Slalom wake comparison SN TSC2 vs TSC3 Hulls.

[waterskibum01]

Hi, I am looking at changing slalom boats and am in the market for a SN 196 2003-2010. I have 15 years course skiing behind my 1995 and 1996 Malibu Responses. Set my PB at 2 1/2 balls at 32 off at 34 mph behind these boats this year. I also owned a 2011 SN 200 for 3 years. Beautiful boat and miss the zero off PP, but am no longer in the $ 40-$50K market. I am currently sharing a 2002 SN 196, TSC2 Hull, with a buddy and do not care for the wake at 22 and 28 off with a 32-34mph speed. This is where I normally ski day to day. I also have just skied a 1999 TSC hull and liked it a little more than the TSC2. No issues with these boats at shorter line and faster speeds as one would expect. With this background in mind and assuming I can't get behind a 2006 or newer TSC3 Hull just yet, any comparative inputs from slalom skiers would be appreciated.

[eleeski]

What's wrong with the Malibu? Inexpensive and a reasonable wake.

 

For a ZO boat, the old MC is pretty good. The slalom wake at long line and slow speed is tough but once you speed up and shorten up, the MC is as good as anything. Great for tricks and wakeboarding as well.

 

The older bubble back Nautiques are great boats.

 

People have an unreasonable love for the 196 ( @MS - but he's right about the Monza) so the prices are a bit high for all of them. Especially compared to equal quality other boats.

 

The 200s are pretty good and there are a few older ones at reasonable prices.

 

Lots of choices - especially in the fall.

 

Eric

[dbutcher]

2002 was the first year for that hull. The wake was different from preceding years and subsequent years. If you end up continuing to ski behind it, you will get used to it and forget all about it in time.

[swc5150]

There really shouldn't be much of a difference in any of the TSC slalom wakes. I've owned all 3 versions, and didn't notice a difference. However, there were supposedly a mold or two that weren't producing hulls quite as good as the others. I'd just ski whatever boat you think might be an option, and see if it works for you.

[LeonL]

I skied a lot behind two different '02 196 boats. Up until 2013 I skied at 34. From then until last year when the second of the '02s was sold, I skied 32. Never felt that either had a bad wake. 22 through mid 35 at 34 and 28 thru 35 at 32.

[BrennanKMN]

I used to have TSC1 and I now own a TSC3 with ZO. I notice almost no difference between them. I ski 22-32 off and my ski partners ski 15 and 22. Nobody has said there is any difference between the two. The TSC3's wake looks a little bigger to me, but it is almost all spray and bubbles.

 

If you can afford a TSC3 with ZO get it, otherwise I'd be getting a TSC1. At this point if I cannot get a ZO boat I'd be getting a TSC1.

[DanE]

If you are concerned with the wake, make sure to ski behind it first as the wake can differ quite a bit between hulls even within the same model.

[thager]

Very little differences between the models. 2002 is softer to me than later years. I run my boat light. Never more than 1/4 tank fuel and a driver.

[6balls]

Love 'em all myself...but have to question if it's right for you if at the lines you ski most often you are not the biggest fan of the wake there.

[UWSkier]

Do yourself a favor and check out an '03-'06 Malibu Response LXi. It'll be softer than the non-diamond-hull '95/96 hull you're used to at all lengths and has less of a rooster than the TSC hulls at your line lengths. I know of a fantastic '03 for sale in Michigan. This guy is neurotic about keeping things clean and has been updated to the latest SG PP with Zbox to feel more like that 200 ZO setup you liked.

 

Nice boat for sale

 

You can find them for a lot cheaper than this too if you don't want all the updates and don't mind a boat that looks like it's been used.

[waterskibum01]

Thank you all, this is great info and my slalom boat hunt continues. I have reached out to local dealers for 2006 - 2009 SN 196 or a Malibu LX 2006 - 2009 models that come in on trade. I hope for a test ski before the ice comes. Regards, Jim.

[UWSkier]

Malibu LX or LXi?

 

Malibu Response LX® is the same wetted surface from 1998 until 2016, that hull's last year.

 

Malibu Response LXi existed from 2003 to 2011, but 2006 was the last year of the "good" LXi. The '07-11 hull wasn't BAD necessarily, but most preferred the original LXi.

 

I've skied both the LX and LXi a fair bit at the longer lengths and sometimes at slower speeds. Always preferred the LXi wake.

[LeonL]

08 and 09 196 with ZO are kinda hard to find. Those that have them aren't parting with them.

[WaterSkier12]

04 tracks better than our 08, difference b/t the chines

Jody Seal and Tim White can splain it better

[Jody_Seal]

splitting hair's. going to start revoking a few man cards next time I hear what's difference in today's modern boat wakes!! Basically anything ski boat 1996 and newer are going to be 6 of one half a dozen of another when it comes to slalom wakes at all speeds.

 

Geee!! I miss the 80's boats!!

[markn]

Could you elucidate on the "people have an unreasonable love for the 196" comment? If one is a dedicated slalom skier, what's not to love? MWN (I'm with you Jody!)

[jpattigr]

Just went from a nice 97 TSC1 this year to very nice 05 TSC2 hull. Both ski very well, TSC1 may have been a tiny bit smaller / softer at 15 and 22 but the TSC2 has less trough at 28 on. My wife skis 30mph and 15/22 in course and liked both boats. I ski 34 and 22 to 32 in course. Have friends with an LX and an LXI and both prefer my wakes.

[Greg Banish]

@waterskibum01 how on earth is the TSC2 wake at 220ff undesirable? I switched to a 2003 this season and it instantly became the boat of choice with our ski crew. It is hands down smoother at -22 for both 30 and 32mph than the 2011 TXi and 2007 197 on the dock next to it. Our crew spends lots of time at -15/-22 at 30mph, and I ski into -28 at 32. The only thing I've skied recently that comes close on wake at those speeds and lengths is the new ProStar, which is 3-4x the price. Maybe I got lucky and bought a boat made from the "good" mold, but I'll have a hard time giving this one up any time soon.

[eleeski]

@markn First, I have an unreasonable hatred of the boat. It has a horrid trick table. After loving my bubble back Nautique, this was so discouraging. They fielded a crap boat for the entire life of the hull. The only good thing to come out of it was the rule change to allow mechanical wake manipulation to alter the wake (the hydrogate which didn't cure the problem but did change the wake).

 

Some boats were worse than others, the SDSU boat we did surface tricks outside the wake but Connie's boat is OK. The QC issues were real.

 

Nautique set back a huge group of skiers by forcing this awful trick boat on us.

 

If you know that you are just going to slalom only and want to pay a premium for an obsolete boat, that's your decision. If you're stuck with one, keep the kool-aid flowing so you can sell it and get a new boat.

 

I have no idea why people love that boat so much. Maybe they were the last cheap boat that you can convert to ZO. Lots of love in this thread??

 

Jody is right about splitting hairs over the slalom wakes. But that hull really IS bad for tricks. Get a 200, Malibu, Mastercraft or even a Centurion.

 

Eric

[thager]

@eleeski Title does say "SLALOM wake comparison TSC2 and TSC3 Hulls."

[eleeski]

It's sad that someone would ONLY consider the slalom wake.

 

Eric

[Killer]

@eleeski the guy who came 3 places ahead of you, and got a medal at the worlds last year trained predominantly behind a TSC2 196. Guess it didn't hurt him.... better take a few more sets behind your American Skier for the next worlds!

[eleeski]

@Killer EVERY tricker at Worlds would choose a 200 over a 196 if they could. We train with what we have. And I do ski a lot behind 196s (and struggle with it - but it makes me tough, my adverse condition training).

 

And my placement (still the top USA trick placement) reflects my physical problems not a boat disadvantage.

 

Eric

[Killer]

Just ribbing you @eleeski :) He is also a Canadian (real Canadian, not a Florida Canadian)... If you consider snow and ice to be adverse, and at most 5-6 months of ski weather, we got you there too :wink:

[eleeski]

@Killer I love snow (ice not so much). I want to take Roscoe's invite to ski Revelstoke. Powder measured in meters sounds great. Don't really care if it helps my waterskiing. You Canadians rock. Even if you are stuck with crappy boats.

 

Of course the Swedish guy kicked all of us. But it's way colder there than what the soft Canadians or us whining Muricans could tolerate. And they have Bosch boats that even @Jody_Seal would notice the wakes. I'd choose one of those over a 196 - but I'd have to win the lottery to afford it.

 

79 American Skiers rock!

 

Eric

[escmanaze]

@Jody_Seal Uh oh, I think I owe you a man card. Sorry, I'm a poor enough skier that the wake still affects me a lot, so even small differences can matter to me. I'll deliver my man card to you in a few years when I haul my boat cross country so that you can re-power it.

[escmanaze]

@eleeski If I'm going to throw out numbers I'm going to say that slalomers only outnumber slalomers and trickers at least 10 to 1. Then I will also say that at least 90% of people who own a boat that was created as a flagship ski boat don't ski in tournaments.

 

So you say you can't understand why people love the boat so much while your critique is that it is obsolete in terms of modern tournaments and has a terrible trick table. Well, most people who are in the market for a great ski boat, don't care one iota about the trick wake, and most people in the price range of these boats have totally given up on training behind a boat that they will see in the tournament, and they also probably aren't going to a tournament. So while your critique is very valid, it is a complete non-factor for most of the people in the market for this type of boat.

 

Quality issues? I can't speak to that, but if it is real, then maybe that one should get more attention. While being probably outside the scope of this exact thread, that would certainly be a topic I would be interested to hear more about.

[eleeski]

@escmanaze Tournament waterskiing is a small sport. At Nationals, there are certainly not 10 times as many slalomers as trickers. And the younger divisions are even closer in participants. So if you want to hamper your kids and a significant portion of the tiny niche population of tournament skiers with a crappy boat, then drink the kool-aid.

 

My issue is that there are excellent boats that allow the same buoy count in slalom and offer good trick wakes. Mastercrafts, Malibus and other Nautiques rock. Show them some love. Certainly don't give a premium to the most restrictive specialty boat.

 

This thread is about comparing the 196 to the 200 (I think, WTF is a TSC?). OK, the 200 is a very good boat for everything. No contest over a 196. Any price premium is age and condition related - you are getting a better boat for the money. If you are talking value, why omit the MC and Malibu?

 

I'm sorry if I'm over the top in my criticism of the 196. The fact that this thread exists and is even a debate is frustrating. If you're shopping, buy the 200. If it's not in your budget, buy a bubble back Nautique. OK, get a really good deal on a 196. But don't buy a 196 purely for some phantom extra buoy.

 

The men's world record in slalom is behind a 200, not a 196. Slalom wake question answered. Unless you ski 34 - the women's record is behind a Malibu.

 

Eric

 

I really don't want this thread to continue. I'm not saying anything new, Nautique fixed the problem years ago and all the new boats suck for tricks. I'm going wake surfing tomorrow (sadly, for real).

[escmanaze]

Ha ha ha!! I agree that it probably isn't a good conversation to continue. I think we just see things from REALLY REALLY different perspectives, so we are probably just going to have to agree to disagree on this one.

 

Sorry you'll be surfing today instead of skiing. It happens to the best of us every now and then.

[CBR51]

Eric. if you look at the title of the thread, it says Slalom Wakes. Not Slalom and Trick Wakes, or all around 3 Event Hull. I was quite interested to here opinions on the 2 even though I know it is minimal .

I have not slalomed much behind a tsc-3. So I would like the thread to continue as a Slalom Wake thread. Maybe start a different one for trick Wakes. Interesting, my son used to 3 event at a high level as a Jr before going to Wakeboarding and his best scores were behind the tsc-2 Nautique Wake.

I do remember playing with the length of rope for toe turns though.

 

[jpattigr]

escmanaze, you described my wife and I perfectly. We both ski almost everyday in the summer. Have a course at our cottage and belong to a private ski lake at our house. Neither of us have ever skied in a tournament and have very little if any interest in ever skiing a tournament. We keep our Buoy count for ourselves and enjoy improving but don't care how we stack up against other people. Best part, tournaments at our club is so many are on lake 1 that lake 2 is empty and we ski our butts off without waiting! We own a TSC2 and love our boat!

[Greg Banish]

I think by the time you get to 36mph and shortline, the differences between tournament boats become less. Saying that the world record was behind "X" boat is irrelevant to the skier running 30-32mph at -15/-22. This is exactly where the 196 shines for my crew, and we have all hit extra buoys behind the 196 compared to a TXi or even 197.

 

There seems to be a real knee point in the learning curve after you are finally making the course but before you can go fast/shortline. Boats like the 196 make that transition time MUCH more enjoyable with a softer wake right where we spend a lot of quality time behind it as mere mortals compared to the tournament skiers.

 

My boat has also never seen a trick ski.

[waterskibum01]

Just in case anyone revisits this thread I wanted to follow up on my ski boat testing. In the last 3 weeks I got pulls behind a 2012 TXI, 2006 LXI and 2016 Centurion Carbon Pro. All boats were skied at 22' and 28' off and 32 and 34mph. The CP had zero off. Remember I am only interested in a slalom machine that produced the best wake quality in my opinion.

 

Hands down the Centurion was my favorite, especially with the Zero off. Bringing my 2 ski partners for a visit behind this boat cause they want to see for themselves. It's the boat I want to buy going forward but I realize it does not fit the bill as a family boat.

 

The '06 LXI was also an enjoyable ski however, It's wake was no better than the '02 SN196 I ski behind. I did think the LXI 22' @ 32mph was smaller/softer than the 196.

 

The important issue I found was that all 3 test skiers hated the 22'@ 32mph wake on the 2012 TXI. As one friend said, I would not subject my daughter to this.

 

So there you have it, I took all of your advise and put these boats to my own test. Many thanks to whoever suggested I look at the Carbon pro.

[RAWSki]

Well put @waterskibum01 The CP isn't the perfect family-Multi-purpose boat because it wasn't designed to be that. But it's a great 3 event machine that's fun to drive and even more fun to ski at any speed or line. Good luck

[Dacon62]

Should see an open bow CP in a few months

[DW]

@waterskibum01 : Could you elaborate a bit more on the why's of it being your favorite? Thx.

[shansen345]

Don't get the 2006 LXi... Not a fun boat to drive and the wake is no better than a bubble-back TCS1.

[CBR51]

Just sold our 99 bubble back and bought a 04 196. My Wife skis 32/15 and I am 34- 32/35 off. Both of us noticed the Wakes being noticeably softer/better behind the 04. I was pleasantly surprised of the difference. I wasn't expecting it. Also we always ran our 99 with no back seat and under 1/2 tank of gas.