Deprecated: Function set_magic_quotes_runtime() is deprecated in /nfs/c07/h01/mnt/111479/domains/proskicoach.com/html/forum/include/common.php on line 58

Warning: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /nfs/c07/h01/mnt/111479/domains/proskicoach.com/html/forum/include/common.php:58) in /nfs/c07/h01/mnt/111479/domains/proskicoach.com/html/forum/header.php on line 31

Warning: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /nfs/c07/h01/mnt/111479/domains/proskicoach.com/html/forum/include/common.php:58) in /nfs/c07/h01/mnt/111479/domains/proskicoach.com/html/forum/header.php on line 32

Warning: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /nfs/c07/h01/mnt/111479/domains/proskicoach.com/html/forum/include/common.php:58) in /nfs/c07/h01/mnt/111479/domains/proskicoach.com/html/forum/header.php on line 33

Warning: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /nfs/c07/h01/mnt/111479/domains/proskicoach.com/html/forum/include/common.php:58) in /nfs/c07/h01/mnt/111479/domains/proskicoach.com/html/forum/header.php on line 34
Goode's Bubble Bouys... / Pro Ski Coach Water Ski Forum
Water Ski Coaching from Professional Waterskiers at ProSkiCoach.com

Announcement

We've Moved

The forum here @ PSC has been fun, but we're going to transplant it in much more fertile pastures.

If you already have a PSC account, use your email address to Request A New Password to get started @wetJacket

#1 Sun, Jun 20, 2010 8:10 PM

danbirch
Karma:   11 
Slasher
From: Canyon Lake, CA
Registered: Mon, Nov 24, 2008
Posts: 75
Skis At: Canyon Lake, CA
Foot Forward: Left

Goode's Bubble Bouys...

I heard that the Bubble Bouys are $40 ea., but can't find them on Goode's website.  I see that CP broke the record and they were used, so they must be acceptable by USAWS.  Are these for sale yet?

Offline

 

#2 Mon, Jun 21, 2010 4:39 AM

2gofaster
Karma:   
Slalom Mentor
From: Cypress, Tx
Registered: Sun, Jun 1, 2008
Posts: 337

Re: Goode's Bubble Bouys...

You have to call.


Shane Hill

Offline

 

#3 Mon, Jun 21, 2010 3:12 PM

Jmilford
Karma:   
Rookie
Registered: Wed, Aug 19, 2009
Posts: 3

Re: Goode's Bubble Bouys...

Offline

 

#4 Mon, Jun 21, 2010 3:49 PM

danbirch
Karma:   11 
Slasher
From: Canyon Lake, CA
Registered: Mon, Nov 24, 2008
Posts: 75
Skis At: Canyon Lake, CA
Foot Forward: Left

Re: Goode's Bubble Bouys...

Thanks, Jmilford.  My computer must have been holding onto an old link (w/o the Bubble Bouy option)  in the cache, but now I can see the link.  Very cool looking set up!

Offline

 

#5 Thu, Jun 24, 2010 8:20 AM

ScotChipman
Karma:   
Slalom Mentor
From: Utah
Registered: Wed, May 16, 2007
Posts: 262
Foot Forward: Right
Website

Re: Goode's Bubble Bouys...

I skied the bubble buoy for the first time yesterday on a eight buoy course where you have a zero buoy in your way for the turn in for the gates. I ran right over the zero buoy once and was able to keep on skiing with no problem, would not have been the case with a regular buoy. The price is expensive but the development costs and small market make it hard to charge any less. In my opinion the safety far outweighs the costs of an ankle or other injury that can last a lifetime.


Scot Chipman

Offline

 

#6 Thu, Jun 24, 2010 10:59 AM

Thomas Wayne
Karma:   
Slalom Mentor
Registered: Sun, Jul 27, 2008
Posts: 228

Re: Goode's Bubble Bouys...

ScotChipman wrote:

[...] I ran right over the zero buoy once and was able to keep on skiing with no problem, would not have been the case with a regular buoy. [...]

I'm afraid that's not entirely true, Scot.  Many skiers have reported (in this and other forums) that they've skied over "regular buoys" containing 30% - 40% water and were also able to keep on skiing.

I realize utility rates vary from locale to locale, but I'm betting a couple of quarts (or so) of water is cheaper than $40...

TW

Offline

 

#7 Thu, Jun 24, 2010 3:12 PM

ScotChipman
Karma:   
Slalom Mentor
From: Utah
Registered: Wed, May 16, 2007
Posts: 262
Foot Forward: Right
Website

Re: Goode's Bubble Bouys...

Thomas, A 40% water filled buoy is still 60% compressed air and we all agree that it is better than a traditional buoy that is filled with 100% compressed air. The bubble buoy is 0% compressed air does not deflect a ski as much as a water filled buoy, plain and simple physics. Yes $40 is more than some may be willing to pay for the added safety but know one is forcing you to buy one. You charge $50 or more for your arm guard which I'm sure seems steep to a lot of people.

Last edited by ScotChipman (Thu, Jun 24, 2010 3:13 PM)


Scot Chipman

Offline

 

#8 Fri, Jun 25, 2010 1:41 AM

Thomas Wayne
Karma:   
Slalom Mentor
Registered: Sun, Jul 27, 2008
Posts: 228

Re: Goode's Bubble Bouys...

ScotChipman wrote:

Thomas, A 40% water filled buoy is still 60% compressed air and we all agree that it is better than a traditional buoy that is filled with 100% compressed air. The bubble buoy is 0% compressed air does not deflect a ski as much as a water filled buoy, plain and simple physics. Yes $40 is more than some may be willing to pay for the added safety but know one is forcing you to buy one. You charge $50 or more for your arm guard which I'm sure seems steep to a lot of people.

And a poorly-warrantied Goode Mid-ride is around $1500 and a superbly engineered Lamborghini Murcielago is around $350,000.  So what's your point, Scot?

While you're thinking about that, Scot, my point is that NO ONE putting water in their skier buoys has reported anything but outstanding success, safety wise - and it didn't cost them even a tiny fraction of $40 per buoy.

"Compressed air" is a negative buzzword that you (and Dave Goode) like to use, but it's not really accurate when talking about a skier buoy.  I've worked with many inflated buoys over the years, and in my experience the air inside is them not under any great pressure at all - especially when 30% - 40% of the buoy is filled with water and the size of the buoy is slightly under 8 inches diameter.  In fact you could hardly describe the air inside such a buoy as "compressed" at all - unless you were trying to sell an expensive alternative, that is.  You might call such air "enclosed", or "contained", but compressed is a little disingenuous, in my opinion.

Meanwhile, the very act of having enough air in your Goode plastic-bag buoys to keep them round suggests that they, too, contain slightly more than 1 atmosphere of pressure.  Until they're hit enough, that is.  Then the choice is to either watch them remain dented (as the one does in Milford's linked video) or notice that they're sinking like a punctured condom when the seam near the waterline fails from repeated impacts or a fin strike.  After all, if there's no anticipated failure, why offer replacement parts?

Now, Scot, you make an interesting claim when you say:"The bubble buoy is 0% compressed air does not deflect a ski as much as a water filled buoy, plain and simple physics. "  Is that so?  From my experience - which greatly exceeds yours on this particular subject - the amount of air in a 30% - 40% water-filled buoy (WFB) extends down to about 1 inch below the water line.  It comes as no surprise to me that the Goode "Bubble Buoy" also contains air extending down to about 1 inch below the water line.  Unarguably, the water inside the WFB weighs nothing when the buoy is in the lake.  So explain to me - with your "plain and simple physics" - how it requires less force to submerge the air in the Goode buoy than it does to submerge the identical volume of  air in the WFB.

They both contain the same amount of air, and in order for the buoy to collapse (Goode) or displace (WFB), that air must be forced below the surface of the water.  Are you claiming that the air inside the Goode buoy has some sort of special properties that make it less buoyant than the air in the WFB?

But what I find really amusing is the way that you (and Dave Goode) are apparently suggesting that "compressed air" is somehow harder to deflect or sink than "0% compressed air".  What ever gave you that idea?  Compressed air is heavier than "0% compressed air", which can only mean that it is less buoyant, and therefore easier to sink.  Where, oh where did you (and Dave Goode) get your physics degrees - and is it too late to demand a refund on the tuition...?

I guess what I'm saying here is that your above posted claims are questionable and unproven, and conflict with known physics - but for FREE, greater field-PROVEN safety can be achieved by adding water to the existing skier buoys, with the added bonus that they always stay ROUND, and they won't require $20 replacement "domes"... ever.

That's my point, Scot.  What's yours?

TW

Last edited by Thomas Wayne (Fri, Jun 25, 2010 2:35 AM)

Offline

 

#9 Fri, Jun 25, 2010 9:01 AM

jipster43
Karma:   
Regular
From: Bozeman, MT
Registered: Mon, Nov 23, 2009
Posts: 22
Skis At:
Foot Forward: Left

Re: Goode's Bubble Bouys...

The bubble bouy looks really soft and collapses at impact as well as submerging.  That seems a little more forgiving to me.  I'd pay $40 a bouy to avoid a broken ankle any day of the week.  A water filled bouy certainly seems to be effective as well but possibly not quite as effective.

JP smile

Last edited by jipster43 (Fri, Jun 25, 2010 9:02 AM)

Offline

 

#10 Fri, Jun 25, 2010 9:13 AM

ScotChipman
Karma:   
Slalom Mentor
From: Utah
Registered: Wed, May 16, 2007
Posts: 262
Foot Forward: Right
Website

Re: Goode's Bubble Bouys...

Thomas, It never ends with you. You continue to think your products and ideas are better than others especially Jager and GOODE. I bought one of your handle guards for my wife and had no problem paying the $50+, why not let others buy the bubble buoy for $40 if they want the added safety. Why do you continue to put down others who are trying to improve the sport we all love? How can you say that Dave Goode's posted claims are questionable and unproven? Have you even seen in person or skied the bubbly buoy? Dave Goode and a lot of other very high end skiers have skied hundreds of passes with the bubble buoy.

If the air inside a regular and water buoy it not compressed then why does air come out when you put a inflation needle in? Yes the bubble buoy also has slightly compressed air but not to the extent of a regular or water filled buoy. The air inside of a water filled and regular buoy can't escape when struck by a ski and the upwards deflective force stays the same, yes the force with the water filled buoy is less but it is still there. No I'm not a Physics major but for what ever reason the deflective force in the bubble buoy is noticeably less than a regular or water filled buoy likely because the air in the bubble buoy can escape or push down into the tube of the bubble buoy. I'm sure you will come back at me and point out some wrong, I'm not claiming to have all of the answers or that I know everything. One thing I do know after skiing over the bubble buoy is how it reacts and deflects a water ski compared to a water filled and regular buoy. Bottom line the new bubble buoy is much safer but harder to judge and again they may not be for everyone and knowone is forcing you to buy one.


Scot Chipman

Offline

 

#11 Fri, Jun 25, 2010 2:20 PM

Thomas Wayne
Karma:   
Slalom Mentor
Registered: Sun, Jul 27, 2008
Posts: 228

Re: Goode's Bubble Bouys...

ScotChipman wrote:

Thomas, It never ends with you. You continue to think your products and ideas are better than others especially Jager and GOODE. I bought one of your handle guards for my wife and had no problem paying the $50+, why not let others buy the bubble buoy for $40 if they want the added safety. Why do you continue to put down others who are trying to improve the sport we all love? How can you say that Dave Goode's posted claims are questionable and unproven? Have you even seen in person or skied the bubbly buoy? Dave Goode and a lot of other very high end skiers have skied hundreds of passes with the bubble buoy.

Scot, I'm simply calling "BS" on questionable claims and false "facts" about what you say are "plain and simple physics", but are actually completely mistaken.  For example:

1) "If the air inside a regular and water buoy it not compressed then why does air come out when you put a inflation needle in??"

The air inside a typical spherical skier buoy may be compressed when first introduced into the ball, but the ball then stretches and expands to accommodate that air, simultaneously reducing the internal pressure.  At equilibrium, with the buoy at AWSA specified 7.9 inches diameter, the pressure inside a standard buoy is, at most, a tiny bit more than the air we breathe.

However, that issue is irrelevant, because it doesn’t matter whether the air in a buoy is compressed or not.  The pressure inside a standard buoy is NOT relative to how it affects the ski when struck.  What matters is the anchoring force required to hold the buoy in place - that will determine how it affects a ski.  Internal buoy pressure has nothing to do with it.

Air escapes when a needle is inserted into the buoy at first because the buoy is slightly elastic, but after that it’s mostly due to gravity and/or externally applied pressure.  Anyone who has ever wanted to deflate a standard buoy is well aware that it quickly becomes necessary to manually squeeze the buoy to force any real amount of air out.  And it might also be noted that air will also come out of your beloved "Bubble Buoys" if you stick an inflation needle into them - for mostly the same reasons.  However, when you pull the needle out of a standard buoy it’ll be good to go, whereas when you pull the needle out of the “Bubble Buoy” it’s going need a $20 replacement part.


2) "Yes the bubble buoy also has slightly compressed air but not to the extent of a regular or water filled buoy. The air inside of a water filled and regular buoy can't escape when struck by a ski and the upwards deflective force stays the same, yes the force with the water filled buoy is less but it is still there."

“0% compressed air” does NOT equal “slightly compressed air” – there’s a difference, and it DOES matter. More importantly, the air inside the "Bubble Buoy" does not "escape" either, it's forcefully submerged downward into the water - which is the same thing that happens with a properly proportioned water/air-filled buoy.

The correct amount of water in such a buoy will be about 1-inch below the lake surface - as I've always advised, and what just happens to be recommended with the "Bubble Buoy".  In both buoys there is a volume of very close to 184 cubic inches of air, with approximately 50 cu. in. of that air positioned below the lake level.  So that means that in a full displacement scenario an additional 134 cu. in. of air must be driven down into the water in either case.  I'm just at a loss to understand how you imagine that's easier to do that with Dave Goode's air than with all the other air in the world...

No I'm not a Physics major but for what ever reason the deflective force in the bubble buoy is noticeably less than a regular or water filled buoy likely because the air in the bubble buoy can escape or push down into the tube of the bubble buoy. I'm sure you will come back at me and point out some wrong, I'm not claiming to have all of the answers or that I know everything. One thing I do know after skiing over the bubble buoy is how it reacts and deflects a water ski compared to a water filled and regular buoy. Bottom line the new bubble buoy is much safer but harder to judge and again they may not be for everyone and knowone is forcing you to buy one.

It's possible that you've had some experience with improperly set-up water-filled buoys.  When correctly filled and anchored, with a supportive sub-buoy a few inches below the ball, a water-filled buoy is VERY safe, deflecting easily when struck by a ski.

Obviously you’re making every effort to sell expensive buoys (and replacement parts) here.  So do that on the merits of the “Bubble Buoy”, not with junk "physics".  Promote how they’re “cool looking”, or appeal to the technocrat market, or those involved in Goode-sponsored activities.  All of those merits are true and valid.

But don’t lie to the people, pretending there’s no alternative to your $40 buoys.  Don’t make false claims such as “… ran right over the zero buoy once and was able to keep on skiing with no problem, would not have been the case with a regular buoy. ”   That’s decidedly untrue - anyone can make their own existing buoys just as safe with a simple device costing less than $10 dollars to construct, and there are many times more skiers doing just that everyday around the world than the few that are using “Bubble Buoys”.

TW

Last edited by Thomas Wayne (Fri, Jun 25, 2010 3:04 PM)

Offline

 

#12 Fri, Jun 25, 2010 3:00 PM

ScotChipman
Karma:   
Slalom Mentor
From: Utah
Registered: Wed, May 16, 2007
Posts: 262
Foot Forward: Right
Website

Re: Goode's Bubble Bouys...

Thomas, I can always count on you to reply and try with your long winded response to prove to us that you know it all while never answering my questions. The plain and simple fact weather you want to believe it or not is that the bubble buoy is the safest water ski buoy currently out. I give you props for the water filled buoy idea that is better than a traditional air filled buoy if you can keep it in place. Just once we would all like you to admit that you could be wrong. You will likely come across a bubble buoy one day and see for yourself but until then go ahead and keep on talking, it makes for good entertainment for us all. I get nothing from GOODE and don't own or plan to buy the bubble buoy for my club at this time but that does not change the fact that it is safer than a water filled or traditional air filled buoy. Yes I stand up for GOODE and others who promote the sport we all love unlike you who continually put people down and badger them when they don't agree with you. I don't agree with or buy everything GOODE sells but look how much he has done for the sport all the while making a living from it. I think you are jealous of Dave Goode and the life he lives.


Scot Chipman

Offline

 

#13 Fri, Jun 25, 2010 3:06 PM

Thomas Wayne
Karma:   
Slalom Mentor
Registered: Sun, Jul 27, 2008
Posts: 228

Re: Goode's Bubble Bouys...

ScotChipman wrote:

Thomas, I can always count on you to reply and try with your long winded response to prove to us that you know it all while never answering my questions. [...]

What questions have I failed to answer, Scot?

Offline

 

#14 Fri, Jun 25, 2010 4:26 PM

Thomas Wayne
Karma:   
Slalom Mentor
Registered: Sun, Jul 27, 2008
Posts: 228

Re: Goode's Bubble Bouys...

Thomas Wayne wrote:

ScotChipman wrote:

Thomas, I can always count on you to reply and try with your long winded response to prove to us that you know it all while never answering my questions. [...]

What questions have I failed to answer, Scot?

No, you know what, Scot?  Scratch that.  I mean, if you have questions you feel I haven't answered then by all means feel free to ask them.  But meanwhile, in an effort to avoid being "long-winded", I'll restate my position as clearly and concisely as possible:

1) You're offering mistaken statements about physics as "fact" in your claim that the Goode "Bubble Buoy" is safer than any alternative.  My above long-winded posts explain how you are mistaken, if you care to review.

2) There is an alternative to the $40 Goode "Bubble Buoy" that is safely being used by many, many skiers throughout the world.

3) The above mentioned alternative is much, much less expensive than the Goode "Bubble Buoy", and - when properly used - is safe enough to prevent virtually all serious ski/buoy impact injuries.

4) This alternative is much less fragile than the Goode "Bubble Buoy", and will not require expensive replacement parts (since the entire buoy itself can be replaced for less than half of the Goode replacement dome).

5) The Goode "Bubble Buoy" may very well deflect even more easily than a correctly configured water/air buoy, but that could conceivably create more problems in the long run (i.e., judging issues, forming risky skiing habits, etc.).  After all, if a buoy will deflect enough to prevent injury from ski impact, isn't that enough?  Is it really a desirable benefit to have a buoy such that you can't tell if the skier skied over the top of it or not?  Suppose we had a buoy that disappeared in a puff of smoke immediately prior to being contacted by a ski, so that there was nothing to hit at all - would that be any more desirable? 

In my opinion the actual benefits of the Goode "Bubble Buoy" are outweighed by its detriments [cost and fragility], especially when there is already an easy, inexpensive method for producing buoys that are safe enough for the task at hand.

TW

Offline

 

#15 Fri, Jun 25, 2010 5:15 PM

ScotChipman
Karma:   
Slalom Mentor
From: Utah
Registered: Wed, May 16, 2007
Posts: 262
Foot Forward: Right
Website

Re: Goode's Bubble Bouys...

Have you even seen in person or skied the bubble buoy? If not how can you say it takes equal force to displace your water filled buoy and the bubble buoy? Just because they both have the same amount of air in them does not mean they behave the same way when struck by a ski. I have seen in person, skied both, and struck both with a water ski. The bubble buoy does not displace a ski as much as a water filled buoy for what ever reason. This comes from REAL world experience!


Scot Chipman

Offline

 

#16 Fri, Jun 25, 2010 6:11 PM

Thomas Wayne
Karma:   
Slalom Mentor
Registered: Sun, Jul 27, 2008
Posts: 228

Re: Goode's Bubble Bouys...

ScotChipman wrote:

Have you even seen in person or skied the bubble buoy? If not how can you say it takes equal force to displace your water filled buoy and the bubble buoy? Just because they both have the same amount of air in them does not mean they behave the same way when struck by a ski. I have seen in person, skied both, and struck both with a water ski. The bubble buoy does not displace a ski as much as a water filled buoy for what ever reason. This comes from REAL world experience!

I didn't realize you were asking those questions in your prior posts.

I have not seen in person, and I have not "skied the bubble buoy" (as far as I know). Nor have I said it takes equal force to displace a water-filled buoy and a bubble buoy. What I've said is that it takes equal force to displace THE AIR INSIDE the two buoys to an equal extent - and that your claim of supposed "compressed air" is irrelevant. I don't have to "ski the bubble buoy" to know that simple fact of physics.

In an earlier post (two above this one) I stated my position as clearly and concisely as I could.  You raise a new point that I have not yet addressed, so I'll do that now.

You say:"Just because they both have the same amount of air in them does not mean they behave the same way when struck by a ski.  That statement is correct; they do not behave the same way.  When struck by a ski, the Goode "Bubble Buoy" collapses and folds in upon itself as its internal air is driven down into the water inside it.  When a correctly-filled water/air buoy is struck by a ski, the entire buoy displaces in a direction opposite to the angle of impact - in other words, the entire buoy gets shoved out of the way (downward or sideways) by the ski.

It is a matter of opinion regarding which is the safer result, but the point I raised previously remains valid: regardless of design, if the buoy displaces enough to prevent injury, isn't that sufficient?  Do we really also need the buoy to be fragile, expensive, and hard for tournament judges to rule on?

TW

Offline

 

#17 Fri, Jun 25, 2010 8:22 PM

Digger
Karma:   
Regular
From: Lakewood WA
Registered: Mon, Mar 23, 2009
Posts: 29
Skis At: Steilacoom Lake
Foot Forward: Right

Re: Goode's Bubble Bouys...

I've not seen nor skied the "Bubble Buoy", I have also not read, heard or have any reason to believe Goode's buoys are "fragile". Is this a proven concern or pure speculation? Maybe the material is not as "DURABLE" but again, I don't think this has yet been shown to be a negative attribute. Are regular buoys cheaper to replace, no question, but the need and frequency of replacement has yet to be determined hasn't it?

I really fail to see a valid argument here, if the bubble buoy proves to be safe, reliable and effective or not, who gives a rat’s ass if someone wants to spend their money on them, cheaper alternative or not? And if somebody thinks they're the greatest thing ever invented, so what, maybe they are.

OK, I am about to put the bulls eye on my back Scot, but TW, you stated "I've said is that it takes equal force to displace THE AIR INSIDE the two buoys to an equal extent", I disagree with this, is the air in a sealed buoy actually being displaced? Or is it just being "compressed" in a closed environment since the shape of the outer shell is being compressed to a smaller shape for a fraction of a second? Granted, the elasticity of the regular ball will absorb some of the compression of air in its expansion, but this elasticity also will add to the compression pressure and force necessary to deflect the buoy.  In the bubble buoy, iair may be being displaced, do you have to add air back under the bubble after an impact? Or is it just being "displaced" to another object to which it will return to the bubble buoy, not under or creating any pressures. It seems only logical that you could depress the dome of the bubble buoy further, longer and faster than a sealed, elastic, somewhat pressurized buoy (yes, the air in there is in a state of compression), water in it or not. The force to displace the air inside a bubble buoy and compress the air inside a sealed buoy should be easy to measure by anyone who may have a Bubble Buoy. I still don’t think you can “displace” air in a sealed environment?? Set a roll of pennies on top of each in the water and see which is depressed/displaced /compressed (whatever term you wish to use) further. My money is on the bubble buoy.

And no, I am not a Physics Major or even a Physics Minor and yes TW, you'll probably say this is very evident and I accept that. My little pea brain is just trying to understand your continual negative attitude toward the bubble buoy.  I personally use water filled buoys and have no intention of buying Goode's buoys but they are a cool idea and IMO, are safer than air or air/water filled buoys. No, I have no proof, yet. And no, I am not related to, have not met, talked to or ever bought anything from Dave Goode. Didn’t you invent these things anyway?hmm

Ron


Ski hard or save the gas

Offline

 

#18 Fri, Jun 25, 2010 8:55 PM

david38off
Karma:   -1 
Slasher
From: Hillsboro, TN
Registered: Tue, Jun 10, 2008
Posts: 53
Skis At: 34 mph
Foot Forward: left
Website

Re: Goode's Bubble Bouys...

Ok..??  I am confused now.  Why is TW attacking the bubble bouy if he in fact invented and patented it??  It seems he would be standing behind it, even if someone else was selling it.  Especially if he planned to reap the benefits of that persons hard work and efforts??  Wouldn't he??  And the idea that TW invented water-filled bouys???WHAT THE F???  I had heard of guys putting water in bouys like in the mid /or early 90S.  Its not that original of an idea.  Reminds me of this new concept in watersports they call wake surfing.  I have a friend who's uncle talks of doing this as a kid..in like the 1960s...now it is a "new" fad in watersports but actually been around for a long time.  I don't understand TW's need to put down any other product that comes out?  As much as I hate to admit it..lol.. his handle may be a little safer than a traditional handle.  But he is definitely missing the marketing skills that Dave Goode and Paul Jager have cultivated.  And whether he likes it or not, the bubble bouy IS definitely a little safer than the regular traditional air filled bouys.  Why the need to attack it with long winded discussions on physics?  I think this will have a negative effect on sales of HIS handle.  These tactics will turn off potential buyers who will then go to his competitors...FM...and buy their handle from Paul.  I gaurantee that no matter what TW says on this forum Dave Goode will NOT respond to him in a negative way.  He is intelligent when it comes to running a business and knows this is not what potential customers want or expect from him or his company.  TW could learn ALOT from Dave Goode.  I also think many guys on this forum should be wary of listening to too much  advice from someone who is not "proven" in the sport.  I still don't know what TW's abilities are when it comes to skiing.  I do however know what Scot Chipman's abilities are.  They are posted on the awsa website for all to see.  And I for one will take the experience and advice from a proven skier over that of an un-proven skier anytime.  I KNOW when Scot Chipman tells me that a bouy is safer and better than another he has the experience in skiing to make the claim.  This IS NOT true of TW.  I apologize to all the faithful followers of TW's insightful posts on technique, but you would get the exact same advice from reading waterski magazine (or skiing with the likes of Dave Goode or Scot Chipman for that matter--again both of whom have PROVEN they know what they are talking about).

Offline

 

#19 Sat, Jun 26, 2010 4:46 AM

2gofaster
Karma:   
Slalom Mentor
From: Cypress, Tx
Registered: Sun, Jun 1, 2008
Posts: 337

Re: Goode's Bubble Bouys...

TW, whatever you do learn from Dave Goode..........please don't learn his warranty/cust service skills.  lol Until I was reminded last night by my ski partner, I'd completely forgotten that his brand new 9800 had a bottom that was bleaching whitish 2 years ago.He was told he'd gotten the ski wet when he called and talked to them about repairing it or exchanging it. LMAO Ya think!?!?!


Shane Hill

Offline

 

#20 Sat, Jun 26, 2010 7:28 AM

ScotChipman
Karma:   
Slalom Mentor
From: Utah
Registered: Wed, May 16, 2007
Posts: 262
Foot Forward: Right
Website

Re: Goode's Bubble Bouys...

Thomas, I can accept your opinion that the bubble buoy costs too much even though you are charging $50+ for a handle guard which seems over priced, everyone is free to express their opinion and sell their products for any price. In the end the consumer will decide if water filled buoys are "safe enough" or if they would prefer the $40 bubble buoy which in my opinion is safer. It is very interesting that you now say over on the water ski forum "The Goode bubble buoy may very well deflect even more easily than a correctly configured water/air buoy", this is the main point I was trying to make in the beginning. Yes the bubble buoy will be hard to judge but I think it is a small inconvenience for the added safety. Where do you get the idea that the buoy is fragile if you have no experience with it? I'm not saying it is or is not fragile at this point but I did not see any problems with it in the 50+ tournament rounds I watched.

Last edited by ScotChipman (Sat, Jun 26, 2010 7:39 AM)


Scot Chipman

Offline

 

#21 Sun, Jun 27, 2010 12:03 AM

david38off
Karma:   -1 
Slasher
From: Hillsboro, TN
Registered: Tue, Jun 10, 2008
Posts: 53
Skis At: 34 mph
Foot Forward: left
Website

Re: Goode's Bubble Bouys...

2gofaster wrote:

TW, whatever you do learn from Dave Goode..........please don't learn his warranty/cust service skills.  lol Until I was reminded last night by my ski partner, I'd completely forgotten that his brand new 9800 had a bottom that was bleaching whitish 2 years ago.He was told he'd gotten the ski wet when he called and talked to them about repairing it or exchanging it. LMAO Ya think!?!?!

I was surprised to read this?  I have been skiing on Goode waterskis for the last 5 yrs.  Their customer service has always been excellent in my opinion.  I have had one ski where the velcro did not adhere properly, and the powershells pre released on me...actually the tape came off the ski.  They took the ski back and replaced the boots and ski since it had caused a small "scratch" on the surface of the ski.  I also had skied on a 9800 sl for 2 and1/2 yrs, before breaking it last summer.  Goode replaced it without complaint and actually gave me a 9900 sl for only the difference in price between the 2 skis (100 bucks or so).  They never complained or argued and sent the ski right out to me since I had purchased the 3 yr warranty with the ski.  If you call Goode, there is always a person to answer and take care of you right away.  NOT true of most other ski companies (except D3....also always someone answers if you call).  I had a question regarding ski/boot setup one time, and was given Dave Goode's cell number..called it and he got back to me in less than 30 minutes.  Again NOT gonna happen with other ski companies.  The "discoloration" you are speaking of does happen with Goode skis..not sure why but it does not effect the performance of the ski.  It seems to occur f you put the ski away wet and dont wipe it down....esp if you are flying.  Again I dont understand why it happens but I have seen it.  It does fade away (back to black) over time if you dry the ski prior to putting it away.  At least this has been my experience.  So they (Goode waterskis) were probably trying to reassure your friend it didn't need to be replaced.

Offline

 

#22 Sun, Jun 27, 2010 6:28 AM

2gofaster
Karma:   
Slalom Mentor
From: Cypress, Tx
Registered: Sun, Jun 1, 2008
Posts: 337

Re: Goode's Bubble Bouys...

Where have you been, David? Goode's shortcomings in customer service are WELL documented over the last 3 years(since the inception of the 9800). The same ski partner I referenced above paid to get a 9900 after skiing on that 9800 for 6 months. The bottom on the 9900 started to bubble. They told him he couldn't put the ski on on the platform. What???? I can certainly appreciate you standing up for Dave if his company has taken care of you. But, If you're an average Joe who spends his hard earned $1400 with Goode and has an issue with his ski, your chances of getting helped are slim or next to none. And if you do get warranty help, you have to fight and scratch to get it. But if you have purchased a few skis from Goode, your chances are a lot better. THAT is not the way to handle warranty claims.  Would you want to have GM tell you they weren't going to warranty a defective item on your new Silverado(that was your first GM vehicle) because you'd driven it and then find out someone who's bought 3 of them got theirs fixed? That's not right. And I'm in a customer service based business, so I do know a little bit about warranty and service claims.

For what it's worth, I don't have an issue with Dave. I stood with Dave and Dawn in the tower for 3 hours last night at the Katy Big Dawg. I can appreciate his innovation and desire to push waterskiing forward. He and Dawn had an infectious enthusiasm about skiing.  But had he asked me last night what I thought, I would have told him the exact same thing I detailed above. That he has a LOT of room for improvement in comparison to other ski manufacturers.

Last edited by 2gofaster (Sun, Jun 27, 2010 6:29 AM)


Shane Hill

Offline

 

#23 Sun, Jun 27, 2010 2:10 PM

david38off
Karma:   -1 
Slasher
From: Hillsboro, TN
Registered: Tue, Jun 10, 2008
Posts: 53
Skis At: 34 mph
Foot Forward: left
Website

Re: Goode's Bubble Bouys...

Hey Shane, sorry to hear this.  That has not been my experience with them at all, but you are right, it should not be that way.  I will give you that they are fragile skis for sure...lol.  And you may be right, I do purchase a ski from them every yr or two.  So maybe they are giving preferred service to repeat customers?  You are right though, it shouldn't be like that.  I may be biased because their skis have done so well for me too.

Offline

 

#24 Sun, Jun 27, 2010 8:51 PM

Thomas Wayne
Karma:   
Slalom Mentor
Registered: Sun, Jul 27, 2008
Posts: 228

Re: Goode's Bubble Bouys...

Digger wrote:

[...] TW, you stated "I've said is that it takes equal force to displace THE AIR INSIDE the two buoys to an equal extent", I disagree with this, is the air in a sealed buoy actually being displaced? Or is it just being "compressed" in a closed environment since the shape of the outer shell is being compressed to a smaller shape for a fraction of a second? [...]

Let me answer your question by asking two of my own:

1) If you pick up a full coffee cup and displace (move) it to some other spot on your desk, isn't the coffee inside that cup being displaced?

2) If you have a buoy containing "x" cubic inches of air, and you displace (move) the entire buoy, isn't the air inside also being displaced (relative to its prior location)?

TW

Offline

 

#25 Sun, Jun 27, 2010 9:08 PM

Thomas Wayne
Karma:   
Slalom Mentor
Registered: Sun, Jul 27, 2008
Posts: 228

Re: Goode's Bubble Bouys...

ScotChipman wrote:

[...] Where do you get the idea that the buoy is fragile if you have no experience with it? I'm not saying it is or is not fragile at this point but I did not see any problems with it in the 50+ tournament rounds I watched.

Well, let's see... this just in from a Big Dawg tournament attendee (posted on another forum):

"At the big dawg yesterday, one bubble buoy had to be replaced, one boat guide powerbuoy failed(may have been an anchor/bungy issue), and one entrance gate powerbuoy sunk. I think he's gonna have to make them a bit more durable." (emphasis added)

Now, let's assume that this particular bubble buoy had not been harshly impacted by every single skier in the tournament.  But even if it had, that's clearly not much of a life for a replacement part that costs half of the entire system... is it?  I mean, we've had skiers bash the holy living crap out of our buoys for years without injury - to the skier OR the buoy.

But I don't have to have personal experience with the bubble buoy to recognize its obviously fragile nature - just reading that it's got an A-scale Shore rating of 55 durometer is almost enough to determine that in and of itself.  Throw in the fact that the initial offering of the product includes the opportunity to purchase "replacement domes", and it doesn't take a genius to figure out that this thing might not be anywhere near as durable as our good old Polyforms (which we already own)...

TW

Last edited by Thomas Wayne (Sun, Jun 27, 2010 9:10 PM)

Offline

 

Board footer