Pacific size wake behind 1983 SN.
Printed From: CorrectCraftFan.com
Category: General Correct Craft Discussion
Forum Name: Common Questions
Forum Discription: Visit here first for common questions regarding your Correct Craft
URL: http://www.CorrectCraftFan.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=22900
Printed Date: November-26-2024 at 8:37pm
Topic: Pacific size wake behind 1983 SN.
Posted By: skiboy
Subject: Pacific size wake behind 1983 SN.
Date Posted: July-31-2011 at 10:59pm
| I recently purchased a 1983 (2001) SN. after skiing behind my $700.00 Larson for years. I made the magical jump to a great ski boat and I am afraid to challenge the wake. It is thigh high!! Did the skiers in 1983 really deal with this? I really don't know what to do. Next weekend I want to put the SN. in the garage and pull out the Larson again so I can have fun skiing again. Please I need answers on how to get the wake under control. |
Replies:
Posted By: jimsport93
Date Posted: August-01-2011 at 12:03am
|
Rusty, something is not right. Did you test drive the boat before you bought it? How was the wake? You skiing at good speeed? Running good RPM's?
My first inclination is that the boat may be heavy with waterlogged foam flotation. Which is a common ailment on that era of boat. Got any pics of the boat sitting in the water? ------------- http://www.correctcraftfan.com/diaries/details.asp?ID=2798 - 93 Sport Nautique |
Posted By: 8122pbrainard
Date Posted: August-01-2011 at 1:39am
Dito!! Rusty, Welcome to CCfan but, you must provide more info. You may have as mentioned. purchased a hull with close to 1000lbs of extra "ballast" in it!!!!  ------------- /diaries/details.asp?ID=1622" rel="nofollow - 54 Atom /diaries/details.asp?ID=2179" rel="nofollow - 77 Tique 64 X55 Dunphy Keep it original, Pete < |
jimsport93 wrote:Posted By: skiboy
Date Posted: August-01-2011 at 2:31am
| I have talked to SN. owners on the lake and they have no problems with their wake whatsoever. If there are ballasts in the boat it would be in the back under the seat, right. We have had the calling up and don't see anything in the hull. The boat was owned before by a doctor that put a brand new motor in and thought he would damage his transmission so he went ahead and replaced that too. He was a wake surfer and a wake boarder, could he have added weight to the rear of the boat and hid it. |
Posted By: skiboy
Date Posted: August-01-2011 at 2:32am
| Thank you guys so much for your reply.. |
Posted By: bkhallpass
Date Posted: August-01-2011 at 2:39am
|
Skiboy, what they are saying is that These 82-89 vintage ski nautiques are know for water getting under the floor and saturating the flotation foam. Once in, it can't get out. It is not uncommom for the boat to weigh several hundred pounds extra. Two ways to tell. 1) weigh the boat, or 2, look at pictures to see where the boat is sitting in the water.
BKH ------------- Livin' the Dream |
Posted By: bkhallpass
Date Posted: August-01-2011 at 2:40am
|
P.S. By todays standards, teh 82-89 Ski Nautique does have a big, tall and hard wake. But, it should be nowhere near as bad as you have described. If you Larson is an outboard, it is going to have a smaller wake than any inboard you will buy, period. However, it will also track poorly. BKH ------------- Livin' the Dream |
Posted By: skiboy
Date Posted: August-01-2011 at 2:42am
| The boat has been kept on a trailer up till three weeks ago with the plug out. It has been in the water at a slip for the past three weeks. the wake is no different now than it was three weeks ago. I have no problem ripping out the floor and taking out the ballasts if that is a possibility. We considered attaching a piece of metal to the back of the boat to bring down the front and lessen up the wake. The boat rides with the front in the air at what seems to to high, and also bounces through the water when the water is wavy. We burned 15 gallons of gas in two hours of skiing today |
Posted By: skiboy
Date Posted: August-01-2011 at 2:46am
|
bkhallpass,
So I have to change the flotation foam?? |
Posted By: 8122pbrainard
Date Posted: August-01-2011 at 9:39am
|
Rusty,
You are misunderstanding our comments. There is NO ballast in that boat. The extra weight is from water saturated flotation foam. It needs to come out and most likely you will need to do a stringer job on it as well. The porpoising and bow high condition you have described is telling us you have a problem. Trim tabs? No, that's not an option!!! It doesn't matter how the boat was stored or if it's been in the water for 3 weeks or it's full 28 years. Thw water gets into the foam. You may have purchased a big problem!! However, you will find many here that have done stringer jobs. There's plenty of info on the site plus plenty of help from a great group of members if needed. BTW, How many people do you typically have in the boat? Beyond the driver and observer, you are not creating ideal ski boat conditions. Leave the rest of the group at the dock and go out skiing. ------------- /diaries/details.asp?ID=1622" rel="nofollow - 54 Atom /diaries/details.asp?ID=2179" rel="nofollow - 77 Tique 64 X55 Dunphy Keep it original, Pete < |
Posted By: Bryan89
Date Posted: August-01-2011 at 10:06am
|
I had a 1989 2001 that was within a few pounds of advertised weight (no extra weight from wet form) and the ski wake was not good. That is why these boats are so popular with wake boarders. I am a slalom skier and sold the boat to get a 97 SN because I wanted a better ski wake.
What speed are you skiing? These boats have the best wake at 34mph and above. Anything below looks like the pacific. My wife skis at 28mph and the wake was at her knees. Also, the slower you ski the higher the bow rise. What is your skill level? Recreational skiers that cross the wake with a flat ski are punished, if you stay on edge the wake is manageable. If you shorten the rope the wake get a little better as well. I would check the weight first before assuming a major problem. Outboards have smaller wakes. Look at bass boat trimmed out, hardly any wake at all but not good ski machines because they don't track and the back end can be pulled around. Bryan |
Posted By: emccallum
Date Posted: August-01-2011 at 11:57am
|
Good points Bryan. On my 95SNOB I ski my daughter at 22off and 26mph. She hates 15off b/c "it has two wakes". The better you get, the better the wake gets.
My 82 wake is pretty hard. You can try to add some weight to the front of the boat. It helps the wake on my 95SNOB. I ski in a course at 34mph behind a new MC. You really feel the wake at 15 and 22off. Once you get into 28, 32, and 35 it is nonexistent. That is why they are a "Competition Ski Boat". |
Posted By: bkhallpass
Date Posted: August-01-2011 at 12:56pm
|
You need to determine what the problem is. I would not go tearing into the floor. Once you know what the problem is, then you can figure out what to do.
Saturate foam/water weight is one potential cause/problem. You may just be dealing with a normal wake on a 82-89 hull, although given the fuel consumption, I don't think so. Until we see a picture or some other data, it is hard to know. BKH ------------- Livin' the Dream |
Posted By: Jllogan
Date Posted: August-01-2011 at 4:50pm
|
yes, that fuel consumption seems extremely high!! I went on saturday with 6 people in the boat and we burnt about 3 gallons per hour. That was a mix of wakeboarding at around 21-23 and skiing, pulling two skiers mostly at around 25, and slaloming at 30-33. I personally slalom at 33 with just 10 off the rope and find the wake to be negligable at this speed. My wife only likes to go 28-29 and she complains a little more. On two skiis, who cares. I like a bigger wake to jump off and what not, what else do you do on 2 skiis.
These boats where designed for competition so 33-35 mph. They did not care what the wake was like any slower than that. However at about 21-23 you have a killer wakeboard boat. That is why I love mine. I can have awesome wakeboard wakes at 22 and good ski wake at 33. Your fuel consumption sounds like a problem. ------------- http://correctcraftfan.com/diaries/details.asp?ID=5792&sort=&pagenum=1" rel="nofollow - 1986 Ski Nautique 2001 |
Posted By: Jllogan
Date Posted: August-01-2011 at 4:56pm
Here are some photo graphic comparisons. The first two pictures of me at about 33, more of a hump than a wake. The second two are probably between 23-25. It looks alot bigger when you are out there too but you should be able to see the difference. Also my floor needs to be replaced so I probably have some extra weight as well. I burn between 2-3gph with stock 351W.
    ------------- http://correctcraftfan.com/diaries/details.asp?ID=5792&sort=&pagenum=1" rel="nofollow - 1986 Ski Nautique 2001 |
Posted By: Tom351
Date Posted: August-01-2011 at 6:56pm
|
My 86SN wake is workable at 15off at 32-36mph, but 22off puts me right in the roostertail. It is original foam so it is probably a bit heavier than original, but it still seems to ride at the proper attitude.
Headcam video of skiing at 15off: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lmYa923x6YM&hd=1 - Headcam Slalom |
Posted By: Jllogan
Date Posted: August-01-2011 at 8:02pm
Tom, Nice footage. I feel like you get up a little quicker than I do. Do you give the boat full throttle? What do you weigh if you dont mind me asking. I feel that I drag alot more than you. Maybe its my technique. ------------- http://correctcraftfan.com/diaries/details.asp?ID=5792&sort=&pagenum=1" rel="nofollow - 1986 Ski Nautique 2001 |
Posted By: Tom351
Date Posted: August-01-2011 at 9:25pm
Thanks- My dad was driving in that clip and he usually throttles to about 80%-I weight about 190lbs- Now that I look at it: It does seem quicker to me on video than in real life though so maybe things "slow down" a bit when you are actually skiing and trying to hold on etc.... |
Posted By: P71_CrownVic
Date Posted: August-02-2011 at 1:39am
|
Here is my boats wake at 30. Just me and the previous owner in the boat.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EBdbd0B2_bg - YouTube ------------- |
Posted By: lewy2001
Date Posted: August-02-2011 at 11:57am
|
The ski wake on a 82-89 SN2001 hull is hard and high especially with adults in the back seat. If you want to swerve more seriously go with a minimal crew just driver and spotter and less than 1/2 a tank of fuel. The wake then is more user friendly. We find that 32-34mph at 15 off the best. ------------- If you're going through hell, keep going http://www.correctcraftfan.com/diaries/details.asp?ID=2999" rel="nofollow - 89 Ski <a href="http://www.correctcraftfan.com/diaries/details.asp?ID=5685" ta |
Posted By: TimSpangler
Date Posted: August-02-2011 at 3:50pm
| By comparison, my 82 with nobody in and a full tank of fuel, my platform is about 1-2" out of the water. With 2 adults and 2 kids the top of the platform is just sub water level (maybe 1/4" below) |
Posted By: skiboy
Date Posted: August-04-2011 at 10:32pm
| Man, thank you all for the great advise and videos. I guess the trick is swing wide, cut sharp, and hit it hard. We are returning to the lake this weekend with my video camera and will take video of what happens. I have to work out of town this coming week but I am sure my doughtier will upload the videos. I am not sure if my wake is any larger than Tom. |
Posted By: seacamper
Date Posted: August-21-2011 at 12:19pm
|
Hey Skiboy,
Also get a pic of the whole boat including the swim platform with no one in the boat from a couple angles so we can see if the boat is leaning fore/aft or side/side. If possible, load the boat as you use it and take a few pics as well including the platform. ------------- 1980 Ski Nautique Boat Bar 1988 Mastercraft Tristar Open Bow 1988 Mastercraft Tristar Closed Bow 1969 Seacamper Houseboat 1986 Harris Pontoon 2004 Seadoo GTX SC + Flydive Xboard 1999 Adventurecraft |