I don’t believe this report is terribly technical, Scott goes out of his way to explain his methodolgy, critical flow sections and suchlike. It’s a flow and depth study (of the partially modified course), that’s all.

I can see how this would be directly useful in serving the aims of the racers who’s goals are simple, increased velocity and more aggressive eddies. It can also be directly useful for maintaining depth required for wacky racers and raft clients.

However it is not a description of the features of the course (just look at the Muncher detail). No real inference can be directly drawn from such a study as the nature and quality of water features to be found on the course, the focus instead will be on several hydraulic jumps through which the angle and width of flow can be adjusted with Omniflots.

What about, cushion waves, apexing green waves, retentive sweet spots, stable deep eddylines and all the other things that made the original course satisfying.

Where is the wave modeling? I don’t doubt that this was not part of the commissioned aims of the study, which is simpler for it.

I suppose that it’s up to Andy to model the waves and features, but we’re talking Omniflot here, not Wave 6.

A starting point for Andy this may be, but it’s entirely unilluminating as to the development of a plan for change! We all know what the course looks like (and looked like), when are we to be shown the planner’s vision for the course?

I suppose a scale model when the initial plans are drawn is out of the question… because it wouldn’t serve the agenda for change.