Why do AWSA boat tests give almost zero Info?

[MichaelGoodman]

Years ago they had pretty good tests with all kind of info about noise level, acceleration, times

wake heights ect. From reading the description of the tests it sounds like they still do all kinds of tests

they just do not give the reader the info any more. There is nothing in the tests you can't get

of any of the manufacturer's brochures.

[thager]

Advertising $$$. Criticize and lose their funds. Pretty small group for skiing.

[dbutcher]

My guess is that we (AWSA) can't risk offending any of the manufacturers or give the appearance of ranking them. We need them all - perhaps more than they need us - so as long as they meet minimum standards, they pass. Someone on the tow boat committee no doubt could give a better answer.

[LeonL]

Back about 16-17 years ago during the boat test (so I was told) an unnamed big three chine locked and ran aground. They still approved it. That hull design had to have a "kit" installed to improve it. It was a driver's nightmare in tight turns if it wasn't balanced right.

[Jody_Seal]

Keep in mind the AWSA boat test are not a marketing tool for the manufacturers. Testing is pretty comprehensive and the boats are put through a myriad of scenarios. Safety is main concern and performance is secondary.

Performance standards are minimum and very rarely has a boat been failed. Wake and skier acceptance is purely subjective so never has a boat failed skiability/wake testing.

There are multiple levels that a manufacturer can test for. Also keep in mind that there are many bodies of water both private and public that require some level of certification for a craft to be utilized on those bodies of water.

Performance reports are the property of each of the manufacturer's testing and can be released if the manufacturer deems warranted on their own craft.

As a manufacturer rep for Correct Craft /Nautique I was never privy to the other manufacturer's test reports as they were never privy to ours.

More info on boat testing can be found at the AWSA/USAWS web site.

 

The Boat @LeonL is referring to was not a big three boat that went up on the bank at Bennetts but rather it was a Toyota Epic I know because I pulled it off the bank with one of our test Correct Crafts.

 

[Edbrazil]

 

I worked the very earliest AWSA Boat Tests starting in 1982 at McCormicks. We had some

real crappy excuses for boats among those entered. The traditional ski boats did well, of

course. I helped develop methods for measuring distance to speed via radar/computer,

and boat tracking via computer overlay.

Post AWSA, I worked the WaterSki Magazine Boat Tests for several years. All sorts of

strange boats there among the 400+ that I drove for the Slalom part, such as a deck boat.

We started doing "approvals" for various levels. Between what we found in the tests, the

watered down version in my writeup, and what finally made it into the Boat Tests issues,

there could be quite a difference. There are many examples. We even had boats that

would start "In Gear", or would stay in Reverse when you slowly shifted to Neutral. Good

for things like chomping your buddy.

One year, when several boats were given an "upgrade" in approval level, I wrote a letter of

protest. That marked the end of my association with their "Boat Tests".

[skier2788]

@Jody_Seal can you tell me the distance to speed for the 200 with the H6? Buddy has one and I know it easily cavitates the prop and hauls butt. Just curious

[jjackkrash]

@Jody_Seal, are there any published charts for GPH for various RPMs for the PCM 5.3l H5DI?

 

[LeonL]

My bad! Failing memory!

[skierjp]

@skier2788 in about a blink of an eye. It's a rocket ship!

Before you can get your shorts pulled down you are at 36

[skier2788]

@skierjp I love the new engine. First boat at elevation I don't need full throttle to get my 220 pounds out of the lake.

[disland]

How much $ do we (AWSA) spend on these tests?

[jcamp]

@disland Less than what the boat companies pay to participate in them or to be premier sponsors.

[Jody_Seal]

@disland

"We" don't spend anything as the manufacturer picks up the testing fee's and pay's USAWS/AWSA to test.

I believe all this info is in the towboat section of the AWSA/ USAWS web page.

[LLUSA]

@LeonL and@JodySeal, the boat in question was a MC, late nineties edition, they would easily chine lock, I put one on the bank twice at Trophy Lakes, sponsons were attached to each side to correct this issue, actually it was pretty easy to make it chine lock

[skiinxs]

I think on the 98 that initially flunked the test due to the chine lock incident, they added the first winged rudder that pulled the back of the boat down. (Also made a horrible hard rooster tail). In late 98 (for the 99 model year, they came up with the training wheels (sponsons) and reversed the wing on the rudder to create lift (and greatly improve the horrible rooster tail). I had a '98 with the initial downforce rudder that was then upgraded to the training wheels and lifting rudder, and I can tell you that the difference was huge between the two.

[LLUSA]

@skiinxs thanks for the reminder, the winged rudder killed the acceleration, I kept two rudders and would swap out to a wingless rudder for jumping, the 98-99 boats were bad to role up on there sides when going around islands, thus the chine lock, you could actually hook the back end and keep most of the chine lock out

[skiinxs]

@LLUSA Interesting note about that hull, I drove and skied one of the prototypes the previous summer which was a really good boat. After that prototype, they modified the chines to make a smooth turn and roll up instead of the earlier notch where the water could make a clean break. (imagine an upside down airplane wing profile.) When the boat turned, the inside chine created negative lift, pulling that side down contributing to chine lock. It is my opinion that they were trying to make the slow speed wakes larger for the wakeboarders by doing that (imagine an upside down airplane wing). They sure screwed the hull up when they did that. I heard later that they had something like four different prototypes before settling on the final version. Essentially they screwed up a good three event boat to try to make it appeal to wakeboarders (in my opinion for what it is worth).

[LeonL]

@LLUSA that's the way I remember it. Didn't want to mention the brand, but I was sure it was a MC. The reason I remembered that way was due to driving one and seeing that same boat almost go on the bank with another driver. Also I remember the add ons and new rudder sent out to promos.

[JackQ]

As Jody stated the boat in question was a Toyota, though a MC did a similar stunt a few years prior. How do I know? I was on that boat, as sitting on engine box monitoring instrumentation. I felt and saw the driver experiencing the chinelock and dove to the floor.

 

To Toyota's credit they made a hull, rudder and prop tweaks and retested and passed without issue. Not sure that really cured the core issue, but I believed the driver induced the excursion by going to fast (for my comfort sitting where I was) and cutting the throttle and increasing rudder angle when the incident occurred.

[lpskier]

AWSA runs the test. WaterSki Mag wrote the article. WaterSki Mag is all but toast.

[Horton]

@lpskier are you sure you are not mixing you facts? USAWS test is published in WaterSkier. WSM does (or did) publish thier own version. I think....

[lpskier]

@Horton. Maybe. I've been driving and skiing from California (Truckee), across Utah and Colorado. In Georgia, 4.5 hours from home. I'm tired and likely unreliable.