PDA

View Full Version : 2012 197 Tt?


Cottonwood
07-13-2011, 12:56 PM
Any news on what the graphics will be? I'm relatively certain the hull will not change but am curious what the graphics will be.

BrianM
07-13-2011, 01:08 PM
Guess this is going to be the 10th model year on the exact same hull. Its a good hull but could still use some improvement. From my talking and listening it seems that the tournament crowd has moved this hull to the bottom of the list (of the big three) for both driving and wake. So much for being the leader. You can't expect to continue to lead with a decade old design.

Cottonwood
07-13-2011, 01:29 PM
Guess this is going to be the 10th model year on the exact same hull. Its a good hull but could still use some improvement. From my talking and listening it seems that the tournament crowd has moved this hull to the bottom of the list (of the big three) for both driving and wake. So much for being the leader. You can't expect to continue to lead with a decade old design.

I wouldn't go so far as to say it has moved to the bottom. Depends on who you ask. I have had the opportunity to ski/drive the "big 3" along w/ the Centurion. If price was my only consideration (not resale), Centurion would win hands down. It doesn't drive a nice as a MC or CC but the wakes are fantastic for the 28-34mph 15-off skiers. Very comparable to the CC. Simply from a driver's perspective, I would much rather have a MC than a MB. If properly set up and weighted, the MC drives as good as the CC and doesn't consume near the fuel. As for skiing, the 15-22 wakes may be a bit harder than the CC but they do not (or should not) hinder the performance of the skier.

And, I would say the hull had "evolved" over the past 10 years. The 2011 boat that I drove/skied behind is a far cry from the early versions of the "same" hull. There may be a perception that the boat does not ski as well as the CC or MB but I strongly believe that perception is flawed. I own a CC 200 (sold) and am strongly considering joining MC's promo program in 2012 simply based on my experience with all four brands.

BrianM
07-13-2011, 01:36 PM
I wouldn't go so far as to say it has moved to the bottom. Depends on who you ask. I have had the opportunity to ski/drive the "big 3" along w/ the Centurion. If price was my only consideration (not resale), Centurion would win hands down. It doesn't drive a nice as a MC or CC but the wakes are fantastic for the 28-34mph 15-off skiers. Very comparable to the CC. Simply from a driver's perspective, I would much rather have a MC than a MB. If properly set up and weighted, the MC drives as good as the CC and doesn't consume near the fuel. As for skiing, the 15-22 wakes may be a bit harder than the CC but they do not (or should not) hinder the performance of the skier.

And, I would say the hull had "evolved" over the past 10 years. The 2011 boat that I drove/skied behind is a far cry from the early versions of the "same" hull. There may be a perception that the boat does not ski as well as the CC or MB but I strongly believe that perception is flawed. I own a CC 200 (sold) and am strongly considering joining MC's promo program in 2012 simply based on my experience with all four brands.

I've skied and drove the MC and BU but haven't had the pleasure of the new CC 200. Don't see how the hull on the MC has evolved. Different power, props and transmission along with a little change in weight over the decade but the hull remains the same.

Was just talking with someone about the new Centurion and their impression seemed to be the same as yours. Apparently the wake is fabulous but build and tracking aren't quite up to the others. Kinda sounds like the reincarnation of the Elan American Skier (02-03) as that was the general consensus on that boat as well. Just so hard for a 'new' boat to get a hold on the tournament crowd.

Bouyhead
07-13-2011, 01:43 PM
I'm glad this came up. I skied a 3 round "R" tournament last weekend and the big three each pulled one round. Lots of grumblings from drivers and skiers alike about the MC.

shepherd
07-13-2011, 01:47 PM
What was the grumbling about? The "ancient" MC hull is just as good as it's ever been. I skied behind a new SN 200 last summer. It was nice, maybe a little better than my old '03 MC, but it didn't make me like the MC any less.

BrianM
07-13-2011, 02:02 PM
What was the grumbling about? The "ancient" MC hull is just as good as it's ever been. I skied behind a new SN 200 last summer. It was nice, maybe a little better than my old '03 MC, but it didn't make me like the MC any less.
That is the thing the hull is as good as it has ever been but not better. The others are getting better and many many are saying have surpassed the "ancient" hull.

What I hear are the wake is generally harder and a bit taller than the others especially at longer lines and sub 36 mph. As for driving the general slow handling is the gripe as it has pretty much always been with this hull. Lots of wetted surface gives good tracking but turns (especially on tighter setups) and docks like a barge.

As for the Pros that are skiing 36mph at opening passes of 32off there is probably zero difference in the boats. But for the vast majority of skiers there are some pretty big differences. I have to argue that the better hull will ski just as good for the pros and improve characteristics for mere mortals.

Kyle's_prostar205
07-13-2011, 02:03 PM
We heard grumblings at our last tournament about the wake on the 2011 197 TT with the Ilmor engine. I guess with that engine upgrade it changed the wake just enought to make some people mad. The funny thing is the boat hasn't changed one bit and to be honest the wake change is barley noticable from the 07 TT I ski behind. It's also funny that skiers will complain about the water, their ski, equipment and the boats but you never actually hear them say that themselves might be the problem!! Just my two cents worth...

Cottonwood
07-13-2011, 02:19 PM
I'm glad this came up. I skied a 3 round "R" tournament last weekend and the big three each pulled one round. Lots of grumblings from drivers and skiers alike about the MC.

I was at a tournament recently and heard the same grumblings from skiers and drivers. Before we dropped it in the water, we weighted the nose (80lbs.) and took 1/8" off the rudder 3" down from the top. When driving, we didn't push the throttle past 3 o'clock (kept the boat from running on the skier), and every one of the skiers we pulled was pleasantly surprised. "That's the best I've ever skied behind a MC" was a constant. A couple of PB's as well (into 39-off). The boat tracked/drove very well. With any tournament boat, it's how the boat is set up.

captain planet
07-13-2011, 02:22 PM
I was at a tournament recently and heard the same grumblings from skiers and drivers. Before we dropped it in the water, we weighted the nose (80lbs.) and took 1/8" off the rudder 3" down from the top. When driving, we didn't push the throttle past 3 o'clock (kept the boat from running on the skier), and every one of the skiers we pulled were pleasantly surprised. "That's the best I've ever skied behind a MC" was a constant. A couple of PB's as well (into 39-off). The boat tracked/drove very well. With any tournament boat, it's how the boat is set up.

What does this accomplish?

Kyle's_prostar205
07-13-2011, 02:23 PM
my guess would be easier on the driver, less resistance on the rudder so it makes the steering smoother.

Bouyhead
07-13-2011, 02:26 PM
What was the grumbling about? The "ancient" MC hull is just as good as it's ever been. I skied behind a new SN 200 last summer. It was nice, maybe a little better than my old '03 MC, but it didn't make me like the MC any less.

The grumblings came from the drivers who couldn't keep the boat straight. It could have been that particular boat though. The slower speed 15 off skiers felt a kick and the young kids going out @ 19 MPH looked like they were going over a tsunami. It's no secret the other two offer pretty good slow speed wakes. Keep in mind that of the 33 pulls we gave in slalom on Saturday only a handfull of guys ran or got into 35 off. Thats kind of the tourney scene in downstate NY and North NJ.

With that being said in no way is my intent to slam MC. If I ever upgrade my old tried and true 96 PS 190 it will be a Mastercraft hands down. I love the build quality & love the lines of all the Prostars.

Cottonwood
07-13-2011, 02:29 PM
What does this accomplish?

Provides adequate torque to the steering to assist w/ tracking. All boats track well when under load (skier pull) but when the skier releases off the 2nd wake and "frees up" from the boat, you must have some rudder torque to keep the back end of the boat from sliding toward the skier and maintain your path. Did the same on the Centurion.

georgea0731
07-13-2011, 03:51 PM
If they stick to their previous plan, the TT boat will be adjusted 2012 and go on all the 197s in 2013. MC is one of the few brands I'm loyal too. However, I got to ski behind an 11 Nautique 200 closed bow and felt like it had an easier wake at 30 and 32 mph, 15 off.

Looks like we thread jacked since he was asking about graphics only.

DemolitionMan
07-13-2011, 04:09 PM
The grumblings came from the drivers who couldn't keep the boat straight. It could have been that particular boat though. The slower speed 15 off skiers felt a kick and the young kids going out @ 19 MPH looked like they were going over a tsunami. It's no secret the other two offer pretty good slow speed wakes. Keep in mind that of the 33 pulls we gave in slalom on Saturday only a handfull of guys ran or got into 35 off. Thats kind of the tourney scene in downstate NY and North NJ.

With that being said in no way is my intent to slam MC. If I ever upgrade my old tried and true 96 PS 190 it will be a Mastercraft hands down. I love the build quality & love the lines of all the Prostars.

The hull has been out for 10 years now and they are just now starting to grumble?

Bouyhead
07-13-2011, 04:50 PM
The hull has been out for 10 years now and they are just now starting to grumble?

Strictly from a driver/skier perspective yes they grumbled. Or better yet, no complaints about the other two.

jamisonsbrodie
07-13-2011, 05:44 PM
At 34 mph, from the end of the rope they are all close. IMO, the 197 has a smaller trough than the Bu, therefore I don't feel the wake as much at 22. At 28+, I can't tell the difference. The Carbon Pro has gotten rave reviews at tourneys from everyone regarding skiability. At slow speeds, the Carbon has the best wake. I have been skiing behind one frequently for 2 months and I love the pull. My best scores are usually behind a 197, but I find a bigger difference among the boats in the actual pull, vs the wake. The 197 feels softer from the end of the rope than the others.

rhsprostar
07-13-2011, 05:46 PM
Interesting.......80lbs in the nose huh? hmmm...might try that

I can tell you that our clubs 2011 197 with the MCX no slot, does have a different wake than my 04TT with slot and LQ9.
At 34mph around 22 off and 28 off the wake seems to have a little lip to it, where mine seems softer and flater......don't ask me why but it does.

The steering is not great either as the rudder is just the standard one not the shaved one.
When pulling a skier through the course or for jump, I really notice the difference without the load on.

east tx skier
07-13-2011, 06:25 PM
I have tried the weight in the nose of my boat and didn't notice much difference in the wake, but noticed that the low speed handling around the dock and skiers was awful. Removed it and went back to stock and loved it more than ever. I didn't do 80 lbs. Probably closer to 50. Still, I know it works well for Joe (since he's the person I got the idea from in the first place).

BrianM
07-14-2011, 10:11 AM
Interesting.......80lbs in the nose huh? hmmm...might try that

I can tell you that our clubs 2011 197 with the MCX no slot, does have a different wake than my 04TT with slot and LQ9.
At 34mph around 22 off and 28 off the wake seems to have a little lip to it, where mine seems softer and flater......don't ask me why but it does.
.

Slot vs 1:1 will make a difference in the wake. Props are very different and can have a big effect on wake characteristics.

Sullivan
07-14-2011, 11:25 AM
I get two types of comments. The little OLD guys and OLD women complain. The men complain that the pull of the 6.0 is too strong and the women complain about the wake at 32mph.

The young or aggresive skiers like my boat and are skiing great behind it. The big guys love the 6.0. My boat tracks great and might even be a drivers favorite. Yes the rudder is loaded

You can't fault the 200 or Carbon. Both those boats are leading the pack but as said earlier it only really matters for skiers that are at 22 and 15 and boat speeds slower than 34 mph. I have confidance that we'll be out with a new hull in hte next few years (as well as Malibu) and the Mastercraft will once again be the skiers choice.

Sullivan
07-19-2011, 11:05 AM
http://www.ballofspray.com/forum#/discussion/3409/feeling-the-loss

east tx skier
07-19-2011, 12:55 PM
Slot vs 1:1 will make a difference in the wake. Props are very different and can have a big effect on wake characteristics.

I think the difference between wakes in the current generation of boats between 1:1 and a powerslot would be different than the powerslot of 2004. Seems like I remember that the 1.52:1 was turning a larger wheel than the current 1.26:1 or whatever it is.

Jorski
07-19-2011, 01:58 PM
Skiied my friend's 2010 197 back to back against my 1993 190 LT1....The '93 wake was definitely softer, while the newer boat definitely tracked better. The newer boat also had less spray at short lengths.

Sometimes I think that the manufacturers focus on fixing small characteristics, only to make other areas worse.

I honestly think that all of the new boats have great skiing characeristics when they are set-up properly.

BrianM
07-20-2011, 09:50 AM
I think the difference between wakes in the current generation of boats between 1:1 and a powerslot would be different than the powerslot of 2004. Seems like I remember that the 1.52:1 was turning a larger wheel than the current 1.26:1 or whatever it is.

Yep. 1:52:1, 1.26:1 and 1:1 will all have a bit different wake.

rhsprostar
07-20-2011, 01:43 PM
Yep. 1:52:1, 1.26:1 and 1:1 will all have a bit different wake.

I think you are right. It's not because of the actual transmission but I assume the size and shape of the prop that is/was used for each application.

My buddy used to have a 89 PS190 which came with two props...one supposedly for skiing and the other for skiing. Well we always used the ski version until he accidently dinged it when loading one day. We switched to the other prop and there was a noticable difference between the two even when they had the same dimensions (diameter and pitch). The blade shape was different though.........

BrianM
07-20-2011, 05:03 PM
I think you are right. It's not because of the actual transmission but I assume the size and shape of the prop that is/was used for each application.

My buddy used to have a 89 PS190 which came with two props...one supposedly for skiing and the other for skiing. Well we always used the ski version until he accidently dinged it when loading one day. We switched to the other prop and there was a noticable difference between the two even when they had the same dimensions (diameter and pitch). The blade shape was different though.........

Yep. The prop is what will make the changes.

jwroblew
07-20-2011, 05:10 PM
I've had the opportunity to drive and ski behind the SN 200 and current MC TT 197. At 28 and 32 off the SN200 seemed a little softer, at 35 and shorter I couldn't really tell the difference. My 7 year old daughter had an easier time running slalom passes at 17 mph behind the SN200 due to the smaller wake. I wouldn't take the fuel penalty you get with the SN200 for these wakes, my daughter might, but hopefully she will be running faster in the near future.

I thought the SN200 felt like a tank driving through the course and even around the dock, way worse than an MC, maybe because of the large wetted surface of the SN200.

Also the SN200 looks ugly!

shepherd
07-21-2011, 10:46 AM
It's also funny that skiers will complain about the water, their ski, equipment and the boats but you never actually hear them say that themselves might be the problem!! Just my two cents worth...

Amen........

Cottonwood
07-21-2011, 10:47 AM
This past weekend, my daughter had her best round behind the MC. Me too. I had the chance to drive a very well set-up 197 and enjoyed it. It was like driving a Cadillac compared to my 200. The tracking was similar but the high RPM's of the 200 get to you after a while. I'll be driving our regional tournament next weekend so I'll have plenty of time in the driver's seat of all 3.

macattack
07-21-2011, 10:58 PM
I had the chance to drive a very well set-up 197 and enjoyed it. It was like driving a Cadillac compared to my 200. The tracking was similar but the high RPM's of the 200 get to you after a while. I'll be driving our regional tournament next weekend so I'll have plenty of time in the driver's seat of all 3.

Who's 197? Do you know how it was "set up?" tks, mac

Lars
07-22-2011, 12:09 AM
sooo..

what's the deal with the fuel consumption in the SN? does it use a lot or something?

east tx skier
07-22-2011, 12:25 AM
Pretty complicated looking and extensive wetted surface on the 200 has translated at more power required to hit ski speeds.

MIskier
07-22-2011, 09:07 AM
sooo..

what's the deal with the fuel consumption in the SN? does it use a lot or something?

Yes, it has a huge wetted surface area when compared to a 196 or 197 which creates a ton of drag by itself; and during the design phase CC told PCM not to worry about screaming RPM's just get the boat to 36 mph as quick as possible. This leads to screaming rpm's at slalom speeds, well over 4,000 rpm at 36...So yes it is a fuel drinker.

captain planet
07-22-2011, 09:44 AM
Yes, it has a huge wetted surface area when compared to a 196 or 197 which creates a ton of drag by itself; and during the design phase CC told PCM not to worry about screaming RPM's just get the boat to 36 mph as quick as possible. This leads to screaming rpm's at slalom speeds, well over 4,000 rpm at 36...So yes it is a fuel drinker.

WOW, that is high. That would be like listening to my boat at footin' speeds. That would be annoying.

MIskier
07-22-2011, 09:45 AM
WOW, that is high. That would be like listening to my boat at footin' speeds. That would be annoying.

Without the big motor the boat will barely crack 40 mph with the slalom gate down and is screaming at 5400...it gets to be pretty old.

captain planet
07-22-2011, 09:55 AM
Without the big motor the boat will barely crack 40 mph with the slalom gate down and is screaming at 5400...it gets to be pretty old.

This is the first I'm hearing about this. That's nuts. So I guess there isn't going to be much footin' going on behind a SN 200.

MIskier
07-22-2011, 10:01 AM
This is the first I'm hearing about this. That's nuts. So I guess there isn't going to be much footin' going on behind a SN 200.

I know that with the 409 engine it is up in the mid 40's for top speed, but thats a lot of dough for a couple of mph. I havent run the 200 at top end with the slalom gate up, I would imagine that it would gain a couple of mph. I will try that next week when Im out on it.

Cottonwood
07-22-2011, 10:31 AM
Who's 197? Do you know how it was "set up?" tks, mac

80lbs in the nose and some additional grinding on the rudder to firm it up. Drove very nice.

As for the fuel consumption on the 200, my club burned 1.3 gallons per set (average) last year w/ a 196. This year, it's risen to 1.61 gallons per set. Same skiers - same speeds. I did a prop swap on mine that lowered the RPM's somewhat. I can get 42mph top end but they RPM's at 36 are still 4600 - it screams!

Also, the 200 "feels" stronger than the 197. The wakes on the 200 may be better for slower speeds/longer lines but at 28-off and shorter, it's all about the same. But, the 200 feels stronger due to the RPM range it's running to pull 34/36.

MIskier
07-22-2011, 10:36 AM
80lbs in the nose and some additional grinding on the rudder to firm it up. Drove very nice.

As for the fuel consumption on the 200, my club burned 1.3 gallons per set (average) last year w/ a 196. This year, it's risen to 1.61 gallons per set. Same skiers - same speeds. I did a prop swap on mine that lowered the RPM's somewhat. I can get 42mph top end but they RPM's at 36 are still 4600 - it screams!

Also, the 200 "feels" stronger than the 197. The wakes on the 200 may be better for slower speeds/longer lines but at 28-off and shorter, it's all about the same. But, the 200 feels stronger due to the RPM range it's running to pull 34/36.

Are you skiing 6 or 8 passes per set? The prop on the 200 that I ski behind is a factory stock prop and the 343 engine. I would have to disagree on the feeling of the pull somewhat, at least with the new ilmor 6.0 engines that I was skiing behind at the factory last summer. Those boats felt like freight trains. With the older boats running the MCx's and the 310hp motors I would agree with your feeling of the 200 being a stronger feeling pull.

BrianM
07-22-2011, 10:58 AM
Are you skiing 6 or 8 passes per set? The prop on the 200 that I ski behind is a factory stock prop and the 343 engine. I would have to disagree on the feeling of the pull somewhat, at least with the new ilmor 6.0 engines that I was skiing behind at the factory last summer. Those boats felt like freight trains. With the older boats running the MCx's and the 310hp motors I would agree with your feeling of the 200 being a stronger feeling pull.

This may be a discussion for another thread but do y'all think that a "stronger pull" is a good thing? I personally would prefer a softer pull (while still staying within tolerance). In fact that is one of the things I like about the older boats as they have a softer more forgiving pull.

gatorguy
07-22-2011, 11:26 AM
I don't have a lot of experience, but I skied a few sets behind a '10 SN 200 at 30 mph and 15 off. I noticed that I hardly noticed the wake as compared to my 97 ps205. Not quite an apples to apples, but just what I noticed. I don't think I would ever buy the 200 though, because it just seemed ugly and industrial.

Kevin 89MC
07-22-2011, 11:33 AM
Very interesting thread, and I was thinking the same thing as you Brian. I would much rather have a softer pull, and so would my ski partner that runs 36 mph, 28 thru 38 off. I run 34 mph, 15 thru 28 off. He skies a bunch of tournaments, and has been pulled by all 3 boats. Not to open up a new issue, but he’s not a big fan of Zero off, he hasn’t found a setting yet as smooth as PP. But he never gets to practice on it, and knows that is some of it. We’re both running non-GPS Perfect Pass in our boats. My ’89 PS 190 with 1:1 has an older version of PP, 6.5 I believe. He has a ’96 SN 176 (short version of the 196), and the most recent version of PP right before the switch to GPS. Same props, (old school 4 blades), same engines (351), 240hp for me and I assume 285 for him. He obviously also has the 1.2x gear reduction. For whatever reason, his boat is way softer and more forgiving than mine. We both use the PP “switch”, and that has helped both boats pull better. I do not know if my PP setup is different, someday I should delve into all the detailed settings and see if they are different. I’m guessing it is a combination of many different items, and don’t get me wrong I do not mind skiing behind mine, but there is no question he and I both ski better behind his.

Brian, you used to have an older PS 190, right? Is your newer PS 190 softer or harder than your old one?
Kevin

BrianM
07-22-2011, 02:46 PM
Brian, you used to have an older PS 190, right? Is your newer PS 190 softer or harder than your old one?
Kevin
The "new" boat ('97) has a bit firmer pull than the "old" boat ('88). the extra hp has some to do with that as well as PP Stargazer vs 6.5n. The GPS speed control is less forgiving and with my limited time behind Zero Off it is even more so.

All that being said I have messed with the setup on my '97 a lot. Tried about five different props along with substantial rudder shaving and have really dialed in the settings on the Perfect Pass. I have had the boat dialed jn for a few years now and feel it skis excellent.

shepherd
07-22-2011, 03:01 PM
This may be a discussion for another thread but do y'all think that a "stronger pull" is a good thing? I personally would prefer a softer pull (while still staying within tolerance). In fact that is one of the things I like about the older boats as they have a softer more forgiving pull.

I found the pull "stronger" behind the SN 200 than behind my PS197 w/ LQ9, but I just attributed that to the Zero Off vs. PP issue. I think the "stronger pull" is the main reason most people have been complaining about Zero Off. BTW, to answer your question, I didn't like the stronger pull though I guess I could get used to it.

shepherd
07-22-2011, 03:03 PM
I'll be driving our regional tournament next weekend so I'll have plenty of time in the driver's seat of all 3.

Please post your impressions of the 3 after you do! I'd be interested in the comparison.

Kyle's_prostar205
07-22-2011, 03:04 PM
So back to the original itam of of this thread...Anybody know what the design/changes will be for the 2012 TT boats?

east tx skier
07-22-2011, 03:25 PM
I don't have a lot of experience, but I skied a few sets behind a '10 SN 200 at 30 mph and 15 off. I noticed that I hardly noticed the wake as compared to my 97 ps205. Not quite an apples to apples, but just what I noticed. I don't think I would ever buy the 200 though, because it just seemed ugly and industrial.

I have a TSC era SN and my father in law has a 98 205. At the speed and line length you mentioned, there is a substantial difference between the wakes of these two boats as well.

east tx skier
07-22-2011, 03:29 PM
Very interesting thread, and I was thinking the same thing as you Brian. I would much rather have a softer pull, and so would my ski partner that runs 36 mph, 28 thru 38 off. I run 34 mph, 15 thru 28 off. He skies a bunch of tournaments, and has been pulled by all 3 boats. Not to open up a new issue, but he’s not a big fan of Zero off, he hasn’t found a setting yet as smooth as PP. But he never gets to practice on it, and knows that is some of it. We’re both running non-GPS Perfect Pass in our boats. My ’89 PS 190 with 1:1 has an older version of PP, 6.5 I believe. He has a ’96 SN 176 (short version of the 196), and the most recent version of PP right before the switch to GPS. Same props, (old school 4 blades), same engines (351), 240hp for me and I assume 285 for him. He obviously also has the 1.2x gear reduction. For whatever reason, his boat is way softer and more forgiving than mine. We both use the PP “switch”, and that has helped both boats pull better. I do not know if my PP setup is different, someday I should delve into all the detailed settings and see if they are different. I’m guessing it is a combination of many different items, and don’t get me wrong I do not mind skiing behind mine, but there is no question he and I both ski better behind his.

Brian, you used to have an older PS 190, right? Is your newer PS 190 softer or harder than your old one?
Kevin

Does he have the original rudder on that boat? If so, tell him to spring for an 11a rudder (standard Ski Nautique rudder). Apparently, CC put a less rudder on the 176 so that it would not surpass the desirability of the flagship SN of that era. With the 11a rudder, that boat is supposedly amazing to drive.

Sullivan
07-22-2011, 04:47 PM
My 6.0 197WTT gets lots of comments from people about the pull being strong. I personally love the stronger pull and I think the bigger you are the stonger the pull the better. It takes less effort to get angle and speed across the course. I have noticed that the only complaints I get are from older skiers who are used to PP.

So far, my 6.0 has been the most fuel efficient boat at my tournaments. The Nautique that I have compared it to has been reproped and it's been better on fuel at one of the tournaments over the Lxi with the Monsoon 350 horse. Not sure about the rest.

As for how my boat drives compared to the 200 and Lxi, I have been told by several senior drivers that its one of the best boats they have driven. I personally can't stand the Lxi, the seat is way to high and my head sticks over the windshield no matter what I do.

gchapman-tt
07-22-2011, 05:28 PM
I do not get the comments about being too strong at all. Once skiers have been behind my 6.0 the comments are very positive. Seem to be preferred to the 5.7, comments are that of being released from the boat better (no feeling of boat running on them). I attribute it to the low rpm's we are running with the 6.0.

Sullivan
07-22-2011, 11:13 PM
I guess I have only heard it maybe two or three times but it obviously bugged me.

JohnE
07-23-2011, 09:43 AM
I do not get the comments about being too strong at all. Once skiers have been behind my 6.0 the comments are very positive. Seem to be preferred to the 5.7, comments are that of being released from the boat better (no feeling of boat running on them). I attribute it to the low rpm's we are running with the 6.0.

I guess I have only heard it maybe two or three times but it obviously bugged me.

When I ordered my 214, I asked my dealer whether he thought I should go mcx or ly6. He told me that unless I was going to do a lot of footin (I don't) then to go with the mcx. He explained that with the ly6 that the boat has a little too much 'advantage' over the skier. Which translates to the stronger pull mentioned here.

Now I'm not a good enough skier to know the difference, but he was. He was also a good friend. This was 4 years ago, and I didn't hear much more discussion about this topic until now. Really just throwing it out there.

I wouldn't let it bug me if I went with the LY6.

Kevin 89MC
07-25-2011, 11:53 AM
Does he have the original rudder on that boat? If so, tell him to spring for an 11a rudder (standard Ski Nautique rudder). Apparently, CC put a less rudder on the 176 so that it would not surpass the desirability of the flagship SN of that era. With the 11a rudder, that boat is supposedly amazing to drive.

Interesting...not sure which rudder he has. I'm guessing the original rudder. The boat drives quite a bit different than my MC, but I'm probably just used to mine more. I only drove a 196 once years ago, so I can't really compare it. I'd be curious if the rudder would change the ski wake, that boat really is amazing to ski behind.

east tx skier
07-25-2011, 12:07 PM
Interesting...not sure which rudder he has. I'm guessing the original rudder. The boat drives quite a bit different than my MC, but I'm probably just used to mine more. I only drove a 196 once years ago, so I can't really compare it. I'd be curious if the rudder would change the ski wake, that boat really is amazing to ski behind.

It shouldn't change the ski wake, but it will drastically improve the boat's handling.

The rudders are easy to distinguish

This is the 11a.

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-ckl8H5fZ2FU/StZ4cuBSOII/AAAAAAAACdw/VZp02579BKY/s512/100_0396.JPG

Here is the rudder from a 176.

https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-HOSBqJpblyw/TgPylAHsIHI/AAAAAAAAGic/wc798XXwAvo/s800/IMG_3997.JPG

shepherd
08-02-2011, 05:31 PM
Some people are hatin' on the MC wake on the waterski forum. Guy wants it banned before it hurts some kids... :rolleyes: I guess that wasn't an issue during the last 10 years with the same old hull. The interesting part is that he says he got a response from MC saying they are looking into it. So, maybe they are looking at a new design for some time in the near future.

André
08-02-2011, 10:59 PM
Some people are hatin' on the MC wake on the waterski forum. Guy wants it banned before it hurts some kids... :rolleyes: I guess that wasn't an issue during the last 10 years with the same old hull. The interesting part is that he says he got a response from MC saying they are looking into it. So, maybe they are looking at a new design for some time in the near future.

Could it be from the new bullet strut bearing?
It seems to be a problem only with 11 TT...:confused:

Sullivan
08-02-2011, 11:03 PM
Its all BS if he is referring to the wakes. I understand they are not as good as a 200 but give me a break. That is how I learned to stay on edge when I was 6.

I am guessing however that he is referring to a problem with Zero Off running wild in jump mode.

André
08-02-2011, 11:31 PM
Its all BS if he is referring to the wakes. I understand they are not as good as a 200 but give me a break. That is how I learned to stay on edge when I was 6.

I am guessing however that he is referring to a problem with Zero Off running wild in jump mode.

The problem seems to be with slower slalom speed at long line and jump at slower speed ...

jipster43
08-02-2011, 11:38 PM
It seems pretty evident that the quality of the 197's wake largely depends on the post-purchase setup often involving re-propping, tuning the rudder, and possibly weighting the front. When the alternative is a loud chorus of complaints about brutal wakes, my question is why don't these boats roll off the lot properly "set up"?

JP :)

east tx skier
08-02-2011, 11:56 PM
The problem seems to be with slower slalom speed at long line and jump at slower speed ...

I hit from the ladies tees and can attest to that. I wouldn't call it dangerous though, not by any stretch. Just a bit of a bump if you are used to the lack thereof. Admittedly, shortline boats are not built for me or 90% of skiers. But even us amateurs can tell the difference. Nonetheless, still a darned fine boat.

Sullivan
08-03-2011, 01:14 AM
I hit from the ladies tees and can attest to that. I wouldn't call it dangerous though, not by any stretch. Just a bit of a bump if you are used to the lack thereof. Admittedly, shortline boats are not built for me or 90% of skiers. But even us amateurs can tell the difference. Nonetheless, still a darned fine boat.

You hit the nail on the head! My previous bout was a 2008 LXi, the wakes are very similar. I believe my 2011 WTT does have a SLIGHTLY harder wake at the slow speeds and 15 and 22 off.

However, I would not go back to a Malibu. I had al sorts of electrical issues with it, the mux switches and dash would flake out all the time. The boat's windshield was shifting or sliding apart. When I would put the boat on my lift the gap in the windshield would open up so far the flange on the walk through window would not cover the whole gap. The carpet showed alot of wear and tear even though I kept it spotless. Of the last three Lxi's we have had at our lake every single one has had electrical issues. My new 197 WTT is built so much better. When I got my boat the factory had left a whole saw cutout piece in the bow of the boat for the heater tube on the passenger side. The fiberglass was a 1/4" thick! I truly think this is the best built boat on the market! I love my boat and would not trade it for any other brand out there.

Granted I ski at 36 MPH, but its a great boat and Mastercraft sells alot of them. Its for a good reason.

Sorry for a rant. I was pretty pissed off today when I went to the lake because of the crap on BOS. I ended up getting a PB of 32 off behind my 197. I left the lake with a big ol grin on my face.

sand2snow22
08-03-2011, 01:32 AM
That's awesome. Do that on the Hudson and we'll start calling you sully. I still want a pull someday. At the lake now. Weather/water really good!

Sullivan
08-03-2011, 01:36 AM
No kidding, what lake?

Come ski anytime, really. If you need my number again let me know.

jwroblew
08-03-2011, 10:16 AM
Just talked to a friend of mine last night, he already has his 2012 WTT, solid his 2011 WTT already. He said his 2012 is the best boat he has ever had, driving and skiing. He usually gets a new boat every year, but he said his 2012 is so good he is thinking about keeping it. He said the wake is super soft and it tracks lake its on rails. And these are speeds of 30 and 32 mph.

shepherd
08-03-2011, 10:34 AM
"MASTERCRAFT: Killing Children Since 2001"

I wonder why I haven't seen the news stories about this?

DemolitionMan
08-03-2011, 10:35 AM
"MASTERCRAFT: Killing Children Since 2001"

I wonder why I haven't seen the news stories about this?

:cry::uglyhamme:shocked:

east tx skier
08-03-2011, 11:30 AM
You hit the nail on the head! My previous bout was a 2008 LXi, the wakes are very similar. I believe my 2011 WTT does have a SLIGHTLY harder wake at the slow speeds and 15 and 22 off.

However, I would not go back to a Malibu. I had al sorts of electrical issues with it, the mux switches and dash would flake out all the time. The boat's windshield was shifting or sliding apart. When I would put the boat on my lift the gap in the windshield would open up so far the flange on the walk through window would not cover the whole gap. The carpet showed alot of wear and tear even though I kept it spotless. Of the last three Lxi's we have had at our lake every single one has had electrical issues. My new 197 WTT is built so much better. When I got my boat the factory had left a whole saw cutout piece in the bow of the boat for the heater tube on the passenger side. The fiberglass was a 1/4" thick! I truly think this is the best built boat on the market! I love my boat and would not trade it for any other brand out there.

Granted I ski at 36 MPH, but its a great boat and Mastercraft sells alot of them. Its for a good reason.

Sorry for a rant. I was pretty pissed off today when I went to the lake because of the crap on BOS. I ended up getting a PB of 32 off behind my 197. I left the lake with a big ol grin on my face.

Glad you are enjoying it. It is great to be completely satisfied with your boat. I know the feeling well. I have the luxury of getting to ski behind a 2008 LXi, my boat, and various years of 197. Looking forward to, at some point in time, getting to ski behind my buddies 2010 TT.

Cottonwood
08-03-2011, 12:00 PM
Please post your impressions of the 3 after you do! I'd be interested in the comparison.



Last weekend, I was an appointed driver for our regional championship. I drove all 3 boats in all 3 events. The TT pulled the following slalom divisions: G1, G2, W1, W4, M1, M3, M6, OM. I drove the MC for G2, W4, M3. None of the 21 G2 skiers said a word about the wake. In fact, the top seed tied the Regional record of 1@38off. I didn't drive W1 due to conflict (my daughter skis in that division) but the scores were solid. She starts at 22-off and scored 1.5 @ 35 off. She LOVES the pull of the MC. To her, the pull is more important than the wake. In W4 I drove for one of the members of my club. She starts at 28mph / 15-off. She skied within 1 buoy of her PB. Didn't even notice the wake. In M3, some of the early skiers commented that the wake was more pronounced than what they were used to. But not a hinderance. Most skied well. Top seed scored 1 @ 41 off. I also drove M2 using the SN200. Pulled the top seed 2 @ 41 off. The tracking of the 200 is better but I think with a little work, the MC could get close. I won't even talk about jump - it was a nightmare. But that had to do with electronics and not hull design (which is what is being discussed here). The Malibu is a beast to keep straight. The weighted steering wheel is hard to get used to. The boat "floats" around and is difficult to manage at short lines. I could probably get used to it over time but don't care to. The SN200 was the best tracking boat I drove. The scores were similar behind all 3 boats (relative to seeded buoy count). So, if someone has an issue with the MC wake, I would suggest working on technique rather than the false hope MC will alter their hull design for the minority who lack the skill set of the majority.

east tx skier
08-03-2011, 12:06 PM
Last weekend, I was an appointed driver for our regional championship. I drove all 3 boats in all 3 events. The TT pulled the following slalom divisions: G1, G2, W1, W4, M1, M3, M6, OM. I drove the MC for G2, W4, M3. None of the 21 G2 skiers said a word about the wake. In fact, the top seed tied the Regional record of 1@38off. I didn't drive W1 due to conflict (my daughter skis in that division) but the scores were solid. She starts at 22-off and scored 1.5 @ 35 off. She LOVES the pull of the MC. To her, the pull is more important than the wake. In W4 I drove for one of the members of my club. She starts at 28mph / 15-off. She skied within 1 buoy of her PB. Didn't even notice the wake. In M3, some of the early skiers commented that the wake was more pronounced than what they were used to. But not a hinderance. Most skied well. Top seed scored 1 @ 41 off. I also drove M2 using the SN200. Pulled the top seed 2 @ 41 off. The tracking of the 200 is better but I think with a little work, the MC could get close. I won't even talk about jump - it was a nightmare. But that had to do with electronics and not hull design (which is what is being discussed here). The Malibu is a beast to keep straight. The weighted steering wheel is hard to get used to. The boat "floats" around and is difficult to manage at short lines. I could probably get used to it over time but don't care to. The SN200 was the best tracking boat I drove. The scores were similar behind all 3 boats (relative to seeded buoy count). So, if someone has an issue with the MC wake, I would suggest working on technique rather than the false hope MC will alter their hull design for the minority who lack the skill set of the majority.

Overall, from a boat market perspective, I think it is the majority who lack the skill set of the minority. But since what you see on a regular basis is a different skill set than the entirety of the market, I understand where you are coming from with your statement. Ideally, a ski boat would have a buttery soft wake and predicable pull from 26--36 mph and from 15 off on up the line. But in the end, at this point in time, it's simple, different boats throw different wakes and skier preference vary (the understatement of the year). The only way to eliminate this is to ski at cable parks. I'll pass on that option.

Work on technique and know what to expect from the towboat you are behind and there should be no worries from any of the approved 4 brands. I have seen people who are terribly picky about the brand of boat they ski behind. I'm just happy to be skiing. I do it for fun. If I'm not having fun, I give someone else a turn.

shepherd
08-03-2011, 12:30 PM
Thanks for the great comparison Cottonwood!

In W4 I drove for one of the members of my club. She starts at 28mph / 15-off. She skied within 1 buoy of her PB. Didn't even notice the wake.

Slow speed, long line. Isn't that where most people complain about the MC wake?

I think my point from the first page of this thread is that MC has been making this same boat for many years, and only NOW people are complaining about the wake? :confused:
They must have drunk the SN 200 Kool Aid.

Cottonwood
08-03-2011, 12:31 PM
Doug - to a certain extent, I was countering the argument set forth on another forum regarding MC's "dangerous" wake. I simply didn't see evidence of this while pulling a large range of age/skill levels last weekend. I've always preached to my girls that the boat doesn't matter if YOU perform correctly. That maxim still holds true today.

east tx skier
08-03-2011, 12:52 PM
Doug - to a certain extent, I was countering the argument set forth on another forum regarding MC's "dangerous" wake. I simply didn't see evidence of this while pulling a large range of age/skill levels last weekend. I've always preached to my girls that the boat doesn't matter if YOU perform correctly. That maxim still holds true today.


We agree. Of course, the sport is dangerous. I certainly don't think any of these boat wakes is dangerous or makes it any more dangerous. Then again, I learned to ski behind an I/O. It's all good from there.

I am still working on undoing twenty years of bad habits. As for any of the boats that are the subject of the discussion, I think you are right. My ball count is roughly the same on any given day regardless of the boat. By the time notice what the wake felt like, I'm about half way through my turn.

east tx skier
08-03-2011, 12:53 PM
Thanks for the great comparison Cottonwood!



Slow speed, long line. Isn't that where most people complain about the MC wake?

I think my point from the first page of this thread is that MC has been making this same boat for many years, and only NOW people are complaining about the wake? :confused:
They must have drunk the SN 200 Kool Aid.

You wouldn't have heard about it on here. I think Andre and I may have mentioned it back in 2004, but the threads were deleted. 8p

/kidding ... sort of ... but not about the threads being deleted.