42 off

I've been wondering lately why do the lengths jump from 41 to 43 off? Since Nate can run 41 off no problem and a few others can run it but get tripped up so quick into 43, you think that 42 off would have been the next progression. I'm not sure if anyone has tried 42 but I would imagine in touneys it would make the ending a little more interesting... Thoughts?


  • ShererSkierShererSkier Posts: 139 Baller
    edited March 2019
    They make decimals... like 10.0584
  • BraceMakerBraceMaker Posts: 4,968 Mega Baller
    @ShererSkier the lines being metric for 38/39/41/43 being a .5 meter difference in length between them. Providing a .25 meter incremental would give you a 10.25 10 and 9.75 meter length.

    Starting to be a lot of passes depending on the opener.
  • skier2788skier2788 Posts: 810 Crazy Baller

    Travis Torley
  • ZmanZman Posts: 1,903 Mega Baller
    Not to be overly precise. But, course centerline to turn buoy is 37 feet, 8-3/4 inches.
    I believe that is to center of the turn buoy. Assuming 7-1/2 diameter buoy, that puts the ski at 38 feet and 1/2 inches for the ski to clear.
    So, yea, 43 off, or 32 long makes quite a challenge!
  • WishWish Posts: 8,417 ★★★Triple Panda Award Recipient ★★★
    edited March 2019
    Nice chart. This should be printed and posted directly in front of anyone announcing a slalom event where the general public is present. Feet on announced..not what's laying in the bottom of the boat. Surprised it doesn't say "metric on"

    >>> 11.25..a different kettle of fish. <<<
  • ALPJrALPJr Posts: 2,643 Mega Baller
    Why isn't -15 -20 -25 -30 -35 -40 then 1ft increments?
  • aupatkingaupatking Posts: 1,705 Mega Baller
    1 guy makes it through -41 at a tournament. 2 guys at most (1odd ball tournament with 4 not included). That’s good enough. Making -42 the next step still only effects that 1 or 2 guy(s), and who says that pass is really all that makeable either. It just puts the world record out of reasonable reach. Once 43 was chosen, we're stuck with it.
  • Than_BoganThan_Bogan Posts: 6,983 Mega Baller
    @BraceMaker Was that sarcasm? Anybody for whom 11.25, 10.75, 10.25, 10, 9.75 is a lot of passes is off-the-charts good. For me that sequence (at 58kph) is over in two buoys... And just like any other group of 5 passes, 9.75 is so ludicrously harder than 11.25 that if you're planning to challenge that one, then starting at 11.25 is likely to be fine.

    @ALPJr Is that also humor? The difficulty gap between -15 and -20 would be almost negligible, but the difficulty gap between -35 and -40 is ludicrous. Due to the geometry of the sport, the challenge level is inherently non-linear in the rope length.

    On a more serious note, a 10m line has been discussed here before, and I think it makes a ton of sense for many reasons. Maybe I'll be un-lazy enough to link to one of those discussions eventually. Or maybe @ozski can, since I think he started the most interesting thread about it.
    Nathaniel Bogan -- GUT Padawan
  • slowslow Posts: 512 Crazy Baller
    If you were starting the line progressions from scratch today, knowing what skiers would get to, I’m sure the line progressions beyond 39.5 off would be different. Cat is out of the bag now.
  • HortonHorton Posts: 31,491 Administrator
    OMG! Please give me a 36 1/2 off pass! It is awesome.

    Support BallOfSpray by supporting the companies that support BallOfSpray

    Connelly ★ DBSkis ★ Denali ★ Follow ★ Goode ★ GiveGo ★ HO Syndicate ★ MasterCraft

    Masterline ★ Performance Ski and Surf★ Reflex★ Radar★ Rodics OffCourse ★ Stokes


  • HortonHorton Posts: 31,491 Administrator
    @slow I've actually thought about this quite a bit and I'm not sure the progressions past 39 would be different. It is or could be an interesting topic of discussion.

    Support BallOfSpray by supporting the companies that support BallOfSpray

    Connelly ★ DBSkis ★ Denali ★ Follow ★ Goode ★ GiveGo ★ HO Syndicate ★ MasterCraft

    Masterline ★ Performance Ski and Surf★ Reflex★ Radar★ Rodics OffCourse ★ Stokes


  • ShererSkierShererSkier Posts: 139 Baller
    @Than_Bogan hit my thoughts on this about right. Plus there is a reason that rope lengths get less and less taken off the shorter you go so I figured the last two lengths, the hardest ones, would have an even smaller increment than the previous.
  • ALPJrALPJr Posts: 2,643 Mega Baller
    Yep @Than_Bogan and curious about the history of how/who/why we ended up at random numbers like -15 -22 -28 -32 ...
  • Bruce_ButterfieldBruce_Butterfield Posts: 2,022 Member of the BallOfSpray Hall Of Fame
    Hey hey! I’m not THAT old! I started tournament skiing in 1982 and the current line lengths had been in place for some time. From some of the old timers, it seems like it was in the 1960s that the conversion was made. Not sure if it was the same time the course was shortened or not. The distance from the entrance gates to the 1 ball gates used to be the same as the distance between the rest of the boat guides. At the shorter lines (36 off) the skier would get sucked back in before getting to the buoy.
    I'm Ancient. WTH do I know?
  • JackQJackQ Posts: 457 Open or Level 9 Skier
    In 1981 or so, I put in my 1st slalom using a rule book that someone gave me, that had the old measurements. Took forever to determine why we could get so much earlier at #1 on this course and struggle on others. A very painful lesson.
  • MoffattraMoffattra Posts: 71 Baller
    I'd rather see 38mph than new line lengths.
  • rockdogrockdog Posts: 671 Crazy Baller
    61kph @Moffattra 😜
  • lpskierlpskier Posts: 3,403 ★★★Triple Panda Award Recipient ★★★
    @scotchipman The slalom course dimensions were different then as well. It seems to me that we went metric after I started skiing tournaments around 1969, but maybe that’s just a fanciful recollection (both that I started in 69 and that both course dimensions were still in use). I remember setting a new course on our lake to a metric dimension. Two days of treading 70 degree water.
    John Wilkins- Si non pro sanguine quem ludus ne. #iskiconnelly
  • lpskierlpskier Posts: 3,403 ★★★Triple Panda Award Recipient ★★★
    There are really about 11 guys that should be consulted on this topic. I’ve never heard them advocate for something easier than 43. If those 11 guys and maybe Regina (Whitney?) think the sport would be better if we went from 41 to 42 I’d support it. Otherwise it’s kind of a non issue to me. The only time I’ll ever see 41/42/43 is from the boat, shore or You Tube.

    Masterline rope’s come now with loops beyond 9.75. They may be quite useful when the rope is retired from ski use and repurposed to tying up things around the lake or yard.
    John Wilkins- Si non pro sanguine quem ludus ne. #iskiconnelly
  • skier2788skier2788 Posts: 810 Crazy Baller
    I believe part of the issue is that you can't make a loop and fid enough rope back in to hold adequately at anything much shorter than a 0.5 meter. You kinda end up with loop on top of loop. Can't say that I have ever seen a trainer loop between the 0.5 meter sections of a rope. So I don't think it would be as simple as just adding a 42 loop. You would have to loose the 41 loop and the 43 loop.
    Travis Torley
  • BraceMakerBraceMaker Posts: 4,968 Mega Baller
    @Edbrazil might know.

    @Than_Bogan not really sarcasm.
    Watching things like ski finals where all the skiers are coming off the dock at say 32 off or 35 off in the final you're adding a pass that a few top tier skiers are going to need to ski before they get near the established records.

  • MoffattraMoffattra Posts: 71 Baller
    @rockdog ha! of course! looks even weirder in kph..
  • EdbrazilEdbrazil Posts: 1,396 Historical Baller
    Before going to metric, we had 33off for a while between 30off and 36off. I witnessed the first time that 10.75m was run at the Thrillah in Hydrilla. The rules are such that we will never run out of loops, but a 0.25meter shortening is difficult to add. However, a special super-short line could be an option, with loops starting with 10.75m, and going on and on.
  • sunnydaysmnsunnydaysmn Posts: 56 Baller
    Interesting discussion I was wondering about that too? A 42 off loop?
    It is a logical sequence..-32,-35,-38,-39.5,-41,-42?..
    But the loops are really close together & I also see the .5 meters to .25 meters issue..
    but -43 is really short!
  • adamhcaldwelladamhcaldwell Posts: 787 Open or Level 9 Skier
    edited April 2019
    @Edbrazil - that’s an interesting concept.

    Pole vaulting, high jump can go up by .01m I believe if a record needs to be set.
  • APBAPB Posts: 406 Crazy Baller
    What’s a trainer loop? I’m out of the loop..
  • Bill22Bill22 Posts: 1,765 Mega Baller
    @APB I kinda think your comment is only a joke but if it's a real question here you go.
    Link Trainer loop = any loop between standard rope length.
  • RichRich Posts: 277 Solid Baller
    Another thought. I skied on the old American course measured in feet. They changed it in 1972-73 to metric. The American course was longer, that's what made it easier. What if the course became shorter?
Sign In or Register to comment.