ReallyGottaSki

I concur

Back then the merc 150/175 powerheads would just run and run forever

But seemed there was always a 200/225's in the shop all apart for rebuilds.

Think would have to use a typical gear reduction B/w, pcm or zf to absorb the shaft's thrust and transfer it to the stingers/hull.

Todd,

expand on that, why considering vertically vs inline?

Cool topic, and smart dialog men

Funny, I've long often pondered the same regarding a 2-stroke v6 powerhead with gear reduction in a direct-drive boat.

I suspect maybe modern boats have encountered some bloating that is making base 300hp feel flat? Don't know, i'm not in many!

Some may concur a tired 240hp v8 can pull slalom fairly well when the boat is not bloated

All towboats surely using only a fraction of available power that is available during a pull, as evidenced of available throttle and manifold vacuum. Perhaps, only 90-110hp used to maintain cruise at 36, depending upon the hull?

And such an engine at 3600 rpm, (given about 1mph/100rpm typical) only has maybe 160-170 hp available at 3600 rpm no matter what.

So the larger that delta, between what is utilized at cruise, and what is available at that rpm ,(which is not max rated power, but dictated by the power curve) Of course slippage and compensation on firm tugs, and increased throttle inputs raise rpm to where more power (and therefor torque) is 'available' in reserve because rpm has increased. But its never going to be full rated power, because we don't ski at those speeds.

So that said, max rated hp is not all available at ski speeds

Interesting for the discussion, i've driven slalom with a 'not advertized' 425HP 2001 nautique (with the LH rotation High rpm barefoot engine, capable of 5400 rpm, and one can feel a base 351 is more responsive to throttle compensation at slalom speeds.

Now that configuration of nautique has a 14p prop so was at not the same rpm, and must be disclosed.

One can surmise a higher max rated hp at max rpm does not automatically guarantee the superior experience at lesser rpms.

As been said prior, Available delta-torque/per throttle input at the ski rpm could be what we define as a 'responsive' tow tractor.

I concur, a 225-250hp 2 stroke powerhead with smartly selected gear reduction would make an interesting project for the tinkerer.

Recently, before undertaking my engine project, I've done some mental math on a economical lightweight LS based powerplant transplant, carburated, for older hulls, based on a 5.3 all-aluminum LM4 from a trailblazer ext or its GMC variant, done with a flywheel spacer, a readily available LS intake and spark box, and aluminum cast exhaust manifolds are becoming available.

I've seen entire running vehicles on craigslist for 5-600 bucks. Given all that, i think the project would cost about 3300 max and get a couple hundred pounds out of an 351 or 350 or LT1 based boat.

I've considered it for my boat, and i bet taking a couple hundred pounds out of say, an already stellar 20 year old Malibu response, is quite tantalizing.

I'm currently in the project of 'aluminizing' my tired 351, and paired with ss commander manifolds i've recently procured, will take 141 pounds out of the boat total. Longer range plans are to prepare a 331 stroked shortblock for additional 60-70 pounds lost

The boat already has a fantastic ski wake even by modern standards and excited to see how it is this season.

to sum up, i may have a data point to share regarding such in a few weeks

Wake and side spray observations will be observations but the seat of the pants data is tainted because power will be 'enhanced' as well :D

I concur, a carbed '97 TSC1 will still have the gt40 heads, so the HP gap is only 15-20hp from the FI GT40. Personally rather fix a carb than 20+ yo marine electronics.

Seth, and Collin, and everyone

Thank you all for both endeavoring to getting me on this ski proper and not shooting my eye out in the process

very good,

and, appears I was mistaken, and as BraceMaker sez, the Fogmans were set with #12 x3/8 oval head screws, not 1/4-20 as i misreported. Also an adhesive

Thank you men, outstanding. for your spectrum of observations and thoughtful suggestions, they are all valid and worthy of consideration this winter

much obliged

Hello everyone

I'm in need of some advanced direction placing bindings on a ski correctly the first time and not mess it up

Let me begin with a little backstory and interesting details that may be relevant ...

A ski friend saw i was still on my '94 vintage Connelly HP and asked why i'm still skiing on that dinosaur bone..

Well, over the years i hadn't tried anything worth giving it up over, it always felt right to me.

He arranged to set up a purchase of a used blank from another guy, i replied just cant, currently things are tight post-divorce; he replied don't worry....

Well i'm handed a '07 vintage Connelly F1 that feels light as a feather, i said i can't afford this he says yeah you can.

So i take it home, he says, its got a good story., i'll tell you later..

Well indeed i have it now for the price of a good pair of sneakers.

When i saw it, determined its too good to mount my clunky HP boots on it like i had first envisioned. Figured id get a modern binding set for it on closeout whenever i could.

So later on he tells me that it had changed hands prior but I learn that it is one of Jamie B's old sticks!

now i really don't want to mess it up

It appears to have been set up for an advanced plate or hardshell system. There are only 1/4-20 inserts at the extreme ends, i dont recognize the system and my searches came up empty

that said, I scored some very visually complimentary Radar bindings on closeout, but, not connelly

Questions..

1) So, how sacrilegious is it to mix brands on this ski?

2) Before i dare drill a hole, i want to get binding placement as correct as possible

My first inclination is place the back of my heels identically as my HP, while adjusted proportionately for any delta-length.

But please advise..

3) If i direct-mount, intend to use 5/8" ss pan head or truss head screws, into drilled pilot holes

4) Has one utilized a lightweight plate to adapt std plate bindings to the eight 1/4-20 inserts in the center-line

(4 front/ 4 astern) thus not making additional holes in the ski?

The total weight is looking like 7# vs my 10.5# HP, so i'm a bit excited about that

thanks for anything you can advise ballers,

Tom

ski..

with intended bindings..sure is purdy...

my old trusty HP