1997 Carbon TSC

Glad to hear you're still improving it. Love the concept.

Thanks for the update Paul, enjoyed reading about the project in the earlier thread. That boat certainly floats high with barely any hull in the water.

I was reading on Ball of Spray about some people putting 30-50 lbs in the bow of TSC1's, they feel it helps the wakes at ski speeds. I ski on 2 TSC's, a '97 and a '98 that a few friends have, and the wakes are outstanding as is. Maybe that weight brings them closer to a later TSC but to me it has to be a pretty subtle difference.

63 Skier wrote: Thanks for the update Paul, enjoyed reading about the project in the earlier thread. That boat certainly floats high with barely any hull in the water. I was reading on Ball of Spray about some people putting 30-50 lbs in the bow of TSC1's, they feel it helps the wakes at ski speeds. I ski on 2 TSC's, a '97 and a '98 that a few friends have, and the wakes are outstanding as is. Maybe that weight brings them closer to a later TSC but to me it has to be a pretty subtle difference.

I think there is a misunderstanding about wakes. It's about the divot, hollow or dent that is created by the hull, not the actual wake itself. So as CC hacked up the TSC hull through the years, they :

- lightened the boat, and changed weight distribution
-flattened off the hull shape (no padded keel)
-moved things forward/ to center
-added lift by various methods in the hull surface design

Our lake is pure, pure water - 600++ feet deep in areas. The water is stiff and difficult to ski in. There is a lot of drag and the effect of wakes are amplified,

So weight loss reduces the down/-ve portion of the wake. By using the tabs I spread the effect of the padded keel a bit from one rooster into three.

CC designed the boat to essentially level off at full throttle, because the boat is of fixed trim design. Not what you want to do to reduce surface drag tho! Of course for top speed we need to get the bow to lift and reduce wetted surface.

However for slalom skiing we need full surface area engaged at 34-36 mph. This reduces the divot and improves skiing. So a crude, much less ideal way to do that is to add bow weight.   On a stock boat I would rather see trim tabs added to accomplish that role, assuming you are not going above say 40 mph with the tabs working.

the SN200 is an example of "spreading the load". It's a wide hull that saps more energy but produces a smaller dent. Smaller dent = happier skiers. Can't say that for it's carbon footprint.

Hey Paul, who did your top? I have a similar top minus the sides and its not quite as large... but has bought us many additional hours of ski time.

I have considered having a new one made and liked yours... it seems to hold its shape a bit better than mine... are there any battens in it? Do you get any water between your top and windshield? Mine is fine in light to medium rain and under 30mph..

Can you fire me off some closeup pics... here is what I currently have (only pic I have at work).

AAM196 wrote: Hey Paul, who did your top? I have a similar top minus the sides and its not quite as large... but has bought us many additional hours of ski time. I have considered having a new one made and liked yours... it seems to hold its shape a bit better than mine... are there any battens in it? Do you get any water between your top and windshield? Mine is fine in light to medium rain and under 30mph.. Can you fire me off some closeup pics... here is what I currently have (only pic I have at work).

My top was custom made locally here in 1999 - very much like the fishing boats on the coast. It hardly looks fast but actually doesn't impact top speed at all. Very comfortable being high enough (my wife's idea) so I don't bonk my head. It has shrunk and pulled the windshield frame up a bit from the glass.

There's definitely some weight savings to be had under the doghouse, not going to be cheap though.

the answer is obviously go carburetor

Why would you need fresh water cooling? Plenty of raw water cooled engines out there with aluminum heads and intakes that are doing just fine after many years and hours. Maybe if he was going to run in salt...

TRBenj wrote: Why would you need fresh water cooling? Plenty of raw water cooled engines out there with aluminum heads and intakes that are doing just fine after many years and hours. Maybe if he was going to run in salt...

Tim,
Note I did say "if" fresh water cooling was used. Yes, there are plenty of engines running aluminum components in contact with cooling water and without problems. Also, there are engines with aluminum that did and do have corrosion problems. Granted, these are early engines before coatings such as anodizing became the norm but also, lots of new engines are coming from the factory with fresh water systems. I feel this is both as a secondary prevention of potential corrosion as well as running higher engine temps.

Good idea Hollywood, Lexan instead of glass!


Perhaps play with some rough engine estimates...

331 (302) shortblock vs 351 minus 75#
Aluminum heads   minus 40#
Intake - both are Aluminum, but 5.0 would be much less aluminum. minus 10, maybe 15#
Carb - Add 5#
Aluminum Water pump - minus 5#
Lets go full retard and use Ti intake,water pump, oil pan, bellhousing bolts ?#

Front cover, if is iron , to Al - 5#.. If now missing the raw water pump mount, go Indmar style RWP crank drive - nothing is simpler or lighter.

Some engine mounts could be recast in AL or machined from billet. ?#

5# could be taken off that flywheel, and the engine will launch with a vengeance as well.