2001 vs NWZ for slalom
Printed From: CorrectCraftFan.com
Category: General Correct Craft Discussion
Forum Name: Ski, Ride and Foot Talk
Forum Discription: Share photos, techniques, discuss equipment, etc.
URL: http://www.CorrectCraftFan.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=34755
Printed Date: January-28-2025 at 12:07pm
Topic: 2001 vs NWZ for slalom
Posted By: Orlando76
Subject: 2001 vs NWZ for slalom
Date Posted: October-09-2014 at 6:25pm
| Shortly I'm gonna be in market for an NWZ, hopefully. But part of me always wanted a 2001hull bc I always thought them to be the sharpest Ski Nautiques made. Stumbled upon a 2001 that looks decent for the price. My question is, how's the slalom wake on a 2001? I know there's a rooster on 2001. I've never skied behind NWZ nor 2001. I basically only skied behind G2 SN. |
Replies:
Posted By: AAM196
Date Posted: October-09-2014 at 6:38pm
|
Not the best... but a very nice looking boat for sure! How aggressive are you in the course? I wouldn't be concerned about the rooster for slalom. |
Posted By: TRBenj
Date Posted: October-09-2014 at 6:39pm
|
NWZ is the first great slalom wake that cc made. The 2001 throws a pretty large wake by today's standards. The difference in cost between a clean 2001 and NWZ is not that large, it makes it hard to justify the performance difference per dollar if you're a slalom skier. The 2001 is a lot more "classic" looking, the NWZ was ahead of its time. The 19'6" / 91" footprint stayed the same for 20 years, that says something. Spray, tracking and wake size are all superior on the NWZ. It's a similar step forward from 2gen to 2001 as it is from 2001 to NWZ. Improvements on later hulls were smaller, mostly because they got it so right previously- there just wasn't worlds of improvement to be had anymore. I will say that the 97+ tsc did a nice job of softening the wakes features... Lip and rooster tail got a lot rounder and undefined. That's a world class wake even today but the NWZ is still very good, IMHO. I've spent more time in a course behind a 2001 and loved every minute of it- that wake will make a man out of you! Ha. |
Posted By: phatsat67
Date Posted: October-09-2014 at 6:48pm
|
Like Tim said, Going from a 2G SN to a 2001 will be a ton different. Stepping to a NWZ will be like stepping into the modern world. The 2001 wake is actually small and soft it's that hard rooster that gets you. If you're a stud and get past 22 off the rooster doesn't matter at that point but I haven't really got past that point in a 2001 so I can't comment much on the short line wake quality. Spray is a factor in the short line on the 2001. My friend in college (girl) had no issue running her 35 off pass (34 mph) behind my 2001 other than complaining about side spray. Usable storage will be much better in the NWZ. They will probably hand rough water similarly. Hole shot will be better on the gear reduction boat. I did appreciate skiing a 2001 hull in practice and getting by 19'6" boats in tournament situations ha. ------------- |
Posted By: phatsat67
Date Posted: October-09-2014 at 6:50pm
|
Also, for a solely slalom rig, I saw a big reduction in the rooster tail on my boat going with the 4 blade "pancake" 208 Acme prop. Never on a ski but visually in the mirror I noticed immediately. You pay about a 3 mph penalty in top end and reduction in hole shot with that prop but if you want to tame the wake down it works. ------------- |
Posted By: TRBenj
Date Posted: October-09-2014 at 6:56pm
I would definitely not call the 2001 wake soft or small! Incrementally harder than my Ski Tique/Skier, which I assume the 2gen SN being somewhere in between. That wake is large and will affect your skiing up until you get greeted by the rooster (-22 up to 34 you'll still contend with the wake). Rooster is gnarly (the NWZ is only somewhat improved in this regard- easily it's biggest weakness). I can't speak to the wake in front of the rooster, I never progressed past -28. . The longer the line and slower the speed, the better a NWZ will look in comparison.Storage is much improved on the NWZ with the hinged rear seat base and gullwing observer. 91" wide makes it roomy. The 87-89 2001 is only a few steps behind space-wise but the 82-86 boats are a bit tight. |
Posted By: JPASS
Date Posted: October-09-2014 at 8:54pm
You can ski behind our '92 if you'd like. ------------- '92 Correctcraft Ski Nautique |
Orlando76 wrote:Posted By: Orlando76
Date Posted: October-09-2014 at 10:07pm
|
All very good points. I just seen a sharp '85 and I started thinking away from my current "goal" which is the NWZ solely for skiing. Rooster doesn't bother me, at least not at 15 off. I can clear all 6 buoys at 15 off, and by all 6 I mean on the kiddy course I guess I'm starting to get a bit nervous too as I really shouldn't buy something until the new year and I feel the end of season Yankee boats that'll go cheap to avoid storage and winterization will be all bought up.
|
Posted By: Orlando76
Date Posted: October-09-2014 at 10:08pm
I think I might take you up on that sometime. I'm known to bring gas and beer. |
Posted By: JPASS
Date Posted: October-09-2014 at 10:35pm
Just say when ------------- '92 Correctcraft Ski Nautique |
Posted By: Gary S
Date Posted: October-09-2014 at 11:07pm
|
Would anyone say that the fit and finish of the NWZ boats is better too? I know you can't even compare my two ------------- http://www.correctcraftfan.com/diaries/details.asp?ID=1711&sort=&pagenum=1&yrstart=1966&yrend=1970" rel="nofollow - 69 Mustang HM SS 95 Nautique Super Sport |
Posted By: Orlando76
Date Posted: October-10-2014 at 6:41pm
|
Doing some internet window shopping and found http://sacramento.craigslist.org/bod/4705827872.html" rel="nofollow - this sharp 176 , guessing the 176 is equal with it's slalom wake as it's big brother? After seeing the "scrappy" picture at Benjamin's I've really liked the all white hulls. |
Posted By: MrMcD
Date Posted: October-11-2014 at 2:59am
|
I owned the 78 Nautique, 87 Malibu and now a 95 Nautique 196. The 78 was great in it's day and a very good solid boat with a Huge ski wake unless you went deep. At 15 off and 36 MPH you had to have loose knees on the wakes or you would launch. The 86 Malibu Skier had a fantastic wake. I went to 32 off never any deeper with it. The boat was poorly built, no where near the quality of a Nautique but it ran great going straight, looked good but turned poorly and with a lot of steering effort. Nautiques turn like you have power steering in comparison. The 95 Ski Nautique is a very well built boat. The wake is very good, much better than the 1978 version. Still larger than the Malibu and harder but very good, low spray and tracks great. I have yet to go deeper than 15 off and I am slowing down, skiing at 33 mph now. I think the wake would be better at 36 mph. We came back to Nautique because the engineering, fit and finish is better in every aspect of the boat. Hope that helps. |