The Barefoot Nautique

Never footed, skied or been in/on a BFN, I had heard the TWC hull that came out in 99' was somewhat based on the BFN hull, in this case to create a bigger wake.

Nautique2001 wrote: Also, how do they form a flat wake with such a deep V in the rear?

I havent been in or behind one either, but a guy on our lake had an '89. It threw a pretty big wake, but supposedly the table is nice and flat.

Those lines along the bottom are called lifting strakes. They help the boat get more hull out of the water thus creating a smaller wake. That's the principal anyway, I too have never been behind one but it's doesn't matter, I want one.

The words barefoot and big block just do something for me, I will own one somewhere down the line. Hasbeenskiers 81 above is gonna look awesome when he's done with it.

Probably a lot better than a SN on a big lake. I wonder if they turn like a SN, or roll over and make a wide arc?

Sorry, most all the barefoot boats I footed behind were 2001's factory 'barefooted' with the 425 and tall pylon. The only CC barefoot boat I tried was and barefoot Excel, and the wake was mountainous.

Now, if you like low wakes and high speed, the Sanger DXII barefoot is superior and is the preferred boat of the barefoot gurus I used to foot with. The boat is brilliant, and well made, stable at speed and fast. There is not much better for an inboard, the Sanger outboard and Flightcraft are just a touch better.

Being in and behind just about every barefoot boat at one time or another, the Barefoot Nautique has the nicest table of any barefoot boat ever made. Flat, smooth and little tubulence. The wake curl is friggin' huge and harder than hell but once you get used to them, they really aren't bad for doing wake crosses front, back, one or two feet as long as you have good technique. They are extremely intimidating though. The Sanger Barefooter inboard is the epitome of barefoot boats right now like GottaSki said and have been since the early 90's. They will turn 50+ MPH easily with a 330HP Black Scorpion SB motor and they have a 8.1L option that damn near runs 60MPH. The wakes are small, smooth, non-turbulent and medium hard. The Sanger and Malibu Flightcraft outboards are even better but they are outboards after all and neither one is manufactured any longer. They also loose a lot of speed as you get more people/weight in the boat. Malibu has a barefoot option in their Response that has a 383 Hammerhead in it. The wake is OK but not nearly as good as the Sanger. Definitely better than a Barefoot Nautique though. That Hammerhead motor is friggin' awesome. We've run 47MPH with 4 footers in tow in a 2900# boat and still had throttle left.

the bfn's handle great in rough water, they are awsome at wakeboarding speed, take a few mphs and slalom wake is wonderfull, then hit her full up and you have your footin wake. I know my dad used to foot with three other guys, all of them averaged 220 or better and the could all foot behind an 89 bfn with not probelm 45mph and still some hammer left. I know they used to let me drive sometimes. Just never got to learn how to foot. Mom said was to little and wouldn't let dad teach us kids. Dad argued he can drive he can foot, but guess mom won on that one.

Growing up I never knew there was another inboard other then a master crap.

very true hasbeen, that would be alcohol abuse and we can't ahve that.

Hasebeen, did you ever close the deal on that 79 BFN with the 460? Tried asking on the other thread but no response guess you missed it.

haha yes tullfooter, sadly enough, it is true.... but it's alright we tolerate him anyhow...

Nate

yeah, we were probably 3/4 tank with 4 passengers and 1 40 oz Mickeys to distribute the weight more evenly... if my memory serves correctly.

ultrahots what was ford powered?

Tullfooter, missed your post when you posted I guess. No at the presant time I can not say I know how to foot. Tried numerous times with no luck. Going to hit it heavy this spring. I don't think I will be allowed to bring the BFN to GL not knowing how to foot. I plan on giving it hell in april with out the bar. If no luck may we put the cheater bar on and learn that way.

Face plants don't hurt that bad besides, my wife says it's pay back for dragging her out on the lake so early.

Damn Federov!!

81nautique wrote: ultrahots wrote: Alan that is the Ford Powered one pictured above. Yeah, I'm still second guessing letting that one go by but BJ will do a nice job with it.

Youre talking about this boat, right?

Its Ford powered, but its not a big block.

The boarding wake behind these boats is incredible for the era they were made in. Steep curl and it sends you to the moon. I had a 92 V drive. It had the identical wake to a friends 86 BFN direct drive. The slalom wake was decent and the footing wake was great. I learned my first backflips and undertakers on my kneeboard on a BFN. The one issue with my 92 was it only had a single skeg and handled like crap on turns. Short of that it was the second best boat I ever owned.

Dank as I said, I plan to cure the no footing this spring.