Jump to content

Inboardfix

Baller
  • Posts

    137
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Inboardfix

  1. In todays world I think the answer to Horton's question is obvious: Male NBA players would identify as female and play in the WNBA. I would still choose $5 over having my favorite WNBA team win the title but then again I would choose $5 over having my favorite NBA team win the title.
  2. As the parent of 2 teenagers and 1 recent college graduate who knows everything, I always try to be very precise w/my comments. For this reason I defined a bobtail engine in my earlier post. It is not a crate engine nor a warehouse full of engines based on uncollaborated hearsay. @buecher thank you for the link. That pricing is about $200 less than the crate 5.7 engines I purchased this past season (pre-pandemic those crate engines were approx $2500.00). As long as there is a doner engine purchasing a crate engine is a viable/less expensive option for a ZO compatible engine. Sorry for veering off subject. Back on subject I agree w/@DW's comment we are lucky the manufacturers continue making and improving ski specific boats. Guessing real high and not including off shore direct drive boats: MC 250, CC 175, BU 75, all others 50 = 550. Really think a more accurate estimate is: MC 175, CC 125 (SN and 200 combined), BU 60, all others 20.
  3. @GaryJanzig other than PCM and Marine Power are there any other companies providing a non-cat bobtail (bolt on a trans, hook up gas, connect exhaust, do some wiring and you're ready to crank) engine? The last time I tried to buy a bobtail non-cat from Indmar it was not an option. Indmar hasn't even offered a non-cat calibration for ZO in years. I don't think CC's aquisitions will in any way affect costs involved in re-powering older boats. As things are now re-powering older boats w/a non-cat PCM 6.0 409HP engine w/80A transmission costs less than a 200 HP Mercury outboard and as far as I know there are only 2 viable sources for non-cat bobtail repowers and only 1is ZO compatible. A bigger and more realistic concern is what happens when the 6.0 is NLA? Prices will really jump when DI engines are the only option, not to mention the extensive engine box modifications required.
  4. Within the last year I watched a video of Indmar's pod engine introduction which is designed for pontoon boats. During the years I spent selling pontoon boats outboards dominated (and still do) but this unit allows a pontoon to manuever in tight spaces as if it has thrusters. Could be a game changer, pretty cool. Someone caught my eye in the video, Bill Yeargin. Correct Craft's CEO was in attendance of the product's introduction. To my knowledge Correct Craft has most pleasure boats under it's umbrella. However, don't think they own a pontoon boat company. Maybe the Indmar purchase is in anticipation of expanding into a pontoon line. I don't see the ecoboost as something CC is interested in continueing (could be wrong, have been before), so that leaves Indmar's casting capability (as @jodyseal mentioned) and the engine pod as 2 things very much filling a void in the CC line up.
  5. @Toddl Actually the set of circumstances mentioned is not very unique as I'm sure every course skier has experienced the fall described. Not sure I follow your comment on binder systems. Are you stating they all can fail and therefore all gloves might fail? If so, my point is made and the "completely release" comment in your earlier post is not correct. False information can lead to serious injury in our "risky" sport. All products are not for everyone and the ProLock gloves are a product which should not be used by someone w/shoulder issues, IMO. There have been posts on this forum specifically on ProLock style gloves and several comments were made similar to mine. They can and do snatch (may be related to using a traditional handle). One of my ski partners and my daughter both use ProLocks and have never had an issue. Both use the ML Evo handle (ML's counterpart to US Gear). Never put 2+2 together but in view of the fact you use the US Gear and have never had an issue w/ProLocks, perhaps that style handle mitigates the risk. I'm not anti ProLock and not anti @Toddl. Usually I agree w/your comments.
  6. @Toddl, @horton In most cases the ProLock style glove will release as soon as you open your hand. However, there are instances where they catch as theyre releasing. Making the statement, "they completely release..." is not correct. If you are coming out of the turn, overturn resulting is excessive slowdown and fall toward the boat, there is a likely possibility as you open your hand the dowel will be in a verticle position. When the handle is pulled by the boat the triangular corner where bar meets rope catches the dowel resulting in a snatch of the shoulder before the glove is free of the handle. Usually this is not a big deal on a healthy shoulder. However, many skiers don't have healthy shoulders and this snatch can result in several weeks of rehab or surgery. I love the ProLock/clincher style gloves but stopped using them years ago for the above stated reason. This season in an effort to "de-stress" my hands I went back to the ProLock. Unfortunately, I missed several weeks in July/early August after the gloves which you stated, "completely release" simply did not completely release. Shoulder still isn't great but able to ski. Will never use ProLocks again and suggest anyone w/shoulder issues avoid them as well.
  7. @MinnesotaMiller prior posts mentioning the Siege having many iterations are correct. In the '90s the ski was a narrow tunnel ski which you either loved or hated. Not sure there is a single narrow tunnel ski being made today. Funny story to give an example of the non user friendly attributes of some narrow tunnel skis: Kidder had one called the Velocity and within 3 months discontinued it and introduced the Velocity ST. My Kidder rep at the time said the ST was an acronym for "Second Try". However, the 2017 Siege is made from the Sixam 2.0 mold but doesn't have the 100% carbon construction (100% is a marketing gimmick which referrs to the top layer being a sheet of carbon covering 100% of the ski rather than strips as in the early days of carbon constructed skis). The 2017 Siege is very capable of taking you through 28 off and is a super stable platform if you are a true beginner.
  8. I heard Brenda was taking time off to start a satelite company named B Lines.
  9. @dvskier I agree w/everything in your post except the 30 year comment. Skip has well over 40 and probably closer to 50 years w/CC/Nautique. If he suggests I call, I call.
  10. Mary Morgan Howell won Masters this year in Women's Wakeboard for the 2nd year in a row. She's 19. @mike_mapple I'm hoping Joel Poland is the 1st of many 3 eventers to gain social media attention. His expoits are truly amazing and fun to watch. His trick run at the Masters and the crowd's reaction reminded me of when Parks did a back flip off the ramp after doing a winning run back in the early years of wakeboarding's inclusion at The Masters. When Joel pulled out the trick (long out of time but who cares) the crowd went nuts. Then they replayed it on the big screen in the lake and the crowd went nuts again. That's how cool it was. His online presence is a shot in the arm for the sport.
  11. Seems that everytime I see a name on BOS as the heading of a topic it is announcing a death. Don't know Bruce but am glad he's alive, well and killin it on the course!
  12. Came home from work last week and my son was playing basketball w/friends in our drive. Several of the boys arrived in a golf cart which was playing "offensive to me" music. Not vulgar just horrible noise (same thing my Dad thought about my music). As I was pulling into the garage I thought about telling them to cut the crap off. Think I made the right decision by ignoring it (it wasn't overly loud/neighborhood disturbing loud) and going inside. That being said, there is no way I would spend the kind of money it takes to live on a private site knowing the possibility existed where I'd be subjected to that "music" being blared whether skiing or not. I'd require a "no amplied stereo clause" in the covenant.
  13. subtract $400 (throttle body not required) from estimate above: $4600-4900. @bdmz haven't converted a 6.0 LQ9 but since it was used w/ZO from 2007-2009 I'm sure it can be done. As w/the 5.7 it will require replacing your Mefi 4 ignition w/E-control. Your 2003 will require converting to dbw.
  14. Converting from Mefi 4 (ignition system on your 2006 SN) to E-control (ignition system required for ZO) requires several expensive components, i.e. wiring harness, ECM, throttle potentiometer along w/several less expensive components, i.e. brackets, sensors, connectors. Once this conversion is done the engine is compatible w/ZO. Since your engine is DBW you will not have to change the throttle body which saves approx $400. However, it isn't a cheap conversion. In round numbers you can expect $5000.00-5300.00 including ZO.
  15. @lpskier thank you John. Your explanations will allow me to have an informed meeting w/the owners. Hope you're able to drop by and take a set on one of your many Airstream trips. Ski well.
  16. @sunperch as always you're my hero. However, I took it as @lpskier just explained. @lpskier sorry you took my comment as putting you on the spot. Wasn't meant that way but rather to ask if the statement was true and if so, you're opinion based on your expertise. As I've told you in person when we met at Faith Lake, I always read your comments because I respect your opinion (don't always agree w/it but do respect it). Also, I assumed you knew my BOS call tag. I'm Kate's Dad/Tim. I'm not serious about tournament skiing and only ski the State Championships in order to support the host club. However, I do support Jr. Events in our State. Our event at Faith has grown from 12 participants 3 years ago to 26 this past season w/several non tournament skiers attending (true potential for growth of the sport, imo). In this capacity I feel members like me are a benefit to the organization and essential for it's growth. It is questionable I will be able to convince the owner's of our lake/facility to continue supporting the Jr. activities we do based on my interpretation of the Safesport requirements/club obligations. My comment/question to you earlier was an attempt to fully understand/clarify why a Government entity would require me to sign away rights. It was posed to you after being told by a 40+ year member of the organization they are done if it is true. You have done a great job listing facts which are prefaced by the underlining assumption AWSA is under the umbrella of USAwaterski/IWWF. Not wanting to put you on the spot but rather would appreciate your opinion on the following things I think are true/facts: 1. Safesport is required for all sports under the umbella of the NGB. AWSA falls into this category because of it's association w/USAwaterski/IWWF. 2. The primary benefit of AWSA's inclusion w/USAwaterski/IWWF are events such as World's, PanAM games and monetary contributions based on these activities. 3. If a sports entitity doesn't fall under the NGB, Safesport is not required. Obviously, the rule of law still applies but the redundant overreaction by Government, i.e. Safesport isn't required. 4. Based on the above if AWSA breaks away from USAwaterski there will be no Safesport requirement. No, I'm not convinced AWSA leaving is in the best interest of the sport but I'm not convinced it isn't. What I am convinced of is it is doubtful we will continue growing the sport at our facility as a Sponsoring Club as we've done the last several years. As things stand now I plan to not pay the $175 club fee and look for alternatives to USAwaterski for our Jr. Event. If a viable alternative presents itself great, we'll continue to hosts events which should indirectly help AWSA. If a viable alternative isn't availble our lake will become another of the many private sites used by very few private owners for their own benefit only.
  17. During the meeting Monday a participant made the statement when you take the Safesport program you waive all rights to a trial by jury and agree arbitration w/be binding. @lpskier is this true and if so, as an attorney would you recommend a client of yours accept this stipulation?
  18. @Lpskier thank you for posting the BGC's objectives. I've followed this thread and believe the majority of the posters wouldn't let the SS requirement keep them from renewing their membership. They/we aren't happy about it but it isn't a deal breaker. What is a deal breaker is the BGC requiring a SSN. If the BGC is not negotiable I suggest you lobby for using a company which doesn't require a SSN. These mandates are going to result in lost memberships. However, if the SSN requirement is removed I believe the loss will be mitigated significanty. Eliminate that requirement and re-imburse all fees associated w/BGC (which I believe is already being done) and AWSA will be minimally impacted by these mandates. "Minimally" is relative to keeping the mandates as they are now. Any loss of long term contributing members is significant, despite what some earlier posters have insinuated.
  19. @horton : I own a service center for inboard ski/wake boats. You're right, it is hard to understand how I can afford a '19 SN w/6.2. As mentioned my daughter is an elite skier in her division (has been for 10 years now). Her equipment is new and our ropes are changed at least yearly. Having the latest/greatest for her is important, imo. However, I don't believe she is losing any buoys skiing behind our boat powered by 87 octane vs. 93. If I thought it made a difference I'd pay for premium. Again, you are correct, my ski is a 2017 or 18 GT. Tried new skis and skied w/i a couple buoys of my old one (some no improvement at all) so determined it wasn't the bow but the indian. Decided the GT was good enough for me to re-learn to ski. Was getting back to running more than 2 or 3 @ 35 when a bike accident took me out this year. Glad a brand new $2K ski isn't sitting collecting dust in the closet. @DW funny I had Ramen last night along w/a cereal bar (missed dinner w/kids/wife, this time of year that is pretty common). I do like Spam and PBJ so maybe will take a trip to the store to pick some up for dinner tonight. Btw/fyi I usually don't post on BOS because your comments are often what I would write. I appreciate your expertise and enjoy your comments.
  20. Saturday I went to fill up my boat. As mentioned earlier I have a 6.2 DI engine. My intention was to fill up w/93 octane to see if I noticed a difference from the 87 octane I've used since owning this boat. Got to the pump and 93 was $3.99 pg and 87 was $2.89. Despite what @horton says, it is about the money and as I mentioned earlier the cost/benefit analaysis of the individual boat owner. On this particular day it would have cost over $40 more to fill up my boat (plus I top off my car while there). Just couldn't bring myself to do it. Using the calculations stated earlier over a 1500 boat hours period the cost difference between 93 and 87 would be $6600.00. My personal cost/benefit analysis came to the conclusion w/2 kids in college (one will be skiing for Bama this fall, check out her instagram photo on the homepage, Roll Tide!!!), a 14 year old eating me out of house and home and a wife who doesn't understand living w/i our means, I decided losing a buoy or 2 was worth the cost savings.
  21. As is usual w/discussions on BOS the more I read the more I realize how little I know or how little I care to know. What I do know is I have a 6.2 and run 87 octane because I subjectively believe the ECM's compensation for the lower octane will not adversely affect performance to a degree it will be noticed by any skier I pull. It should be noted I doubt either of the Adams will be visiting my site or anyone else who is capable of running 41. Also, I don't really care if using a lower octane at a tournament adversely affects skier's performance slightly as long as all skiers are pulled using the same fuel. Also, who wins is more important to me than the score attained to win. Everything mentioned above is subjective and purely my opinion. It is not my place to tell anyone what fuel to use. Every boat owner should use what they feel is best for their situation. When I'm at the pump it comes down to do I want to pay $2.74 per gallon for 87 or $3.09 for 93. For the reasons stated above I go w/87. To put it in perspective of long term rather than at the pump on any given day, lets say your engine has 1500 hours and you average 4 gallons an hour (may be slightly better or worse depending on your engine and use). 6000 gallons used (1500 hours x 4) @ $2.74= $16440 6000 gallons used @ $3.09- $18540.00 So, over a 1500 hour period you spend $2100.00 more to use a high octane fuel. Numbers/totals will be different depending on regional fuel prices but my point is the amount saved using a lower octane fuel may or may not be a big deal. It depends on the skier/boat owner and their status in life financially as well as their individual cost/benefit analysis of using the higher or lower octane fuel.
  22. Personally I am not a proponent of shrink wrap for this use. Our industry does enough bad things to the environment and in this instance it can be avoided completely. Instead of paying the approx $300 to shrink it (guessing on cost) put that money toward a long drop cover from Tumacs (sold by Skip Dunlap). Several times I have used this type cover to pull boats from Orlando (approx 450 miles) and in October towed a boat from AZ (approx 1900 miles) using one. After you're done w/your trip you'll have a wonderful cover to use for years rather than non degradable plastic to through in the trash.
  23. email sent. Forgot to mention in the email the lake owner is a Camaro dealer. In our climate I think you'll much prefer a full Camaro suit over your leaking drysuit. If you come down to ski I'm sure he'd let you demo a suit. Several years ago I tried one and haven't used a drysuit since (except while visiting manatees in FL, good grief that was cold).
  24. @cliggityclow our lake site is hosting the 2021 Alabama State Championships. Depending on where on Lake Martin your place is, it is 30-40 minutes away in Shorter, Al. There will be several M3-6 skiers participating who on a good day get into 22. You are definitely tournament ready and we'd love to have you join the fun. When you start skiing again this spring come down and check out the site. I'll arrange for some of the above mentioned skiers to be there and you'll see you'll fit right in. Also, I am a Perfect Pass dealer and can save you some money off the prices listed in the earlier posts.
×
×
  • Create New...