Competition Barefoot Boats, Non CC

Swatkinz wrote: GlassSeeker wrote: The big blocks are OK but in competition the 5 people plus the extra 200lbs of fat engine gave the wake a hump across the table so it has been determined that the small block with 400+hp is the way to go. The new LS series small blocks are supplied by Indmar and being all aluminum they are about 200 lbs lighter than a SBC. "Ski Sanger" is really generic advertising and does not refer to a specific model, It is common to hear people say I've got a Ski Sanger and if you ask them the model they think it's Ski Sanger. Most of the people who have them don't know the model they own. Seriously. And just because it says "Barefooter" on the side does not mean it's the DXII...Some DLX's (open bow inboard) got the plate and the sticker but it's not the DXII barefoot wake, close but not as good. Interesting that you point this out, b/c he told me that his rationale for going with the BB PCM was b/c he wanted to tournament load it for practice and felt he needed the additional power to achieve this. I could be wrong on this, but I believe he told me that the boat would easily pull a footer well into the 50+ range.

Swatkinz wrote: TRBenj wrote: GlassSeeker wrote: If you don't have 9 mins skip to 3:00 I just had the chance to watch this. Theres a healthy amount of marketing spin in there, IMHO. "Wood that will never rot"... now thats a new one. "These stringers are composite, they just have a wood core"... oh boy, thats a stretch. By that definition, CC has been putting composite stringers in their boats since 1961. While theres nothing inherently wrong with wood stringers, claiming that there is no better way to build a boat is really pushing it. Being a low volume manufacturer, it seems pretty obvious to me that Sanger chose to use better "cheap" core materials (wood) and a fairly high level of craftsmanship in order to build a high quality boat, rather than invest a considerable amount of money in extra molds for a truly composite stringer and floor system. Nothing wrong with that. A high strength composite sheet material like Coosa or Airex would be a suitable replacement for wood in terms of strength, and would only require minor process changes. I would consider that to be a "better" way to build a boat than what theyre currently doing. The downside is obviously cost. Wood may be "good enough" but I guess that doesnt make for a very convincing marketing video. There are definitely some design choices that are different when comparing a manufacturers like Sanger and CC... the role of foam, stringer core material, etc. One is not necessarily "better" than the other. For instance, while a wood core is obviously stronger than a foam core, when considering the entire stringer (with glass over it), they can end up with the same strength if a heavier glass schedule is used over the foam. Notice that the guy in the video doesnt say that Sanger's stringers are stronger- just that wood is a stronger core material than foam (or hollow). Well, duh. A few other interesting tidbits that I noticed from the video: 1. Primary stringers appear to be LVL (microlam) 2. Secondary stringers appear to be (treated?) ply, same with the front floor section shown. 3. Stringers seem to stop short of the transom, not sure why. 4. Method for installing the stringer systems looks to be as rudimentary as all of the home rebuilds documented on CCF... some clamps installed by hand and some weights thrown on top! (ref 5:00) Anyways, its really cool to see the process that other manufacturers use to build their boats- so thanks for posting. Its unlikely we'd see comparable pictures or videos coming from the big 3 (CC/MC/Bu), as they seem to hold their construction process pretty close to the vest. One of my favorite parts of going to the boat show every year is climbing in competing brands and trying to figure out how they are put together. "the guy" is Scott Pellaton right? The world record holder for fastest barefooter?

Could there be any truth to his statement that...."This wood cannot rot?" He references, the chemical treatment of the wood, the layers of glue..yadda, yadda. Does non-rotting wood exist? TRBENJ, you mentioned the use of Coosa in leiu of wood. You also referenced the cost prohibitive aspect of Coosa vs. wood. It would seem that given the entire cost of the boat, the cost difference of Coosa in the stringers would not drastically impact the cost of the boat. Unless the cost of Coosa is 50x what wood costs, it seems that there's not that much wood in a stringer system.

Regardless of Sanger's logic and the arguments of wood vs. composite, I like the look of Sangers' alot, especially the later boats with the one piece curved windshield.

Tim, I would say most of the guys on the site do a more through job by means of fit and finish when done!

GlassSeeker wrote: If you don't have 9 mins skip to 3:00

I just had the chance to watch this. Theres a healthy amount of marketing spin in there, IMHO. "Wood that will never rot"... now thats a new one. "These stringers are composite, they just have a wood core"... oh boy, thats a stretch. By that definition, CC has been putting composite stringers in their boats since 1961.

While theres nothing inherently wrong with wood stringers, claiming that there is no better way to build a boat is really pushing it. Being a low volume manufacturer, it seems pretty obvious to me that Sanger chose to use better "cheap" core materials (wood) and a fairly high level of craftsmanship in order to build a high quality boat, rather than invest a considerable amount of money in extra molds for a truly composite stringer and floor system. Nothing wrong with that. A high strength composite sheet material like Coosa or Airex would be a suitable replacement for wood in terms of strength, and would only require minor process changes. I would consider that to be a "better" way to build a boat than what theyre currently doing. The downside is obviously cost. Wood may be "good enough" but I guess that doesnt make for a very convincing marketing video.

There are definitely some design choices that are different when comparing a manufacturers like Sanger and CC... the role of foam, stringer core material, etc. One is not necessarily "better" than the other. For instance, while a wood core is obviously stronger than a foam core, when considering the entire stringer (with glass over it), they can end up with the same strength if a heavier glass schedule is used over the foam. Notice that the guy in the video doesnt say that Sanger's stringers are stronger- just that wood is a stronger core material than foam (or hollow). Well, duh.

A few other interesting tidbits that I noticed from the video:
1. Primary stringers appear to be LVL (microlam)
2. Secondary stringers appear to be (treated?) ply, same with the front floor section shown.
3. Stringers seem to stop short of the transom, not sure why.
4. Method for installing the stringer systems looks to be as rudimentary as all of the home rebuilds documented on CCF... some clamps installed by hand and some weights thrown on top! (ref 5:00)

Anyways, its really cool to see the process that other manufacturers use to build their boats- so thanks for posting. Its unlikely we'd see comparable pictures or videos coming from the big 3 (CC/MC/Bu), as they seem to hold their construction process pretty close to the vest. One of my favorite parts of going to the boat show every year is climbing in competing brands and trying to figure out how they are put together.

looks like we got us a convoy

Steve Merritt's wake turns off of the BFN wake are something to behold. His training video is awesome and it's CC BFN all the way.

I have a lot of vhs tape of some hilacious wipeouts off the BFN wake backwards, and forwards. Try to keep the foot on edge all the way thru the wake and some to be sure. If you can slice it it's not quite as much of a dropoff.

Andy great input on the Sanger and footing behind them. I still love the boats for footing.
Yes I agree wake slalom is a blast but you have to have the right wake if you are going to get agressive. My old ski friend had a Barefoot Supreme and the wake was un-crossable. We had a name for it that I cannot say on this site but it was BAD. Thanks for the education.

With the exception of getting air on Back Wakes off my BFN table I still like the boat overall....Good curl for tricks, flat table, excellent ride and you can foot behind it in rough water. Yes I know....I am old school.   

I know you know where it's sposed to be- LOL...It's close enough, it will be perp when you go out longline with it just because of the angle of the pull. It took me a few summers to learn it really well, like 5.
You are moving pretty fast really. You are improving it all the time, some days may not seem like it but as long as you continue to focus on doing it the best you can it will get better.

barefooting is 90% mental.

Think about turning it 110 degrees, so past 90. It's darn near skiing backwards.---In fact it is.

It would have felt more "solid" than say 43

I gotta say your pop in to the sideslide looks badazz! I did not see any up weight, you just turned em and burned em!

i´m planning on doing another test run, as last one potencial buyer (julio) could not assist! I went as his advisor!
we might even mount a SFH for the next outing, and of course do some ll runs...

I cannot cross wakes, probably due to the fact that the table on the sn is like running on rocks...I always end up doing face plants...

Consider this:

Do you do any barefoot wake slalom?

Most people don't do much because their wakes are not conducive to footing. And if you don't compete you may not find any reason to be crossing your wakes on one foot frontwards and backwards.

I can tell you wake slalom is fun and very challenging.

How many times can you cross it in 15 seconds? Basically the world record is 10 front one foots, and and another 15 seconds for 10 back one foots(2 passes) 1.5 seconds per cross...that's fast.

The wake is extremely important.

yup, thats the one, id say around 50, not sure how accurate the phone gps is but while ss they told my i was going 47 wich I doubt...

the bu is 5k up in price than the sanger with the same engine but has more resale potencial here...

Is that the boat you test drove/videos?
What was it's top speed?

Don't forget Sangers heritage is in going FAST with tons of horsepower.

Here's an 81