Four Towboats Approved For 2015

[Horton]

Four competition towboats from four manufacturers have been approved to pull athletes in American Water Ski Association-sanctioned tournaments in 2015. The American Water Ski Association (AWSA) is one of nine sport discipline organizations of USA Water Ski.

 

Towboats approved for AWSA competitions in 2015 are: Centurion Carbon Pro, Malibu Response TXi, MasterCraft ProStar and Ski Nautique 200. To view the engine and propeller specifications for each boat, click here (PDF).

 

Members of AWSA’s Towboat Committee, technical experts, drivers and top water ski athletes conducted this year’s evaluations for AWSA, which were held Oct. 27 at Lake Grew in Polk City, Fla.

 

In 1983 AWSA established its first set of comprehensive technical evaluations of inboard and outboard water ski towboats. These procedures have been updated every year since then to take advantage of the most up-to-date technology available.

 

To have a boat evaluated, a manufacturer must be a USA Water Ski Gold Corporate Member, and a member of the American Water Ski Educational Foundation and Water Sports Industry Association. While successful completion of the towboat evaluations allows a manufacturer to pull tournaments, there also are several other advantages. Private-lake communities continue to be built all over the country. Most developments require any boat used on the lake to be on the AWSA-Approved towboat list. Many city and community-owned lakes also only allow AWSA-Approved towboats on their waterways. Public and private lake communities have the peace of mind knowing these boats have been put through the most rigorous testing in the industry. Approved towboats also carry more value to marine dealers in terms of marketability.

 

Once a model successfully completes the evaluations, the manufacturer is encouraged to pull skiers at AWSA-sanctioned tournaments. By pulling a predetermined number of sanctioned tournaments at various levels of competition, a manufacturer’s towboat model becomes eligible to participate in AWSA’s regional and national championships. While the Towboat Committee compiles a vast amount of test data for each towboat, it is important to note that this information is confidential and only released to the manufacturer. Currently, the purpose of the evaluations is to determine if a towboat has suitable characteristics for water ski competitions.

 

Before a boat even hits the water, the test team runs through a detailed check-in procedure. All aspects of a boat are measured, including the overall length, width, fin placement and depth, prop pitch, and shaft angle. Engine and transmission serial numbers are recorded along with technical data from the power package. The boat’s hull characteristics are noted, and pictures of the stern, side, cockpit and interior are taken.

 

To be used in competition, three-event towboats must meet certain performance standards that are designed to give skiers, drivers and officials optimum conditions during tournament competition. These standards are established by AWSA’s Towboat Committee to achieve tournament-capability status. Each boat must pass a series of 11 tests and sub-tests: power and acceleration, handling and maneuverability, engineering, drivability, sound level, slalom course center-line deviation, slalom spray, jump course center-line deviation, and slalom, tricks and jump wake evaluations.

[Wish]

What was the most tow boats approved in a single year? What year?

[MattP]

In 2000 there were 20 boats approved but I'm sure @Edbrazil‌ would know he used to run the tests

[oldjeep]

@Wish‌

http://www.usawaterski.org/pages/divisions/3event/AWSAApprovedTowboatHistory.pdf

 

Interesting to me that the VTX was approved in 2008 - hull hasn't changed since then.

[oldjeep]

So out of curiosity for those in the know. Why do the mfg's only put up one boat a piece now - is it that hard to pass the tests or too expensive to do more than one?

[Jody_Seal]

@oldjeep

The market today is much smaller for these types of boats then that of the past as in before the Wake boats. Engineering and development Cost to build and market these boats do not provide the profit margins that the same amount of resources to a manufacturer can bring for the wake boats just do not make building and participating in waterski boats that appealing to manufactures. Along with the fact that our purpose built sport is declining and the number of customers for these boats are thinning at a very rapid rate.

[oldjeep]

OK. Just curious why Malibu doesn't bring the VTX and Nautique doesn't bring the Sport 200 in for testing. If they couldn't pass the new tests on the hulls they were previously certified on, or if it was expensive - or maybe nobody cares if a v-drive gets AWSA certified any more. Not sure if you can get a tournament ZO in either one of them, but there is a ZO option of some sort for the VTX.

[ForrestGump]

The Nautique 206 is a perfect example of why they don't do it. Nautique spent the $ to get it approved, and no one wanted to ski behind it in a tournament. Malibu could certainly get the VTX approved again and it would be the exact same result. At one point, and I doubt it's gotten any cheaper, the first boat a mfr submits for testing costs them $6100($5000 fee, plus $1100 to be a USAWaterski Gold Member) plus expenses to send the boat to the test. Additional boats would be $5k plus expenses. By the time testing is done, a manufacturer could have $20k+ per model tied up in approval. If you're not going to drive the sale of a dozens of boats with the "approved" nomenclature, and no one will want to ski behind it at a tournament, it doesn't make fiscal sense for most manufacturers to submit a v-drive or larger boat any longer.

[Than_Bogan]

I'd take what ShaneH said even a step further: If I'm a boat maker, I really only want my best {slalom, jump, trick} boat to be used in {slalom, jump, trick} tournaments, because otherwise it leaves the impression that my boat is not good.

[Wish]

Hmmmm...No Gekko

[oldjeep]

Thanks, that is informative. I guess there is a bit of a conundrum then. On the one hand you have a shrinking sport that would like to maintain/grow - but some of the participants are too picky to ski behind the kind of boats that people new to the sport might have - folks who are unlikely to purchase a single purpose brand new boat.

[oldjeep]

Be interesting to see if Gekko tries next year. I suspect they are plenty busy this year having moved their manufacturing to MN.

[Jody_Seal]

Actually manufacturers will pay the licensing fee's (test fee's) for cross over type boats approved due to some lake restriction site's that require AWSA/USAWS organization approval in order to use on these sites. Also if a manufacturer's dealer base as a whole want's Sanctioning body approval for these crossover boats.

[DW]

I would also think applying the reverse sort of logic to Shane's comment would be a valid consideration for a manufacturer - targeting a shrinking client base with more options would potentially reduce the sales of a boat you desire to sell to a particular, small client base. Diluting that with multiple models could hurt those sales.

[igkya]

Curious to see a list of any make/model that was submitted for approval and failed... or is it simply pay the fees and get approved?

[Bulldog]

Remember if a boat gets approval it does not automatically mean it is a good boat to slalom behind. (like the v-drives)

[Ed_Obermeier]

Also just because a certain boat didn't get put through the tests doesn't mean it's not a good slalom boat. Probably not worth the investment for a smaller manufacturer i.e. Gekko or Moomba.

[6balls]

Gekko and Moomba could also have the same issue as an approved v-drive if it existed. No one wants to ski it when the other choice is one of the 4 currently approved boats.

[oldjeep]

Moomba doesn't make DD boats any more

[DW]

So how much value does paragraph 5 hold if 2 mfg's of slalom tugs didn't participate? What is their market share risk by not participating (I am going on the assumption that they would pass the tests and be approved).

[Wish]

So does that mean a Gekko.., previously approved hull, I think..cannot be used in a tournament? I thought that hull was approved several times over the years. And what is the rule for previous yr boats? How far back can you go and say it's ok to use in a tournament?

[oldjeep]

@Wish‌

http://www.usawaterski.org/pages/divisions/3event/AWSATowboatUse.pdf

 

What model year Towboats can we use in 2014?

Class C tournaments may use 2014, 2013, 2012, or 2011 Approved towboats (current and three years prior). For any boat 2014 and earlier, the manufacturer must also have a boat on the approved list for 2014. In cases where dual boats are required, both boats must be the same model and year.

Record Capability (Class E,L,R) tournaments must use a current year 2014 USA-WS Approved boat or a prior year 2013 USA-WS Approved boat. In cases where dual boats are required, both boats must be the same model and year.

Following the 2014 National Championships, a 2015 model year towboat may be used in tournaments (between the Nationals and the boat tests) where the boat is unchanged from the 2014 model; or in the case of a manufacturer that tows the 2014 Nationals, where the new model is intended to replace a manufacturer’s current boat.

On an exception basis for individual boats only, a request may be made to the Chair(s) of the Towboat Committee requesting the use of a 2015 unchanged boat prior to the Nationals. (Rationale – allows a promotional boat owner to sell a current year boat in early to mid- season and take delivery of an unchanged new model year boat and still meet tournament commitments.)

Exceptions for Use – Approved Tournament Towboat

a) Exceptions for use of any other boat not on the “approved list” may be made by the Chair(s) of the AWSA Towboat Committee. The boat shall be considered an “Approved USA-WS Tournament Towboat” for that event.

b) Older Boats – If there are not sufficient numbers of approved boats available in an area for use, the LOC may apply to their Regional AWSA Towboat Committee member (or Chair of the AWSA Towboat Committee) for use an OLDER model year towboat. Consideration will be given to the condition of the boat, speed control system and version of speed control software in the boat.

[disland]

Why even charge for the testing. I bet if asked, volunteers would be happy to test the boats. No offense to the current testers but do we really need people flying cross country for this?

[bowty]

With the price at roughly 6k for testing, are companies like Gekko, Moomba, etc. not able to afford this? I'm not sure of an exact price on either of these boats, but selling one boat ought to cover the testing cost. Or are they just choosing not to go through the process?

[oldjeep]

@bowty I'm guessing that the 6K for testing pales in comparison to the $$$$$ they would need to kick out for a promo program if they really felt like pursuing the competitions. (And Moomba has nothing to sell - they stopped producing their DD boat)

[Horton]

@gman‌ You have any comments?

[gman]

This is a great thread and I love the passion. If you'll humor me, I'd like to share a perspective on this that has me stymied, more on that in a minute. We've brought Gekko back to life and it's going great. The 2015 boats are the best yet and at our Fall dealer meeting we sold 100+ boats and hope to deliver about 150 by July. The ratio of direct drives to V drives is about 1:10 for Gekko, which is high compared to other builders. Want some sick figures? These are from DataLink, a respected data cruncher, and here are 12 month registrations for 20' boats through March 2014. DataLink does not break out DD vs VD in these figures, but if we give it the benefit of the doubt and say that 50% (I'm being generous here) of registrations in the 20' length (all ski boats) are DD then the numbers look like this: MasterCraft 104, Malibu 104, Nautiques 132, Centurion 6. These figures represent roughly 5% of each company's total production.

 

My personal passion is skiing and I've got a new ski here in my office I can't wait to get wet. So these production figures scare me a little. I talk with the principals at most of the ski companies on a pretty regular basis and they tell me slalom ski sales are strong and represent a positive trend. So I'm encouraged but then I have to temper that with market actualities.

 

Ski boats have gotten very expensive. Our government is somewhat to blame with more stringent EPA standards, compliance and liability issues, but the bill of materials costs are significantly higher than what they were a few years ago as well. And performance expectations are higher too. All considered, some builders look at the costs to compete in the market vs expected market share and elect to spend their time and money elsewhere, like on V drives.

 

I'm stymied because we brought back not only the GTR which is a great competitor to the big 3 boats, as well as the GTS 20. The GTS 20 is a legacy boat and most that are 10 years old are selling today for about 60% of what they cost new. Not too many boats have that kind of resale. For 2015 we overhauled it, everything. It now has synthetic stringers, digital shift and throttle, billet machined handles, 330 HP engine, standard cruise, analog and digital dash, top vinyls... all for about $34,000 including a full featured trailer. I'm not trying to sell you on it but know that it works great and it's equipped for today's market. Guess what, we are struggling with this. Why, most dealers would rather focus on selling $90,000+ wakeboard boats because they know these move and move more easily. Yikes! We love it as a builder of VDs but are concerned as skiers.

 

Further, I have a fight on my hands with Gekko's CFO because we're doing the GTS 20 at a slim margin. He's paid to be the fiscal watchdog and is right to be concerned. But I believe that the market needs this. A 20' outboard or stern drive for the same money should be no competition, right? That is if a buyer can live with the DD set up. We should be selling these GTS 20s like hot cakes but we'll see how 2015 really develops.

 

The market has changed too. Dealers, those that have survived, are more careful about where they spend their money and want to make sound decisions, and V drives are an easier sell requiring less expertise. Perhaps it's easier to now see why there are 5 or fewer DD boats even worth considering.

 

Regarding AWSA, it's worth supporting. We will do it again, we just didn't have boats in time this year for testing. Maybe our perspective on this is not unique, but the requirements for Nationals are a mountain to climb and as much as I hate to say it, I'm not sure anyone cares outside the tournament crowd about approved boats. Thus, every company has a CFO looking at ROI when it comes to tournament participation. We look at it as street cred and know that we'll pursue opportunities where having that certification can be leveraged. Another consideration is that the higher levels of waterskiing have gotten so driven to private sites and retracted from the public that having promo skiers talking to the converted is a tough proposition for some companies. Gekko will shortly announce an ambassador program for 2015 that will reach out to skiers on lakes where it all began in addition to attempt to scale the mountain for high profile events.

 

Hopefully this sheds another light on DDs and that they are a complex segment with lots of moving parts. We're optimistic about the segment and do expect growth. We're going to start working on a new DD soon and wave the flag for skiers too!

 

[Bulldog]

@gman great post! Thank you for taking the time to tell us your perspective.

[gman]

Here's more information on the statistics on the earlier post, per a request. The data collector is Infolink (www.info-link.com) who collects registrations which means sold boats in the US. Boat companies can subscribe to their data services and they're generally regarded as the go-to source for data about the industry. Here are their results for 20' registrations for 12 months rolling through March 2014 by manufacturer:

 

MasterCraft 209, Malibu 209, Nautique 264, Moomba 93, Tige 129, Axis 83, Centurion 6, MB 1, Sanger 1.

 

Some interpretations:

- VD and DD boats are mixed in these numbers.

- DD numbers mixed in include Mastercraft, Malibu, Nautique, Centurion and Sanger.

- If Moomba, Tige and Axis are selling roughly 100 VDs in the category one might conclude that the big 3 are also selling at least that many.

- Thus, at 50% for DD, the numbers may look like: Mastercraft 104, Malibu 104, Nautiques 132 and Centurion 6. Centurion gets 100% since they don't have any 20' VD models.

- These figures are for the US and don't include exports or unregistered boats.

 

Personal insights:

- In talking with a number of top Mastercraft and Malibu dealers, few sell more than about 5% of their new unit sales in DD. Some don't stock DDs at all. I'd love to be proven wrong on this and there are some dealerships owned by skiers who do sell more DDs as a percentage but those dealerships are few.

- I do try to take an objective look without bias in attempting to form accurate assumptions and make sound decisions about the realities of the market.

- We used this data for market review purposes a few months ago and while the numbers have probably improved overall the percentages may be somewhat static.

 

[disland]

@gman If someone buys a boat but doesn't register it because its used at a private ski lake does it count in your numbers.

 

I dont have my boat registered but maybe it got counted when we first boat it from the dealer?

[ALPJr]

@gman‌ great posts. Thank you. At some point in the next year or two I hope to be in the market for a dd. A ski buddy and I have been talking about the GTS 20 as the best solution for our situation - a handful of passionate skiers who have access to a wonderful slalom pond, ski about two days per week from April to October, take the occasional cruise and free ski with the fam's on public water, and are not really interested in skiing tourneys.

[Horton]

I believe that @gman's source data is the industry standard and there is no better metric but it is not a perfect sample. The Centurion # may be correct for that data source but I do not want anyone to think that Centurion only sold 6 Carbon Pros in 2014. I assume the number is off because most Carbon Pros went to private lakes and many were promo boats.

[gsm_peter]

Is there any requirments, messurments on Green factors like fuel consumption?

That is important according to my standards.

[oldjeep]

Hippie ;)

[Horton]

@gsm_peter‌ all the boats are 5.7 or bigger V8s so I do not see how "green" they could be.

[gsm_peter]

If fuel consumption was a factor I would assume the industry then will develop more efficient hulls?

At least in Sweden it is very important being as green as possible.

 

[Wish]

@gsm_peter‌ the love of small block V8s and the low cost of them......they will be around for a looooong time in the US. The LAST thing our sport needs is MUCH higher costs based on sketchy "green" theory's. So good for Sweeden. Not gonna happen here.

[gsm_peter]

I do not question the engines.

They are for many reasons the best choice.

A waterski boat hull is designed to run very inefficient in the water.

I am sure it is feasible to reduce fuel consumption with out sacrify too much of the 'skiability factors'.

A more efficient hull should not cost more either.

 

Since the boat industry do not specify the figures this could be one way to get them on the table?

 

 

[klindy]

I agree with @gsm_peter‌ "Green"ness is relative. You can use a big block V8 with gobs of power and torque. But the hull design, fuel delivery system, electonics, emission controls, etc all make a difference in how it "performs" evinronmentally.

 

The key is the ability to compare one manufacturer or configuration to another. A gasoline powered boat WILL burn gas! (Duh!). It's how efficiently it can deliver the desired performance that matters.

 

My day job is environmental business development for a major steel producer. Making steel consumes massive amounts of energy and generates significant waste and emissions. That said how we compare to alternative materials (assuming similar "perfornance") or competitor producers is a major advantage for our products. Price, quality, customer service and relationship attributes will always be high proiroty decision points for our products. But I argue that all things being equal, why wouldn't you choose a more envoronmently conscious product.

 

No one is suggesting there needs to be "Priius" type fuel economy. Just give us a metric which can be included in the evaluation. Again, all other perfornance and styling attributes being roughly equal, why wouldn't you choose the most efficient option?

[Wish]

R&D costs... @gsm_peter‌ The efficiency you would require, if even attainable, would break a boat down to unsellable and ramp the cost to unbuyable. And to what end. Again, you are pointing to sketchy "green" theory at best. If green is truly important to you then why play in a sport that requires such horse power and fossil fuels. Not trying to sound mean but I'm guessing you moving to a sport like tennis would reduce a larger carbon footprint then would the alteration of a many hulls and cost to the industry is $0. Plus you could encourage like minded skiers to do the same reducing the carbon footprint even more.....if a carbon footprint could actually be measured in its direct affect on something that just a few decades ago was for sure going to "slip into the next ice age"....aka....the climate.

 

If the companies want to do this as something worth while and it didn't cost A LOT it would have already been done. I think some have tinkered with it. But are they doing so out of sound science or public pressure.

 

http://m.washingtonexaminer.com/why-the-former-ice-age-became-global-warming-then-climate-change/article/2550565

[klindy]

@Wish‌ it looks like we posted about the same time but what is important is comparing efficiency between option. What is NOT the issue currently (at least as I see it) is spendjmg $$ on R&D to perscribe to some "green theory as you mentioned it.

 

Transparency is the key. If there's a fair and consistent metric where at least a buyer could know the differences between the options then that buyer is able to make an informed decision. Likewise, the transparency along with market priorities would ultimately drive improvement. The approach is pragmatic and market driven.

 

Again my job deals with this very issue every day. Certain markets have literally spent billions on this already. The auto industry and building market specifically have found this type of thinking to be beneficial and important to business. Some driven by regulations and laws (auto) and some driven by market forces (construction).

 

Think back 10-20 years about the same V8 we use in the boats. Today's models are far more efficient (per horsepower) than they were then. Likewise the resulting emissions are less as well. No one wants to take your V8 away. Performance demands are what they are. Now what's the most efficient, cost effective way I achieve them?

[Wish]

@klindy‌ agree...

[oldjeep]

If green ness were an issue we would switch to cable parks or paddleboarding. The idea of a 3000lb boat running back and forth in a ditch pulling a person being any shade of green is just kidding yourself.

[DW]

@gsm_peter: as noted the R&D cost to develop a more efficient hull amortized over a very small volume would significantly increase the cost per boat. Hull's have undergone significant development geared towards the high priority desires of the consumers, flat wakes and rock solid handling (minimal steering input needed through the course). For a more fuel efficient hull, a fishing boat style hull will offer much less hydrodynamic drag.

 

@Klindly: automotive fuel efficiency has improved due to government regulation and fuel costs (relative to what the consumer is willing to absorb or pay), no other reasons. Being green is a byproduct of the two achieved by bright minds working diligently to deliver a better product to the consumer than the competition.

[gsm_peter]

@klindy‌

You described it perfectly with 'transparency'

Thanks.

 

@Wish‌

Green attitude does not exclude water skiing or other non green activites according to my post.

For me green is to better understand the impacts and then to active make choices.

I try to do this trade off for the bulk majority in my life.

I am human and enjoy life. Sometimes the waterski, snowski, speed boat wins and sometimes bike transportation, train, co-driving win over car, airplane.

 

 

According to what experienced waterski folks has told me it seems like fuel consumption

has increased with new models.

If that is true most of the R&D work is already done.

( For example increased weight and especially increased wet area cost a lot extra fuel)

 

Agree! Waterskiing will never be green.

Very few sports/hobbies if even none are without any negative impacts.

 

 

I do not know the manufactors non US market shares but on

many markets motorized hobby fuel consumption has become

more and more important.

My 2 cents are that those trends will not change direction and

 

Back to the subject.

There are always many small improvements that will help

the sport, the Industry and the environment.

Fuel consumption being one of them.

I was just suppriced that the ski federation has not (yet?) taken

the opportunity to add one (maybe tiny) green factor to the sport.

 

 

[Wish]

@gsm_peter‌ basically @DW said it best as to why the ski federation (?) (or anyone) has not taken the opportunity. It always comes down to the $$ right or wrong, here or there. The consumer drives industry. I agree with you in that the numbers for fuel consumption for each boat would be nice to know. But if it compromised tracking, wake size, handling, or even spray, I would forgo the few dollars saved for the former being spot on. And those parameters have gotten better with each new hull. Going backwards to old hulls will not sell boats. Plus, I'm not so sure that's an easy measurement to calculate and certainly not free for the manufacturer to figure out. On top of which, there is no standard to test. The numbers could be quite skewed and you could in fact buy a less efficient boat based on the companies calculations. So your understanding of the impact would be a guess. I know every car I have ever bought has a number on the sticker that never seems to jive with actual fuel consumption good or bad. Cars are different in so many ways with aerodynamics, engine displacement, fuel type and weight to the point we can see anywhere from 55mph+ on down to 10mph-. So knowing those numbers can make a huge difference. Ski boats weigh about the same, have about the same displacement, do the same job, use the same fuel and are about the same in hydrodynamics. Feeding the consumer the fuel consumption numbers would do little good. They would all be relatively close. Why force them to do this at a cost along with having to develop a standard way to test? Seems impractical for a consumer (a very small number of consumers) that are interested in tracking, handling, wake and spray first and foremost. Fuel consumption is waaaaay down the list of priorities for the vast majority. If fuel efficiency sold boats, it would be part of that sticker. And then there is the wake board tugs.... really no surprise there. Out of US market is driven by government regulations and propaganda based on..at best.. theory. The consumer in non US markets have bought into it so that, at some point, has to be a consideration for the manufactures if it affects the sales.

[Ed_Obermeier]

The day I start worrying about how much gas my boat is using is the day I quit skiing.

[ALPJr]

Gekko GTS 20 - based on what I've read it has great ski characteristics, performance, handling, standard 330hp, 2100lbs, 50+ top end, and all glass/composite. I would say most efficient and greenest ski tug being made.

[Bruce_Butterfield]

@klindy, interesting idea, but could prove a little embarrassing to some manufacturers. I would honestly like to know the efficiency of my ’97 Nautique with the Excalibur 343 compared to a 200 series with the same engine and prop. Anecdotal comments say the newer boats are significantly less efficient.

 

The big problem with your desire is “all other things being equal”. They never are.

 

[Dacon62]

I would guess that there are more than a few of us that would be very interested in the fuel usage of our favourite tug in comparison to what else is available. If the wake, tracking and ergonomics of the most popular boats are similar but there is a clear leader in fuel economy perhaps there would be a market share shift.