Is the cost of new boats really the problem?

[BrennanKMN]

I constantly see posts on here mentioning that we need cheaper boats, or that the cost of new boats is part of the problem of why skiing is in decline. 

I'd love to hear some arguments as to why, because I cannot think of one.

It seems that wake boats are flying off the lot and they cost 2-3x a ski boat in some cases. If buying a new ski boat is the reason your not skiing, I'd argue you didn't really want to ski anyway. You can get great deals on used boats all the time. The 'average joe skier' that this sport needs to grow doesn't need a new zero off, direct injection, 93 octane, closed bow, 6.2L slalom machine. A 1990's era ski boat from any manufacture will pull them down their open water slalom set just the same. 

I know boats are general are more expensive now then they used to be. I know some of you 'back in the day' could afford a new Ski Nautique directly out of college. With that said, do you mean to tell me that if you couldn't have afforded that new Ski Nautique out of school you would have quit skiing? 

Personally, we're simply lying to ourselves if we think the cost of boats is the issue... A striped down slalom boat will not solve anything.

[Jody_Seal]

I guess a better question is what problem are you trying solve?

when the culture of the sport is based on anal policy's in the achievement of rankings and records rather then pure competition,  the sport suffers as these anal policies drive up the cost to participate. all so some group of elite skiers can get their "score" or record.

it seems to me that ski companies would go broke if they had to rely on a dwindling "competition member " customer base. they seem to be doing pretty good selling to non combatants.

what's that tell ya?

had a pretty funny conversation with the mother of a high end skier when asked me what are "they" going to do about tournaments if malibu pulls out.....??? ....         I answered who's they? 

I know of a repowered 06 MC  that will pull a few rds of high end skiing this season . as well as a 08 SN a 14 MC. A 98 SN and many other non overly expensive boats to be utilized in southern region.... 

 

 

 

 

[LK_skier]

Where I live the biggest barrier to the sport is access to a site let alone access to a slalom course or jump.  It's a difficult sport to practice.  It takes effort - I have to hitch up the boat drag it 30 min to the ramp and back again - if I want to do that mid week it doesn't leave a lot of time between work and needing to get home by dark.  It's a massive effort.  And I'm one of the lucky ones with access reasonably close and a boat.

Boat costs are barrier to a point, but you could find older cheaper options if you had access to a site.

[Sethro]

At some point it boils down to desire.  Here's a real life example of two skiers in recent years introduced to skiing by our core group of skiers.  They are both financially capable of going "all in" so that part is out of the equation. 

Skier A obviously enjoys his time on the water with us and has improved drastically.  Has only come out a few times each year, although the offer is pretty much standing anytime he wants to join. 

Skier B has now completely changed his lifestyle and purchased a new slalom ski, gloves, life jacket, trick ski, Malibu TXi, and a house on the river approaching 500K.  Breaks ground on a new boathouse for the TXi very soon.

Skiing is not for everyone, and if someone really wants it they'll find a way to make it happen.  

 

[skibrain]

Where to start on this topic?

The false necessity of specialization.

I’m just north of 60 yrs old. Over time all sports have become niche-specialized. Athletic shoes. Bicycles. Snow skis. Boats. Motorcycles…. Just to name few activities that interest me.  The idea that to do any sport you, especially to get started, you must have the absolutely correct, specialized gear.  The venue, the attire, the eyewear, blah blah.

Here is nice picture of some people having fun in a boat. (The wake size even looks pretty good) This is a fishing boat. It is a ski boat. It is a wakeboard boat. It can be purchased for $2000 - $3000.  Go buy it. Do some stuff. Learn to drop a ski and slalom. Does it line up with the optimized perfect setup that Ballers are after? No. But a lot of us started here and  had some of our best memories here.

Cast a wider net. Get people off the couch. Define and welcome people into “the sport” in the broadest way possible. Private lake course skiing behind a zero-off tug on a $2,000 ski isn’t the hurdle of entry. 

I’ve posted this before, if the filter for calling it “snow skiing” was one skier at a time, shinning gates on steep runs against the clock, the sport would shrink and be nearly unsustainable.

[BlueSki]

It’s the fact that most public water is unskiable during most hours when people are hanging out on a lake outside of dedicated vacation time. That makes it hard to be introduced to the sport. Collegiate skiing is the source of new blood, but finding good water when starting a career is not easy in aggregate.  Yes, it can be done, but it’s not easy. 

[Rednucleus]

I think access and desire are far more important than finances.  I started skiing with my best bud 1st summer out of college in 1977 becuase he bought a boat and "we are going to learn to ski".  We skied almost every day for 4 summers, and progressed from a 50 hp 16 foot "Green Hemorrhoid" to a fun 460hp jet boat on out "high end Jobes". Then married, job, kids etc - maybe skied 3-4 times every summer for the next 15 yrs. Moved back closer to best friend and started skiing more frequently. He hooked me on the INT tourneys and after skiing behind a tournement boat, I hhad to have one.  Fast forward, sold the boat, didn't use it enough, but now a member at Hilltop and ski every weekend year round. At 65 I ski as much as I did 40 years ago, and am blessed to still be skiing with my best friend.  I believe my desire to ski keeps me "young and fit". I justify the expense becuase I don't have to maintain a boat, and my wife believes it better for me than seeing a shrink!!

[skibrain]

@BlueSki agree. Getting started requires less optimal conditions, but short-line slalom skiing doesn’t work without good water. We do 95% of our skiing on public water between 5:30 and 7:30 am. I’ll happily miss sleep and endure cold.  
 

We have A LOT of water in MN, but I’d drop the sport of slalom skiing in a minute if I couldn’t find it smooth. 

[stevezie]

Skiing overall is not on the decline.  It's growing in my area, as others noted in separate threads.  Show skiing participation is growing as well.  Competitive skiing is in decline and DD boat sales are in decline for a few reasons.

[Ski_Dad]

We have a lot of slalom skiers in Ohio.   There is at least 5 slalom lakes within an hour of me surprisingly and at least that many public lakes close by.   We have 14 boats in our club.  I did a quick mental count and 6 are 5-20K boats,  5 are 20-40k boats, and 3 are 50-100k boats.

The last 3 are Prostars.  They ski a little better than my boat  but  I can't see replacing my boat with a MC that costs 5 times what I paid for my Malibu.  If a new Prostar was 60k i could probably justify it but when things started approaching 100k it becomes out of my reach.  I don't believe in payment unless absolutely necessary but I know I'm in the minority.

I also think that a new boater is not going to buy a ski boat when the surf barges are all they see at the boat shows.

I guess to answer your question, slalom is not dying but the prices are not helping the average person.

[tjs1295]

Is there even a problem other than people having too many options these days? I think there are more people than ever at the lake enjoying themselves in one way or another. Unfortunately, there are so many different ways to do it than there was 30 or 40 years ago.

[aupatking]

Nothing is as cool to see on the water as a skilled slalom skier or a highly skilled wakeboarder. Even Surf is lame to watch (but fun to do). The first two are aspirational. To want to do it, you need to see it (know it exists). My dad and uncles open water slalomed behind our 16 foot checkmate. Seeing those guys made me want to do it. I begged for a Waterski Magazine subscription. I wanted to do what they did, and way more (course and competition). Yes, conditions on the river sometimes sucked but in between the bad sections there was enough decent water to give hell to a few turns. 

There was one public water course that people were afraid to ski because “that’s Tynes’ course and he’ll give you hell for skiing it”. Turns out, that guy wanted us skiing it even more than himself. I feel the same and it’s why I waste hundreds of dollars and hours keeping that public course going. The same reason he did.

It’s access AND aspiration. At least as far as course/competition skiing goes. If there is no knowledge that it exists, well, it doesn’t. If they don’t have a place to do it, they won’t. 

The bodies that should have busted their asses chasing public policies for access chased rules, minutia, and every fad to come around. If they had advocated and lobbied for more public access, we wouldn’t be having this same discussion over and over. 

So, maybe it’s on us, individually. Fight to put a course in and ski it! An $8,000 boat or a $134,000 boat doesn’t matter a damn bit. A skier behind it showing what can be done? That matters.

Access and Aspiration 

[jhughes]

On a public lake you need the following for course skiing.

1. No other boats moving, for several hours, on the entire lake

2. Favorable winds/weather

3. No boats in approximately 2000' x 300' or so of water 

4. Course not destroyed 

It takes a half hour to hitch up and drive there, maybe 2hr for 4 people to ski including getting stuff on, falls, putting out to the starting spot. At 6:00am. So that entire lake's capacity for slalom is 4 people for the entire day! Most people won't do all that work and even if they do, they may not have time to fit in the rotation.

Private lake may still only have capacity for about 4 skiers before work, 4 at lunchtime, 4 after work. 12 skiers per day assuming everyone is at least somewhat working a day job.

[jjackkrash]

9 minutes ago, jhughes said:

On a public lake you need the following for course skiing.

1. No other boats moving, for several hours, on the entire lake

2. Favorable winds/weather

 

Or lillypads!  But ya.  

[jjackkrash]

3-event Skiing is aristocratic.  It's not for the masses.  It not like soccer or even snowboarding.  Think more along the lines of Polo and Dressage. 

It's both expensive and tough to get to the top of Everest as well, but that's part of the charm.  

You can, in fact, find ways to ski on a budget if you really want to.  You just have to be hooked, creative and committed.  But, again, you need to be a lunatic who really appreciates the sport or its not going to happen.

Skiing is what it is.  The best sport on the planet for a relatively few families who get it.  And that's ok with me.  

 

[Horton]

Back to the question asked in the title of this thread.

Everybody loves a new boat just like everyone loves a new car. I think everyone can agree on this for the most part. ( If you are a Porsche 912 super fan I understand but that is another thread )

The fact is, boats are pretty simple compared to cars and there is nothing wrong with an old boat. A 15 – 20 year old car with 200k or 300K miles might not be worth the trouble. Google tells me the average car has 30,000 parts. That is a lot of stuff to wear out. A boat is made of more stuff that lasts for decades than stuff that wears out. Engines, transmissions, steering, electrical, and some bits might give up but all that is replaceable.

During Covid when boats were in super short supply I used a 2008 boat for about 6 months. That old boat drove fine and my scores were exactly the same as with a new boat. If all 3 boat companies quit making boats tomorrow it would send shockwaves through the sport but there is no reason we would not carry on. Today you can get a 2008 or later ZO boat on SIA for 30k to 40K. When that engine gives out you can repower for less than 10K. You can get a pre-2008 non-ZO boat for less and repower if you want/need.

There is not a shortage of boats. The new ones are pricey but you can get a perfectly good training boat for less than ½ of a new boat.

[MitchellM]

46 minutes ago, Horton said:

Back to the question asked in the title of this thread.

Everybody loves a new boat just like everyone loves a new car. I think everyone can agree on this for the most part. ( If you are a Porsche 912 super fan I understand but that is another thread )

The fact is, boats are pretty simple compared to cars and there is nothing wrong with an old boat. A 15 – 20 year old car with 200k or 300K miles might not be worth the trouble. Google tells me the average car has 30,000 parts. That is a lot of stuff to wear out. A boat is made of more stuff that lasts for decades than stuff that wears out. Engines, transmissions, steering, electrical, and some bits might give up but all that is replaceable.

During Covid when boats were in super short supply I used a 2008 boat for about 6 months. That old boat drove fine and my scores were exactly the same as with a new boat. If all 3 boat companies quit making boats tomorrow it would send shockwaves through the sport but there is no reason we would not carry on. Today you can get a 2008 or later ZO boat on SIA for 30k to 40K. When that engine gives out you can repower for less than 10K. You can get a pre-2008 non-ZO boat for less and repower if you want/need.

There is not a shortage of boats. The new ones are pricey but you can get a perfectly good training boat for less than ½ of a new boat.

Agreed.  Boat cost is not the problem.  Plenty of great used boats that do the job at an approachable price point.  So few new boats are sold every year at the outrageous MSRP relative to all of the older boats that are still pulling skiers of all abilities.  I just got a great boat for $25k.  Older, but still in good shape and with a wake that rivals most new boats.  Good enough for me right now.

[Dano]

What happens if ZO isn’t the only speed control approved for tournaments?  i realize that may not be a popular idea among competitors.  But we ski in what is now a very controlled environment, more so than some other sports.  Is ZO really better than PP? (their DBW version, not the old paddle wheel or servo motor), is e controls really the best engine control system?  Is PCM really the best engine option?  We don’t really know because the industry only offers us the one option currently.  Are prices artificially elevated because of this?  I fully beleive competition is good for innovation.  I see more similarities in boat brands than I see differences.  In my opinion the dispute between PP and ZO hampered competition and was overall bad for the sport.  To me it is short sighted to say all tournaments will be held using ZO.  It’s good for record setting, i get that, but other sports have variables for competitors to contend with that can favour some more than others.  Preparing to compete regardless of the conditions is a part of being a competitor.  

[jjackkrash]

1 hour ago, Dano said:

 In my opinion the dispute between PP and ZO hampered competition and was overall bad for the sport.  

Not much that can be done about it.  ZO had a patent that applied to all econtrol boats and basically won a patent lawsuit.  So until the patent expires there's not much to be done about the lack of competition absent some other, unknown and untested innovation that does not risk another ZO patent violation.  IIRC a patent lasts 20 years so maybe we are coming up on its expiration that might break the competition logjam.  

[Dano]

@jjackkrash my understanding is that econtols is simply an engine control system.  In my experience playing with automotive aftermarket is that there is a multitude of options to control just about any power plant.  Leads me to believe you could pick anything but econtrols to manage your engine and then the patent would not apply.  It’s the marriage between the engine builder, boat manufacturers, and econtrols that makes ZO the only option. 

[Horton]

ZO is the standard. If we want to compete with boats that have been built since 2008 ZO is the system. If we want to go to a tournament and get a pull that is standard, ZO is the system. I do not like how ZO was brought into the sport but it is what it is. ZO has the patents and a legal agreement with PP to not put their system in new boats. 

ZO is not just an ECM. It is GPS + accelerometers + algorithms + voodoo to work with a skier. Why would somebody from the outside do all the R&D to make something as good? The market is too small.   

So I understand the gripe about ZO but using something else is most likely going to cause more problems in the sport. The LAST thing we need is another speed control system. We have plenty of other problems. 

[dave2ball]

@Dano the ZO question has been pretty much answered. You talked about power plants such as is PCM the best motor for that boat?  Correct Craft owns Nautique, Centurion and Supreme boat companies and PCM.  So  it would make sense to keep use PCM as their motor of choice to keepthe money with in the corporate roof.   

Master Craft was all Indmar until it was sold to Penske many years ago and the motor was changed to Illmor. MC was then sold to I believe its current owner and the contract stated that Illmor was going to be the required motor.  
 

Malibu is doing their own motors as of this year I believe but in prior years they used raptors 6.2.  

The coordinations are going to keep as much under their control as possible meaning that they will use the motor that best fits their cost and if they can keep it with in there cooperate umbrella the better.  So in their eyes the motor MFG they own is going to go into their production.   Which is the best fit for the product.  
 

 

[slow]

Inmar - Correct craft

Illmor - Penske 

[Horton]

@slow Indmar not Inmar

Illmor / Penske is / was accurate. @Broussard can you give current state?

[dave2ball]

@slow PCM is correct Craft.  Indmar  not quite sure who all is using them.   
 

[Broussard]

Engine Use by Manufacturer:

Anthem - PCM (owned by Correct Craft)

ATX - Indmar (owned by Correct Craft)

Axis - Monsoon (marinized in house) 

Centurion - PCM (owned by Correct Craft)

Heyday - MerCruiser 

Malibu - Monsoon (marinized in house) 

MasterCraft - Ilmor Marine (owned by Penske)

Moomba - Indmar (owned by Correct Craft)

Nautique - PCM (owned by Correct Craft)

Pavatti - Indmar (owned by Correct Craft)

Supreme - PCM (owned by Correct Craft)

Supra - Indmar (owned by Correct Craft)

Tigé - Indmar (owned by Correct Craft)

Varatti - MerCruiser

Block Usage by Marinization Company 

GM - Ilmor, MerCruiser, Monsoon, PCM

Ford - Indmar

*Malibu stopped using PCM and started marinizing its own engines a while back. Model Year 2020?

 

Edited February 18 by Broussard

[RAWSki]

Just now, dave2ball said:

@slow PCM is correct Craft.  Indmar  not quite sure who all is using them.   
 

Pretty much anyone that isn't MC, Malibu or SN, Centurion/Supreme.    So all the rest of the surf barges.   Mercruiser and Marine Power still make inboard engines but mostly for repowers and speciality markets.

[dave2ball]

@Broussard thanks. Did not know Correct Craft bought Indmar.  
@slow you were correct. I did not know. That slipped by me.   

[Broussard]

@dave2ball Chuck Rowe sold to Correct Craft in 2022

 https://www.indmar.com/correct-craft-acquires-indmar/

Edited February 18 by Broussard

[UWSkier]

23 hours ago, dave2ball said:

@Dano the ZO question has been pretty much answered. You talked about power plants such as is PCM the best motor for that boat?  Correct Craft owns Nautique, Centurion and Supreme boat companies and PCM.  So  it would make sense to keep use PCM as their motor of choice to keepthe money with in the corporate roof.   

Master Craft was all Indmar until it was sold to Penske many years ago and the motor was changed to Illmor. MC was then sold to I believe its current owner and the contract stated that Illmor was going to be the required motor.  
 

Malibu is doing their own motors as of this year I believe but in prior years they used raptors 6.2.  

The coordinations are going to keep as much under their control as possible meaning that they will use the motor that best fits their cost and if they can keep it with in there cooperate umbrella the better.  So in their eyes the motor MFG they own is going to go into their production.   Which is the best fit for the product.  
 

 

Malibu has been marinizing and using their own motors for several years now.  They used Crusader engines in the current TXi up until 2020 IIRC.  There has never been a Ford (Raptor) in the TXi.  They did use those for a couple years in some wake barges.

[Dano]

I was only pointing out that ZO being the only option for speed control, has dictated the use of e controls.  Regardless of which engine is being used.

[DvarianDan Johnson]

This very old topic of the cost of boats etc. has been beaten to death 100 times over. Read about it endlessly in prior threads. This is merely one of the multiple items contributing to the slow but continual decline in comp skiing.   

[Jody_Seal]

INDMAR MARINE ENGINES ANNOUNCES LEADERSHIP CHANGES
IN PREPARATION OF ACCELERATED GROWTH

Tim Maher named President of Indmar Marine Engines.
Maher will report to Mark McKinney, President of Liberty Technologies, a Correct Craft subsidiary.
MILLINGTON, Tenn., Feb.20, 2024 - Indmar Marine Engines announced Tim Maher, who previously served as Chief Operating Officer of Indmar, as the company's President. As President, Maher will oversee the worldwide operations of the company and will report directly to Mark McKinney, the President of Liberty Technologies, a Correct Craft subsidiary that oversees Indmar Marine Engines, Pleasurecraft Engine Group, and Velvet Drive Transmissions.

Maher is a 14-year veteran of Indmar Marine Engines, and under his leadership, the company has made numerous advancements, driving steady growth and positioning Indmar to continue delivering award-winning products to the industry.

"Indmar has a rich history as an innovator, a strong brand that customers trust and are loyal to - and one phenomenal team that has made it all possible," said Tim Maher, President of Indmar Marine Engines. Maher further explained, "It's been incredible to experience Indmar's growth over the last 14 years - I am honored and appreciate the opportunity to lead our team as we prepare for the next 14 years of sustainable growth."

Liberty Technologies' strategic focus on inboard propulsion systems delivers boat manufacturers the highest quality and most innovative inboard propulsion systems while maximizing value, reliability, and serviceability.

President of Liberty Technologies, Mark McKinney, stated, "Liberty Technology offers boat builder partners with advantages unmatched in our industry and is dedicated to the advancements of the inboard segment. Our commitment to our partners is not only evident in our award-winning products but also in our people. Our employees bring world-class customer service and leadership to the marine industry, as exhibited by Tim Maher and the team at Indmar Marine Engines. I am thrilled to appoint Maher to President of Indmar Marine Engines and look forward to working with him in his new role."

About Indmar Marine Engines
Indmar is the world's largest privately held manufacturer of gasoline-powered inboard marine engines. Indmar has a pedigree going back nearly 51 years in the inboard marine industry and a proud tradition of pointing the way forward. Indmar was the first inboard manufacturer to deliver fuel injection and custom-calibrated engines and the first to produce an inboard engine with a catalyzed exhaust, now the industry standard. Today, this legendary brand delivers an inimitable mix of unrivaled performance, meticulous craftsmanship, and ground-breaking innovations - charting a course for others to follow. Indmar operates advanced manufacturing facilities in the U.S. with distribution centers in Millington, TN, Merced, CA and Clarkston, WA. Indmar is overseen by Correct Craft subsidiary Liberty Technologies, which also manages Pleasurecraft Engine Group (PCM Engines, Crusader Engines, Levitator Engines) and Velvet Drive Transmissions. For more information, please visit www.indmar.com.

About Liberty Technologies
Liberty Technologies is a Correct Craft subsidiary that oversees Pleasurecraft Engine Group, Indmar Marine Engines, and Velvet Drive Transmissions. Through partnerships with world-class manufacturers, such as Ford and General Motors, Liberty Technologies delivers the highest quality and most innovative inboard propulsion systems for boat builders in a variety of segments.

About Correct Craft
Celebrating 99 years of excellence in the marine industry, Correct Craft is a Florida-based company with global operations. Focused on "Making Life Better," the Correct Craft family includes Nautique, Centurion, Supreme, Bass Cat, Yar-Craft, SeaArk, Parker, and Ingenity boat companies, Pleasurecraft Engine Group, Indmar Marine Engines, Velvet Drive Transmissions, Mach Connections, Merritt Precision, Osmosis, Watershed Innovation, and Aktion Parks. For more information, please visit www.correctcraft.com.

Contact: Indmar Marine Engines
Natalie Carrera
865.441.6121
ncarrera@indmar.com
###

 

[03RLXi]

Costs are relevant but not the dominant reason. For example there are a lot of water skiers in New Zealand. They're once a year during summer skiers, behind their own or a friends general purpose trailer boat. My guess more than 30% of population has tried sometime in their life and 5%ish participate most years. However general public and these skiers do not see it as a sport. Most don't even know it exists as a serious competitive sport. It's simply a fun reactional activity to do occasionally. In my opinion lack of publicity of it as a sport, and limited access to suitable water conditions is why it'll always be a fun reactional activity for the majority and it'll be a sport for a tiny tiny minority.  

[Horton]

@03RLXi I have no doubt what you're saying is true but I don't understand what it has to do with the subject of this thread.

[DW]

That little technical detail that ZO is required by AWSA is a cost driver for the tourney skier.  A quick scan of tournament ski boats in use by the population of slalom skiers may easily still lean to more boats with PP speed control than ZO.  Not saying the population of skiers that compete in tournaments, just the entire population of ski boats. I see a lot of PP equipped ski boats on lifts (ie; not new ones).

As I read the rule - ... any previously approved boat equipped with ZO.  Does that mean any converted boat is legal or is it OEM equipped only?  Wording leaves a lot of leeway.  When the sport needs to scrounge for boats, the rules reverse the trend of using 'new' promo boats and cast a wider umbrella maybe more restrictions will fall by the wayside going forward, time will tell.

This is just an observation, nothing more.  

[Horton]

USA waterski and IWWF do not literally specify what speed control system must be used ( last time I checked). The simple fact is that since 2008 all new boats have been equipped with ZO. Theoretically you can call your local councilman and get approval to use a older perfect pass boat in a tournament. You can also put ZO in an older boat and do the same.

There's a tournament every year in Newberry Springs that uses nothing but old repowered boats. There's nothing wrong with it.

[03RLXi]

3 hours ago, Horton said:

@03RLXi I have no doubt what you're saying is true but I don't understand what it has to do with the subject of this thread.

I may have misinterpreted however I was thinking the topic was if the cost of new boats is causing a decline of skiing numbers, or if it's something else. I'm not seeing skiing declining here, however competitive sport skiing is. Costs are part of that reason, but not the dominant reason. To me it seems to be sport promotion and water access. Those who really want to will find the money (& the water access if pockets are deep enough) however if they're never introduced to the sport aspect of skiing they won't get hooked to begin with. 

[Horton]

makes sense 

[aupatking]

The cost of a new boat has nothing to do with whether I will ski in tournaments. I also will not buy a brand new boat. I’ll take that same amount of money and go buy a rental or some other investment property. I’d love a new boat, but the price is ridiculous to me. I can’t justify it to myself, let alone justify it to my wife. Sure, if you’ve got the cash on hand, go grab a brand new one. They are badass.

I really see no correlation to the price of a brand new boat and whether or not people will 3-Event ski in tournaments. I do see a lot of people that have thought, for many years, that you must have a “within 3 model years” boat to get to practice behind the same boats you’d ski in a tournament. 

[Golfguy]

How is this thinking wrong.: We hear that if you don't like the cost of a new boat just buy a used boat? If fewer people buy new boats yearly there will be a corresponding decrease in the availability of used boats? Right? Seems like a diminishing returns problem.

 

Just asking.

[Jody_Seal]

hmmm! could a $60k or less three event boat be built???

 

[Dano]

@Jody_Seal I suspect yes a 60k boat could be built.   My opinion is that a 60k budget boat that performs on par with the current offerings is only good for the sport and the boat market. It would certainly change the landscape of both the new and used boat sales.  It could really shake things up.   I don’t think that price point is really enticing new buyers into the market. There are only so many skiers and even fewer skiers willing to pay that kind of money to play.   The budget boat would  need to win some sales away from the big 3 and attract  some buyers out of the used market. I would like to see it happen.  I’m not sure there’s anybody willing to invest the time and money required to get such a boat into production, and tournament approved.  Further to that, This sport has some very loyal brand supporters.  I’m not sure you’d ever convince them that a 1/2 price boat is a good boat.  Especially if it doesn’t say MC or Nautique on it.  
 

[Jody_Seal]

@Dano

hey! don't buy it!

however me being one who works in the towboat industry see and know that there is a market for a new ski boat that does not require one to give up a kidney to afford it. most everyone that are buying these new over priced tugs are not getting what they paid for. these current boats across the full manufacturing spectrum have many defective components and craftsmanship issues and  as well as are built thin in many cases. the " leggo" style of building a ski boat leaves a lot to be desired. 

[RAWSki]

I just don't believe the cost of new ski boats is limiting the number of new/aspiring skiers into the sport, yes it would be nice to have a "5 digit" option but it's been tried more than once.  Even back in the heyday of direct drives, MC and Malibu offered SportStars and Sporters, and they just didn't sell well enough to last more than a few years.

[Dano]

@RAWSki  i do agree that the cost of new boats is not what’s limiting new skiers.  I don’t think those are good examples of “done before”. None of those offerings were significantly cheaper in price than the flagship models and they did not perform as well as the flagship models. What is being proposed is a 60k boat that can perform as well or better than  the flagship  models.  I think both price point and performance are possible since the boats would be stripped down and weigh less.  At 60k that is half the cost of what is currently available.  That price point and performance would certainly win a good percentage of buyers of both new and used. 

[swc5150]

One issue may be that the average family walks into MarineMaxx looking for a boat to ski behind, and the odds of a DD boat being in stock to view is essentially zero.

[Rednucleus]

@swc5150 Like the Seattle Boat Show having a Nautique 200 as the one and only example of a ski tug this year. 

[RAWSki]

21 hours ago, Dano said:

@RAWSki  i do agree that the cost of new boats is not what’s limiting new skiers.  I don’t think those are good examples of “done before”. None of those offerings were significantly cheaper in price than the flagship models and they did not perform as well as the flagship models. What is being proposed is a 60k boat that can perform as well or better than  the flagship  models.  I think both price point and performance are possible since the boats would be stripped down and weigh less.  At 60k that is half the cost of what is currently available.  That price point and performance would certainly win a good percentage of buyers of both new and used. 

@Dano sorry man you have have to explain how you are going to strip hundreds and hundreds of pounds out of a boat to achieve better performance and price advantages?  I know that @DW did it but I don't think his carbon fiber adds are going to be cheap.

You still need a 19-20' fiberglass reinforced tub, and 6L (or 5.3) Cat Engine.  The rest of the weight seems pretty much insignificant.  Designing a brand new hull is cost prohibitive, splashing or recycling a proven design is much more likely. 

I am reminded of the old line.     *Quality, Performance, Cost*    You can choose any 2.

[Dano]

@RAWSki a new prostar weighs in excess of 3300lbs.  My centurion falcon weighs 2500lbs and my boat is full of wood.  Lighter than the prostar  can definitely be done.  I see no reason to be married to a Cat engine.  There are endless options to choose from.