Best Wake in Class
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=20485
Printed Date: May-07-2024 at 1:25pm
Topic: Best Wake in Class
Posted By: Keeganino
Subject: Best Wake in Class
Date Posted: January-28-2011 at 5:18pm
|
There is a pretty cool discussion going on over on the "Looking for a wake pic @ 20MPH BFN" thread about how that particular hull will be for wakeboarding based on the wake characteristics.
So lets start with the glass boats and talk about which generation 1, 2, 3 models are best suited to which activity- Barefoot, Slalom and Wakeboarding. Which are the most coveted for each? ------------- "working on these old boats may not be cost effective but as it shows its what it brings into your life that matters" -Roger http://www.correctcraftfan.com/diaries/details.asp?ID=4897" rel="nofollow - 1973 Skier |
Replies:
Posted By: kapla
Date Posted: January-28-2011 at 5:33pm
|
are we talking only on the ski nautique hull? or all CC in general?
I have a no wake zone hull...properly weighted +2000 lb throughs nice solid wake... For barefooting it has some serious turbulence on the table. I slalom ocassionally and crossing the wake seems to be fine. Anyway I can´t compare much. ------------- <a href="">1992 ski nautique |
Posted By: Keeganino
Date Posted: January-28-2011 at 5:35pm
I will start with my 73 Skier which is a 2cnd generation.
We wakeboard mostly so my experience is limited on other sports. At wakeboarding speed it is narrow so it is easier for beginners to clear the wake with a full length rope. It is pretty steep and is pretty clean as long as the weight is distributed properly. It is a small light boat so you have to move passengers around to keep it balanced and keep the wake clean. At 30mph the wake turns into a couple of bumps so if you are not a big person this is probably a great slalom boat. I have not slalomed behind her yet but know it would take an experienced driver to maintain speed with me tugging it around. Never tried to barefoot so I cant comment to that but it has a good hole shot which seems like it would be important. Thats me behind the Skier  ------------- "working on these old boats may not be cost effective but as it shows its what it brings into your life that matters" -Roger http://www.correctcraftfan.com/diaries/details.asp?ID=4897" rel="nofollow - 1973 Skier |
Posted By: Keeganino
Date Posted: January-28-2011 at 5:37pm
All models. Some of these guys have been in so many boats that they know the difference between models, years, etc. Would be cool to have all that info in one place for reference. ------------- "working on these old boats may not be cost effective but as it shows its what it brings into your life that matters" -Roger http://www.correctcraftfan.com/diaries/details.asp?ID=4897" rel="nofollow - 1973 Skier |
kapla wrote:Posted By: storm34
Date Posted: January-28-2011 at 5:43pm
|
Still love the late 2001 hull for slalom, probably just got comfortable with it over the last 10 years behind the boat. 28 off was butter smooth.
96 is a great ride as well, pulls much harder than the 88 ------------- |
Posted By: TRBenj
Date Posted: January-28-2011 at 6:05pm
|
The best slalom boat would be the newest Ski Nautique (200). The next best slalom boats would be 196/Ski Nautique from newest to oldest (TSC2/3, TSC1, No Wake Zone, 2001). The 206 probably fits between the TSC1 and No Wake Zone. The 2nd gen direct drive Sport/Air fits between the No Wake Zone and 2001. I would consider all 1990+ Ski Nautiques to be very good slalom boats. Slaloming behind the BFN is like tripping over a knee high curb. The older 16' boats (Skier/Tique/Mustang) throw pretty big wakes even at slalom speeds- but theyre VERY soft- so if your ski is on edge you can slice right through.
The best barefoot wake goes to the BFN. The table is sweet. The wake is still big though. No other CC Ive footed behind has what I would call a "good" barefoot wake... though if youre not doing wake crossings it doesnt really matter. I havent footed behind the 200, but the TSC2/3 has the best table of all the prior SN's- the No Wake Zone and 2001 require a long rope to get behind the turbulance. Anything with 300+ hp is going to give you pretty much all the speed you need for 1-footers, save for maybe the new 343hp 200. The 240hp 2001 and No Wake Zone boats are marginal for 1-foot speeds (~41-42 on a good day), IMHO. Ive footed behind the older boats a handful of times but havent ventured any wake crossings that I can remember. Stock power from a 302 powered 16' boat is about on par with the base 351w Ski Nautiques... adequate but not overwhelming. Wakeboarding isnt really my thing, but the best shaped wakes in my opinion (not counting all the dedicated wakeboats of the last 15 years) would be the 2001, followed by the No Wake Zone. TSC1 and newer SN's have small, round wakes. The BFN throws a big wake, but its rampier and has a washy lip compared to the 2001. The older 16' boats have narrow, steep wakes- so theyre fun to play around with. ------------- |
Posted By: kapla
Date Posted: January-28-2011 at 6:07pm
|
I´ve also boarded reclently behind BKH´s SAN and it puts a nice wake that I can´t match with mine even with full ballast...
I have also boarded in a 98 Pro air nautique some years ago and wake was also very nice, very solid..always with some considerable ballast. ------------- <a href="">1992 ski nautique |
Posted By: Hollywood
Date Posted: January-28-2011 at 6:15pm
|
I want to barefoot behind a first generation Sport Nautique. Something tells me it has the table shape of the Barefoot Nautique at the height of a No Wake Zone. I want to experiment with this hull. ------------- |
Posted By: MI-nick
Date Posted: January-28-2011 at 6:44pm
|
i have an '88 and a '93 that are both used only for wakeboarding.
here is a photo of the '93 with ~100lbs + 4 people 
here is a bad photo of the '88 with about 700lbs + 3 people 
comparing the above configurations, the '88 is larger, a little steeper, and narrower...and more fun...sport, supersport, super air would easily trump them both...but, the '88 can get downright huge with more weight... ------------- As far as I can tell, I'm not quite sure... |
Posted By: BFNSport
Date Posted: January-28-2011 at 6:50pm
|
When posting please specifie if it is a Ski or Barefoot model boat
Thanks |
Posted By: MI-nick
Date Posted: January-28-2011 at 7:06pm
|
mine are both ski nautique models. ------------- As far as I can tell, I'm not quite sure... |
Posted By: Tim D
Date Posted: January-28-2011 at 8:13pm
|
An '87-88 2001 with some weight is hard to beat. A good solid wake. ------------- Tim D |
Posted By: Eric H
Date Posted: January-30-2011 at 1:16pm
this behind my 71 sorry its a crash picture thats all i got. No weight just 3 people. |
Posted By: TRBenj
Date Posted: January-30-2011 at 1:24pm
|
TimD, any reason a 82-86 or '89 2001 would be any different than the '87-88?
Eric, its probably worth mentioning that you have a '71 Martinique- same hull as the 2nd gen (1970-1981) Ski Nautique. ------------- |
Posted By: davidg
Date Posted: January-30-2011 at 2:16pm
I have become interested in the 1st generation Sport Nautiques as well....only from a slalom, or wakeboard perspective. I like the fact these boats have a walk through bow rider section. I wouldn't mind having one of these one day. Any thoughts on the wakes of these boats? |
Posted By: lewy2001
Date Posted: January-30-2011 at 7:50pm
Was looking at a 89 Sport to import at one stage. There is not a lot of info on their wake characteristics. They look to have a reasonably flat hull at the rear compared to a deep v like a BFN.
 ------------- 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: Tim D
Date Posted: January-30-2011 at 8:42pm
|
TRB, just actual boats I've skied behind. ------------- Tim D |
Posted By: Hollywood
Date Posted: January-31-2011 at 5:20pm
Which I believe would make the wake shorter and more skiable. The hull looks A LOT like the Sanger DX hull. The DLX and DXII is almost identical except that outer set of lifting strakes stop 1' short of the transom. The table on the DLX is very nice even w/o the plate. GlassSeeker's DX. 
 ------------- |
Posted By: east tx skier
Date Posted: January-31-2011 at 5:55pm
|
I'll toss up these pictures of the TSC slalom wake from my 98 SN. I haven't had any complaints. I have skied each incarnation of the TSC hulls and don't find a lot of difference between them, with maybe a slight nod for slalom going to the TSC2.
32 mph 
34 mph 
36 mph  ------------- http://correctcraftfan.com/diaries/details.asp?ID=2383&sort=&pagenum=7&yrstart=1996&yrend=2000 - 1998 Ski Nautique (Red & Silver Cloud); GT-40; Perfect Pass Stargazer; Acme 422. |
Posted By: davidg
Date Posted: January-31-2011 at 8:12pm
|
Any thoughts on the various 2001 configurations for slalom? I used to ski behind an '83 some years ago. I remember a pretty good "bump" at the wake at 30 mph/15' off.
'82-'86: Original hull/deck/motor '87-'88: Original hull/New deck that moved the cockpit forward ~4" '89: Original hull/same deck as '87-'88, but w/PowerPlus trans Did the changes through the years improve the slalom wake much? |
Posted By: storm34
Date Posted: January-31-2011 at 8:46pm
|
I've heard the 89 with the PP trans makes a difference for boarding but cannot remember where I saw this post. I'm sure Snobsessed can chime in with a bit more info? ------------- |
Posted By: lewy2001
Date Posted: January-31-2011 at 8:58pm
|
David the slalom wake on my 89 is average to OK. I don't think you will be setting any world records though. My slalom technique is probably worse than the boat though. I have upped the slalom speed to 34-35mph and that does help with the "bump".
Recently tried a Acme 470 3 blade prop and the rooster tail was much worse at slalom speeds than the 4 blade 422. This was due to the increased rpms required I think. Hollywood I wonder where CC got the hull design for the 1st gen Sports from? It is very different to their normal hull shape with no small v down the spine of the hull and a integrated swim platform. Would like to see some wake pictures at slalom and boarding speeds. The 89 Sport I was looking at was Azeus17's the price was down to $7000 before it sold. He sent me a lot of pictures but no wake pictures. ------------- 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: Keeganino
Date Posted: January-31-2011 at 10:00pm
Nice pics Doug thanks! This is pretty cool. You show me your wake I'll show you mine  It will probably be another month before we get back out.------------- "working on these old boats may not be cost effective but as it shows its what it brings into your life that matters" -Roger http://www.correctcraftfan.com/diaries/details.asp?ID=4897" rel="nofollow - 1973 Skier |
Posted By: SNobsessed
Date Posted: January-31-2011 at 10:30pm
|
I can't say if the 1.23 tranny makes any difference because the only other inboard I have driven was a 2000+ Air V drive.
We are very happy with our '89. Usually don't even fill the fat sacs full. I myself don't get air so the wake is just bumps for me to cross. My son, on the other hand loves the curls ... ------------- “Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy.” Ben Franklin |
Posted By: Tomski
Date Posted: February-17-2011 at 12:34pm
|
I've never heard anyone complain about the wake behind the 2001.
I like the simplicity - no ballast, no pumps, no plumbing - 20mph 65-70ft - there it is. The wake is not huige, but the shape is perfect. Sacking it out makes it a little higher, but does not improve the shape in my exp. We have two identical boats and ran them side by side, one with a shiz load weight and mine with none. The general consensus was that the weight was not worth the extra fuel and more difficult driving. ------------- Easily Parted From Money |
Posted By: rogier
Date Posted: September-26-2012 at 6:07am
GREAT boat for wakeboarding.. I just sold my 1992 sport, the same boat and same hull. The wake is wide and needs weight (+800lbs) to become high, but it's always clean and hard. I would say it can produce a wake that is of the same quality as the super sport Nautique (1996) that I have bought, which is the same boat as the 1996-2005 super air Nautique. This sounds great, however, there is a downside: As soon as you let go of the power, the huge swell behind you is going to catch up with the boat. In a normal Nautique this is not a problem, however with the 1989-1992 sport Nautique has a ramped rear end and the water will overflow into the boat. You can prevent this by steering away from the wake, so no problem, but a novice pilot will result in wet feet. When the weather turns bad, and you are boating on the open sea, this boat needs to be as empty as possible. I have been in a weighted down boat and there have been occasions where I've actually beached it to prevent sinking. |
Posted By: watrski
Date Posted: September-26-2012 at 10:02pm
|
The best wake is the one connected to the boat pulling me :) ------------- Tubing Sucks. |
Posted By: phatsat67
Date Posted: September-27-2012 at 1:37am
| I prefer 06-09 for slalom. I don't like the 22 off bump on my 86 but if you are on edge it doesn't matter. I haven't got to ski a 200 yet but Mark tells me the table is fire on your feet while barefooting. The wake behind my friends 01 is great as well for slalom. I know skiing at tournaments in college slalom the Malibu had the biggest bump but it was soft and Mastercraft was just tall hard and terrible. |
Posted By: Kristof
Date Posted: September-27-2012 at 8:29am
  ------------- - Gun control means: using BOTH hands! - Money doesn't make one happy, but when it rains cats and dogs, it's still better to cry in a Porsche than on a bicycle... |
Posted By: must_dash
Date Posted: November-30-2012 at 9:21am
Same for the late 80s Martinique. Sometimes need climbing kit... Also the wrong shape for wakeboarding. ------------- 1986 Martinique - sold When we ask for advice, we are usually looking for an accomplice. |
Posted By: Oletela
Date Posted: December-01-2012 at 11:55pm
I am pretty partial to my wakeboard wake behind my 89' 2001. I am running right at 2000 pounds in it, just have to be careful of dipping the nose  Hard to see what it really looks like with an iphone picture but it is nice! My buddy Jade landed a toe 900 off the double up behind it. |
Posted By: Waternut
Date Posted: December-10-2012 at 3:23pm
|
For slalom skiing, I'd have to say the closed bow 98-01 SN's are some of the best wakes I've ever skied behind. Massively better than any 80's SN or any year Mastercraft IMO. There doesn't really seem to be a bad line length. I've also been behind a 2010 SN open bow that was nice but not as nice as the 98-01's. I never got a chance to ski shortline on the 2010 SN though. ------------- |