If one Flyhigh is good, two is better!

I am just a little worried about the safety of it. I have been standing next to a sail boat mast that buckled and it was the closest I have come to death (and believe me I have done a lot of stupid things).

What does the joint look like between the two tubes?

I have no idea if it's allowed in the barefoot racing. My guess would be be that it would be allowed. Seems like racing has dwindled since Chuck lost his finger.

A high pull from a bouncing boat sure sucks. This is also a reason I prefer PE rope over spectra. Andy has made mention if this as well, how Willie still uses it because its got some stretch.

I'm not aware of the exact details but during a race last year or year before Chuck lost a finger to the rope somehow.

Please then do the physics and tell me if a 75 foot rope hooked to a 4M high pole is able to reduce the 150lbs of the skier's weight and by how much.

As long as there is tension in the rope the answer is yes. You would need to calculate the drag (probably impossible to do), measure the tension in the rope (much easier) or measure the stretch of the rope (with known properties) under such skiing condition to get a close enough answer. You get me one of these 3 and ill do the math!

The answer is absolutely yes Andy.

Please be wary of the using mid-attachment point - the mast sections could buckle without cable support there.

SNobsessed wrote: Please be wary of the using mid-attachment point - the mast sections could buckle without cable support there.

I may add a cable or two along the length, but we watched that and tested that mid towpoint too and it did not move.

I think we will get out tomorrow and I will take pictures at least if not video.

Because they want to sell you a tower and an extension for 3000.

2 together is rickety enough, 3 or 4 it would be leaning over.

I went ahead and assumed line tension to be equal to the skier's weight. This calculates to a 17.4% lightening effect skiing a 75' line 4m off the water (which is ~10 degrees).

weight loss = line tension x (pull height/rope length)

I think the math is fuzzy, get out there and barefoot on the high pole and then tell me how much "lighter" you are on the water.

I don't feel lighter.



There is some low pole footing in here, some SN wake crossing(treacherous) and alot of footing.

I owe tons of thanks to Roy for putting all the videos up on the tube.

You are certainly entitled to your feel, but the free body diagram doesn't lie. I already threw the FBD I drew with the trigonometry in the recycling bin. An experienced footer going as fast as you do just might not feel it.

I ski from a variety of heights and line lengths. Come ski 90' from the waterline with me... You might feel a difference. When I need to get my DXII SFH fix I ski with 2 from this picture.

Look at Billy Nichols endurance record, low pole, 2 hours and 45 minutes...

I've been a slacker with my camera lately but the Double Stack has worked just fine, easy to set up and take down, looks decent, satisfies my friends who ski on tower extensions.

As I understand it one of the towerless boats at Nationals this year will be outfitted with a double stack.

GlassSeeker wrote: Now Those girls are more than 17.4% lighter LOL

Speaking of mathematics depending on which 2 you choose I'd wonder if their avg. age was over 17.4 lol.

if the position of the rope does not affect how "light" you feel on the water, I'd like to try an underwater attachment.

In all seriousness, theres different forces involved in the above scenario. The tension of the rope provides a combination of 2 forces, horizontal and vertical. A low pull provides mostly horizontal force, and as you raise the height of attachment, vertical forces are increased. Whether that increase in vertical force is felt by the skier is subjective and depends on a lot more factors that I'm sure most non physicists/engineers are aware of.