You have to call.

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!

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

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 9:35 AM)

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.

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.

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

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

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).

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 2:39 PM)

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 1:29 PM)

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