Update an old boat and make it good enough to be a daily training boat

[Horton]

@Ed_Obermeier yes that is still my goal.I want to take my 91 MC (or similar) and make it good enough to be a daily training boat. The idea is to show that you do not need a $75k boat to ski with tournament specs.

 

Your post gives me an idea…. I want to show what it costs to do a mega basic & spartan boat. Almost any company that would want to sponsor the build will want the finished product to be pretty. Maybe I could do it in two steps. First do engine and mechanical bits but no gelcoat work or interior work. Then step two is making it “pretty”.

[DW]

@swc5150 & @chris_logan: thanks, and of course if the three of us were in the same shop, the ideas (and of course $) could/would be spent much faster, LOL, then just add the Jody_Seal array of additional parts to pillage...

 

Back on topic, I notice the thread has taken the turn mainly towards the cruise control side (ZO) with some debate on the true need for that conversion. Back on the hull side, several comments on that not being much of a priority except if you go back through older / different posts one can find several concerns ranging from the MC BB's, various brand long line bumps, rooster tails, wake hardness, dips etc. Might make sense to (oh no, another poll) to determine the true priority of the various issues (and they can / will differ by boat / hull).

 

It is a bummer for the budget skier that ZO has taken a monopoly on the speed control front and managed to make the upgrade so prohibitive and costly as noted in the thread. Perhaps an alternate approach would be to better understand the pull characteristics and determine a way to modify a mechanical speed control system to act similar. As an example, the Accuski system can be tailored by the user as the tables are all accessible and changeable. In the end, any speed control simply articulates a throttle plate to get the boat to respond to a speed or rpm signal (GPS puck, paddle wheel or rpm).

 

The hull mods can be done at very low cost, as long as you know what you want (or want to simulate) and weight balance or amount can be accomplished also at a minimal cost.

[JohnN]

@DW Which tables are you referring to in Accuski to modify the feel of the pull, and how can they be accessed? Happy to spend some time testing it out. Maybe there will be a run on any remaining NOS Accuski parts :smile:

[GregHind]

Perfect Pass gets a bad rap from a few on here but in my experience the problems people have are easily fixed.

 

1. Early Zero Off software sucked. Early Perfect Pass Z box software sucked too. Update to the latest.

2. Smooth operation of the servo motor and return spring is essential

3. Perfect Pass is sensitive to voltage. Most older boats have terrible wiring looms - they came that way from the factory and it was fine for what they did in the 80's and 90's but not good enough for speed control

4. Some boats are just weird. For example I worked on a malibu that had a perfect tach signal until exactly 3000rpm then it started to read backwards. eg 3001 rpm read as 2999. 3500rpm read as 2500. A little while later the ignition module died and a new one cured it. That sort of crazy stuff isn't PP's fault.

 

I've skied behind Stargazer boats that were absolutely terrible, that the owners had put up with for years. One was fixed by installing a custom wiring loom. Another was fixed by sorting out the servo operation.

 

Perfect Pass the company has an excellent customer service reputation, they do lots of R&D and I'd be surprised if Z box isn't up to the task for the vast majority of people especially with a budget boat.

 

I've done loads of PP installs including foot throttles, outboards, jet boats, stern drives and of course inboards and all owners have been happy. My PB is 3@28@36mph and my boat is a Stargazer Outboard so I'm not qualified to say precisely how Z Box compares to Zero Off at serious levels. But PP do test it and their test skiers are all happy.

 

I am however qualified to say that most or possibly of the complaints I've read on here about Stargazer/Z box and its pull are to do with points 1,2 and/or 3 above and can be easily and methodically fixed.

[Horton]

@GregHind I love PerfectPass. The only reason I do not like to ski behind it is the speed at the gate is

[bassfooter]

@Horton - the speed at the gate is......what?

[Horton]

PerfectPass comes in about 1/2 mph hot. ZO comes at actual speed.

[Dano]

speed control would be nice. Nobody will argue that. For a project that is to be a tight budget resulting in a good, reliable, dailey trainer. This boat will get you on the lake and in the course with a great wake, a strong pull, and a huge smile. With or with out speed control. If speed control can be done in budget, PP seems to be the hands down winner for cost and ease of install.

 

This can all be accomplished for well under 15k. Provided the boat owner owns his own wrenches and has a good network of knowledgable friends who work for beer.

[gregy]

Approaching the gates. I find myself paying more attention to RPM's than driving trying to get it just right with PP. ZO you just hammer it and drive, much easier to teach a new driver. Maybe the drive by wire PP is better. But I regularly drive 3 different boat with PP stargazer /servo control and it very tedious. I plan on either converting my RLX to ZO or selling it and replacing in next year are so.

[GregHind]

@gregy what is the software version, what is the voltage reported by PP when the servo is on and how smooth does the throttle/servo/return spring operate?

[Deke]

@Dano I hear ya, but I think some kind of cruise control is essential for a training boat. I have friends without speed control that can't even run their "opener" behind a boat that has it. IOW, they're not as good as they think they are. I guess it really only matters when we are comparing (bragging).

[Horton]

If you do not ski tournaments you do not really need PP or ZO to enjoy skiing and improve your skills.

 

If you ski st 28 off or shorter and ski tournaments you are forced to need ZO.

[Dano]

@Deke @Horton I'm all for speed control I just think a project like this is geared more towards the guy who is entering into the sport without 30k to spend on a boat. speed control is not necessary for somebody to get on the water and enjoy every minute of every pass. I good reliable boat is pretty key though.

[RAK]

Check out the Hydrophase system I fitted this system to my Flightcraft 200efi Mercury O/B it could be a good system for a none efi engine for getting speed control on a budget for an older carburettored boat. They were the only speed control manufacturer who gave me a positive response when I made enquiries about fitting a system to an outboard motor. They were very helpful during the install with photos and ideas from other O/B installationsn.I fitted the paddlewheel and GPS but mainly use paddlewheel as I ski on a river.

[ozski]

http://www.ski-it-again.com/php/skiitagain.php?endless=summer&topic=Search&category=Comp_Boat&postid=33409

[Horton]

@dano off topic but to answer your comment - this site is read by skiers of all levels. I bias the content toward tournament skiing with the understanding this is not level of most readers. In theory this elevates the knowledge base of the site as a whole.

 

My goal with this project is to build up a boat that can be used to train for tournaments as economically as possible. With the current need to use ZeroOff to practice for tournaments the price of skiing has skyrocketed. This is a bad thing. If you do not care about skiing with the same pull as tournaments you can spend a LOT less money. My 1991 MasterCraft cost me $3,500 and is UGLY but skis awesome. I would never want another boat but I need Zero Off to train.

 

So I want to take an old beater boat and make a tournament training boat as cheap as possible. Unfortunately this generally means a new engine and mechanicals. Hopefully the cost of the boat + the cost of the build will be less than $25,000.

[Ed_Obermeier]

With all due respect @Horton the necessity of having ZO be a part of the equation only serves the maybe 5% of the "serious" skier population who skis tournaments and IMO is something of a disservice to the other 95%. On this site maybe 30% of the active members are tournament skiers - so that's 70% who likely don't care about ZO.

 

If the idea is to bring someone into the fold who may at some point want to ski tournaments, you gotta start with something they can afford or the whole ZO thing ultimately becomes a non-issue to them. If they never get started ZO is just a couple of initials that means zero to them. I can see some sort of speed control needing to be in the equation. However, spending an additional $8K on a repower just to get ZO is unnecessary to the vast majority of folks at whom I'd assume this project would be aimed at and be of primary interest to. I seriously doubt many of the most serious here are going to trade off their late model ZO equipped boats for a project boat like this, so who is this ultimately aimed at?

 

[Horton]

@Ed_Obermeier If you do not need ZeroOff something like my $3,500 boat is all you need. It is UGLY but it is good enough to get you skiing. There are a lot of beaters out there and that is what most skiers should start with.

 

This project is for skiers who see ZeroOff as a barrier to entry to the next level. This is project is for skiers who aspire to ski at a higher level when they can not afford the a top shelf boat.

[Horton]

@Ed_Obermeier also realize that the need to have a ZO boat has driven a lot of skiers away from tournament skiing because new boats cost so much. If I was not in the ski industry this is the kind of boat I would for a daily training boat.

[JohnN]

Isn't ZO the only variable in the equation? A solid PP boat is easy to get but it's still leaves a competitor at a disadvantage. To back up @Horton with his assessment, ZO didn't drive our family out of the sport but it caused us to reduce our interest as competitors and to reduce our associated equipment purchases, regional and national participation, etc.

[escmanaze]

As we talk about this more and more Horton, it might quickly be becoming very simple. The real question we are asking here is "How cheap can we get putting ZO on a TSC hull or a 91-94 prostar hull." What more, really, does one of these boats need to be a "daily trainer"?

[escmanaze]

I guess some will argue that you will need some kind of spray reduction on the PS, so then maybe that puts the price up to the TSC anyway. And then at that point, Jody Seal already has it well documented how much a re-power and ZO costs there, so do we actually already have the answer to our question?

[kstateskier]

For those who see ZO as a barrier to being a good skier you're focusing on the wrong things!

[DW]

@JohnN: I would have to go back and do some research on the available tables, but I did create a specific table or two when I had an Accuski system (a long time ago) & I recall several parameters that were custom tunable. I am sure if someone got a hold of the key guys, they could provide the best answers. I was throwing that out as a possible project phase if someone was interested in doing some analysis and research and playing with an old system.

 

I would also bet that if a key group of BOS members wanted to have a "round table" discussion with the team at PP to provide them with the detailed differences and issues (such as a bit hot coming in) and PP realized a business opportunity from it, many of the perceived differences could be ironed out & a closer to ZO system would be available.

[Horton]

This thing is one step closer to really happening : )

[brody]

I have skied a few times into 38off behind zo boats. But regularly train with a zbox pp boat. I think to get people started a pp boat would do and you really don't need a zo boat till you get to 35 off. As long as you have the ability to take a few sets behind a zo boat before the tourney.

[brody]

If cost is the factor getting something set up like this IMO is the key. Like someone else has said, Jody has given us the details what a ZO boat will cost. But it would be nice to see what @horton can come up with

[escmanaze]

@horton it would seem as though the cheapest way to create a daily trainer is to somehow get z-box tuned really really well so that it can really well mimick what you are going to feel at a tournament.

 

Is that where you and "the minds" of the industry feel that we are? Have you given up on Z-box as a replicator of a zo pull?

 

If we could just get z-box to almost perfectly replicate the pull of zo, then this project is super easy. Buy a great 90's hull with a fuel injected engine, put z-box on it, get it tuned. At this rate our price range is closer to 10k than it is to 20k. Is my optimism realistic?

[BrennanKMN]

As someone who doesn't have the background knowledge about the Perfect Pass vs. Zero Off deal can you explain why Perfect Pass is no longer accepted in tournaments? If I recall correctly there was a period (2008-2009 ish) where you could use either PP or ZO in a tournament.

 

Quite honestly, rather than force skiers to get new gear, we should force the sanctioning bodies to support the legacy gear. I know this will never happen, but that is how it should work. If a skier shows up and wants a ZO pull they get it. If they show up and want a PP pull they can have that too.

 

Take what I just said with a grain of sand as I am an outsider looking in and have no real knowledge of the history behind this. But looking in as a 3rd party it seams silly that we need to spend crazy amounts of money if we want to stay competitive.

[ozski]

As things stand today ZO is simply superior to PP end of story. You want the same pull every time, long setup, short setup, different drivers or whatever then ZO is your system. Its newer better technology and in my opinion we should be moving forward improving ZO type speed control not backward at cable technology.

[Horton]

@BrennanKMN there was a lawsuit. ZO won. The result of the suit is that PP is not in any new boats. We use ZO because we have to.

 

Most skiers think ZO is less forgiving. The earliest versions really sucked. At this point the biggest thing I notice is the gate speed.

[ALPJr]

Stick with hand throttle on this one mate. Fun to drive and more affordable for the entry level trainer.

[Horton]

@ALPJr then what is the point of the upgrade? My $3,500 boat runs fine. If I did not need ZO I would not spend a penny on the boat.

[east tx skier]

To elaborate on @Horton 's post.

 

Perfect Pass filed a declaratory judgment action against e-controls concerning its 1997 patent on its servo driven control for mechanical throttle systems. That suit never went to trial. The parties settled. As a result of that settlement, there was a patent swap of sorts. Perfect Pass gave up its OEM contracts and swapped its DBW patents for econtrols's GPS technology. Perfect Pass retained the patents to its servo driven system, which, at the time, had about eight years remaining on them. Perfect Pass was also permitted to service DBW boats with its systems already installed.

 

I think Perfect Pass had done this long enough to know what it was they were giving up in the OEM contracts. Those may have been lucrative, but it was undoubtedly the most service intensive end of the business, i.e., dealing with skiers who were particularly picky about 0.02 seconds ball-to-ball. Meanwhile, Perfect Pass bought themselves eight more years of exclusivity in providing speed control for all boats up through 2004 (and those through 2008 that already sported Perfect Pass). And with Econtrols's GPS technology, they were able to get SG dialed in a lot better and do away with the need for magnets.

 

At the time, Perfect Pass was exploring expanding into the I/O market. I'm not sure whether they are offered as an OEM product on any of those.

[sunvalleylaw]

@Horton , you said above, "If you ski st 28 off or shorter and ski tournaments you are forced to need ZO." I am curious as to this statement. Do you mean 28 off in a tournament setting and not free skiing? If so, then that makes sense.

 

I am still looking to get an improved boat for our family skiing. I had looked at a 2003 Malibu step over a few years ago, but that fell through. Something like this project could be ideal for my purposes. For me, the comparison would be the money and time sunk into an older 90's boat vs. getting something a bit newer like the used Malibu I mention above. My current old Puget Sound outboard SeaSwirl just does not pull the way I want it to up at the altitude where I now live and ski. I get access to a course once in a blue moon at this point, until Magic Res. fills up again. When I do course ski, it is typically at someone else's lake (Black Butte) behind one of their modern boats. So I am very interested in this project for my purposes.

[Horton]

@sunvalleylaw if you don't require a tournament spec boat your options are extremely broad. You can set up a non tournament ski boat much less expensively then you can a tournament spec boat. This project is about trying to build a tournament spec boat for less money

[DooSPX]

Do it!!! It's hard to deny the wakes of a 91-94 MasterCraft Prostar 190!

The spray isn't really a issue unless your past -35. There are plenty of mid 30+ off skiers behind a 91094 PS190. But there are mods you can do to the spray pocket to knock it down another line length.

 

There is a guy who took a 80's Stars and Stripes MC and converted it to a new Ilmor 5.7L with ZO. It was a ton of work, but the boat is SICK!

 

I will NOT be getting rid of my 91 PS190, and the boat has been ABSOLUTELY flawless, and the old 351W never skips a beat and starts with the first flick of the key... but spending the $ to do that has crossed my mind my of times. But, I think getting PP is the first order of business.

[MattP]

@DooSPX yes, Dan has an awesome rig.

[ALPJr]

@Horton I misunderstood it as keeping cost to a minimum for a refurbished entry level slalom training boat that looked good too - interior, gel, trailer, etc. If you require speed control, to keep cost down I would tune up the Ford and go with PP.

[Horton]

http://media.tumblr.com/fe497dd337d9af8479bb6398b9565d16/tumblr_inline_mg6n5ltl6X1rxe4lt.gif

 

[ALPJr]

I'm honored!

[east tx skier]

This site went from BallofSpray to BallofPanda so smoothly, I hardly noticed.

 

http://i.imgur.com/RFbXe.gif

 

[gregy]

Just to back up what @ozski said. ZO rocks! The best PP boat I ski behind still isn't as consistent as ZO. Which is by the way a 94 PS 205. The wakes are great. I usually ski really well behind it.

[Horton]

@gregy I disagree. If I did not want / need the same pull in practice as I get in tournaments I prefer PerfectPass. It is easier to ski behind and provided your driver is good at adjusting for wind and weight PerfectPass is more consistent from boat to boat.

 

ZO is tournament spec so if you choose to measure yourself that way there is not a choice. (Ok there is a choice but not a good alternative)

[lundberg]

@DooSPX do you have more info about modifications to reduce spray on 91-94 Prostars?

[303Skier]

Funny this popped up...When I had my 2001 Nautique 196 I was thinking about doing a PCM engine swap but then decided to sell it to pay off some debt. Now I'm stuck with a mint 94' MC 350 TBI with z-box that doesn't work right and I end up using PP classic most of the time. I'm a 36 MPH skier that gets into 38 off and I do lots of tournaments. I find it more difficult skiing behind ZO in my opinion. I'd love to help with this project anyway I can @Horton. I've built cars from the ground up and know a lot about the electronics etc. . There is a guy in Florida that specializes in the 2005, 2006 Nautique 196 conversions. He also knows a lot about the entire engine swap process too. There are a few guys out there who have done complete PCM swaps. I think when I was looking to do my 2001 Nautique it was about $12K in parts.

[kpickett]

@lundberg @DooSPX - I believe that the spray mods are still in the category of rumor. I had been told that they were on the 94 ProTour model, but I got my hands on a couple of those, and they are identical to my 94 ProStar. I've since been told that the mods were done to the Budweiser Tour boats in 94, but I haven't been able to find one of those to compare with.

 

@Horton - I put Zbox on my 94 Prostar with the LT1. It skis really, really close to Zero Off. Granted, I'm making cracks at 35, not 39, but I definitely feel the difference at the gate and in the pull. I know people have different luck with Zbox, but I think that the LT1 is such a strong engine for the size/weight of the 94 that it mimics pretty well the ZO pull.

 

As other posters have mentioned, Zbox takes fiddling with to get it set up right, but once you do, it's pretty great.

[brody]

Ok, enough talk, @horton lets get this started!!!

[Horton]

@brody actual planning is happening. Might be mid winter before a wrench is turned.

[303Skier]

Jody Seal

Florida Inboards Inc.

http://www.floridainboards.com

 

http://www.correctcraftfan.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=16068&title=zero-off-conversion

 

http://www.ballofspray.com/forum#/discussion/6747/1999-ski-nautique-196-zero-off-conversion-and-restoration