Christmas Ski?

I took a slalom lesson for the first time ever this summer. Not only improved my skiing immensely in just 3 sets, but made skiing really fun again. Keeping it fun is a key...glad you're on to it.

Now we are paying for our kids gas. I hope my kid does not do to my boat what I did to my dads boat. Oh that's a bad thought.

Man! That's cheap! I did a search for that ski and I was seeing prices well over $300 (if I'm looking at the right thing). That ski and the description of what it is and attempts to do in its design sounds very cool. Not so much a compromise between comfort and ablility to "ski well" but an effort to make a ski that adequately provides both. It also looks very cool! Oh, now you've done it! I want one!

I think this is a link to a description (etc.) I found yesterday:

http://www.ridewatersports.com/20hospma71sl.html

I had gone to several places. The place I just bought my boat from came down to $289. A second place came down to $240. I had planed to buy it there and I was trying to decide between 69 and 71 inches. When he quoted me that price it made up my mind. The 71 is huge but if I do not like it I can sell it.

Sorry, Ya that was with the bindings. I like a rear toe so that is what it has. I am not to sure how I will like the front binding. Now the waiting starts.

I got very used to having a rear heel binding, but I've never kept it real tight, especially as time has past. Still; feeling it back there makes me feel like my back foot won't pop out.

So who drags a foot and who puts it in to start? I assume most with a rear heel in the back start with your foot in, but I've (with that older type rear binding) always been able to drag my foot, pop it in the front of the rear binding (once up) and then just reach down and pull the heel part on. It's gotten a little harder, but I can still do it.

Gotta keep in mind, those are pretty old bindings (on my mid 1970's O'Brien) and they didn't have the more current "death grip" feature back then.

I tried out a real nice wake board this summer that a friend had and the binding was tremendous w/ regard to a snug fit, but it was akward for me. It had a kind of snow ski clamp gizmo along with the laces. Once you were in; you were in!

When I was done playing and all worn out, they just tied my head to the dock and easily pulled the wakeboard off of my feet with my buddy's pickup. Low 2 worked pretty well.

Just kidding.

It's much easier physically. With your rear foot in (vs) out you end up putting a lot more weight back there during starts so it takes more strength to get up. Think of how a stern drive (weight in rear) labors to take off vs an inboard (weight in the middle). I'd say it's similar to that.

I think I started doing "foot out" starts way back when because when I was about 14, we went from our Chris Craft inboard with a 283 V8 to a Crestliner with an 85 Johnson outboard. It did okay except on starts it couldn't compare to inboard torque.

Starting with the back foot out, technically however, I'd say is only easier "at first" because you can use your back foot a little like a rudder, but then, as I mentioned above, you gotta get your back foot in which is no problem at all if you don't have a rear binding, but a little trickier if you do.

I hope no advanced trick skiers are reading this. Probably laughing if they are. The better ones have their rear foot in and out of the binding, in the toe rope, over the tow rope, etc. all the time. I've always felt that those guys (and girls) were some of the best skiers because of the balance required.

I can start backwards and do turn arounds on the older (traditional) trick skis; that's about it. I do know on trick skis you "NEVER LOOK DOWN!"

Back to your original question; since you said you don't use a rear binding, you should find it's easier and no problem getting your back foot in once up.

I think really with an inboard's power (which most here are using) you wouldn't notice getting up being difficult. Even all these years after the outboard, I've mostly skied behind my Cobalt with a stern drive. Even with it's 290 hp and a good prop, it's not as quick out of the hole as an inboard.

Even with the same old boat and ski, I can't wait for next summer, but I can understand your eagerness! My next steady use of a direct drive for skiing will be getting my '64 Dunphy back together. Something tells me that won't quite be next summer (but you never know).
I hate to show my ignorance; is the SV211 a new CC?
I skied behind a Mastercraft X-1 last summer (I know, blasphemy here). It was a V-drive I think (could be wrong about that). Anyway, kind of a big boat for what I'm used too but plenty of power with the small block it had. Not real fast though.
I finally saw those MC youtube videos guys were talking about here. Man, that just wasn't very nice at all! I never liked bashing something in order to brag up what you like or think is good. Why not just brag a little w/o the insults?

It sounds nice. I think a lot of older v-drives are pretty cool. I think the old Century Arabians were and, even some of the old Donzi's (18's and 16's) had v-drive set ups, though usually stern drives. Then there's the flat bottom racy boats of the 60's. They were neat. It does sort of make sense for a good all around ski boat I would think. With the shaft through the bottom and rudder steering, it would have to feel a good bit like a direct drive inboard, but with the benefit of some weight a little further back for wake boarding and stuff (not to mention the extra room factor -- the one I was in seemed very spacious).

My Cobalt 16 (I think) might actually be a good wake surf boat (just theorizing here) if it had a really low pitch prop that would allow it to hold a steady speed in the teens or low twenties because it throws a mighty wake for a small (but reasonably heavy) boat at that speed. I just can't hold it in that neighborhood where I'm thinking you would want it. Similar to wake board speed? Or is it slower for surfing?
You ought to try two adults and three growing kids in in my little 16. My Cobalt is identical to the Donzi. If you know those, you know "We ain't got no room!" It's kind of a zoo with a pair of combos, a slalom ski, my trick skis and my daughter's wake board. I really should share a picture of that! I think I have one somewhere!

Oh, duh! - I totally forgot about the "don't-use-a-sterndrive-or-outboard--you'll-get-chopped-up" safety factor, and was momentarily just thinking of the wake size, etc.
Being only 45, I'll call that a "Junior moment!" I feel pretty stupid; I actually mentioned that earlier (like a week ago). Not sure what I was thinking.

Wow! 9 or 10? That is putting along!

I had a friend who made that same observation sevearl years ago. When we were kids everyone's boats were pretty much 16' or 18' or so (an occassional 20' footer). Now everything is a lot bigger. I'm glad, in a way, that they have a 24' (or maybe 25') limit on the lake I usually ski (or boat) on.
They had some 30' Scarabs years ago and they allowed a grandfather clause to let those handful remain as long as they tagged them and ran them there every year. Eventually, they all disappeared.
Yeah, the wake surfing does look cool to me too. Gives me more motivation to get the ole' Dunphy inboard project moving along.
In the mean time, the little Cobalt/Donzi (that I've had for almost 23 years now) is still a lot of fun (just crowded)! It's a blast with just one or two people in it! And still fun even with a couple more, but you start noticing the extra weight at that point and it gets more bouncy.
To see what the boat looks like, here's a link (click below) to a web site (Classic Cobalt) that discusses and pictures the Donzi model Cobalt "splashes." I actually started the little site years ago (with my daughter's help) and then quit fooling around with it when the "free" web site deal started charging to remain active. I can't change anything now, but this much remains. Anyway, that's the little Cobalt XV-200 (like mine) pictured jumping on the first page the link takes you to.
http://www.geocities.com/classic_cobalt/

I'd say on a web site like this; if it floats and has a propeller, it's probably of interest to someone here!
I know what you mean. The ski boats and go fasts appeal to me a lot. I'm personally usually a fan of smaller ones though (under, say 22' - and that's getting too big really unless it's a Donzi 22 classic - I mostly like 18' and under stuff). It may have something to do with the mentioned increasing runabout size over the years and the fact that the old ones that had the styling I prefer are just in that size range.
I saw some enourmous motoryacht thing the other day on the tube built by (or called) "Wallypower" that had all these staggering numbers: It was a great big (like 118' I think) sleek and fast (capable of 70's speed) yacht! It was amazing. It had all kinds of gizmos and innovative stuff but the stuff that always gets me is the engines. It was jet driven (no props) and it had options of, I forget, I think big twin deisels for economy and slower speeds OR if you want to get there quick, these big gas (I think 3) engines that with it's 17,000 horsepower (yes I said 17,000) it would get you from A to B real quick using a litre of fuel per second at a mile a minute. Wow! That's about a gallon every 3.78 seconds! Is that possible? I'm sure that's what they said. Guess you wouldn't run that fast very long. It mentioned the range was about 200 miles - not tremendous I guess for a yacht?
I think that's why I like smaller boats!