AWSA test-Am/Skier Response

AWSA test-Am/Skier Response

Post by Tom Ru » Wed, 25 Feb 1998 04:00:00


Quote:

>As an occasional reader of Deja Newsgroup water ski area, I came across
>yesterdays comments regarding AWSA approved boats, "where is American Skier
>and Tige'?"  As the President of American Skier I can offer the following
>comment regarding our company.

First of all let me say "welcome" - always nice to have
another participant, especially  the company prez.  I wish
more manufacturers would "de-lurk" (and yes, we know you are
out there listening...)

Quote:
>... However, we do have a general disagreement with the AWSA philosophy.
>1)  TEST ~ The current test has been diluted into (2) categories, "Approved"
>and "Endorsed."  The endorsed program could be passed by a PWC!

Can you or anyone share details of the "test"?

Quote:
>2)  SAFETY ~ Little regard if any is placed on a boats safety concerns
>regarding assembly, such as USCG, NMMA, or ABYC standards.  Some of the AWSA
>approved boats DO NOT meet the minimal USCG standards and are in violation of
>Federal Statutes.

This I find difficult to accept.  Are you really saying
that   UNSAFE boats are being sold and the sale is being
aided and abetted by the AWSA (where's my reference material
on liability...)?  Why doesn't the CPSC step-in?  Are these
guys really doing this thus facing a tremendous lawsuit?  Is
it ignorance or deliberate fraud?

..

Quote:
>4)  COST ~ American Skier's cost for (1) boat tested is $9,000.00.
>           Benefit ~ Allowed to promote as "AWSA Approved", listed in the
>           Water Skier as "passed."

That really can't  be a very large potion of your
advertizing budget can it?  If a Malibu sells a couple of
thousand units per year, that's like 5 bucks a boat.  Since
you probably sell less (sorry!) it is more, but  it has to
be small in comparison to other ad methods.

Quote:
>American Skier will continue to support Water Skiing, but will concentrate in
>areas where the sport needs help, and we see that need as bringing new skiers
>to the sport via entry level support.

What (and I'm not trying to be argumentative here) are you
doing?  Donating boats to INT leagues?  I'm just curious.

Tom

 
 
 

AWSA test-Am/Skier Response

Post by Greg » Wed, 25 Feb 1998 04:00:00

Not being as intimate with the AWSA testing process as the Exec at  Am.
Skier, I am probably missing some points, BUT isn't the AWSA a non-profit
organization?  Aren't all funds raised by the AWSA to be used for the
promotion and benefit of the sport of waterskiing?  Doesn't AWSA maintain
rules and reg's for the sport of waterskiing?  If this is true, I would want
to make sure the sport is preserved and maintained properly by supporting
AWSA when I can.  Besides, Tom is right $6,000 or $9,000 is not a lot to
spend on certifying your boat to what is supposed to be "unbiased" testing
standards.

I think the advertising excuse used for not testing your boat does not hold
water (no pun intended).  This is not a lot of money, just think
Mastercraft, Malibu, and Moomba had to pay it 3 times to get their boats
approved.

Also, I think it was in poor taste as a competitor to say that some of the
"approved" boats do not meet minimum safety requirements without qualifying
it.  Where did you learn this and what boat(s) are you talking about?

Since American Skier is taking a different approach on selling boats
("bringing new skiers to the sport via entry level support) will you no
longer build boats that compete with CC, MC, or Supra?

Every sport has an underlying body that governs the sport and manufacturers
who want to sell equipment must get it approved.  Like golf, why can't we
use a different size golf ball? Unfair advatage.

If AWSA's testing process is screwed up, fine!  Don't abandon the sport's
only governing body, get involved and help them correct their problems.  Do
any other manufacturers have anything to say about this?

 
 
 

AWSA test-Am/Skier Response

Post by david lawrence baxte » Thu, 26 Feb 1998 04:00:00

Quote:

> Not being as intimate with the AWSA testing process as the Exec at  Am.
> Skier, I am probably missing some points, BUT isn't the AWSA a non-profit
> organization?  Aren't all funds raised by the AWSA to be used for the

Yeah they may be nonprofit but they keep raising the dues.  You get very
little for what you pay. I understand that you get the insurance which may
cost quite a bit. I would like to know how much they actually pay
out in insurance every year. We are paying for the lake and new building
that they are building.  I can understand a new building but why a lake.
Most people paying for it will never see it yet get the chance to ski in
it.  I just wish that if they raise the dues all the time we would get
something more back from it.  What does everyone else think about the dues
increases.

________________________________________________________________________________
david baxter                                     (((

          ___________                          ((((
         /___________\-------------<|___0__   ((((
         \     |     /                   \ / ((((
      ))) \    |    / (((               \_\_((((
~~~~~~~~~0~~~~~~~~~~~0~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~0~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
What I would rather be doing! Just waiting for it to warm up.
                        THINK SPRING!
________________________________________________________________________________

 
 
 

AWSA test-Am/Skier Response

Post by jstant » Thu, 26 Feb 1998 04:00:00

@cts.com
Organization: CTS Network Services
Newsgroups: rec.sport.waterski

Many people have the misconception that non-profit corporations have
goals to offer services or products at cheaper rates or prices
compared to a for-profit corporation. This is absolutely not true.
Non-profit coporations actually have the same pressures to increase
revenue as do the for-profit counterparts. Just check out those
made-for-TV religeous churches.

AWSA is under-pressure to fund their building construction for the
lake and hall-of-fame before their lease expires. So, their need to
increase revenues is paramount right now. Witness the increase is
membership dues.

The real question is who's decides what projects AWSA decides to spend
their member's money (including Mfg'rs dues such as boat
certification)? A for-profit coporation has stock holders and
utimately, the consumer. A non-profit corporate such as AWSA has it's
members and mfgrs. If either the member or mfgr feel that they don't
get a return on their investment with the dues, then the are free to
bow out. That is the nature of our free-market economy that doesn't
require central planning.

If enough members or mfgrs are bowing out, AWSA will re-adjust to
attract these people back.

So, the real question for American Skier is what do they get for
$9,000 dollars? And, is it worth that amount? I guess that this is
only something that American Skier can decide. We can only guess and
speculate since we are not privy to their business.

What does AWSA do for you? How do you benefit from it? What kind of
benefits do you receive having a boat with the AWSA label on it? If
you feel that the benefits are great, then join. You are a member
aren't you?

 
 
 

AWSA test-Am/Skier Response

Post by One of the Pfankuch » Thu, 26 Feb 1998 04:00:00

Reguarding the comment about unsafe boats I believe that what the man
means is (?):
Many boats being built and sold do not have enough foam in them to
satisfy the Coast Guard's normal minimum requirements because the Coast
Guard does not have many requirements for boats over 20' long and most
of these boats are in that category so it is not necessary to meet any
requirements.

Hope this sheds some light on the subject.

Pete

 
 
 

AWSA test-Am/Skier Response

Post by Sybi » Fri, 27 Feb 1998 04:00:00


Quote:
>Reguarding the comment about unsafe boats I believe that what the man
>means is (?):

The prez said unsafe...I know what that means

Quote:
>Many boats being built and sold do not have enough foam in them to
>satisfy the Coast Guard's normal minimum requirements because the Coast
>Guard does not have many requirements for boats over 20' long and most
>of these boats are in that category so it is not necessary to meet any
>requirements.

So all boats over 20' are unsafe?

Quote:
>Hope this sheds some light on the subject.

Yeah, right.
Quote:

>Pete

 
 
 

AWSA test-Am/Skier Response

Post by Tom Ru » Fri, 27 Feb 1998 04:00:00


...

Quote:
>Many boats being built and sold do not have enough foam in them to
>satisfy the Coast Guard's normal minimum requirements because the Coast
>Guard does not have many requirements for boats over 20' long and most
>of these boats are in that category so it is not necessary to meet any
>requirements.

Either the requirements are there or they are not
irrespective of the length of the boat and the manufacturers
either meet them or they don't.  If someone is saying that
boats are "unsafe", they should be complaining to the Coast
Guard or the CPSC not to  the manufacturers.

Tom

 
 
 

AWSA test-Am/Skier Response

Post by jstant » Fri, 27 Feb 1998 04:00:00

@cts.com
Organization: CTS Network Services
Newsgroups: rec.sport.waterski



Quote:
>So all boats over 20' are unsafe?

Safety is relative to what is being compared. So look at it this
way... How safe is a 20'9" boat compared to a 19'6". Pretty unsafe if
that 20'9" boat cannot meet USCG requirements that the 19'6" boat
must.

The interesting thing here is that the dividing line is right down the
middle of the typical tournament boats. Well, maybe more skewed since
it seems that mfgrs are favoring designs that are over 20'. Hum, very
interesting indeed.... I wonder why?

 
 
 

AWSA test-Am/Skier Response

Post by TJSSKI » Sun, 01 Mar 1998 04:00:00


writes:

Quote:
>Safety is relative to what is being compared. So look at it this
way... How
>safe is a 20'9" boat compared to a 19'6". Pretty unsafe if
that 20'9" boat
>cannot meet USCG requirements that the 19'6" boat

must.

The interesting

Quote:
>thing here is that the dividing line is right down the

middle of the typical
Quote:
>tournament boats. Well, maybe more skewed since

it seems that mfgrs are
Quote:
>favoring designs that are over 20'. Hum, very

interesting indeed.... I wonder

Quote:
>why?

Jeff,
The Coast Guard requires all boats under 20 feet to float when swamped...any
boat over twenty feet has no floatation requirements.  It costs alot more for
the manufacture to put the floatation in a boat then to make the "boat
fiberglass a few inches longer", so that floatation isn't required.  That means
if your boat is 20' or longer, you are Coast Guard legal without any floation.

FYI....all Correct Crafts meet the same floatation requirements. Even the
models over the 20' length.  That means the Sport Nautique, Air Nautique and
Super Sport will float the same if swamped as our Ski Nautique.  CC is not
required to do this, but does it because they feel it would be a "double
standard" not too.  I won't name names, but many of my competitors boats at 20'
and over, do not meet the same requirements for flotation as their smaller
boats....its legal for them to do this, they are not required by the Coast
Guard.  Many don't make a boat under 20' so they don't have to meet this
requirement.  I'm not saying these other boats are unsafe...its just another of
the many differances that many consumers are not aware of when they look at a
boat and its price.  Just because it says," Coast Guard approved at time of
manufacture" dosen't mean it has any floatation in it all....if its over 20
feet.

Hope your boat floats,

 
 
 

AWSA test-Am/Skier Response

Post by JD60 » Fri, 06 Mar 1998 04:00:00

Quote:
>Not being as intimate with the AWSA testing process as the Exec at  Am.
>Skier, I am probably missing some points, BUT isn't the AWSA a non-profit
>organization?  Aren't all funds raised by the AWSA to be used for the
>promotion and benefit of the sport of waterskiing?

As a long standing member of the AWSA , a rated official, and a nationally
ranked skier, I have seen the AWSA move from promoting the sport of waterskiing
to promoting itself in order to acheive IOC recognition( i.e. money).  I know
the president of American Skier and know his long standing committment to the
sport.  There are very few individuals in the water skiing business that know
more about the manufacturing of boats and the politics of same.  I personally
do not own an American Skier although I would recommend anyone looking for an
inboard boat to consider one.   American Skier is a strong supporter of our
local novice tour which caters to the grass-roots skier and not the elite
athlete that AWSA does.  The focus of the AWSA has changed significantly over
the past 5-10 years and I for one feel left behind.
 
 
 

AWSA test-Am/Skier Response

Post by Tom Ru » Fri, 06 Mar 1998 04:00:00

...

Quote:
>If they don't support the AWSA, the governing body of water skiing in the
>United States, why should we support them?  Correct Craft and MC support
>water skiing in Canada; we support them.  As for the rest, make a
>commitment to the sport!

Vern, AFAIK know Am Skier _does_  sponsor amateur skiers,
novice tournaments and show clubs (or so I am told).  It may

Just because they don't  pay the test cash to support the
AWSA doesn't make them "bad".

Tom