Ski Boat Design Ideas

[Horton]

My point exactly.

Brain,

How is it that you can do that in PhotoShop in less that 30 min but I still have to imbed the image for you? :- ) Darn Skiers

[clemsondave]

Just because an engine has a ton of power, doesn't mean it is going to use more fuel in all situations. I have a car that I modified to have almost twice the stock HP/TQ. It gets the same gas mileage in town and on the highway. Apx 740hp and it gets 26-27mpg on the highway.

 

Another example. Not sure if anyone here is a fan of Top Gear on the BBC. They did a test of a Prius vs a BMW M3. They ran both around their test track. Not only did the M3 smoke the Prius (obviously), but the M3 got better gas mileage during that test.

 

If a boat has more power, I'd bet that it would use less fuel to pull a skier; assuming both boats weighed the same and had the same drag. Now, if the OP could make a lighter weight boat with less drag with the same hp that is in current boats, he'd have something impressive!

[DanE]

Clemsondave, I wasn´t saying that a high power engine would consume a lot of fuel, but a boat that has high drag for whatever reason that requiers a lot of power to maintain skiing speed will cause any engine to consume lots of fuel.

[DW]

A couple points to add, the pull feel has been equated to the acceleration side of the pull but not much input on the effect on the skiers ability to slow the boat down and that resultant feel. IMO, that leads to a soft pull at least in that portion of the run.  A skier that is not able to pull the boat speed down should experience a firmer feeling pull.

The prop is also a significant contributor to pull feel.  Imagine how soft a small, flexible 2 blade prop would feel regardless of what engine is spinning it.  The newer CNC, large blade area props all contribute to a firmer feel.

PS:  quite the interesting Corvette!

[Chuck_Dickey]

The twin prop picture is a real boat. I snagged that pic from a group of pictures which also showed the inside of the boat, motor and the transmission. It is the work horse for show sking in the upper midwest somewhere.

If you had a boat that the skier could not slow down, then it should never gas the skier either. Sounds great to me!

Inconsistant speed and tracking is what's keeping us out of the olympics. A boat like this with laser guided steering could get us there.

If we ever get in the olympics, another way I would picture it, NO BOAT, just a pylon would be attached to a rail system under water and just stick out of the water like the periscope of a sub. The power source could be a cable like a chair lift so the speed and track would be exact. The periscope could have a base at the water level with a shape that makes a wake comparable to a boat, so skiers could still train normally.  Nice daydreaming idea?

[swc5150]

If I could take girls our for a ride in the pariscope pylon, I'd be in for one - wait, that sounds kind of X rated!?

[MCskiFreak]

I do agree with alot with what has been said in this thread...the boats are too big, too heavy, and thus far have all lacked engineering innovation as far as the hull is concerned. I really appreciate everyones input with ideas and comments! I hope to have a fairly complete 3D model by the end of the year.d

[6balls]

Do  they lack engineering...or have they found a way to throw a slalom wake from a big, heavy, family friendly, open-bow boat?

[UTWaterSki]

I wouldn't mind the better gas mileage when towing a lighter boat. I bet that could help the promo guys travel just a bit further to get their boats to a better variety of tournaments

[MCskiFreak]

6BALLS,

 

They do lack any real engineering time, the big three have become too big to really invest time in the dd, and as of right now MC is the only one employing a naval architect.

 

Just look at the 200 and how the high drag hull has caused problems/complaints with athletes and customers, It does produce a nice wake but does it in a way that is compromising to its other tasks.

 

 

Does anyone have a picture of the all electric 196 that Andy skied?

[Jody_Seal]

Mr. ski Freek more power to ya! You are on the right track in regards to development of a totally new ski boat. My advice for your project is to do some real background analysis on the success rate of those that have tried before you and also do you have a around a million dollars for start up and tooling costs? The cost analysis that I did about five years ago to produce a limited number (50 units) went right close to that figure. Material cost on one unit will run somewhere around $8,000 and that does not include hardware and of course the engine package, and unless you commit to a specific number of engines you will not get the same pricing that the big boys get. New chop strand dispensing units will run over $30,000 and you need two. Unless you have spent the last 10-30 years collecting and investing in shop tools and equipment you will pay out the Arse for equipment, adequate compressor. Overhead lifting equipment the list goes on and on. Then their is the fact that you have to pay your limited number of employees before any unit hits the end users hands. Then their is the building you are producing in,,, you don’t want to rent you really need to own the property and building. and lastly their is the EPA you know the government, them rascals have their mitts in everything and they create environments that you have to abide by or no end product. By all means we do need a ski boat for the masses and you may have a new mouse trap so go for it and good luck! Really!!

Cheers!

 

 

[PJ]

Too bad you still can't get a 120% mortgage with zero down. Say goodbye to polished chrome dubbs and wakeboard boats.

 I can get a brand new Bayliner for under 20k. I'm sure the build tolerances are just as good as a MC on those.

[MCskiFreak]

Jody,

 

Start up costs are one of the reasons that I intend to diversify into other markets that will allow me to start covering costs while the production is beginning. I would like to talk to you about what your ideas were and why you ended up not attempting to start building! whisper me or shoot me an e-mail!

[rayn]

The boat you are talking about sounds like it is targetted at a niche that "has to" be loyal to the big 3 in some way, shape or form. My understanding is you are looking to build a course "monster" that will be highly engineered with great wakes, good styling etc. But what that niche wants is that plus it wants to train behind a boat that it could get in a tournament.

Given the market, I would also think you need to find something unique(electric, auto steering, 32off wakes at 22mph longline) that you do, unless you are going to give the same/better quality, features for ~1/2 the price(already done to a degree) you are going to have tough sledding, unless you have a business model that allows you to build a small number of these boats to satisfy your dream.

 Some Ideas for my ideal ski boat in addition to what has been mentioned

•  Similiar wakes from 20mphlongline, to shortline
• Integrated videotaping system(both for review and Real time for driver
• comfortable seating for 2 observers in an openbow

 

[disland]

How about a hydrofoil. Is there anything in the rules that specify that the boat has to displace water?

[Butte-Ski]

Here’s my two cents from the world of race boats and the boat industrial in general. In 2007 resin tripled in price. The price of a blank drag tunnel hull, assuming you had a good mold and tooling went from around $4500 to $11000.  

You must have a solid business plan. You must do a full market analyses. Your research and study of hydrodynamics takes time and instrumentation, which is extremely expensive. Even after spending all this money, there are inconsistencies in the performance of boats. In regards to racing boats, I was primarily concerned with the aspects of drag.You must improve performance, fuel consumption! The two most significant kinds of hydrodynamic drag are friction and wave drag. Which means that you must be very precise with your hydrodynamic assumptions? Don’t let anyone tell you can’t do it. You will need to work extremely hard and stick with it. I would suggest talking to Mike Brindelia. Visit the builders and observe. Boat Racing Facts.com has a huge following. A lot of those folks have built boats and would be more than happy to answer your general questions. I know it’s a different venue, but boat building is boat building.

Good Luck 

Butte Ski 

 

[eleeski]

Ski boats were never designed for efficiency. New boats are designed to give the pull we are used to. A design will have to be engineered to compromise things like a good slalom feel and wake vs a good trick and wakeboard wake vs a good jump pull. These are very different constraints - sometimes opposing characteristics. The subjective assesment of how these factors is balanced makes a perfect or even best boat impossible.

A twin prop might be great for slalom tracking and jump kick but get some good trickers and wakeboarders to assess the wake and table characteristics. The twin rig Hydrodyne I skied behind years ago was not tricker friendly. And the gearing losses might offset any efficiency gains.

Regarding the engine type, horsepower is the only thing that makes a boat go. Torque times RPM is horsepower. My old D8 dozer engine is high torque but only 90 HP and it won't push a boat any faster than a 10,000 RPM motorcycle engine of 90 HP. Actually the motorcycle engine won't sink the boat so it is a better choice. Perhaps a V6 or high output 4 cylinder automotive engine running high RPM might be a smaller lighter package that would be a real breakthrough. A 2 speed or variable transmission might help put the engine in the right RPM range for the activity.

Boats need enough power to kick a jumper big distances. A reasonable jump boat will have lots of excess horsepower for slalom. Maybe so much that it can have a bad feel. Of course it is very easy to limit the HP - don't open the throttle all the way (regardless of the RPM). That is a speed control programming issue. Or you can add a bunch of drag and slippage to the hull like the CC 200 in slalom mode (I do like that slalom feel). Or a variable transmission so slalom RPMs are at a lower spot on the power curve and jump RPMs are near the peak. Or change the prop between events. This is a subjective feel issue with many solutions (too many?).

All these variables make boat design an art - not engineering. Actually it is more of a salesmanship game.

Eric

PS Bruce's tugboat would be an awful slalom feel. Speed swings are part of what we adapted our slalom styles to. Engineer the speed swings for the best feel. Maybe give a few options  (ABC123) to accomodate different tastes.

[ral]

Just an advice on the "big three have become too big to really invest time in the dd" thing. It is usually a mistake to assume that when companies become big they also by rule become inefficient/sloppy/disconnected from the marketplace and users. Companies do not become big by just doing stupid things. Having a profitable and sustainable business needs much more than good ideas and passion.

 

When the Nautique 200 was released, many skiers (including me) were complaining about the extra cost, how illogical it was to have a larger less efficient comp boat, and how good the 196 looked compared to the new squared monster. Then we said that the company was just losing their mind and focus when they did not renew their IWSF sponsorship (which is something that should have a much larger impact outside the USA thtan inside).

 

CC is now using 1 hull to replace 3 different boats from their old line (196/206/216), they seem to have produced the first v-drive with world class slalom wakes, they cannot produce 200's fast enough to keep up with the demand, and at the club think that our new boat is great and better than the 196 terms of skiing performance, driveability, look and finish, despite a noticeable lower acceleration performance. Every visitor that looks at it and skis behind it wants one. Go figure how stupid the new CC management was by dumping the old faithful 196.

[ForrestGump]

Exactly, RAL. Everybody bitches about the price tag. But they still buy em faster than CC can make em.

[Old MS Accout]

It proves that waterskiing is for rich people and is one of the main reasons for us not being able to attract new blood into the sport. The price that they get is dependant on what we will pay. When they run low on people that cant drop 50k on a boat, they will test a new price.   

[Old MS Accout]

Shane,

There are 20, 2010/11 200s FS on the front page of the comp boat section of SIA. Thats a lot of boats but good news for our club who will work one of them for a deal at some point.  

 

[MCskiFreak]

Ral,

 

What I meant by the big 3 not spending time on the DD's was not that they are in any way stupid, but they simply do not have the time or resources to do really proper development of the boats. With all the new models that are getting cranked out, MC more than BU or CC, there is just a big gap in what could be done with the ideas, and what is. It seems that it has always been find the first thing that works to a degree and that is what is used, that was where the 200 reference came in.

[DW]

The manufacturers will spend thier resources on the best ROI, and for the last decade, the wakeboard market has offered that in spades.  The downturn in the economy and the time lapse since significant effort seems to have prompted a resurgence in DD ski boat updates, which is good for the group on this forum.  I think an interesting comparison in how two different companies penetrated the market would be to look at Malibu and Infinity. 

[ral]

IMHO, everybody that has driven or skied behind a Nautique 200 would agree that there is a lot of development on the boat - considering the volumes they sell, these ain't For Explorers...

[Old MS Accout]

They wasted some good R & D dollars on the rubber stuff that sticks to the platform and side steps. I dont think I saw any 200s last summer that did not have that peeling off the boats.  

[lkb]

they oughta do some more R&D on noise abatement...that engine screams at 34...I'd hate to hear it at 36

[MCskiFreak]

The reason the 200 has to run such high rpm's is that HIGH drag hull and the way the boat is propped. There are also problems with what can be used that is both heat resistant and has good sound deadening properties without having a large weight penalty

[ForrestGump]

lkb, Put a Acme 422 on it unless you're jumping. That'll drop the rpm by 550 at 34mph. You wouldn't want to try and pull a 200ft jumper with that prop, but for slalom it's pretty sweet.

[ForrestGump]

Never cared about fuel consumption so we never checked.

[clemsondave]

MS, I had the faux teak last year (and this year). While I still love the look of real teak, I am completely sold on this stuff. Mine never peeled, scratched or anything else. It also kept skis from sliding around on the platform and banging into the transom. I used to make a piece of teak to block the skis from hitting, but this stuff is really nice.

[lkb]

Shane, I will keep that in mind for 2012. I will keep running my 09 196 all this year. This will be my 10th season with one and it will be a sad day when it goes to another home. Takes me back about 9 yrs ago when I first got my lake up and running with the CB 196 hanging in the boathouse and a group of us talking and wondering how much longer those babys would keep coming off the assembly line. I guess the day finally got here.

[Ed_Obermeier]

MS wrote "It proves that waterskiing is for rich people and is one of the main reasons for us not being able to attract new blood into the sport. The price that they get is dependant on what we will pay. When they run low on people that cant drop 50k on a boat, they will test a new price."

They priced me out of the new boat market in the early '00's.  I for one am glad for the folks who can still pony up for a new one.  At 4 - 5 years of age they're still an awsome pull and I'll buy it in excellent condition with 300 hours or so for about 40% of what it sold for new.  Unless you really can afford one, buying new makes absolutely no sense to me personally. But that's just me (read "cheap bastard").

Ed  

[Bulldog]

Ed, you are not cheap…. just really smart!

[6balls]

Totally agree Ed.

Particularly since until the SN200 there had not been a real significant change in hulls for the big 3 in a long time.  The changes that were made were marginally better (TSC 1,2,3 for example), but not enough to justify a big premium.  I laughed all the way to the bank fall '09 buying a '00 SN 196 w/84 hours and GT40 for $17K on consignment (no sales tax).  Performance pretty close to '09 SN 196.  Only downside is no ZO, but I get just enough ZO time s/where else that my skiing has become pretty compatible w/the various speed controls.

[A_B]

 

 

Did you notice any changes when going to the larger pitch prop on the 200 with ZO?

My thought on a tournament ski boat is to not make it a weekend wally boat, so it can be smaller, lighter, faster, and cheaper.

If you want one with all the creature comforts for yahooing at the cottage, upgrade to the existing tournament boats.

 I drop my boat in at my lake, have one or two riders, and the gear stays on the dock.  All the extra room, storage, etc (extra weight) is not needed, nor is it at a tournament, or most other tournament lakes.

 I have always been a SN guy, but unless they do something with the rpm's and horrid gas consumption, I will pass.  I can afford the gas btw, just think it is a design in the wrong direction.

[Kelvin]

With the Acme 422  on the SN200 the holeshot isn't as strong, but IMHO the pull in the course isn't any different from the 14.25 pitched prop.

[6balls]

With the 409 hp instead of the 343, would one be able to take adv of the lower rpm's of the bigger prop w/out sacrificing hole shot?  If the SN 200 hull produces a lot of drag, is the 409 the way to go?

[eleeski]

MC is the way to go.

See, it's all about brand loyalty, not engineering.

But I do also own a good 97 Nautique. And a 79 American Skier (that's the best engineered boat).

Eric

[MCskiFreak]

So over the summer had some time to start messing with my ideas for a new boat design. I have a working hull form that I am starting to try to refine a bit. I have some styling ideas that I would like to run by people and see what they think. As of right now I am wanting to go with some bit retro if you will. Right now the LOA sits at just over 19' but retains the width of about 92", my plan is to have a pretty severe shear line that blends into a barrel back transom with a step over, similar in concept to the Svara. My overall goal is beauty over bling, something that has definite influences from the 30' and 40's runabouts. Thoughts?

[Wish]

I like the retro idea. Look at all the reto cars out now. Some shapes are just timeless. And they sell. Always liked step over transoms. The SV had good interior design points with great use of space IMHO. I think if you can excite the ski masses visually, the bling is not nessisary. Gotta get the running serface right. Sounds like it will be the same size as the SN 196. Use running surface.

[lhoover]

Still think the funniest reply on the Forum in forever was after your initial plea for good, even original ideas for a new boat. The very first suggestion was from Shane for a stripper pole. Good Grief, many months later and I'm still laughing. Just wondered if it made the cut for your new prototype.

[MCskiFreak]

The running surface is something totally different from anything on the market, my profs have seen my initial idea and think it is quite good.

[DW]

From a functionality point, having a sloping transom may look awesome, but can be a PIA for the skier that sits on the transom to tighten/install boots and then hop off the back. The sloped CC is an example of a set up that does not work well for me. Looks great, though. Function should be #1, Form #2, bling a distant last!

 

Good luck with the project, I hope it goes well. Nice to see some new ideas/concepts in the market. Keep us posted on your progress.

[ForrestGump]

I agree with DW. Sloping transoms, while aestetically pleasing, are not functional in my opinion. What are the chances of outside the stringer saddle bag type fuel tanks to free up interior room and centralize weight?

[6balls]

Sanger used to run those on their DXII back in the day.

[MCskiFreak]

Sloped transom and barrel back are two different designs, I agree that the early 90's CC transom was a bad design from use stand point.

 

http://www.boatdesigns.com/products.asp?dept=721

 

The link is for an example of a barrel back transom.

 

Fuel tanks are another problem, there are all sorts of regs. about where a tank can be in relation to the engine, plus the EPA just put a bunch of new laws into effect. I have been kicking around the idea of a 10 gallon "tournament tank" in the bow. I need to run some calcs and see what that does to the attitude of the boat and how it could be worked in.

[Roger]

@MCskiFreak - said "I have been kicking around the idea of a 10 gallon "tournament tank" in the bow. I need to run some calcs and see what that does to the attitude of the boat and how it could be worked in."

 

Since for at least the MC and MB boats, we usually wind up putting weight in the bow, this seems like a great location for the fuel tank. The only issue is the variable weight as the fuel burns off...

[Roger]

10 gallons is around 60lbs (approx), just over what we usually put in the nose of these boats. What might be perfect is dual tanks, one with fuel, one with water and a pump. As the fuel burns off, a sensor connected to the fuel gauge fills the other tank with water. Note: Water is around 2lbs heavier than fuel, so an offset would have to be built in to the system.

[Dirt]

This has probably already been said but It seems like we always end up with a 1991 MC hull when we build the perfect slalom ski boat. It is the correct size and horsepower. The pull is sweet and it can be built and sold for around $30K.

Sound like a Carbon Pro?

 

[MCskiFreak]

The 91-94 hull did offer up some ideas but there is a considerable departure once you get to mid ships of the boat, the boat is being designed around the idea of using smaller higher power density engines as well as fully electric powertrain options.