PDA

View Full Version : Slow Speed Wakes


bbruzzese
08-13-2013, 08:41 AM
I know this problem looks to be solved with the new ProStar but I was wondering if anyone had played with adding weight in the bow to improve the slalom wake for kids...if so how much weight and how'd it work? We're in an 08 PS197 and the current wakes are obviously skiable but...Thanks

TxsRiverRat
08-13-2013, 09:47 AM
I know this problem looks to be solved with the new ProStar but I was wondering if anyone had played with adding weight in the bow to improve the slalom wake for kids...if so how much weight and how'd it work? We're in an 08 PS197 and the current wakes are obviously skiable but...Thanks

what speed is this 'horrible' wake at

:rolleyes:

Bouyhead
08-13-2013, 10:22 AM
what speed is this 'horrible' wake at

:rolleyes:

Junior skiers 26 MPH and under.

http://www.apfphoto.com/Sports/WaterSkiing/2013-Eastern-Regionals/30967343_XmJTkv#!i=2678488189&k=pNMB26N

Freakin Tsunami.

east tx skier
08-13-2013, 11:01 AM
I tried it for grins in my 98 Ski Nautique. The slow speed wake is already superb down to 30 mph. But I am always game for improving things cheaply where I can.

I tied a small bag of weights (about 70 lbs) to the underside of the lifting eye. Handling and wake at skiing speeds were not noticeably affected (maybe I needed more weight). The only thing I noticed was that the boat plowed water at idle speed and was harder to steer at idle.

I removed the weight and have never bothered with it again. The wake is hardly noticeable without it. I have heard of others having success with this with other boats. But it wasn't what I would call an improvement in my case.

east tx skier
08-13-2013, 11:02 AM
Junior skiers 26 MPH and under.

http://www.apfphoto.com/Sports/WaterSkiing/2013-Eastern-Regionals/30967343_XmJTkv#!i=2678488189&k=pNMB26N

Freakin Tsunami.

Wow, you weren't kidding!

JMLVMI
08-13-2013, 11:33 AM
Junior skiers 26 MPH and under.

http://www.apfphoto.com/Sports/WaterSkiing/2013-Eastern-Regionals/30967343_XmJTkv#!i=2678488189&k=pNMB26N

Freakin Tsunami.

While the wakes behind the PS197 are much bigger for slow speed skiiers, that picture is deceptive. The angle makes it look like that kid is having to ski through Rooster Tail Everest, but the previous picture shows the wake where he actually crosses. Not nearly that bad:

http://www.apfphoto.com/Sports/WaterSkiing/2013-Eastern-Regionals/30967343_XmJTkv#!i=2678484799&k=BjR5LrH

TxsRiverRat
08-13-2013, 12:58 PM
no offense, but the kid in the pics is in bad form in every single pic.

are you folks saying that the 26 mph wake behind my 93 is better than a current 197?

i find this hard to believe

itch2ski
08-13-2013, 01:14 PM
I ski mostly at 28 and 30 in the course. I have a 92 PS205 and recently skied a newer 197. Hate to say it, but the wake at those speeds was not any better behind the 197.

chriscraftmatt1976
08-13-2013, 01:15 PM
no offense, but the kid in the pics is in bad form in every single pic.

are you folks saying that the 26 mph wake behind my 93 is better than a current 197?

i find this hard to believe

My 93 sns wake is way smaller than that at 26.

TxsRiverRat
08-13-2013, 01:40 PM
if you click on the link, and see the 9 pics on that page - from top left to right and then down:

1: kid has arms away from vest, and his hips are not forward
2. stiff legged and arms away from vest
3. tail riding at buoy
4. on his way to a nice OTF due to bad body position - close shouldered
5. same as #4 above
6. arms bent, you'll always lose the war
7. same as #6 above
8. arms bent, hips behind him
9. same as #7 above

I'm just saying the kid has alot of room for improvement, and once those things are fixed, lets hear the complains about slow speed wakes.

chriscraftmatt1976
08-13-2013, 02:26 PM
if you click on the link, and see the 9 pics on that page - from top left to right and then down:

1: kid has arms away from vest, and his hips are not forward
2. stiff legged and arms away from vest
3. tail riding at buoy
4. on his way to a nice OTF due to bad body position - close shouldered
5. same as #4 above
6. arms bent, you'll always lose the war
7. same as #6 above
8. arms bent, hips behind him
9. same as #7 above

I'm just saying the kid has alot of room for improvement, and once those things are fixed, lets hear the complains about slow speed wakes.

That may all be true, but doesn't end the point of this thread...

Bouyhead
08-13-2013, 02:37 PM
if you click on the link, and see the 9 pics on that page - from top left to right and then down:

1: kid has arms away from vest, and his hips are not forward
2. stiff legged and arms away from vest
3. tail riding at buoy
4. on his way to a nice OTF due to bad body position - close shouldered
5. same as #4 above
6. arms bent, you'll always lose the war
7. same as #6 above
8. arms bent, hips behind him
9. same as #7 above

I'm just saying the kid has alot of room for improvement, and once those things are fixed, lets hear the complains about slow speed wakes.

No debating about the kids form but it has nothing to do with the size of the wake. The slower that boat goes the worse it's gets compared to other tugs. I'd bet that kid is skiing A LOT slower then 26 MPH and that's where the chief complaint is. Little tikes that ski that slow don't get stacked and slice thru the wake, they just kind of ride over it.

TxsRiverRat
08-13-2013, 02:44 PM
No debating about the kids form but it has nothing to do with the size of the wake. The slower that boat goes the worse it's gets compared to other tugs. I'd bet that kid is skiing A LOT slower then 26 MPH and that's where the chief complaint is. Little tikes that ski that slow don't get stacked and slice thru the wake, they just kind of ride over it.

That may all be true, but doesn't end the point of this thread...

What I hadn't considered... Are these at long line (75)?

There are alot of people that hate the 90's era prostar wakes at 22 off. I know theres a bump back there but if you're on edge in the proper form, you slice right through it.

No matter how you look at it, it still skis better than an 81 sea ray :D

east tx skier
08-13-2013, 03:03 PM
if you click on the link, and see the 9 pics on that page - from top left to right and then down:

1: kid has arms away from vest, and his hips are not forward
2. stiff legged and arms away from vest
3. tail riding at buoy
4. on his way to a nice OTF due to bad body position - close shouldered
5. same as #4 above
6. arms bent, you'll always lose the war
7. same as #6 above
8. arms bent, hips behind him
9. same as #7 above

I'm just saying the kid has alot of room for improvement, and once those things are fixed, lets hear the complains about slow speed wakes.

My form is a little better than that. And having skied behind a 197 at slower than 30 mph speeds, I concur that it has left a lot to be desired for slow pokes and long liners (otherwise known as "most of us"). Mark, you will, no doubt, agree that not everyone of a tender age brings perfect positioning fundamentals into their wheelhouse all at once on day one. In my opinion, it would be nice for these kids to not have to pay with their limbs if 100 lbs in the nose could improve that situation.

Then again, I have the advantage of a 26 mph wake that looks like this. 8p

https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/--gpUjxVfgyQ/SLbunV3604I/AAAAAAAABX4/LTjv6mzOw7U/s1024/Side%2520shot%2520with%2520wake%2520%252826%2520mp h%2529.jpg

/yes, there is a rooster tail, but the skier doesn't have to ski under it. ;)

chriscraftmatt1976
08-13-2013, 03:16 PM
What I hadn't considered... Are these at long line (75)?

There are alot of people that hate the 90's era prostar wakes at 22 off. I know theres a bump back there but if you're on edge in the proper form, you slice right through it.

No matter how you look at it, it still skis better than an 81 sea ray :D

From what I've learned since joining tt, nothing skis better than an 81 sea ray... :)

east tx skier
08-13-2013, 03:19 PM
For grins (I'm grinning), check out the wake at 26 mph behind the new Pro Star!

https://fbcdn-sphotos-f-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/1150734_282385941902679_406590002_o.jpg

Most impressive.

Bouyhead
08-13-2013, 03:27 PM
My form is a little better than that. And having skied behind a 197 at slower than 30 mph speeds, I concur that it has left a lot to be desired for slow pokes and long liners (otherwise known as "most of us"). Mark, you will, no doubt, agree that not everyone of a tender age brings perfect positioning fundamentals into their wheelhouse all at once on day one. In my opinion, it would be nice for these kids to not have to pay with their limbs if 100 lbs in the nose could improve that situation.

Then again, I have the advantage of a 26 mph wake that looks like this. 8p

https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/--gpUjxVfgyQ/SLbunV3604I/AAAAAAAABX4/LTjv6mzOw7U/s1024/Side%2520shot%2520with%2520wake%2520%252826%2520mp h%2529.jpg

/yes, there is a rooster tail, but the skier doesn't have to ski under it. ;)

WOW, is that really 26 MPH? if my sister sees that pic our PS might be for sale!:(

TxsRiverRat
08-13-2013, 03:36 PM
My form is a little better than that. And having skied behind a 197 at slower than 30 mph speeds, I concur that it has left a lot to be desired for slow pokes and long liners (otherwise known as "most of us"). Mark, you will, no doubt, agree that not everyone of a tender age brings perfect positioning fundamentals into their wheelhouse all at once on day one. In my opinion, it would be nice for these kids to not have to pay with their limbs if 100 lbs in the nose could improve that situation.

Then again, I have the advantage of a 26 mph wake that looks like this. 8p

https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/--gpUjxVfgyQ/SLbunV3604I/AAAAAAAABX4/LTjv6mzOw7U/s1024/Side%2520shot%2520with%2520wake%2520%252826%2520mp h%2529.jpg

/yes, there is a rooster tail, but the skier doesn't have to ski under it. ;)

From what I've learned since joining tt, nothing skis better than an 81 sea ray... :)

Doug, how did you get the nautique interior into your sea ray?

bbruzzese
08-13-2013, 05:04 PM
what speed is this 'horrible' wake at

:rolleyes:

Never said the wake was horrible...we love our 197 and previous 3 boats were a 96 ski nautique, 98 ski nautique and 04 196 so I'm very familiar with those wakes. Just looking for any cheap tricks to make it easier on the 6 and 8yr olds skiing in the low 20mphs and just seeing success in the course. They can and are skiing it as is but I'd like to give them any advantage I can.

east tx skier
08-13-2013, 05:20 PM
WOW, is that really 26 MPH? if my sister sees that pic our PS might be for sale!:(

Yes, it is. I have never skied it at that speed, but I have skied at 28 mph behind my boat and, frankly, it isn't wonderful. 30 mph has a flawless long line wake (as in unnoticeable bump). 28 mph, for whatever reason, has just enough width to be a bit jarring.

east tx skier
08-13-2013, 05:22 PM
Doug, how did you get the nautique interior into your sea ray?

I want to, somehow, turn this into a joke about how to fix the wake behind your boat, i.e., unscrew the throttle knob, move the boat, pull a late 90s Correct Craft into the same spot, and screw the throttle knob back down.

Unfortunately, it is not looking to be as seamless as I had hoped. 8p

east tx skier
08-13-2013, 05:24 PM
Never said the wake was horrible...we love our 197 and previous 3 boats were a 96 ski nautique, 98 ski nautique and 04 196 so I'm very familiar with those wakes. Just looking for any cheap tricks to make it easier on the 6 and 8yr olds skiing in the low 20mphs and just seeing success in the course. They can and are skiing it as is but I'd like to give them any advantage I can.

Did you ever weight the nose of your 98? If so, how much weight did you use and what differences did you notice? See my post above. Been a few years since I have bothered to play with it. But my eight year old is working on getting up on slalom and some swervey turns are sure to follow at lower speeds.

bbruzzese
08-13-2013, 05:24 PM
Junior skiers 26 MPH and under.

http://www.apfphoto.com/Sports/WaterSkiing/2013-Eastern-Regionals/30967343_XmJTkv#!i=2678488189&k=pNMB26N

Freakin Tsunami.

Also i can tell you our 08 doesn't put up a rooster like that at 17 much less 26....not sure what changed but something sure did....glad the new one is out and appears to be awesome.

bbruzzese
08-13-2013, 05:29 PM
Did you ever weight the nose of your 98? If so, how much weight did you use and what differences did you notice? See my post above. Been a few years since I have bothered to play with it. But my eight year old is working on getting up on slalom and some swervey turns are sure to follow at lower speeds.

I didn't...no kids then so it never occurred to me. Was a great boat though. I'll mess around with some weight in the bow and see what happens....I'm sure I have some dumbells collecting dust in the basement I can use.

TayMC197
08-13-2013, 05:41 PM
The boat wasn't designed for beginners.. It was designed for tournament pros..

Not sure why this is so hard to understand. Ski at what the boat was intended for and guess what?

It's like putting a 10 year old on a 450 dirtbike.. The bike is awesome with the riders it was designed for. Same for the 197.. Not many boat companies set out to design the best slalom boat for low speeds and long lines.

I'd think of it as a motivator to help them improve to faster speeds and shorter lines.

bbruzzese
08-13-2013, 06:47 PM
The boat wasn't designed for beginners.. It was designed for tournament pros..

Not sure why this is so hard to understand. Ski at what the boat was intended for and guess what?

It's like putting a 10 year old on a 450 dirtbike.. The bike is awesome with the riders it was designed for. Same for the 197.. Not many boat companies set out to design the best slalom boat for low speeds and long lines.

I'd think of it as a motivator to help them improve to faster speeds and shorter lines.

I understand it quite well in fact, and again, I'm not knocking the boat...my kids are running buoys as is. Just was curious if simply adding some weight to the bow would make it better which to your point might get them progressing to faster speeds and shorter lines quicker.

Bouyhead
08-13-2013, 09:38 PM
The boat wasn't designed for beginners.. It was designed for tournament pros..

Not sure why this is so hard to understand. Ski at what the boat was intended for and guess what?

It's like putting a 10 year old on a 450 dirtbike.. The bike is awesome with the riders it was designed for. Same for the 197.. Not many boat companies set out to design the best slalom boat for low speeds and long lines.

I'd think of it as a motivator to help them improve to faster speeds and shorter lines.

You just validated my point. Designing a boat for tournament pros is catering to a very small percentage of skiers. What about " everyone else"? It's no secret that the 197 didn't perform very well at long lines and slow speeds. Glad the new ProStar addressed that issue.

ahhudgins
08-13-2013, 09:55 PM
Never said the wake was horrible...we love our 197 and previous 3 boats were a 96 ski nautique, 98 ski nautique and 04 196 so I'm very familiar with those wakes. Just looking for any cheap tricks to make it easier on the 6 and 8yr olds skiing in the low 20mphs and just seeing success in the course. They can and are skiing it as is but I'd like to give them any advantage I can.

In the low 20s I don't believe that there is much you can do that will have a noticable change in the wake, but that's just my opinion. A jet ski maybe??:D

east tx skier
08-13-2013, 10:04 PM
The boat wasn't designed for beginners.. It was designed for tournament pros..

Not sure why this is so hard to understand. Ski at what the boat was intended for and guess what?

It's like putting a 10 year old on a 450 dirtbike.. The bike is awesome with the riders it was designed for. Same for the 197.. Not many boat companies set out to design the best slalom boat for low speeds and long lines.

I'd think of it as a motivator to help them improve to faster speeds and shorter lines.

No offense (and, remember, I said no offense ;)), but that sentiment has been nonsense for 20 years. If that were the case, there would have been no 205 and there would be no 197. Bow seating and towers do not a hard core tournament boat make. And if MC only shot for the uber shortliners, they would have been bankrupted years ago. To compete, you have to sell something that can satisfy everyone, handles rough water, puts out no wake at any line length, is not completely and utterly cost prohibitive, and looks good while sipping fuel. If anything else were true, this would be a stripped down, low drag, light, closed bow beast with a perfect trough for the shortliners and screw the rest. But they haven't been that way for a long time because they want to please the open water people with wide beams, smooth ride in the chop, and bow seating.

Maybe 15% of skiers get into shortline (probably way lower, but I'm being generous). Divide that number by 3 and if it was only about them, there not only would be no MC, there would be no ski boat industry.

Especially in this day and age with the SN 200 and Carbon Pro providing good long line slow speed skier options, for MC, it was either evolve or be gone. From the looks of the 26 mph wake and all the way up, they appear to have evolved with great fury and style t'boot. I think the 197 is a great boat. But it is a boat of creature comforts with a nice wake, but not a nice wake at all speeds and line lengths.

I could be wrong, but I'm not. :)

east tx skier
08-13-2013, 10:06 PM
I understand it quite well in fact, and again, I'm not knocking the boat...my kids are running buoys as is. Just was curious if simply adding some weight to the bow would make it better which to your point might get them progressing to faster speeds and shorter lines quicker.

They do it at tournaments (or they used to) for the pros. No reason the rest of us ought to be persuaded to settle for less when it might be so easy and inexpensive to do (and undo if you don't like it).

Skipper
08-13-2013, 10:55 PM
I have a '95 Prostar. I found that placing about 100 lbs at the bow (attached to the lift eye bolt) made an improvement on my slalom wakes when pulling my daughter at 28 mph. I even installed a rudder with a fin to provide lift in the back. That helped a little too.

I have noticed that my boat is weight sensitive. I ski at 34 mph. With a crew weight between 250 and 300 lbs (and anything not tied down removed from the boat) I hardly notice the impact with the wake. When crew weight exceeds 350 to 450 lbs the boat rides much deeper in the stern, the rooster tail is taller, and it is a noticeable jolt when impacting the wakes.

With my '87 SN that thing could only be skied at 34-36 mph and it still knocked your fillings loose when impacting the wake. At 26-28 mph it could have been a tournament wakeboard boat. I "hooked" the stern by creating a small wedge out of fiberglass to provide more lift. That really helped at all speeds but it was still quite a challenge skiing at 26 - 28 mph.

The best wake I have ever seen at 26 mph was my buddy's 2003 Malibu Sunsetter LXI with the Diamond hull. When pulling through the course at 26 mph the stern would actually slip to the left because it was not riding in the water but rather it was floating over top. At 34 -36 mph the wake was incredibly flat and soft with no rooster tail at all.

Moral of the story is that it really depends on the boat. These older ski boats were really designed only for tournament skiers at 36 mph. At least the new, unbelievably expensive, Prostar 197 has been designed to improve the wake at slower speeds.

Until then, you might just try putting a 150 lb dumb bell up in the bow as far forward as you can get it. That just might help.

88 PS190
08-13-2013, 11:03 PM
You just validated my point. Designing a boat for tournament pros is catering to a very small percentage of skiers. What about " everyone else"? It's no secret that the 197 didn't perform very well at long lines and slow speeds. Glad the new ProStar addressed that issue.


Relax on the point - MC has done a great job ALWAYS making 3 event boats - lots of development on the trick and jump parts as well as the slalom.

The same reason the 197 irritates kids skiing in the low 20's gives the boat fantastic trick wakes - and a diehard following in that arena of 20 people.


I would wager if you wanted an open bow boat for more than just slalom when the 197 came out - it was a good purchase.

If you wanted a serious slalom tug through most of the 197's life then you would buy the SN 196.


I have not heard how the new PS reviews by the 3 event crowd.

east tx skier
08-14-2013, 10:37 AM
I have a '95 Prostar. I found that placing about 100 lbs at the bow (attached to the lift eye bolt) made an improvement on my slalom wakes when pulling my daughter at 28 mph. I even installed a rudder with a fin to provide lift in the back. That helped a little too.

I have noticed that my boat is weight sensitive. I ski at 34 mph. With a crew weight between 250 and 300 lbs (and anything not tied down removed from the boat) I hardly notice the impact with the wake. When crew weight exceeds 350 to 450 lbs the boat rides much deeper in the stern, the rooster tail is taller, and it is a noticeable jolt when impacting the wakes.

With my '87 SN that thing could only be skied at 34-36 mph and it still knocked your fillings loose when impacting the wake. At 26-28 mph it could have been a tournament wakeboard boat. I "hooked" the stern by creating a small wedge out of fiberglass to provide more lift. That really helped at all speeds but it was still quite a challenge skiing at 26 - 28 mph.

The best wake I have ever seen at 26 mph was my buddy's 2003 Malibu Sunsetter LXI with the Diamond hull. When pulling through the course at 26 mph the stern would actually slip to the left because it was not riding in the water but rather it was floating over top. At 34 -36 mph the wake was incredibly flat and soft with no rooster tail at all.

Moral of the story is that it really depends on the boat. These older ski boats were really designed only for tournament skiers at 36 mph. At least the new, unbelievably expensive, Prostar 197 has been designed to improve the wake at slower speeds.

Until then, you might just try putting a 150 lb dumb bell up in the bow as far forward as you can get it. That just might help.

I hear you on weight sensitive boats. My boat is extremely weight sensitive side to side. So much so that if you sit too far to port in the observer seat (a/k/a the most comfortable part of the seat where everyone sits) the boat will list slightly to that side and the wake shape is off just enough to firm it up noticeably). Move the observer about 4" to starboard and it's fine.

The trick with weighting and lift is to not do it so much that tracking and holding a driving line with a heavy pulling skier is affected. That was always the comments I heard around here about the Malibu. Very little stern in the water, no wake, but tracking wasn't as good and a skier could pull it all over the place. No personal experience there. I have skied the later Response boats, but have not driven them.

When my kids start skiing more regularly, I will probably try some weight in the nose again. It didn't make any noticeable difference at higher speeds, but we never tried the lower speeds.

east tx skier
08-14-2013, 10:44 AM
Relax on the point - MC has done a great job ALWAYS making 3 event boats - lots of development on the trick and jump parts as well as the slalom.

The same reason the 197 irritates kids skiing in the low 20's gives the boat fantastic trick wakes - and a diehard following in that arena of 20 people.


I would wager if you wanted an open bow boat for more than just slalom when the 197 came out - it was a good purchase.

If you wanted a serious slalom tug through most of the 197's life then you would buy the SN 196.


I have not heard how the new PS reviews by the 3 event crowd.

The 197 was always an easier resell for the tournament team drivers versus the 190, particularly with the tower. It was every bit as capable of a boat as the 190, and MC never pushed the 190 over the 197 at tournaments. For most of the 197s existence, the 190 was mostly made to order.

The 196 on the other hand was the tournament boat for CC. Sure, the 206 was approved and they showed up at tournaments in the early years of the hull, but the wake was never as good as the 196. So that was the CC you saw at tournaments and the one the slalom skiers who went with that brand bought. The 2008 and 2009 models of the 196 that have ZO still fetch quite a premium for those that want a CC on a private lake and are concerned with either the cost of the 200 or the fuel consumption versus the lower drag and still, quite capable TSC3 196.

I regularly takes sets at 15 off and 30 mph behind a 2010 TT 197. The wake is very good at that speed and I enjoy skiing behind the boat. But my guess is that, similar to my SN, 30 mph is the bottom end of relatively unoticeable wake without some weight adjustment.

chriscraftmatt1976
08-14-2013, 12:19 PM
[QUOTE=east tx skier;968313 But my guess is that, similar to my SN[/QUOTE]

Whoa whoa whoa whoa whoa...

You own a sn?!?!?!? :)

east tx skier
08-14-2013, 12:31 PM
Whoa whoa whoa whoa whoa...

You own a sn?!?!?!? :)

Yep. Since August 2007.

JMLVMI
08-14-2013, 12:39 PM
The 2008 and 2009 models of the 196 that have ZO still fetch quite a premium for those that want a CC on a private lake and are concerned with either the cost of the 200 or the fuel consumption versus the lower drag and still, quite capable TSC3 196.

Might be the best slalom hull ever made. If CC could sell that mold to a small company, they could make a nice little niche for themselves in the private lake/ski club crowd. I love how the 196's windshield and cockpit is pushed so far forward to maximize space; it's not just an open bow boat fiberglassed over...

OK, enough SN love. Need to go hug my 195 :D

TxsRiverRat
08-14-2013, 01:27 PM
you might just try putting a 150 lb dumb bell up in the bow as far forward as you can get it.

We have several 150# dumb bells in our club, i'll just invite them out LMAO - just had to

chriscraftmatt1976
08-14-2013, 01:30 PM
Yep. Since August 2007.

I worked at a cc dealer for years. Hard to hate on their boats. They generally lead the innovation charge as well in my mind.

east tx skier
08-14-2013, 02:40 PM
Might be the best slalom hull ever made. If CC could sell that mold to a small company, they could make a nice little niche for themselves in the private lake/ski club crowd. I love how the 196's windshield and cockpit is pushed so far forward to maximize space; it's not just an open bow boat fiberglassed over...

OK, enough SN love. Need to go hug my 195 :D

I had about 3 boats on my short list in no particular order.

1. 1993 190 Ltd.
2. 1993 Red S&S 190 (preferably with an LT1).
3. Bret's 1994 190.
4. Red TSC Ski Nautique

Gear reduction was also a preference. This boat came up for sale 80 miles from me and had 190 hours on it. Some upgrades to the prop, speed control, and stereo with some tip to stern professional buffing and it has been an absolutely magnificent boat with an unbelievable slalom wake for what I need. It has pulled nationally ranked skiers at 38 off and trick. The seating position (view) and overall driveability of this boat is undeniably good as well.

I loves me some Mastercraft, but this little tug was too good to pass up.

https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-BoFEwTkOE34/TaJ5SziKhgI/AAAAAAAAD00/mt3zBaOMkqw/s1152/IMAG0050.jpg

Business end.

https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-YnzqZoe65ew/TgJUrr94aeI/AAAAAAAAEAU/cAjKYwyhPu8/s1021/SNWakeat36.jpg

I used to have a nice picture of the view out of the windshield, but I'll have to go hunting for it.

/sorry to the OP for the threadjack.

TayMC197
08-14-2013, 02:54 PM
No offense (and, remember, I said no offense ;)), but that sentiment has been nonsense for 20 years. If that were the case, there would have been no 205 and there would be no 197. Bow seating and towers do not a hard core tournament boat make. And if MC only shot for the uber shortliners, they would have been bankrupted years ago. To compete, you have to sell something that can satisfy everyone, handles rough water, puts out no wake at any line length, is not completely and utterly cost prohibitive, and looks good while sipping fuel. If anything else were true, this would be a stripped down, low drag, light, closed bow beast with a perfect trough for the shortliners and screw the rest. But they haven't been that way for a long time because they want to please the open water people with wide beams, smooth ride in the chop, and bow seating.

Maybe 15% of skiers get into shortline (probably way lower, but I'm being generous). Divide that number by 3 and if it was only about them, there not only would be no MC, there would be no ski boat industry.

Especially in this day and age with the SN 200 and Carbon Pro providing good long line slow speed skier options, for MC, it was either evolve or be gone. From the looks of the 26 mph wake and all the way up, they appear to have evolved with great fury and style t'boot. I think the 197 is a great boat. But it is a boat of creature comforts with a nice wake, but not a nice wake at all speeds and line lengths.

I could be wrong, but I'm not. :)

I've been offended.. Headed to Palestine to sink a boat this weekend!! ;-)

Skipper
08-14-2013, 03:05 PM
We have several 150# dumb bells in our club, i'll just invite them out LMAO - just had to

I never thought of cramming a warm body up under the bow? That is not a bad idea. Maybe just strap them across the bow like a deer.

TxsRiverRat
08-14-2013, 03:20 PM
I never thought of cramming a warm body up under the bow? That is not a bad idea. Maybe just strap them across the bow like a deer.

:D :D :D

east tx skier
08-14-2013, 03:34 PM
I've been offended.. Headed to Palestine to sink a boat this weekend!! ;-)

Sink all the boats on Palestine you like. Won't help that lake any. :)

Kevin 89MC
08-14-2013, 04:38 PM
I'll throw my $0.02 in here as well. I have played around with the weight in my '89 PS with varying degrees of mild improvement. Amount of fuel and passengers on board are the biggest things. Empty boat with some weight in the bow made a little difference, I think. Either that or I was skiing well that day! My boat has a 22' off bump at 34, but it's funny how I don't ever seem to notice it on my on-side wake cross, just my off side :) I watched myself on video last night, and I think I may have found the problem :) When I have my hips up I slice through, but no question it is there.
I ski regularly behind a 176 Natique (short version of the 196) and at the risk of getting flamed, that wake is incredible. However I had a big OTF last night at 28' off where that wake is about as good as it gets. So it ain't the boat! But I know that boat has let me get away with bad form way more than my boat, however that is just making me lazy at improving my form! I do notice how weight sensitive it is, though, if it is loaded up.
I free ski behind a Malibu Response LX and a Sunsetter, and I have to admit the wakes on both of those boats is really incredible too. I also get behind a '98 Prostar often, and that wake is just as good. The 2 times I've been beind a 197 was in tournaments, and while I did not ski well at all, I could not blame the boat. Wake seemed very good at 32&34 mph, 15 off. Sadly never got to see what 22 off was like. Did not like ZO, but like everyone else I'm sure I'd come around if I could ever practice with it.
OK I'll quit rambling!

madcityskier
08-14-2013, 09:56 PM
Whoa whoa whoa whoa whoa...

You own a sn?!?!?!? :)

Easty was also the guy who got me the literature I emailed you about your boat. (WSM review etc.)

chriscraftmatt1976
08-15-2013, 12:12 PM
Those 176s are cool. A buddy of mine used to own one. Did everything well, even surfed pretty good. It would be cool to see Mc roll out a shorty like that for a limited edition.

east tx skier
08-15-2013, 12:16 PM
Those 176s are cool. A buddy of mine used to own one. Did everything well, even surfed pretty good. It would be cool to see Mc roll out a shorty like that for a limited edition.

They are even cooler if you put a standard Ski Nautique (11a) rudder on them. They were apparently so good, they had to be "detuned" in the steering department a little bit so as not to outshine the standard SN of that period. So the stock rudder is a bit lackluster.

chriscraftmatt1976
08-15-2013, 01:24 PM
They are even cooler if you put a standard Ski Nautique (11a) rudder on them. They were apparently so good, they had to be "detuned" in the steering department a little bit so as not to outshine the standard SN of that period. So the stock rudder is a bit lackluster.

I wonder why they quit making those bad boys. How many years were they produced?

east tx skier
08-15-2013, 03:05 PM
I wonder why they quit making those bad boys. How many years were they produced?

Maybe 1996--1999. Maybe just through 98. Not sure why they quit. The market seems to be about as much interior space as possible. While there is a market for a sub 18' boat, it can't be enough to make it worth maintaining that mold.