WakeWorld

WakeWorld (http://www.wakeworld.com/forum/index.php)
-   Wakeboarding Discussion (http://www.wakeworld.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=1)
-   -   Higest wakeboarding jump on record? (http://www.wakeworld.com/forum/showthread.php?t=778344)

04-08-2010 11:00 AM

Higest wakeboarding jump on record?
 
I have been searching and seeing lots of different things. Does anyone know the heighest wake to wake jump is?

jkatslo 04-08-2010 11:16 AM

i heard it was 11.3 feet but im not 100 percent sure

Michael 04-08-2010 11:21 AM

double up or no double up?

04-08-2010 11:23 AM

Actually both would be nice ... Ive heard over 20ft?

dlwsrider 04-08-2010 11:24 AM

Chad Sharpe has the most frames on record with 63 (Correct me if I'm wrong).

hawkeye7708 04-08-2010 11:25 AM

It ought to be Chad Sharpe's Tail Glide at PB's Double or nothing a few years back. Highest frame count ever recorded.

04-08-2010 11:39 AM

Check out the bio on Trevor Hansen's Alliance rider page. talks about a wake jump measuring device...
http://www.alliancewake.com/riders/?r=37

jps912 04-08-2010 11:53 AM

^^^^^They have the shadow box out which is able to measure the height of your jump. Also how much you spin and how fast you spin. Its a pretty cool little device

04-08-2010 12:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jps912 (Post 1571321)
^^^^^They have the shadow box out which is able to measure the height of your jump. Also how much you spin and how fast you spin. Its a pretty cool little device

I just saw the review and stuff on this device looks very cool man very "new aged" kind of cool how can u plug it in to your computer and it gives you a 3d video of your riding haha

dhv142 04-08-2010 12:23 PM

the highest jump was chads and it was 56 frames

Michael 04-08-2010 12:29 PM

correct me if im wrong but are we talking camera frames?

04-08-2010 12:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Michael (Post 1571350)
correct me if im wrong but are we talking camera frames?

Yes Camera Frames :) But I think the jump its self was over 20ft if i remember correctly Im actually watching the 2009 Wake Awards on Hulu.com to see if I can find anything

hawkeye7708 04-08-2010 12:51 PM

1 Attachment(s)
This glide of Chad's is massive, but the other one was definitely quite a bit higher than this. I don't have anything to scale this against, but I'd guess 16-18 feet.

stuey 04-08-2010 1:05 PM

That picture is retardedly cool. Wow. That wake looks massive also.

04-08-2010 1:19 PM

good god thats not a wake thats a wave! yes theres a difference hahaha :p

hawkeye7708 04-08-2010 2:14 PM

He had an ad in ONE of the WBM's a little while ago, when he was on the Covin shape that was just nutty. I'd put it a few feet higher than this. Even then, I don't think they were near his Double or Nothing glide.

benjaminp 04-08-2010 2:18 PM

Ben, where is that picture from, I want it as my background.

wake77 04-08-2010 8:05 PM

The leader for all-time biggest air is still Chad Sharpe, who went 57 frames at the 2004 Double or Nothing Contest with a giant tail glide.

I had the still, but it is on my old computer (crashed hard drive).

Parks had a giant air a couple of years after that at the D or N.

norcalbordr 04-08-2010 8:49 PM

If you're talking wake to wake, I think Lyman gets consistantly the highest. There was a vid posted about a month back where he threw a HS FS 180 that was bigger than most guys go on a doubleup.

hawkeye7708 04-08-2010 9:00 PM

2 Attachment(s)
Ben, here's the link:

http://wakeboardingmag.com/files//20...had_sharpe.jpg


Here's the Parks and Lyman shots:

joe_crawley 04-08-2010 9:08 PM

If we know how long a frame is then we know how high the rider was in the air. Does anyone know how long each frame is? Total time in the air will be

0.25 x ( (number of frames) x (frame length) )^2 x (32.15 feet/second^2)

or simplified

8 x (number of frames x frame length)^2

Physics 101 today on ww

joe_crawley 04-08-2010 9:35 PM

ok, I'm an idiot. Actual equation is 0.5 x ( 0.5 x (number of frames) x (frame length) )^2 x (32.15 feet/second^2)

which simplifies to

16 x (0.5 x (number of frames) x (frame length) )^2

It looks like they were using 30 FPS, so a capture of 56 frames would be about 14 feet high. As he's laid out in the pic above, he might get an extra couple of feet of clearance, so maybe 16 feet off the surface of the water?

pureblue 04-08-2010 10:04 PM

That isn't the equation you need. You need to isolate your vertical motion from horizontal. Use this site http://www.ajdesigner.com/phpproject...y_equation.php
First solve for Vyo by setting Vy to zero, since that is the top of the jump. You will look at the frame where he is at the peak and that will be your your time. Once you have Vyo you can plug it into the vertical displacement equation again using the time where he is at the peak of his jump. This will give you the delta Y which is the total height of the jump.

joe_crawley 04-08-2010 10:09 PM

horizontal motion is meaningless here. It doesn't matter if he travels 100 miles horizontally or 10 feet.

joe_crawley 04-08-2010 10:12 PM

Also, he'll be going up for the exact same amount of time he's going down, that's why I cut the time in half. And you'll notice that those are the equations I used if you take the time to work them out, I just knew upfront that I didn't need to isolate horizontal motion.

EDIT:

Also- I've neglected air resistance here. If air resistance makes any effect on the numbers, he was lower, not higher.

You also have to consider that he's taking off from an elevation of however high the double up is- maybe 2-3 feet? This might mean he's about half that height higher in the air, but I figured I'd let this one cancel out our neglect of the air resistance.

pureblue 04-08-2010 10:18 PM

I see what you mean. Ya I didn't look at your equation very well, but I see what you did now.

pureblue 04-08-2010 10:45 PM

Your way is much better, I seemed to have forgotten that gravity will work at the same rate no matter how fast you go in the horizontal plane lol. I was just excited that I remembered how to do something from physics.

bmr82 04-09-2010 5:18 AM

Just a though, but for the shot of chad. If you know his board length (which can be seen clearly) you can measure the board in the picture, take that measurement and measure how many of those(boards) from the surface to where he is. then convert from cm to Feet. Right?

lives2wake 04-09-2010 5:54 AM

That's the way I would do it Bret. But you would have to estimate the angle of the board and use some trig to figure it out properly.

...tinking caps on!... I misspelled on purpose!

jason95gt 04-09-2010 7:09 AM

From what I have heard from the Parks Double up contests is that they are between 22-25 ft high. Just look at the boat and think about how high the tower rides above the water. That is about 9ft. They are at least double that in those pictures.

04-09-2010 7:14 AM

Anyone have a guinness world record book? I wonder if any of this stuff is recorded in there? I know as far as the longest jump in wakeboarding is...Kyle Alberts made a 50-foot ramp-to-ramp gap jump over 40-foot bus in Downtown Orlando. This jump was record breaking. http://www.chacha.com/question/what-...r-wakeboarding........ can this be confirmed?

04-09-2010 7:25 AM

God, I have a Ronix poster of Chad and he is friken huge and I think it was the biggest air actually to date and like there was a caption that said " who said you cant go big on continuous" or something like that im trying to find it online but I cant if you guys saw this for the first time youd be like good god!!:eek: ill keep looking for it , its scary how high he is

04-09-2010 7:38 AM

Ok I found it but I cant actually open the picture ( work has a crazy internet filter lol ) but if you guys search up Chad Sharpe on googy and it is prob going to be on the second page under images under a alliancewake.com link but here is a small picture of it... this picture does it no justice though you need to see it fully blown up to actually realize how high he is.. like when you have a 3 x 5 poster of it on your wall :cool:

http://img651.imageshack.us/img651/145/93512548v.jpg

hawkeye7708 04-09-2010 7:52 AM

Chase! THat's the picture I mentioned earlier! Just coudln't find the mag!!

04-09-2010 7:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hawkeye7708 (Post 1571679)
Chase! THat's the picture I mentioned earlier! Just coudln't find the mag!!

So insane. Like if i as that high I would be like YAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!ooooooooooooohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh shiiiiiiiiii :eek: hahaha

kyle_L 04-09-2010 8:18 AM

If you hit big white at odub with a full cut, you go about that big. it is a pretty cool feeling and the landings aren't actually THAT bad considering from how high you are coming from. your momentum and speed really make a difference on the landing, i actually find that the bigger I go, the more i can control how hard I land vs just going strait up and down. now i have cut into to double ups with a full raley edge trying glides and stuff like that and the landing is not nearly as "fun" as off of kickers at a cable. The height of the cable makes a huuuuuuge difference.

sharpechad 04-09-2010 8:19 AM

http://viewmorepics.myspace.com/inde...mageID=1299043

04-09-2010 8:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kyle_L (Post 1571697)
If you hit big white at odub with a full cut, you go about that big. it is a pretty cool feeling and the landings aren't actually THAT bad considering from how high you are coming from. your momentum and speed really make a difference on the landing, i actually find that the bigger I go, the more i can control how hard I land vs just going strait up and down. now i have cut into to double ups with a full raley edge trying glides and stuff like that and the landing is not nearly as "fun" as off of kickers at a cable. The height of the cable makes a huuuuuuge difference.

Alright Mr. Bigair lets see some photos :rolleyes: lol just playing I know you can go as high as you wants its just if you have the balls to do it... When I ride casually I just barely even try and then last summer when I was trying for the raley I just cleared my mind and did the hardest cut ive ever done balls out knowing im going to be flying like a hawk once I hit that wake.... that hurt hahah :D

04-09-2010 8:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sharpechad (Post 1571698)

Alright and he is here to back it up! Fix your picture link so we can see!

sharpechad 04-09-2010 9:27 AM

how do u post a pic on here i have the photo on my computer but cant post it

04-09-2010 9:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sharpechad (Post 1571734)
how do u post a pic on here i have the photo on my computer but cant post it

go to imageshack.us and upload it and then copy the link just like u did.. you just have to have the image on the internet not your computer

sharpechad 04-09-2010 10:26 AM

http://img249.imageshack.us/i/m848b9...378b336ab.jpg/

04-09-2010 10:29 AM

Here ill help ya out :) AND GOOD GOD!!!!! :eek:

http://img41.imageshack.us/img41/716...4378b336ab.jpg

04-09-2010 10:40 AM

How high were you do you think ?

benbuchholz 04-09-2010 3:14 PM

1 Attachment(s)
Parks boosted pretty friggin high off of a double-up in "Counterfeit This", Hyperlite's 2006 or 2007 video. No idea what the actual height is

joe_crawley 04-09-2010 4:14 PM

I threw that pic in photoshop and it looks like he is about 3.5 board lengths off the water. Assuming he's riding a 145, he's about 16.5 feet up in that pic. That's also assuming the board is perfectly perpendicular to the camera, which it appears not to quite be. So he's probably about 14-15 feet up, so he's almost as high as Chad's 56 frames at double or nothing

clearlakescott 04-09-2010 9:56 PM

love the math
 
I love to see wakeboarders with a brain

liquidmx 04-09-2010 10:37 PM

1 Attachment(s)
Dont forget about this guy. Another noteable mention would be Harris' famous method.

Walt 04-09-2010 11:12 PM

I suck at math but I'm pretty sure camera frames per second will not determine height. Maybe a rough hang time though. You can't beat the Shadowbox for this kind of stuff. It's the real deal and it's fun to go back and nerd out on all the data at the end of the day.

Walt 04-09-2010 11:20 PM

The highest I've seen in a set with the Shadowbox so far was 14 feet but it was a spin. I'm sure there have been a lot higher inverts.

joe_crawley 04-10-2010 8:46 AM

Hmmmm. How do you think the shadow box figures it out? It measures time in the air using its accelerometer, and then uses the EXACT SAME EQUATIONS TO A T to determine how high you were (if it works correctly). Camera frames will absolutely determine height, in fact there is no better way to do it. This will be a major topic in any intro to physics course.

So actually the only thing that would be the shadow box is catching the hit on film and hashing out the details, that's the beauty of the constant force of gravity- if you know the hangtime of anything, a foot ball, golf ball, person, cat, or anything else not subject to extreme air resistance you can tell exactly how high it was. Physics is a beautiful thing! If you really did catch a 14 foot hit than you would have been in the air for 56 frames just lake Chad when he won double or nothing. Maybe you go that big (14 feet is HUGE- probably as high or higher than parks in that pic a few posts up), so I give you mad respect on your understanding of boosting off the wake!

joe_crawley 04-10-2010 9:18 AM

*edit "So actually the only thing that would be better than the shadow box"

Walt 04-10-2010 3:32 PM

Like I said I don't know jack about math but other things effect hang time like speed. To answer your question (How do you think the Shadowbox figures it out ?) It does it by GPS. It knows your time in the air by your altitude.

http://http://www.shadowboxlive.com/

benbuchholz 04-10-2010 6:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Walt (Post 1572171)
Like I said I don't know jack about math but other things effect hang time like speed. To answer your question (How do you think the Shadowbox figures it out ?) It does it by GPS. It knows your time in the air by your altitude.

http://http://www.shadowboxlive.com/

Gangstar's right, the film frames are going to be more accurate than the shadowbox.
Riders know exactly what speed they ride at, especially with features such as "perfectpass" these days. In fact they can get it to the one-tenth mph. That's really all the extra info you would need for the film frame equation, enter it in and boom you have the height. Someone correct me if i'm wrong, but I dont think you even need the speed, because you know how many frames per second the camera shoots, which allows you to find the peak of the jump, split it in half, and blah blah blah the rest has been posted on here already lol. Still, shadowbox is a pretty cool tool to use, and i'm sure the measurements with it are going to be pretty close

ralph 04-10-2010 9:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by joe_crawley (Post 1571587)
Also, he'll be going up for the exact same amount of time he's going down, that's why I cut the time in half.

Doesn't that assume that you are going up at the same speed that you come down? That isn't always true is it? Sure you always fall at the same rate because that is only due to gravity but surely you can go up at different speeds due to how explosive your pop is?

wake77 04-11-2010 8:34 AM

"Someone correct me if i'm wrong, but I dont think you even need the speed, because you know how many frames per second the camera shoots, which allows you to find the peak of the jump, split it in half,"

You're are going to be going faster off the wake, then coming down. I am not 100% sure, but wouldn't there be 3 components (other than wind resistance and gravity) acting on a rider? Acceleration of the rider, velocity of the boat, and launch angle. I know in the initial approach to the wake, boat speed and rider speed could be calculated as one, but once in the air, the boat's speed will be acting on the rider. This is why the camera frames is the best method.

wake2wake103 04-12-2010 11:30 AM

Dont forget about( I think his name was Scott Stewart)'s massive double up about a year or go. That was pretty huge.

alans 04-12-2010 12:26 PM

You guys are also leaving out rope tension in relation to the tower height. Definitely changes hang time.

04-12-2010 2:12 PM

Hahaha oh man its so funny watching you guys trying to figure this out :) Its like you are all rocket scientist haha I love it I cant believe there is just not a fact somewhere saying the highest wakeboarding jump is xxx amount of feet I appreciate all you guys trying to solve this out, I guess theres never really going to be a "real answer" until its actually recorded in a "Highest Jump" tournament just like how they have the meters the glow up on snowboarding when they get air on the pipe or skateboard but obviously thats not possible unless they did the jump off a kicker or something

FoilPowell 09-16-2012 7:16 AM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cASNY...yer_detailpage Nuff said!

Medium 09-16-2012 11:33 AM

That's a funny looking wakeboard that guy is riding. Is that a new 2013 model?

andy_nintzel 09-17-2012 8:20 AM

1 Attachment(s)
This has always been one of my favorite shots!

andy_nintzel 09-17-2012 8:22 AM

for what it's worth unless the pic is shot from the side, I would really not trust any calculation using board length. The only thing that would beleive is a side shot or a Shadow Box, but even the Side Shot would be hard to judge where the rider really is in relation to the surface of the water.

augie_09 09-17-2012 10:28 AM

For the math geeks, the way to get total height from camera frames
1. get your half time of flight. T, i.e. half the time from when the jump begins and ends based on camera frames.
2. get your initial upward velocity V. V = T * acceleration of gravity
3. get your max height: H = (V*T) - (1/2 * Acceleration of gravity * T squared)

The only place for error is when you decide where the jump starts and ends. If a riders jump starts at top of wake and he lands in flats i.e. lands at a lower elevation than he took off, the calculation will be wrong. those factors can be accounted for though if you know the height of the wake.

juniorhawk 09-17-2012 11:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andy_nintzel (Post 1783472)
This has always been one of my favorite shots!

That shot/trick/glide/record is absolutely, unqualifiably, straight up coconuts.

boardjnky4 09-17-2012 11:37 AM

my knees would more than likely shatter on impact after an air like that.

kmehrkens 09-17-2012 12:14 PM

This is pretty interesting. I think there are a lot of variables to consider to see who actually got the highest. If we use these equations, we assume projectile motion, meaning no more outside forces acting on the boarder one he/she begins flight. We all know there is air resistance and the pull of the boat that will affect the flight.

Air resistance is probably negligible in our calculations since all boarders probably experience the same affect.

Going by highest frames does show who had the most hang time, not necessarily height, but the camera isn't a bad way to get uniformity with test data. Also, a numerical value has to be determined on the unedited video. Taking the measurement of a slowed down video is just counting frames of a 30fps video showing a slowed down clip originally shot in 30fps. That result would have a prolonged time.

We need to consider trajectory. All boarders with high FPS counts are probably taking off in relatively the same angle with respect to the water, but in theory of true projectile motion, the one who takes off at the biggest angle (closest to 90degree vertical with respect to the water) will go the highest. Then of those people, the one who hits the wake the fastest will go the highest.

If we are using time of descent to calculate height, we do assume free fall with projectile motion, but these riders doing the glides are being pulled down by the boat since the rope looks taught in the pics, which would affect their descent rate, so we can't really count on acceleration due to gravity to be the only force acting on the boarder as he/she falls. I guess the riders with the faster boat will come down quicker, but this could be negligible if every video you watch is of a rider with a taught rope on descent being pulled at the same rate.

We could use rope length and width of wake and measure the time it takes to get from one wake to the other to determine initial velocity of the rider, but all cameras would have to be in the center of the wake beneath the rope mounting point. Camera frames is still best method, probably even better than stop watching the descent, 1/30 of a second is good.

To find who has gone the highest, I'd say you have to;

-use the frame count to find your time, either half of complete flight time or just descent. (assuming all are @ 30fps)
-classify the types of descents you are counting, slack rope or taught rope, and find the one with the highest count in both categories.
-take note of the launch angle of each video too. Would be nice to get initial velocity, but hard to do on camera.

Then for the winner, you'd have to judge based on who took off the steepest, was the fall time affected by the pull of a boat, and who had the highest FPS count.

That's the best I think we can do without knowing more from each video clip. Just my approach.

Kyle

slob02 09-17-2012 6:42 PM

2 Attachment(s)
Adam Wensink......... Highest I have witnessed!!!

hawkeye7708 09-17-2012 6:51 PM

I thought this post looked familiar... how about Scott Stewart's accidental front roll? I wanted the picture... but you lose sight of the water out of the frame...

<iframe width="640" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/7d4_D-ss6yk" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Raf1985 09-17-2012 7:39 PM

^I raped the replay button

wakebordr11 09-17-2012 8:27 PM

That 5 of Wensinks is dirty high, nosebleed section, he goes big! I estimate that at 18-20 at least. What did they think Sharpe hit, like 23+?

kmehrkens 09-17-2012 8:34 PM

Whoa! See that!? Very different launch from Scott- almost vertical. Definitely high jumping versus long jumping there! He also came down with a slacked line.

ord27 09-17-2012 9:59 PM

wouldn't angle of rope to water and rope length be the easiest way of determining height?

wakerider111 09-17-2012 11:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ord27 (Post 1783725)
wouldn't angle of rope to water and rope length be the easiest way of determining height?

if the same boat was used every time since the height of the rope hitch from the water is different boat to boat.

on another note... not sure if it has been mentioned, but people need to take into account that the wake and the table between the wakes is higher than the actual water surface at take off... even if it is only a couple feet at most

srock 09-18-2012 9:41 AM

I had a black bird shoot up like after hitting my windshield at 105 MPH. Unlike Scott, he did not survive.

MICAH_HARPER 09-18-2012 6:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hawkeye7708 (Post 1783657)
I thought this post looked familiar... how about Scott Stewart's accidental front roll? I wanted the picture... but you lose sight of the water out of the frame...

<iframe width="640" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/7d4_D-ss6yk" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

that was crazy

ryan_shima1 09-18-2012 7:42 PM

Gator's Hoochie Krypt from back in the day (Switch) was said to be in excess of over 20ft. The angle from the video makes it impossible to measure but I remember Wakeboard mag running a sequence of it, but I'm too lazy to look through all my mags to find it.

andy_nintzel 09-18-2012 9:28 PM

Ryan, was that the one he blew his knee on? I have that WBM I will dig it out. It's getting old school up in here.


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 6:16 PM.