Best Wake in Class |
Post Reply | Page 12> |
Author | |
Keeganino
Grand Poobah Joined: October-27-2009 Location: North Carolina Status: Offline Points: 2063 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Posted: January-28-2011 at 5:18pm |
There is a pretty cool discussion going on over on the "Looking for a wake pic @ 20MPH BFN" thread about how that particular hull will be for wakeboarding based on the wake characteristics.
So lets start with the glass boats and talk about which generation 1, 2, 3 models are best suited to which activity- Barefoot, Slalom and Wakeboarding. Which are the most coveted for each? |
|
"working on these old boats may not be cost effective but as it shows its what it brings into your life that matters" -Roger
1973 Skier |
|
kapla
Grand Poobah Joined: March-27-2008 Location: BA, Argentina Status: Offline Points: 6148 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
are we talking only on the ski nautique hull? or all CC in general?
I have a no wake zone hull...properly weighted +2000 lb throughs nice solid wake... For barefooting it has some serious turbulence on the table. I slalom ocassionally and crossing the wake seems to be fine. Anyway I can´t compare much. |
|
<a href="">1992 ski nautique
|
|
Keeganino
Grand Poobah Joined: October-27-2009 Location: North Carolina Status: Offline Points: 2063 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
I will start with my 73 Skier which is a 2cnd generation.
We wakeboard mostly so my experience is limited on other sports. At wakeboarding speed it is narrow so it is easier for beginners to clear the wake with a full length rope. It is pretty steep and is pretty clean as long as the weight is distributed properly. It is a small light boat so you have to move passengers around to keep it balanced and keep the wake clean. At 30mph the wake turns into a couple of bumps so if you are not a big person this is probably a great slalom boat. I have not slalomed behind her yet but know it would take an experienced driver to maintain speed with me tugging it around. Never tried to barefoot so I cant comment to that but it has a good hole shot which seems like it would be important. Thats me behind the Skier |
|
"working on these old boats may not be cost effective but as it shows its what it brings into your life that matters" -Roger
1973 Skier |
|
Keeganino
Grand Poobah Joined: October-27-2009 Location: North Carolina Status: Offline Points: 2063 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
All models. Some of these guys have been in so many boats that they know the difference between models, years, etc. Would be cool to have all that info in one place for reference. |
|
"working on these old boats may not be cost effective but as it shows its what it brings into your life that matters" -Roger
1973 Skier |
|
storm34
Grand Poobah Joined: November-03-2008 Location: Dexter Iowa Status: Offline Points: 4492 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
Still love the late 2001 hull for slalom, probably just got comfortable with it over the last 10 years behind the boat. 28 off was butter smooth.
96 is a great ride as well, pulls much harder than the 88 |
|
TRBenj
Grand Poobah Joined: June-29-2005 Location: NWCT Status: Offline Points: 21169 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
The best slalom boat would be the newest Ski Nautique (200). The next best slalom boats would be 196/Ski Nautique from newest to oldest (TSC2/3, TSC1, No Wake Zone, 2001). The 206 probably fits between the TSC1 and No Wake Zone. The 2nd gen direct drive Sport/Air fits between the No Wake Zone and 2001. I would consider all 1990+ Ski Nautiques to be very good slalom boats. Slaloming behind the BFN is like tripping over a knee high curb. The older 16' boats (Skier/Tique/Mustang) throw pretty big wakes even at slalom speeds- but theyre VERY soft- so if your ski is on edge you can slice right through.
The best barefoot wake goes to the BFN. The table is sweet. The wake is still big though. No other CC Ive footed behind has what I would call a "good" barefoot wake... though if youre not doing wake crossings it doesnt really matter. I havent footed behind the 200, but the TSC2/3 has the best table of all the prior SN's- the No Wake Zone and 2001 require a long rope to get behind the turbulance. Anything with 300+ hp is going to give you pretty much all the speed you need for 1-footers, save for maybe the new 343hp 200. The 240hp 2001 and No Wake Zone boats are marginal for 1-foot speeds (~41-42 on a good day), IMHO. Ive footed behind the older boats a handful of times but havent ventured any wake crossings that I can remember. Stock power from a 302 powered 16' boat is about on par with the base 351w Ski Nautiques... adequate but not overwhelming. Wakeboarding isnt really my thing, but the best shaped wakes in my opinion (not counting all the dedicated wakeboats of the last 15 years) would be the 2001, followed by the No Wake Zone. TSC1 and newer SN's have small, round wakes. The BFN throws a big wake, but its rampier and has a washy lip compared to the 2001. The older 16' boats have narrow, steep wakes- so theyre fun to play around with. |
|
kapla
Grand Poobah Joined: March-27-2008 Location: BA, Argentina Status: Offline Points: 6148 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
I´ve also boarded reclently behind BKH´s SAN and it puts a nice wake that I can´t match with mine even with full ballast...
I have also boarded in a 98 Pro air nautique some years ago and wake was also very nice, very solid..always with some considerable ballast. |
|
<a href="">1992 ski nautique
|
|
Hollywood
Moderator Group Joined: February-04-2004 Location: Twin Lakes, WI Status: Offline Points: 13513 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
I want to barefoot behind a first generation Sport Nautique. Something tells me it has the table shape of the Barefoot Nautique at the height of a No Wake Zone. I want to experiment with this hull.
|
|
MI-nick
Gold Member Joined: January-12-2009 Location: Ypsilanti, MI Status: Offline Points: 810 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
i have an '88 and a '93 that are both used only for wakeboarding.
here is a photo of the '93 with ~100lbs + 4 people here is a bad photo of the '88 with about 700lbs + 3 people comparing the above configurations, the '88 is larger, a little steeper, and narrower...and more fun...sport, supersport, super air would easily trump them both...but, the '88 can get downright huge with more weight... |
|
As far as I can tell, I'm not quite sure...
|
|
BFNSport
Senior Member Joined: March-06-2010 Location: Lowell Michigan Status: Offline Points: 211 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
When posting please specifie if it is a Ski or Barefoot model boat
Thanks |
|
MI-nick
Gold Member Joined: January-12-2009 Location: Ypsilanti, MI Status: Offline Points: 810 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
mine are both ski nautique models.
|
|
As far as I can tell, I'm not quite sure...
|
|
Tim D
Grand Poobah Joined: August-23-2004 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 2641 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
An '87-88 2001 with some weight is hard to beat. A good solid wake.
|
|
Tim D
|
|
Eric H
Groupie Joined: September-13-2007 Location: Laurel, MD Status: Offline Points: 40 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
this behind my 71 sorry its a crash picture thats all i got. No weight just 3 people. |
|
TRBenj
Grand Poobah Joined: June-29-2005 Location: NWCT Status: Offline Points: 21169 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
TimD, any reason a 82-86 or '89 2001 would be any different than the '87-88?
Eric, its probably worth mentioning that you have a '71 Martinique- same hull as the 2nd gen (1970-1981) Ski Nautique. |
|
davidg
Grand Poobah Joined: January-07-2008 Location: NW Chicagoland Status: Offline Points: 2239 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
I have become interested in the 1st generation Sport Nautiques as well....only from a slalom, or wakeboard perspective. I like the fact these boats have a walk through bow rider section. I wouldn't mind having one of these one day. Any thoughts on the wakes of these boats? |
|
lewy2001
Grand Poobah Joined: March-19-2008 Location: NSW Australia Status: Offline Points: 2234 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
Was looking at a 89 Sport to import at one stage. There is not a lot of info on their wake characteristics. They look to have a reasonably flat hull at the rear compared to a deep v like a BFN.
|
|
If you're going through hell, keep going
89 Ski <a href="http://www.correctcraftfan.com/diaries/details.asp?ID=5685" ta |
|
Tim D
Grand Poobah Joined: August-23-2004 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 2641 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
TRB, just actual boats I've skied behind.
|
|
Tim D
|
|
Hollywood
Moderator Group Joined: February-04-2004 Location: Twin Lakes, WI Status: Offline Points: 13513 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
Which I believe would make the wake shorter and more skiable. The hull looks A LOT like the Sanger DX hull. The DLX and DXII is almost identical except that outer set of lifting strakes stop 1' short of the transom. The table on the DLX is very nice even w/o the plate. GlassSeeker's DX. |
|
east tx skier
Senior Member Joined: August-22-2006 Location: Tyler, TX Status: Offline Points: 248 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
I'll toss up these pictures of the TSC slalom wake from my 98 SN. I haven't had any complaints. I have skied each incarnation of the TSC hulls and don't find a lot of difference between them, with maybe a slight nod for slalom going to the TSC2.
32 mph 34 mph 36 mph |
|
davidg
Grand Poobah Joined: January-07-2008 Location: NW Chicagoland Status: Offline Points: 2239 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
Any thoughts on the various 2001 configurations for slalom? I used to ski behind an '83 some years ago. I remember a pretty good "bump" at the wake at 30 mph/15' off.
'82-'86: Original hull/deck/motor '87-'88: Original hull/New deck that moved the cockpit forward ~4" '89: Original hull/same deck as '87-'88, but w/PowerPlus trans Did the changes through the years improve the slalom wake much? |
|
storm34
Grand Poobah Joined: November-03-2008 Location: Dexter Iowa Status: Offline Points: 4492 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
I've heard the 89 with the PP trans makes a difference for boarding but cannot remember where I saw this post. I'm sure Snobsessed can chime in with a bit more info?
|
|
lewy2001
Grand Poobah Joined: March-19-2008 Location: NSW Australia Status: Offline Points: 2234 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
David the slalom wake on my 89 is average to OK. I don't think you will be setting any world records though. My slalom technique is probably worse than the boat though. I have upped the slalom speed to 34-35mph and that does help with the "bump".
Recently tried a Acme 470 3 blade prop and the rooster tail was much worse at slalom speeds than the 4 blade 422. This was due to the increased rpms required I think. Hollywood I wonder where CC got the hull design for the 1st gen Sports from? It is very different to their normal hull shape with no small v down the spine of the hull and a integrated swim platform. Would like to see some wake pictures at slalom and boarding speeds. The 89 Sport I was looking at was Azeus17's the price was down to $7000 before it sold. He sent me a lot of pictures but no wake pictures. |
|
If you're going through hell, keep going
89 Ski <a href="http://www.correctcraftfan.com/diaries/details.asp?ID=5685" ta |
|
Keeganino
Grand Poobah Joined: October-27-2009 Location: North Carolina Status: Offline Points: 2063 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
Nice pics Doug thanks! This is pretty cool. You show me your wake I'll show you mine It will probably be another month before we get back out.
|
|
"working on these old boats may not be cost effective but as it shows its what it brings into your life that matters" -Roger
1973 Skier |
|
SNobsessed
Grand Poobah Joined: October-21-2007 Location: IA Status: Offline Points: 7102 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
I can't say if the 1.23 tranny makes any difference because the only other inboard I have driven was a 2000+ Air V drive.
We are very happy with our '89. Usually don't even fill the fat sacs full. I myself don't get air so the wake is just bumps for me to cross. My son, on the other hand loves the curls ... |
|
“Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy.”
Ben Franklin |
|
Tomski
Senior Member Joined: October-19-2006 Location: United Kingdom Status: Offline Points: 227 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
I've never heard anyone complain about the wake behind the 2001.
I like the simplicity - no ballast, no pumps, no plumbing - 20mph 65-70ft - there it is. The wake is not huige, but the shape is perfect. Sacking it out makes it a little higher, but does not improve the shape in my exp. We have two identical boats and ran them side by side, one with a shiz load weight and mine with none. The general consensus was that the weight was not worth the extra fuel and more difficult driving. |
|
Easily Parted From Money
|
|
rogier
Groupie Joined: September-01-2008 Location: Netherlands Status: Offline Points: 77 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
GREAT boat for wakeboarding.. I just sold my 1992 sport, the same boat and same hull. The wake is wide and needs weight (+800lbs) to become high, but it's always clean and hard. I would say it can produce a wake that is of the same quality as the super sport Nautique (1996) that I have bought, which is the same boat as the 1996-2005 super air Nautique. This sounds great, however, there is a downside: As soon as you let go of the power, the huge swell behind you is going to catch up with the boat. In a normal Nautique this is not a problem, however with the 1989-1992 sport Nautique has a ramped rear end and the water will overflow into the boat. You can prevent this by steering away from the wake, so no problem, but a novice pilot will result in wet feet. When the weather turns bad, and you are boating on the open sea, this boat needs to be as empty as possible. I have been in a weighted down boat and there have been occasions where I've actually beached it to prevent sinking. |
|
watrski
Senior Member Joined: December-01-2010 Location: Chippewa Lake Status: Offline Points: 393 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
The best wake is the one connected to the boat pulling me :)
|
|
Tubing Sucks.
|
|
phatsat67
Grand Poobah Joined: March-13-2006 Location: Indiana Status: Offline Points: 6150 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
I prefer 06-09 for slalom. I don't like the 22 off bump on my 86 but if you are on edge it doesn't matter. I haven't got to ski a 200 yet but Mark tells me the table is fire on your feet while barefooting. The wake behind my friends 01 is great as well for slalom. I know skiing at tournaments in college slalom the Malibu had the biggest bump but it was soft and Mastercraft was just tall hard and terrible.
|
|
Kristof
Grand Poobah Joined: October-08-2007 Location: Bree, Belgium Status: Offline Points: 3397 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
|
- Gun control means: using BOTH hands!
- Money doesn't make one happy, but when it rains cats and dogs, it's still better to cry in a Porsche than on a bicycle... |
|
must_dash
Senior Member Joined: August-27-2011 Location: Lake Maggiore, Status: Offline Points: 223 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
Same for the late 80s Martinique. Sometimes need climbing kit... Also the wrong shape for wakeboarding. |
|
1986 Martinique - sold
When we ask for advice, we are usually looking for an accomplice. |
|
Post Reply | Page 12> |
Tweet
|
Forum Jump | Forum Permissions You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |