Jump to content

Don't forget to tune into Swiss Pro Tricks this Sunday

https://www.swissprotricks.com/

Horton Horton

slmskrs

Baller
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    42

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Everything posted by slmskrs

  1. slmskrs
    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. slmskrs
    @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. slmskrs
    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. slmskrs
    Looking for a slalom course in the area. Lake Mendocino would be nice; rather not have to drive to Reading.
  5. slmskrs
    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. slmskrs
    Oh, and this difference in 1 ball times based on mapping was confirmed by PP.
  7. slmskrs
    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. slmskrs
    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. slmskrs
    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. slmskrs
    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. slmskrs
    Oh, and UPS was the cheapest 3 day at $65 for a 1# envelope. Sheesh!
  12. slmskrs
    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. slmskrs
    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. slmskrs
    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. slmskrs
    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.
  16. slmskrs
    @kmenard @Windsurfnut I've had the boat suddenly start racing while pulling a skier in the course. I saw it again this weekend, and it was because I lost GPS signal (interesting, I never had this issue with my '96 that I was constantly upgrading PP over the years). This system in my '97 is only about two years old (all new everything), but I've had the intermittent GPS signal lose all this time. There is specific puck FW update available (not SG update)? I'm hoping it is just for the puck because I like 9.1 over 9.2 because in 9.1 when I want to see course times, I just press the left side down arrow and I get them. With 9.2 I have to scroll to time and then press it to get the times. Anyway, this sounds like a bug, so they should certainly not charge me for the FW upgrade. BTW, my ski buddy and I are still tweaking SG. I've pretty much have it at no more than +/-.02 max for Normal and Light. Need a little more tweaking for Feather and X. But we both continue to have fast 1 balls (generally 1.75). I've redone autocalc (without wind), I've manually lowered the baseline by 15-20RPM, etc. But I still end up with 1.75's. As I mentioned before, PP says GPS starts sampling and correcting speed about four seconds after engaging. Also, the boat should run 0.03km (0.02mph) outside of the course. I engage as quickly as possible and I'm pretty settled in at 34.4 or 34.5 when the skier pulls out. However, they pull down the speed into the high 33mph range. The boat then adjusts by throttling up right when the skier is gliding, and the boat is now going close to 35mph through the gates and then throttles back, but not before I get a hot one ball. I honestly see no way to correct a hot one ball time due to this logic. If you lower the baseline, it's just going to speed up even more four seconds after engagement. Maybe the better option is to increase baseline slightly over autocal. When it starts sampling GPS four seconds after engaging, it will see it is running a bit fast. If I can time it to when the skier is pulling out, the skier may pull it down to 34.4, and then I'd end up with a good 1 ball time. Regardless, not being able to adjust one ball without screwing up 2 ball time sucks. Most everyone on the spreadsheet has ball 1 settings much higher than default because of slow two ball times, which the ball 1 settings adjust. I'm pretty happy with what I'm getting with the exception of one ball times. I have also checked my linkage multiple times as well as added a supplementary return spring (even though PP says the return spring on a GT40 is quite good). So I don't know what else to do about 1 ball. I'd be tempted to lower it, but I know I'd end up with a dip at two/three ball. Sigh....
  17. slmskrs
    @Wish I have the same boat '97 196 GT40 ACME 422. I'm getting closer but am going to try some different settings this weekend. I've been working with a buddy of mine with a '00 MC Prostar. @keithh2oskier knows who I'm talking about ;) He's gotten his boat out more than me and he's now getting .01, .02 max deviation consistently. Based on his settings and results, and comparing to my current, I'm going to make some changes. Note: There's someone in our club with a '99 196 GT40 (not sure of prop), and his times are good on Normal with default settings. Go figure.....
  18. slmskrs
    @skiboyny I did do autocalc in mirror (with only a slight (1-2mph) head tail puff). I also calibrated with 200 (only me) although I could do it with someone else and bump it to 400. That said, dropping crew weight while pulling hasn't made a difference, and it didn't for my buddy yesterday in his Prostar 190 (unless you really have to drop it--ie: set it with 600# crew weight (3 people) and then drop it to 100 or so. That said, after four seconds, GPS is going to adjust the speed to 34.4 outside the course anyway, so with a long enough set up, crew weight may not matter. How much do folks change crew weight during a set to slow 1 ball by .01 or .02? I agree that .01-.02 hot one ball is a good story, so I will work on 3 and then ROC. I have 9.1 (which I like more than 9.2 because with 9.1 I just hit down arrow to get all times; with 9.2 you have to scroll to speed first). Same fast drop in RPMs. If I can get no more than +/- .02 through the course (normal skiing), I'll be golden. I am getting close; thanks for the input. Also, as @Windsurfnut said, if all of my ball times are good but my end course is a .97 or .98, that will be great!
  19. slmskrs
    @Windsurfnut I agree that the pull out slows the boat, but since I engage more than four seconds before the pull out, GPS senses it and compensates which gives a hot speed when the boat goes through the gates. As you said, since PP support keeps saying that 1 ball setting affects my 1.77, it make sense why they have it so low. Seems like GPS and their course logic (ie: Classic PP) work against each other since we know that adjusting 1 ball setting down to their default ends up is a very slow 2 ball, followed by hot 3, etc. to compensate. I've also been helping a buddy of mine dial in his 2000 Prostar 190 and with initial settings of 30,30,35), he got similar 34 results as me (actually better; other than ball 6 and end times being slow, his was consistently for all balls through 5 ball at .01-.02 hot. So very linear (flat) but hot. His data (four skiers) suggests if ball 1 is hot (almost always 1.75, a couple of 1.76), the rest will consistently be hot. We're going to up his ROC up probably 10 (he's getting .97, 98, 70.00). BTW, both my buddy and I have lowered crew weight while pulling to slow down 1 ball, but it has made no difference. My buddy's 32 and 30 mid course times were hot; 1 ball was around the same as 34 (.02 hot), but by 3 ball was as much as .05 hot, so still somewhat of an inverted S. Per your comment, I'm going to suggest he try light for 30 and 32 skiers and see what he gets (and adjust those settings appropriately). So I think we're going in the right direction, but it doesn't seem that there is a way to lower my 1.75 to 1.77 without screwing up the rest of the times. As @skiboyny says, consistent slightly warm 1.75 with the rest flat is a good thing.
  20. slmskrs
    I take pictures of the screen after each pass. It's must easier to see the ball times than the + or-, especially when there is glare. That's why I don't enter in the PP deviation numbers, but put in the actual ball times.
  21. slmskrs
    The way I graphed it in the xls is that I have actuals, and then I enter in the actual time (see below): It then extracts the deviation from actuals in the below. Because the numbers are in relation to actuals, a positive number is hot, and a negative number is slow: If any ball times are actuals, the deviation is zero, and it plots on the actuals line ("0"). If a time is hot, it is above the line. If a time is slow, it's below the line. Hope that helps.
  22. slmskrs
    I thought I posted this Saturday evening but see I didn't hit "Post". No wonder there were no responses..... :p So, I did autocalc on 34 and 32 early this morning. Only me in the boat; I set crew at 200. Baselines were way slower than previous (I suspect previously I had another person in the boat as well as the bimini up (which I didn't today). Baseline for above was 3460. Today was 3370 after multiple runs (slight head/tail). 3430, 3375, 3380, 3385, 3400, 3370. I left it at 3370 rather than take an average (the wind started coming up by 7:30 so we rushed to ski). Settings: 35, 35, 30. Started with crew weight (two people) of 400. Later dropped it to 300. All of my 1.77 were warm. So even with the lower baseline, I still run hot into ball (I have a theory for this I'll explain after the graphs). Here's today's relevant data. I skied six 22's to try to keep it consistent, and included Larry, who has just started skiing 34 (15 off). NOTE: Anything above the centerline (actual) is hot (positive number), while anything below the centerline is slow (ex: -.02). The reason why I think I'm still getting warm ball one times (1.76, 1.75, etc.) is because of what PP told me a week or so ago. They said that GPS adjusts speed about 4 seconds after PP engages, and settles at 0.2mph (.3kph) above actual OUTSIDE THE COURSE. At our site, that's only few seconds before the pull out. I watched the speed closely when I was pulling others. This is what happens: * Engage, speed is somewhat high but dropping * 4 seconds, GPS engages, and it settles around 34.3-4. * Skier pulls out to set up. Slows the boat to less than 34 (as low as 33.7) * GPS gives more throttle to compensate just as skier is starting glide (no more load, boat picks up speed faster) * Boat goes through gates hot (34.8-35.0) * GPS throttles back and by the time the skier reaches 1 ball, it has almost slowed down enough for a slightly warm 1 ball. NOTE: Display doesn't sample GPS quickly, so hard to really tell how slow or fast it is. Is anyone else experiencing this? So, suggestions on settings for next time (probably not for two weeks--out of town and doing a little work on the boat). @skiboyny I'm not concerned about a 16.97 or even an occasional .98. I just want a flat line. :wink: It seems like my two ball is pretty linear with one ball; both are just .01-.02 fast. While I am focusing on one ball and two ball times, it does look like three ball setting might need to be changed (lowered slightly). And I guess rest of course should be increased to bring up 5, 6, gates. Since I was at 35,35,30, maybe like 40, 30, 45? BTW, I don't know if A1 was on, or if it was in SG mode (when I skied). I did have zbox on for Larry (B1). Thanks.
  23. slmskrs
    The top is previous times and settings: The below is my latest attempt: Note: There are multiple skiers represented. With the new settings, I always got slow times (up to 17.00). I haven't been worried with that since I'm working one setting at a time. Tomorrow I'm only going to get my time and the time of one other person. Since I am at 30,25,30, I think I should move to something like 35, 35, 35 (or higher). I will also try recalculating baselines (probably with just me (very early), so I'll have to add crew when my 3rd is in the boat. Hopefully between the two I'll get better one ball times. Also, has anyone gone from Bimini to no Bimini (or visa versa) and changed baselines, etc.? Thanks, Gordon
  24. slmskrs
    @skiboyny I was going to lower the 1 ball setting just to prove to PP they're wrong. Otherwise I'm looking at something in the 30-30-30 range based on averages I've seen in the spreadsheet. I'd rather be skiing, but this really annoys me... The reason for lowering baselines is based on @Windsurfnut noting that in order to slow his 1.75, etc. down to 1.77, he had to lower the baseline slightly. Since per the group the ball 1 setting affects the 4.45 ball two time, the only way to slow down ball 1 time to 1.77 is to drop baseline. Since I have hot ball one times all the time (1.75, 1.76 (never slow), I don't see another option.
  25. slmskrs
    @Windsurfnut Thanks. It was than nasty 'down arrow' that I missed before. Funny but I sure didn't see anything on it in the manual..... The person at PP I've been emailing is concerned with me playing around with baselines to 'fool' PP and he insists that the 1 ball setting affects the 1.77 time into physical ball one, not the 4.45 into physical ball two. I'm not going to challenge him on that (yet). I have to do my own experimentation. I'm going to try to line up a bunch of guinea pig skiers for this weekend; not tell them what I'm doing, and change the settings on the fly all over the place.... :) I am going to drop my ball 1 setting down to zero without changing anything and see what happens to my hot times (per PP). Then I will adjust down my baselines 10 or 20 RPM from current and use the settings in your spreadsheet (looks like we're going to have a head/tail all weekend so I either average, or just drop it a bit). Ought to be an interesting weekend.
×
×
  • Create New...