1.76. The stern gave me one 1.75 and the rest 1.76. Just for the fun of it, the actual course time at 55kph/34.2mph is 1.767; the display rounds up......
  8. I have pulled the same data from ZO for comparison. I have not seen anything more than .02 off, but there are some subtle things going on behind the scenes as well. One boat it was always .02 slow on a certain ball. But I don't see the S curve that we see, so a lot of what they are doing are behind the curtain. It's not just sample GPS speed; if it was and it was fast enough, then every all would be right on. The bigger difference is really in the ABC123 settings since TBW responds faster. A friend has a 2005 (or newer) SN 196 with TBW; he got PP ZO with Zbox and his times are very tight.
  9. Folks, sorry for the delay; our drought forced our water district to cut the flow to our pond and we have no water now. Was scrambling to get my puck with updated FW in and try it out the last day we could still launch (worked great-now no course nearby to finalize my settings....). I've had some extensive dialog with engineering at PP that provides some additional insight into what is going on in the background. I will see if I can paste the back-and-forth into one long comment in the next couple of days. If it's too long, I'll put it in a doc and attach it.
  10. I didn't use ground; PP said FedEx and UPS had 1-3 day. USPS was slower. Don't know why customs fees would be more for ground, but there shouldn't be any since I said 'gps defective, returning, $25'. Still in holding pending instructions and agreement; there's no other info, which really ticks me off.
  11. Oh, and UPS was the cheapest 3 day at $65 for a 1# envelope. Sheesh!
  12. I shipped my puck on Tuesday; I have a notice from UPS that it is being stored in a secure location pending instructions; makes no sense since I put in the documentation exactly what PP told me to put. It was supposed to be 1-3 days; if they don't get it tomorrow, I'm going to be really irritated with UPS. It would be nice if they had a US based stocking/repair location since I have to assume their biggest market is the US anyway. I really don't want to order a $270 puck assuming it just needs FW update. Especially since the puck is a standard Garman puck you can get for less than $100 (but needs the appropriate FW). This customs thing sucks when PP is so close....
  13. On Wednesday PP said they'd turn it around in one day once they get it. I'm more concerned about possible customs delays shipping it to and from Canada.
  14. I talked with PP Wednesday; they said they'd turn it around in one day if I sent mine to them. But I'm concerned about delays, hassles with customs. Don't want to be without a puck more than one weekend (next weekend).
  15. BTW, PP told me that 9.2 was only cosmetic updates; there was no change in the logic/calculations between 9.1 and 9.2.
×
×
  • Create New...