why does correct craft turn props rh rotation

I can only speak to my experiences as a fat guy with an 83 which I will in fact ride in by myself and from time to time use to pull a skier/boarder alone and has had both a lh and a rh hand prop on on said 83 SN, it makes a noticable difference. Not particularily at slalom speeds, but for boarding I used to put an extra 440lbs on the passenger side when I had a LH engine to keep the wakes both with a hitable peak don't really need to do that with the RH prop. Its not like the single spotter will push you too far to the LH side now as they can easily sit in the middle if need be. Now could CC have done the same thing with a little hook, shimmy, or other no doubt.

Is the later hull different than the 83 in that there is absolutely no difference in performance between lh and rh rotation and luchog states, I doubt that too but I have no evidence to prove it. We do know that CC specifically stated in the literature for the later model boat that the rotation was to counteract the weight of the driver whom would often be the only one in the boat.

Was my 83 with a LH engine unusable.. .heck no it did the trick and did it very well in particular at speeds over 25mph, biggest issue would be resale value.

As for the big 425hp std rotation engine boats, with my experiences with LH and RH in the same boat if I was choosing between a 330 hp rh and a 425 hp lh it wouldn't take me long to index the pump and change the prop.   

I've always heard it's to counterbalance the driver, but that makes no sense - the spotter does that. These are ski boats so are very rarely going to run with only a driver. Perhaps research showed that, statistically, drivers were very very fat and spotters were very very thin.

Just as i type this it occurs to me that you can sit tweo people on the port side of my boat, and most others, but only one on the driver's side, so on that basis the engine should go the other way to "balance".

A cynic might wonder if it was just a way of making a bit more cash for PCM et al!

I agree on the older narrower hulls but after the 90's first TSC hull the RH prop is no longer needed. I have been on the same hull with LH engines and it performs just the same.

it was back in the day, narrower boats and bigger props would torque the boat and alot of the boats back then would be flywheel forward, the trans was mounted to the front of the engine on some, normal rotation and at the back required a right hand prop. out of many ski boat manufacturers CC is the only one....so i go with the odds

This subject has been on here before many times. One reason for the RH rotation is to offset the weight of the driver. So if you put in a LH and the torque rotates toward the driver alone, it will tilt.

does anyone know the reason correct craft used rh rotation motors alot of the older boats?
are there any adverse effects in handling/turning if one converts to a lh motor other than the necessary changes-seals,trans pump,cam,dist gear,starter,prop,crank,etc?
Im just curious,it seems the lh parts are much less expensive as well as more choices available.
i cant find any posts on this subject & i think there are more than a few older boats w/gt-40 motors in them which would make them lh rotation unless these are simply head/induction swaps on rh motors with out the blocks & valve train being used
my apologies if this is a repeat post--i have a '83 2001sn which i'd like to freshen the motor (2000hrs) & am trying to find most economical way to refresh