jdarwin

@bmiller3536 - good stuff!!

Actually, when I measured tonight, I'm about 1/8" ahead of stock. The ski feels awesome and I don't believe I will change anything for a while.

Actually, when I measured tonight, I'm about 1/8" ahead of stock. The ski feels awesome and I don't believe I will change anything for a while.

Perfect - I use the same set up. I'll give it a try.

Perfect - I use the same set up. I'll give it a try.

@bishop8950 - I agree that it is early and the water is not up to temp yet but I think we'll be close now that our water is approaching 70 deg. But, that's why the ranges are so large. Where do you have your bindings? I've always been at stock on D3's which may or may not be the right thing. S

@bishop8950 - I agree that it is early and the water is not up to temp yet but I think we'll be close now that our water is approaching 70 deg. But, that's why the ranges are so large. Where do you have your bindings? I've always been at stock on D3's which may or may not be the right thing. S

@ral - once you get past 2.508, the ski doesn't finish the off-side with as much angle. The tip rise @Horton refers to probably comes from "pushing" on the back of the ski as a result of it not finishing with proper angle. 2.500 comes under you very quick and some may like that feel but I prefer a more controlled finish and found 2.505 fits the bill. The DFT should be around .750 for the 66/67" and .760 for the 68". I believe we will end up around 6.915 - 6.935 on the length. This ski likes more surface area but not necessarily deeper. Therefore, length will be critical. Your actual mileage may vary. Much more on-the-water analysis to come.

One conclusion we have come to is the depth should not be more than 2.508. We're thinking 2.505 and shallower will work. Length and DFT are TBD.

@Andy - good move. The main factor most boat buyers fail to consider is not what the boat costs to buy but what the boat costs to own. If you have $25 invested in the 2005 after upgrading it to ZO then keep it for 5 years, what would its value be? $20k? OK, you've lost $5k in value over 5 years. Try that with a 2013 SN200 or comparable boat. I never look at the cost to purchase. I focus on the resale value in 1,2 or 5 years and from that, determine the true cost of ownership. Oh, and cost of money on $25k is less than $45-50k.

As an owner of a 2007 196 w/ZO who has less than $28k invested, it warms my heart that these models are holding their value so well. I"m afraid the day I'm faced with "upgrading", there won't be any suitable choices.

Rode the 68" Quest today with the following numbers - 6.930 / 2.505 / .765 flat / 8 deg wing. Those were compromise numbers from several different sources. The ski is incredibly stable and fast. It surprised me that with a fin that long the ski performed as well as it did. Couldn't get completely settled due to 20mph crosswinds but first impression is very positive. The ski is a good bit wider than the 67" and it stayed out in front off the 2nd wake and coming out of the ball but never felt big. Very responsive. I'll stay on this size until I can get my belly button and my spine in closer proximity and then try the 67" again.

The difference between the 6.0 and 6.2 is the cam is slightly bigger from the factory, the heads flow way more, the valves are 2.16 intake and 1.59 exaust and the runners are 260 cc intakes and 90 cc exaust and the intake manifold is different, and the intake rocker arms are offset to the side, the bore of the motor is bigger and the compression ratio is 10.5 to 1, and it has a 58X reluctor wheel vs. the 6.0s 24X reluctor wheel. I had a 6.0 in a Trailblazer SS that was a rocket due to the 4 speed and 4.10 rear end. My Denali has a 6 speed and 3.92 rear and is not near as quick but it is a beast when towing.

$22k is a steal for that boat - even after adding ZO, you're at $25k - a good investment IMO.

I don't dye my water to primarily control weeds although it does help. I dye to keep the water temp down during the dog days of summer. And, it looks nice..

I believe the 196 took a hit initially when the 200 came out - same thing occured to 1995-96 hulls in 1997 when the TSC hull first appeared. The difference from 1997 is the significant price jump of the new hull that eventually led to the stabilization of the 196 pricing and as the supply of boats has diminished, the value has appreciated accordingly. Market forces - it's an amazing thing to behold. As a pure slalom tractor, the 196 is hard to beat....at any price.

Just don't ask John for fin numbers.....

@Marco - shoot Keith an e-mail. He can provide better insight than I. But, a 1 gallon jug of granuales (not powder) is $99.25 and covers 3-4 acres of water. And, more importantly, it lasts. I've found Aquashade to be the longest lasting but it is cost prohibitive. The same coverage with Aquashade would be $160-200.

@MrJones - Ha!

In researching not only affordable solutions but also cost-effective ones, I came across this company who had a fantastic product at a reasonable cost. I've used "cheap" dyes in the past and they simply don't last. This product lasts and is priced competitively with the "cheap" products on the market. If you are considering adding color to your lake, I would highly recommend you contact Keith and discuss your particular situation. He is extrememly helpful and as stated above, provides a top quality product at a reasonable cost. Keith.Brewer@sensient.com Tell Keith that Joe Darwin w/ Cottonwood recommended. That will clue him into what your usage of the product will be.

Ward rode his Quest w/ his Fusion numbers (6.915 / 2.508 / .740 / 7 deg) and it lit the ski up compared to stock numbers. After his second pass he said this may be the best ski he has ever ridden. The ski comes under you so fast that those fin numbers may have to be "dumbed down" for 35 and shorter - that's a nice problem!! I'm getting that same sensation even at 28 off. I think D3 is on to something with this ski. If anyone is in the area and wants to ride one, let me know. We have the 66, 67 and 68. We will have a 65" once it's released.

I have a 68" arriving Saturday. Up until the Fusion, I always rode the 68" version of D3's. The 67" Quest does not feel small (I'm 215) but the water is still cool (60 deg). I'm looking forward to determining which size works best for me as the water warms up and I attempt to get closer to 200lbs.

Spellbinding!

If the gates mean so much, why don't they score? You can go thru the gates, drop the handle before 1 ball and score ZERO. Makes no sense. Gates are literally worthless and should not be judged because they DON'T SCORE. Or, as an alternative: If you miss the entrance gates on a pass and ski all 6, you get to continue SO LONG AS you ski the NEXT complete pass. In other words, we overlook the miss but you must ski (including gates) the next complete pass to continue on. This makes a little more sense to me but in the end, gates should not be judged because they don't compute into the score. And the worst part is the application of the rule - no one seems to apply the rule consistently. Without video, it can be impossible. Even with video, it can be difficult. This has been a hot-button issue for me for some time.

@skibug - I'm currently 215 and I did not find the 67" too small. I will be around 200 during the season and find the 68" a bit big at that weight. I would opt for the 67".