SocalWaterSki Posted October 9, 2012 Share Posted October 9, 2012 I have a new to me 1999 Nautique, closed bow. I've been shortening up the rope lately getting more comfortable behind the boat, but I've noticed that the wake at 15 and 22 off seems actually really large. Granted I've been skiing behind a super light, super flat boat for the last few months. I ski at 34-36, and the bump is very noticeable at 15-22off with the nautique. I also ski behind a 93 Nautique, and the wake there is very flat. Is there something I'm missing? This one has a tower, which I hate, but makes the wife happy. Can a tower effect the wake that much? Thanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baller BraceMaker Posted October 9, 2012 Baller Share Posted October 9, 2012 You could take it off to test? Also check to see if that 93 has any ballasting up in the bow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baller PatM Posted October 9, 2012 Baller Share Posted October 9, 2012 I had a 99SN. Loved the wake and my opening pass back then was 36mph - 22off. No bump or rooster. The tower could be the problem. If it wasn't for Zero Off I would have owned it for a few more years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baller_ DW Posted October 9, 2012 Baller_ Share Posted October 9, 2012 Not sure on the hull changes between the two models, but here are some things to look at: Any item added to a tourney ski boat (weight) can have detrimental effects on the wake, so look around, particularly in the rear, for things that are different between the two and eliminate any uneeded "stuff" on the 99, including fuel, seat cushions, etc. To answer your question, yes a tower can affect the wake simply due to weight. Note: many tourney boats actually benefit from ballast at the front and ballast to balance the boat side to side. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baller BraceMaker Posted October 9, 2012 Baller Share Posted October 9, 2012 Ya I am of the same conclusion, only reason I balance side to side is when I have a kid spotting and the boat rides crooked. But you never know, people add stuff to boats over time, 99's are a 13 year old boat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baller_ Jody_Seal Posted October 9, 2012 Baller_ Share Posted October 9, 2012 I think we might need a little more information: What propeller is on the boat? Size and brand. What kind of RPM does it run at your ski speeds? How much weight is usually in the boat when you ski ? Monkey bars will have a impact also on the wake with that boat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SocalWaterSki Posted October 9, 2012 Author Share Posted October 9, 2012 Wow, lots of great info here! Sorry I didn't include more information. The prop is the original 4 blade OJ 14x16 cupped (I think...) I can check again, but I believe I'm running around 3600 rpm at ski speed. I usually have 3 people total in the boat, when one is skiing, there are only 2... 180 or less on each. http://www.planetnautique.com/vb3/attachment.php?attachmentid=19433&d=1349231131 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baller jhughes Posted October 9, 2012 Baller Share Posted October 9, 2012 There really is no such thing as a bad wake on that particular hull at any speed or line length- seriously. I ski brand new boats all summer and this hull still skis as well as any of them. Anyway, I'm confused. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baller_ Jody_Seal Posted October 9, 2012 Baller_ Share Posted October 9, 2012 other than the Monkey bars you have a pretty stock setup. I would not think that the bars would make that big of a difference at the 22 bump! but......? I think I would remove the tower and go ski it . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baller PatM Posted October 9, 2012 Baller Share Posted October 9, 2012 Why a tower? If your skiing into 22off - get rid of the kid stuff Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ntq206 Posted October 9, 2012 Share Posted October 9, 2012 There boat has an awesome wake at -15. Skied one many many times and its still probably my favourite boat to ski behind of all the boats I've tried. Flat wake and strong pull on that boat. What are you comparing it to? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SocalWaterSki Posted October 9, 2012 Author Share Posted October 9, 2012 Ok, I agree the tower needs to go. The wife can get over it... maybe I'll buy her a boom... Now comes the hard part... filling the holes for the tower... should I just make a plate for it? Here's what I'm dealing with http://i16.photobucket.com/albums/b9/Removeb4flight/D4C4E46B-9976-4924-8A4F-E4A8406ED85D-10331-00000A59F7CE7BE3_zpse45e6624.jpg http://i16.photobucket.com/albums/b9/Removeb4flight/05C68611-2DBA-4536-89FE-E92C3C471D63-10331-00000A59FE779155_zpsbfcc6501.jpg I was thinking about having an aluminum plate made for it... but have no idea who to talk to about it. I ski behind a 93 SNCB...and a 74 avenger barefoot queen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baller_ RichardDoane Posted October 9, 2012 Baller_ Share Posted October 9, 2012 @socalwaterski - the MC up at Radar has had the tower removed, they just put a nicely shaped piece of 3M non-skid over the front holes, inexpensive and looks fine and the next owner can just reinstall the tower someday if they want Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baller 6balls Posted October 9, 2012 Baller Share Posted October 9, 2012 What if you covered it with a non-slip faux wood grain piece like Nautique uses on the saddle bags and platforms of the Nautique 200. Would then be a spot to step on to get into/out of the boat? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baller BraceMaker Posted October 10, 2012 Baller Share Posted October 10, 2012 Or remove the allen and leave the mount? Do you have a bimini top that could attach there? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baller ForrestGump Posted October 10, 2012 Baller Share Posted October 10, 2012 Gellcoat is easy to repair so you'd never see the holes. Any nautique dealer can get patch kits with the right color gellcoat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baller A_B Posted October 10, 2012 Baller Share Posted October 10, 2012 I have patched gelcoat before. You can buy the exact color match and do it yourself. Just need some different wetsand paper grades, some polishing compound and a buffing wheel.. I had a '99 SN and the wakes were fantastic at any length. Maybe a little bump at 22, but no rooster tail like some of the other top brands. I am not sure why the tower would cause a problem, if anyhting weight in the front would flatten the boat on the water and have an even flatter wake, right? I am just guessing, but I wonder if it sat on a bad trailer or dock or something and picked up a warp in the bottom?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baller tfriess Posted October 10, 2012 Baller Share Posted October 10, 2012 @6balls I believe you are talking about this http://www.seadek.com/. Looks great, no one would even notice you had a tower there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SocalWaterSki Posted October 10, 2012 Author Share Posted October 10, 2012 Hmmm, this is sounding better... I like the traction pad idea... I like the gelcoat repair idea... time to get creative. I "dabble" in Aerospace Engineering.... What I think is happening is the following... please excuse the crude drawings, it's late, and I'd rather be skiing... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baller A_B Posted October 10, 2012 Baller Share Posted October 10, 2012 Seems reasonable SWS. Maybe for now, just mount all the boards angled going down in front, so they act like a spoiler to push the nose down.. jk. I would sell the tower and buy new slalom stuff. Seadeck is great. I retro fit my 2007 sanopad with grey faux teak. Really like it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baller bbirlew Posted October 10, 2012 Baller Share Posted October 10, 2012 I ski behind 2 identical '94 nautiques. Mine has a tower, the other does not. No noticeable difference in wake from long line to -38. Much bigger difference between a full and 1/4 tank of gas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baller gregy Posted October 10, 2012 Baller Share Posted October 10, 2012 Unless the tower is very heavy, like 300 plus lbs. I don't see it making a difference. The wind resistance against the tubing is going to pretty minimal. Gear, people, fuel will make a bigger difference. I keep my fuel tank at a half or less usually. Post up a video if you can. Are you sure you Speedo are correct. Speed make a big difference as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baller escmanaze Posted October 10, 2012 Baller Share Posted October 10, 2012 thanks for the thread. I have a 97 SNOB and sometimes I consider putting a tower on it so I really want to see you get to the bottom of this. I agree that for the sake of experimentation, just pull the one bolt out using an allen wrench and leave the mount intact to see if that is actually the problem before you go to all the hassle of putting new gelcoat on the boat. Also, I like your diagram. the course where I ski has a dock in front, so I could take the boards off before running the course. Do you not have somewhere to put the boards while you ski? Still, it's so hard for me to imagine it making THAT much difference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baller_ DW Posted October 10, 2012 Baller_ Share Posted October 10, 2012 It looks like there is a fair amount of lift created by the boards on the tower. Don't forget that the streamlines will actually angle up over the windshield which will create lift against the underside of the bimini cover. You could try rotating them nose down, removing them and also opening the center window to test the effect. Lift on the tower will also create a pitch rotation (tail down) assuming the CG of the tower cover is ahead of the boat's CG. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baller Waternut Posted October 13, 2012 Baller Share Posted October 13, 2012 @SocalWaterSki As a fellow aero guy, I understand your concepts of lift and drag but if the tower and wakeboards are generating lift, it's not going to be more lift than the extra 1-2 people sitting in the boat, even at 36mph. I ski behind a 98-99 CB nautique and it is by far my favorite wake, I've ever skied behind. I can tell when an extra 400 lbs of weight is in the boat but it's not enough to change my skiing. I'd really look into that prop. My guess is that's causing some weird stuff. I bet if you sold the tower, you'd have plenty of money to buy a nice machined 3 blade prop from Acme or OJ. Does this boat have a wakeplate installed on it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SocalWaterSki Posted October 13, 2012 Author Share Posted October 13, 2012 @jfw432 What pro should I use? I've been wanting to buy one. What's a wakeplate? never seen one before Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baller Waternut Posted October 13, 2012 Baller Share Posted October 13, 2012 This pic is a wakeplate. I'm not exactly what prop your specific boat takes. Acme and OJ will definitely help recommend a prop for your needs if you call them or you can search on correctcraftfan.com for first hand experience. edit: For clarification, I recommended looking into the prop just because it's very possible that the wakeboarders who owned it before you could've really pitched the prop down to better accommodate wakeboarding speeds and ballast. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SocalWaterSki Posted October 13, 2012 Author Share Posted October 13, 2012 I do not have the plate Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baller ForrestGump Posted October 13, 2012 Baller Share Posted October 13, 2012 You do not need a wakeplate on that boat. A new Acme 422 is what you can use. Or alternatively, the Acme 470 3 blade. I personally thought the wake was softer with the 470 on the nautique. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baller greghayes Posted October 15, 2012 Baller Share Posted October 15, 2012 If you are looking to drop a few rpm - try the acme 668 (it's the 422 with a little more cup). It made my SN 97 wake butter smooth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baller east tx skier Posted October 15, 2012 Baller Share Posted October 15, 2012 On my 98, the addition of an Acme 422 and the ability to get the spotter to get out of the extremely comfortable corner of the observer's seat made all of the difference in the wake. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baller_ Jody_Seal Posted October 15, 2012 Baller_ Share Posted October 15, 2012 So have we skied the boat with out the Monkey Bars? Keep in mind the boat has a torque engine GT-40, ACME 422 or 668 will work stay away from the 1868 or 654 these would run to many revs. As usual I prefer the OJ product 428 13X15.5 Have had nothing but great revues on the wheel and it will work on a broad range of reduction Direct Drive Correct Crafts. It helped out the rooster on my ski partners 206 with monkey bars. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SocalWaterSki Posted October 17, 2012 Author Share Posted October 17, 2012 I did take the boa out without the tower. Night and day difference. I ran it again without the rear seat as well. Even better. Stole a acme 422 from my neighbor. Wow. I'm impressed. However the boat still seems slow when I'm skiing. I have verified the speed is correct, it just seems I'm slower. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baller 6balls Posted October 17, 2012 Baller Share Posted October 17, 2012 It seems slow because it rocks. The 196 is a killer slalom boat. I would buy @jody seal nautique 200 if I had bunch of cash, though. Very dialed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baller escmanaze Posted October 17, 2012 Baller Share Posted October 17, 2012 Well that's not what I wanted to hear. With you saying that, now I'll never want to get a tower :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ntq206 Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 @Jody seal - you piqued my interest with the 206 prop change. You mentioned it helped the rooster - was this at all line lengths? Did it just move it or lessen / soften it. My 206 has a pretty hard rooster kick. Interested to hear what it did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baller_ Jody_Seal Posted October 17, 2012 Baller_ Share Posted October 17, 2012 The 206 that we did the prop change on had monkey bars and all the bells and whistles. We came close to removing the playground equipment until we decided to try a prop change. I have been running the Oj product on my personal Nautiques for a few years so we decided to pull the prop of my 07 196 and try it on the 206. I can say it did not eliminate the 22 off rooster but went a long way to changing and or moving it as to have less of an impact on the skier. Still not a 196 but improvement none the less. shorter line lengths really not an issue with that boat no mater what prop is on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baller Waternut Posted October 17, 2012 Baller Share Posted October 17, 2012 Well I'm glad you got it figured out and you wouldn't really hear me complain about removing my wakeboard tower if I had enough skiers to go with. However, the simple physics just don't add up. A round tube isn't going to create lift and those things don't weigh enough to cause weight issues. If a tower created the issue of a poor wake, a bimini top would create the same problem only worse. Any chance people in the boat weren't balanced properly originally and they were properly placed after the tower was removed? Are you 10-20 gallons of gas lower this time than last? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baller A_B Posted October 17, 2012 Baller Share Posted October 17, 2012 I have skied and driven 4 or 5 in the '97-01 range, without passengers and with 2 guys that together push 500 pounds, which would approximate your tower plus a few small kids or smallish wife, all with OJ's, and and aside from noticing a little more wake substance with the full camera crew vs no riders, the wakes are awesome. Unless someone changed the strut angle or very badly aligned shaft and rudder or skegs, there has to be a structural issue on the hull or something to cause what you are saying. We put a 4 blade OJ on a Hydrodyne and it softened the wake some, and was all around smoother than the stock 3 blade, but did not have a night and day change. What you are describing is night and day different from the 4 or 5 boats I have had experience with with that hull configuration. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baller 6balls Posted October 17, 2012 Baller Share Posted October 17, 2012 @AB I agree as I've had driver plus two observers, all around 200 lbs, plus at least 1/2 tank of gas and the wake is still great. Least affected boat by load I've owned/driven/skied for sure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ntq206 Posted October 18, 2012 Share Posted October 18, 2012 The two 196's I've skied with - one has a tower and another did not. Absolutely no difference whatsoever in the wake to me - each one we've had loaded almost every imaginable way. I've commented to friends that it seems a 196 can't make a bad slalom wake no matter what we do. I just can't get my head around a tower causing such a significant issue here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baller 6balls Posted October 18, 2012 Baller Share Posted October 18, 2012 Only way to make a 196 struggle is too much weight far passenger side such that it digs the stern corner and throws spray from that side. Other than that...killer wake/spray. I never drank SN kool aid until just had to buy one b/c of the deal available. Great hull. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SocalWaterSki Posted October 18, 2012 Author Share Posted October 18, 2012 Ok, running a new test. I'll be gone for a few days. I'm rounding up my Hydro gurus, we're going to the lake. Time for a test with all the variables covered. This should be fun... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baller_ Jody_Seal Posted October 18, 2012 Baller_ Share Posted October 18, 2012 Having been in on the ground floor of tower development at Correct Craft in the 90's we found that a tower had a far more impact on running then one would think. First off it took over 2 mph off the top end speed and this was with the early small tube towers. Wakes were impacted at Higher speeds because of the down force it created on the hull. I Remember doing some testing with Bruce Neville where we were testing side load effects on the hull during with slalom and jump process utilizing a tower, It was noticed across the board that the wake was impacted with the addition of the tower. Bruce loved the lift he got off the ramp with the tower however he said it was real hard to stay down during the cut process getting onto the ramp. I think I was the first water skier to slalom with a tower, being on the CC design team I was also utilized as a guinea pig. Their were some their at the time that thought the tower would revolutionize waterskiing, they already knew what it would do for wakeboarding. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baller usaski1 Posted October 18, 2012 Baller Share Posted October 18, 2012 Yeah, I gotta say, I've been lurking on this thread for a week now, and I think the tower has a very minimal, maybe undetectable difference in wake. I had a closed bow 20 foot Calabria and put a tower on it,.. no difference in wake. I have a Moomba now, and while I have never had the tower off, it seems to have a fine wake. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SocalWaterSki Posted December 3, 2012 Author Share Posted December 3, 2012 Hello Ballers.... it's been a while... some fun quick stats since I was last here.... 98 - Number of hours I've put on the boat 9 - Number of lakes I've been to 288 - Bouys I've rounded on the EZ-slalom 12 - minutes it takes me to setup said ez-slalom.. 39 - new favorite barefoot speed. 35 - new personal record on the syndicate... 719 - Gallons of gas... used on the trip... OUCH 692 - Miles I've put on the Cervelo while I was road tripping with the boat (gotta keep training for the races this year!) 102 - Miles run... 45950 - Yards swimming... (gotta love the Garmin 910xt) So, now that those numbers are cleared up.... hello again! When I was last here I had mentioned I was going to break out the hydro gurus and head out to the lake... well... mission accomplished. I gathered up some of the students from Embry Riddle Aeronautical University (I'm an Alumni,) and had them run their battery of tests on the nautique with and without the tower. I also had them compare my boat to another identical boat without a tower. While they are still working on the results in numerical form, what I can tell you with the "leg test," there is a rather large increase in wake size with the tower addition. More so with the boards up, and even more so with the boards faced right side up. So, considering the end of the semester is coming right up, hopefully some good numbers will be coming back from the hydro and aero gurus. Until then, looks like the most of my season is over. Time to get back on the bike and get ready for Ironman Texas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baller A_B Posted December 3, 2012 Baller Share Posted December 3, 2012 My advice, once you take the rack system off, put it on SIA. If you want to get a pole extension, we won't count that against you, probably a lot better for the wakes too! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baller rodltg2 Posted December 3, 2012 Baller Share Posted December 3, 2012 The joystick towers are really heavy compared to other towers. I agree it has to make a difference in the wake. I know that on my Malibu RLXI , when I removed the tower and wedge, the wake got much softer.. Maybe to those that ski 28 and shorter may not notice, but 15 & 22 , towers make a difference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baller_ DW Posted December 4, 2012 Baller_ Share Posted December 4, 2012 @SoCalwaterski: What was the battery of tests run? The data analysis will be very interesting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SocalWaterSki Posted December 4, 2012 Author Share Posted December 4, 2012 @DW - the students actually took my boat while I was skiing behind a friends nautique, so I have no idea what was done. They then gave me my boat back, and took my friends 99 to do the same tests on. We then pulled the tower off my boat, gave it back to them, and they did another round of tests. I will publish their findings and the whole testing proceedures when they come up with the report. This was their "project" for advanced hydrology class. I thought it was a neat idea and was more than happy to lend my boat to science. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.webp.3cd841288e23e58f209509e0bce4937d.webp)
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now