Will I notice the wake difference?

[flanker978]

Hey Guys,

Further to my previous post on which boat to buy, I seem to be getting very confused about which has a good wake.

I’m an absolute beginner on the slalom course and the boat will realistically be towing small kids around on doubles more than me.

 

So my question to you experienced balllers. When I search, for example, a 96 Prostar 205 and read that the wake isn’t as good as a 95! Or that the sportster has a hard wake (just examples). As a beginner, so long as I don’t buy a massive wakeboard boat, am I really going to know the difference?

 

Also as a busy 39 year old, I don’t expect my progress to be anything amazing. From the one coaching session I’ve had, it seems the bad habits of years of open water skiing are going to take some ironing out.

 

Would love to hear your thoughts..

[MISkier]

There are differences, particularly at 22 off. Everyone has opinions about various boats.

 

Some are classic hull designs that ski beautifully (93-94 Prostar, "Bubblebutt" Nautique 196).

 

Some should be avoided by beginners (1998-2013 Prostar).

 

There are many that are reasonable options (1998-2015 Response LX, 1995-1997 Prostar).

 

Many of the newer boats ski well now (2014+ Centurion CarbonPro, 2015+ Response TXi, 2014+ Prostar).

 

Ski and drive the actual boat before you buy. There can be differences in molds sometimes. Always ski the 15 off and 22 off lengths and try a few different speeds.

 

I'm sure others have their favorites and their blacklisted models. But, you will be able to tell the difference and a bad wake will usually cause beginners to dread the wake crossing. This will usually lead to a skier bracing themselves for impact and abandoning good, on edge, stacked skiing position for poor, flat, crouching wake crossings. That will affect your progression.

[Kwoody51]

As a newb who grew up skiing behind an outboard I can tell you that the ‘95 205 Prostar wake is soft and almost unnoticeable. The 205 didn’t change hull until ‘96, one year behind the 190.

 

I can’t comment on differences between ‘95 and ‘96 but can say the ‘95 wake is amazing! I never squared up for hitting like I was used to doing.

 

Skiing both is the only way to confirm what you like or don’t like.

[thompjs]

@MISkier summary is pretty good. I've skied everything he mentioned from 22 to 32 off and I don't have any big arguments with it.

 

I'm a Malibu promo and of course I'm biased but the off-brands MISkier mentioned are good options for anyone.

[Jmoski]

As other suggested take a test ski behind the boat before you buy it. I would also check out the drivability as well, some boats track and steer better than others. Last, if your going to be running the course getting a boat with perfect pass already installed is a big plus.

[elr]

IMO wake quality at slow speed long line is the most important thing for a beginning slalom skier and you will notice differences. I noticed the difference between generations of the CC 196 when I was starting out. TSC1 was good but I picked up a speed increment with the TSC 2. Could have been a coincidence but I noticed it immediately.

[Horton]

these are small slow speed wakes

 

[sunvalleylaw]

If I could afford to buy a brand new boat, I would buy the new prostar. I am so impressed with the slow speed wakes. and the room inside and functionality is nice.

[Wish]

You're not gonna find better wakes at slow speeds and longer line for the money ($9-15k) then the 1997-2001 SN 196....period.

[escmanaze]

Well, here's my opinion. Lots of really good skiers on here will disagree with me, but we'll get to that in a minute.

 

Wake for a guy in your shoes (sounds pretty similar to my shoes) is REALLY important. Course skiing is all about wake crossings, and for a guy like me, crossing the wake on my 97 SNOB is a totally different story than crossing the wake on my Buddy's 97 prostar 205.

 

For really good skiers, the difference is less important, because they are skiing at, let's say 28, 32, and 35 off where you are past the 22 off bump and you haven't yet made it to where there is a really big trough. Also, they are way better skiers than me with way better form to be able to slice through any big wake. So you will hear some really good skiers tell you that you just need to be a better skier like them instead of getting a better boat. I couldn't disagree more.

 

I'm now 5 years into course skiing and I'm coming to the realization that my progress is probably never going to really go super high simply because I'm a family guy and a good year puts me at maybe 20 days of skiing the course. The progress just simply isn't going to come skiing so infrequently. Me being not that great of a skier, and being pretty sure that I will probably never be that great of a skier, just makes me even more happy that I bought a boat with a really good small wake for slower speed longer line skiers like myself. It also makes me really happy that I had a resource like BOS full of a lot of folks who could actually point me in the right direction of which boats had good wakes, and which boats had GREAT wakes.

 

I promise, you will know the difference. Do not underestimate this importance in your shopping. I'm really glad I didn't.

 

Good luck.

 

Below is a link to my youtube channel where I have a few videos. I try to label the speed and rope length for this exact purpose. Keep in mind though, videos can be deceptive. Good skiers can make a hard wake look very soft and bad skiers can make a soft wake look very hard.

 

 

 

[aupatking]

I was alway in love with my 98 Nautique 196 wake, and compared to my 14 Prostar, it holds it's own for even 15-28 off at 30-34. I never skied it slower, so can’t say about lower, until you get to slow speeds for kids. At 18-22 it’s a big wake for a kid to decide they’re just going to stay on edge and charge it. The new Prostar was an eye-opener for me towing my ski partner's kid. She always came into the wake, especially offside, in good position and right before she got to it, “squared up”, flattened the ski, and crouched through the wake of the SN. The Prostar, even at those speeds, puts out such a small wake that we have her running the course now at 21mph, and no fear of the wake.

In fairness, if you ever have a trick skier or wakeboarder, pray you don’t, that wake at those speeds is desirable, where the Prostar does not have it.

I’m comparing a 20 year old boat to a current hull, but pay attention to those things in your search.

 

[flanker978]

Awesome insight guys. So basically, yes I will tell the difference between boats.

I’m getting the strong love of sn196 and Prostars.

 

Does that love extend to the Prostar 205, or is it the 190 most are referring to?

SN196 seem few and far between down here (Australia). Are older (92-96) sport Nautiques worth a look?

How does a 96-01 Malibu response lx compare?

[MISkier]

The Prostars mentioned are the 190, but I believe the 93-95 205 is a very well respected model as well. It would be a good option.

 

I had a 2000 Prostar 205 (based on the 95-97 Prostar 190 hull) and it was good. I only sold it to get Zero Off. It had a slight 22 off bump, but I could handle it at 34 mph. Not sure how it was at slower speeds. 28 off and shorter was excellent. It drove phenomenally.

 

For the Response LX, the hull changed in 1998. I would take 1999 and newer for that boat (1999 added the rear trunk). I currently own a 2009 Response LX, which is the exact same hull design as the 1999 and has Zero Off. The wake will be slightly firm, but low. A good option.

 

One thing I would try to do is get a fuel injected boat. Carbureted can be good, but you need to be mindful of proper tuning and maintenance.

 

Don’t know much about the Sport Nautiques, but I seem to recall there is a compromise on wake quality over the 196. I would probably skip the years you mentioned for that boat.

 

 

[sunvalleylaw]

As I cannot afford a brand new boat, I have a 1998 Malibu Response LX. As @MISkier said, the hull was the same for many years from 1998 on. I do not have the "trunk" but I don't miss that myself. Coming off small outboard boats for most of my life prior to this boat, the low Malibu wake had always been my favorite of the older boats I had tried. Though I would not discount those here who are stronger/better skiers and know those other older wakes better than I. My 1998 is fuel injected. I think all the LS's after that point were, at least in the States. But of course you should check when you are shopping on whatever boat you are looking at.

 

The nice thing about the Malibu when I was shopping was there were a lot of them around with the hull I wanted, and I could find something in my budget (which was small), and choose between boats that had been used and treated differently. The only negative for me is it would be a big deal to add Zero Off, now that I am getting more into course skiing. I am adding Perfect Pass with Z-box, but that is not exactly the same. But Probably close enough for me. At the course I ski mostly when I practice, I just ski behind their newer 2013-2017 Malibu boats, depending on who is driving. I think you need to get up to 2007 or so to be able to add Zero Off. There are threads around on the site to confirm that. I think it is a mechanical vs. electric throttle thing, if memory serves.

 

The slow wake/long wake on mine is not quite as amazing as a brand new ProStar. I had the chance to ski behind a few of those this last summer. But still pretty good. So, if that is more your budget, and there are more used Malibu's around for you to choose from, based on my lower end skier experience, you would be fine.

[skihard]

What is your budget? You don't mention that and it could significantly impact what you can purchase.

As @escmanaze says don't sell yourself short on what you buy you might find that you will do a whole lot more than originally thought.

Good luck! :)

[eleeski]

You will NOT notice any difference in boats. All of the tournament style boats are capable of improving your skills. The college teams I've worked with have had many of the boats people hate the wake behind yet have gone on to develop into excellent skiers. And I learned behind some interesting boats.

 

Choose a boat that can do everything you anticipate behind a boat. Wakeboarding, tricking, kneeboarding, barefooting as well as slalom. If you or your kids get that good, you might need a specialty boat. Until then, get the boat you will take out the most.

 

Eric

[MDB1056]

PLEASE don't discount some amazing older boats. These were top world class comp boats on their time so you know they're solid and were pulling records at far more than most of us will ever get to. Look at mid 80's - mid 90's Prostars. They are fabulous boats that are pretty bulletproof and have great wakes and just run and run. They're available for a song compared to anything newer today. Unless you're a very serious tournament skier getting into deep short line (35+) you will be able to progress with these boats just fine, and bank thousands. As noted earlier, focus on improving your skiing and not the boat. For what it's worth.........

[Horton]

If it's in your budget newer boats likely benefit lower-level skiers more than higher-level skiers ( in terms of wake shape).

This is true especially women and children. The smallest wake possible is a huge huge benefit.

[BraceMaker]

When looking at Prostar 205's

92-95 are all one hull, 94+ have EFI standard, pre 94 carb unless LT1

96 is new hull which lasted till the end of the prostar 205.

 

However in 99 they also introduced the 205V, so you could buy a 205 in either DD or V drive in 99 and 2000.

 

The 205V from 99 on is also the original X-Star and the X2 Hull.

 

So for shopping and your list I would preferentially buy a 92-95 Prostar 205.

 

The only things to be fully aware of - some parts in these vintages are getting scarce and people are having to find work arounds and alternative parts for things such as Cam position sensors, fuel pumps etc, particularly on the LT-1 equipped boats.

 

 

[bigskieridaho]

Don’t count out the early Centurions. I had a 1992 and the wake was terrific as well!

[UWSkier]

Being in Australia, Malibu is probably your best bet due to the local manufacturing and dealer presence. Plus, you'll probably find more of them to choose from.

 

A boat that hasn't been mentioned yet but is definitely worth a look would be the '03 to '06 Response LXi. It has a softer wake than the Response LX and has more room for family and kids. It also has better slow speed wakes than the Response LX. 15 off wakes are right up there with the bubble butt Nautique (at least it was on the '03 I skied a lot). 22 off wake is better IMO due to the smaller rooster tail.

 

This is assuming you're looking in the 10-15 year old range for boats. If newer, can't go wrong with any, especially the new ProStar.

[vtjc]

The boat brand specific forums can also provide information about specific models that may help you narrow your search.

These are some threads about MasterCrafts:

MasterCraft Skier/ProStar/ProStar 190: A History (1968-2009)

1995-97 ProStar 190/19 Skier/SportStar 19/ ProStar 195/X-5: A History

1996-2000 ProStar 205/205V/Maristar205/X-star/X-2/X-1: A History

 

[eleeski]

I stand by my statement - You will NOT notice any difference in boats. Despite the disagrees I get and everyone's love of their fancy new boats, most of us learned behind boats with bigger harder wakes than what the current boats offer. The wakes are good enough to learn the basics - for you, your wife and your kids.

 

This site has a heavy slalom bias. But there are lots of other aspects to the sport. And the fine slalom wakes aren't best for tricks and wakeboarding. All waterskiing disciplines are fun. It's a tradeoff.

 

Disclaimer: While I do like slalom, I love tricks the best.

 

Eric

[ScottScott]

RE @eleeski Big difference between "Can you learn to ski behind boats with bigger harder wakes" and whether you'll notice the difference. Yes, you'll absolutely notice the difference. And yes, there are many great skiers that learned to ski behind bigger harder wakes.

 

The biggest difference in wakes is at longer line lengths and slower speeds. Maybe learning to maintain a good stack while navigating these wakes is a good learning experience, but it also results in more OTF wipeouts that can cause some to get frustrated and give up.

[eleeski]

@ScottScott Most skiers can notice differences between boats, of course I agree with that. But as long as we are talking about tournament approved direct drive inboards from the last 20 years, there will be no difference in the learning curve of developing skiers.

 

I've coached hundreds of college skiers over decades. The ones who are most active and accomplished now are the kids who (after starting pretty close to zero buoys) learned behind the hated (here) Mastercraft Prostar. Of course, I am talking about overall champions. But overall skiers need to be pretty skilled at slalom as well.

 

If one boat generated OTF sends you away from the sport then something else probably would instead. Maybe it's a good toughness filter to have a manageable challenge in the wake.

 

The tiniest slalom wakes are very limiting to developing trickers and wakeboarders. More so than the an approved boat's slalom wake affects slalom development. Playing around on tricks and wakeboards is exactly the thing little kids love and need to build a long term relationship with the sport. He did say he has kids...

 

Avoid the V-drives, pontoon boats and jet boats for sure. Get what gets the family on the water most.

 

Eric

[swc5150]

The tiny 24mph wake of our Prostar is the only thing that kept my wife interested in skiing. If she lost interest, my already limited lake time would be cut down drastically. She doesn't want to toughen up or enhance her skills through OTF's and a general fear of the wake. In my family at least, the new Prostar was a bigger marriage saver than ZO.

 

@flanker978 Definitely ski both boats, then decide. Both are very nice IMO.

[MDB1056]

If nearly 20 yrs ago they were breaking into 41 and today skiers are breaking into 43 is that really THAT much the boat? The speed hasn't changed and the buoys are the same. For what it's worth .......

[Horton]

@MDB1056 No. There have been some major technological changes but I think you could retrofit a 20 year old boat with zero off and the sports best skiers would nearly come to the same scores.

[andjules]

@flanker978

In joining this site, you've essentially joined a community of ski nerds, it's kind of like joining a sports-car enthusiast club: most people politely admire each other's boats, but everyone has lots of opinions (and knowledge) on tiny stuff that makes a huge difference to them, but maybe not to you.

 

So to answer your original question, kinda yes, as long as you don't buy a big wakeboarding boat, you're going to be in a good spot.

 

Will you notice differences between several good ski boats? yes.

Will they make a huge difference to your skiing and improvement? you can convince yourself they will (most of us have), but most likely they will not.

 

Back to the minutae:

- yes, the Prostar 205 went from a pretty good ski boat (95 and earlier) to a hybrid wake/ski boat in 96 and later.

- yes, Malibu Responses are good boats. Even the ones before 98. But yes, the ones from 98 on are a bit nicer for slalom, even at intermediate speeds. I'll also point out, given that you've got kids, that if you find a Malibu with a "wedge", it allows you to stop and switch your boat from 'skiing' mode to 'wakeboarding' mode, which your kids may care about as they get older (depending on how young they are and how long you want to keep your boat).

- there are lots of other great inboard ski boats, too. If you see some good deals in your neighbourhood, feel free to post them, but of course realize that it may be difficult to sort through our nerdy and passionate micro-opinions. We may end up discouraging you from buying a perfectly acceptable boat. On the other hand, we'll at least keep you from buying a terrible wakeboard boat.

 

Good luck!

[MDB1056]

@Horton - thanks. We're in agreement- the boat isn't making much difference . I hate to see people spend way more than needed for a negligible gain in performance. Cost / Benefit. Invest in coaching, training, and equipment which will generate far greater returns.

[flanker978]

Awesome discussion guys.

@andjules great summary.

I am now leaning more towards a Malibu response. Being in Australia, there are lots more Malibu’s tha the other big us brands.

Probably the only other confusion is with the locally made smaller brand boats. Most are not tournament approved and being so few around, it is hard to get an idea of their quality as a slalom boat.

 

 

[flanker978]

Hold the post!

Another contender has just arrived.

I have come across a well priced 98 Sanger dlx.

Anyone had experience with these boats?

[MISkier]

Here is a previous discussion on it. As I recall, Sanger are usually very fast and good barefoot boats.

 

BOS Sanger DLX discussion

 

Also, all the discussion above about top skiers still recording great scores on older boats is forgetting one thing. All the top skiers will start at 32 off and nearly every boat over the last 25+ years is tuned for the 32 off and shorter wake to be nearly non-existent. It's not quite the same as talking about the effect of the wake on non-pros at 15 off or 22 off. There have been many changes to wake shapes that affect those on longer lines. It's not valid to judge the boats based on what pro skiers may be able to do behind them.

 

Edited:

 

In reading that older discussion on the DLX, it sounds like the wake would not be as good as other boats you are mentioning.

[swc5150]

@MISkier hits the nail on the head. It doesn't really sound like the OP is shopping a boat to seriously increase buoy count. Differences in longer line wakes matter for us mortals, and they are noticeable. I know my wife has no interest in coaching to improve stack or the like, she just wants a tiny 24mph wake for open water or novice course skiing. That was the deciding factor in our latest boat purchase.

[Jordan]

I have skied the Sanger a bunch. Good long line wake. Very hard wakes at shorter lines.

[Horton]

@MISkier Small wakes at short line are easy-ish. The improvements with the newer boats are more noticeable for slower speeds and longer ropes.

[MISkier]

@Horton, I agree. Love the new Prostar and had good experiences with the new TXi as well. I just wanted to remind everyone about focusing on the longer line/slower speed when evaluating boats.

[eleeski]

Rgarding skiing wives:

 

My wife is a trick specialist. Although she no longer competes, she could be competitive if she wanted to get back in today. Although she is stuck in our boat's "bad zone" in slalom (28 and 30 mph at 15 off), I'm not allowed to get a new boat because the trick wakes are worse. Her skiing passion is strong. And I know several other passionate female trick specialists.

 

Then there are the overall women. They need a good trick wake as tricks requires a lot of water time. Slalom - they just power through the manageably adverse wakes. A surprising number of them keep the nicer wakes of the older boats.

 

Some women can be pure slalom specialists. Yes, they will like the new boat - for lots of reasons.

 

The women who can barely make a pass really don't have the passion for skiing. Sure, they might go out to the lake but it's for your skiing, not theirs. The right boat is the boat best for you.

 

A last observation, the right boat will always be the boat best suited to the kids. Kids that are pure slalom specialists do exist but they are rare. Even so, many of the top slalom skiers won their first medal in tricks (I've coached @Nason , Brett Muhlitner, Storm Selsor and Carl Roberge to early trick victories - and I believe @Horton is a trick medalist before slalom). Time will (should) be spent on tricks if you are a kid and the trick medals are truly earned. Another thought, the friends of your kids will probably have wakeboarded - you will bring you kids' friends out?!!

 

Forget the buoy count, happy kids, happy wife!

 

Eric

[MISkier]

@eleeski, I see a money-making opportunity in your future: “BallOfTricks”.

[eleeski]

@MISkier There's money in waterskiing?!!

 

@Horton asked me for more trick content. Or maybe he's setting me up to ban me?

 

Eric

[BraceMaker]

@flanker978 that does really swing the conversation - you might not really be able to buy some of the models discussed locally.

[powbmps]

As far as keeping the non-skiing wife happy, going to an open bow was key for me. She was all for upgrading from our '95 closed bow Response to the '03 LXi.

 

I'm a total hack beginner, and can't tell the difference between my wake and my buddies 2017 Prostar (at 34mph/22 off).

[Fraser]

How about a Moomba Outback? Simple work horse - add PP. I have found they ski very similar to if not better than many boats that have been mentioned in this thread. Plus they are very affordable. Being an owner of one and skiing with lot of guys in the 30 -36mph, and 15 to 35 off range most like my wake compared to the older (mid 2000's) Malibu, Prostar, and natique. All wakes have certain nuances...though. If you can go newer then it's a different story as other have noted too.

[flanker978]

@MISkier & @swc5150 raise some great points.

I doubt I will ever be really shortline slalom.

So yes, open bow , good low speed long line wake are it.

And as @eleeski says, being able to throw a wake for kids on a board is probably a bonus.

 

@Fraser, I haven’t seen too many Moomba boats in the Australian market.

 

So with all that considered, and with our budget, the list seems to be.

 

98-01 Response

Pre 96 Prostar 205

Sanger DLX (??) well priced and local. I also have a bit of a barefoot sometimes, so maybe the Sanger is a good mix.

 

 

[Dacon62]

Love Sanger, solid built, track awesome, fast, have owned a few but they would be down the list a bit for best longer line slalom wakes.

[escmanaze]

You should definitely put any TSC hull Nautique 196 on your list. I understand you aren't likely to find one in Australia, but if you do, the wakes are very good.

 

Also, since the kids might want to wakeboard a touch as well, here is what I've found there. With an empty boat (just driver) the wake is properly shaped (nice ramp with a nice peak on top) up until about 18-20 mph. Then it really starts to lose the peak and just become a smooth top hump as you get up to about 26. However, as you put weight toward the back, that speed at which it still keeps a nice ramp and a nice peak sticks around longer. With my 350 pound fat sack in the back, I've had no problem keeping the wake rampy with a peak all the way up to almost 24 mph. The more weight you put in the back, the faster speed you can go and still have a really nice shape to it. Obviously, it gets bigger with more weight as well. It has been a really decent "crossover" boat for me as I still enjoy riding sideways occasionally.

 

[flanker978]

@escmanaze TSC is all post 97?

Do you ever barefoot behind it?

[swc5150]

TSC hulls are fast boats, compared to other boats of the era/category. You should have no problem footing behind one.

[Fam-man]

@flanker978 I have a 98 SN196 with GT-40. It tops out at 43mph, we are 4000ft above sea level. Definitely enough for bare footing.

[escmanaze]

@flanker978 Yes, 97-09 ski nautiques are on the TSC hulls.

 

Mine has the 5.7 pro ski, not the GT-40, so with 4,500 feet of elevation, I actually top out at about 40, so I'm not sure mine would be enough for barefooting, but if you found one with the GT-40, then like @Fam-man says, yeah, it should be plenty, especially if you prop it more for high speed (I didn't).

 

I have heard also that it's not necessarily the best wake in the world for barefooting - something about having 3 mini wakes or something.

 

I don't barefoot though, and I absolutely LOVE mine for skiing and it works just fine for wakeboarding as well all the way up to an intermediate level. Advanced wakeboarders will certainly want better. Your average heelside hero teenager wants better too, but who cares?