Dacon62

@wish writes... "Wakes of a 196 Tracking of a Gekko GTR Interior room of an Infinity Easy step over of an Infinity Platform of a Carbon Pro Front bow section of a Bu Sportster with hard tonneau cover Seat hights of a 196 Usable side gunnel trunks similar to 200. Current Bu windshield Ipad dash display (removable). Apps for cruise control, and engine stats. done wireless Rotating pylon like MC Ultra-Ever Dry on all surfaces above the waterline". Plus a few items I would like to see, - 4 under floor fuel tanks/cells positioned 1 in each rear corner, 1 under the driver and 1 under the passenger with a centeralized fuel shuttle valve/pick up that would allow fuel pick up no matter where it was located AND assuming you would not fill tanks to capacity allow you to divert the weight where you need it for optimal tracking and balance. You have to lug around the weight anyways you may as well have it working for you. Having the fuel under the floor would allow not only for side gunnel ski lockers like the 200 but additionally allow for a deep split lid transom locker like the TXi. Those areas should fit everyones skis, vests, gloves, etc. and leave the floor uncluttered. - Aluminum 6.2 LS3 for now and in about a year or so the new all new Aluminum 6.2 LT1 with VVT and cylinder cut out that is coming out in the new C7 Vette. - Switchable 'silent choice' exhaust from the usual location to through bottom of hull to reduce noise. - Reduced shaft angle for greater propeller effeciency. So a mid mount V-drive configuration like the Infinety or mid mount with CV joint to achieve similar reduced angle.

Further to @gregy's point...I would imagine that manufacturers base their margins on a percentage basis...would rather make 10% on a 60k boat than a 25k boat. That math is easy to do.

Outboards... Sanger OB with its 15-16 degree dead rise wins this one. The Flightcraft OB had an 18 degree dead rise and a slightly taller rampier wake. Both are excellent boats but the Sanger has the lower wake. Skied behind both as friends had both on the lake. Inboards... Malibu Sportster with its low weight and shallow dead rise.

I would guess that the open bow on a private lake is all about resale after the year is over.

Lots of good ideas here. @wish pretty much nailed it. Take the ideas and create a poll to narrow it down to the core items.

Found this... I have first hand reliable intel on the new Prostar for 2014. It will be named Prostar 201. MC wants to one up CC again ( cc196 vs MC197) . It will share some of the same characterisics of the new Xstar. It will have the funky rub rail dip and will also incorprate a small pickle fork front bow to address the complaints of the small seating area of the 197. It will have a rear swooping mini tower that does not interfere with shortline. . It will have a built in boom that stores itself in the gunnel when not in use. A push of a button will release the boom and it will telescope out automatically! No power tower, but now you got this cool auto feature. The engine will be pushed forward 3 inches as well as the gas tank to improve weight distibution. The storage locker is thinner but goes all the way to the floor. The dash will have no gauges. It will be one offset( simalar to CC) six inch screen . It will display all info and zero off. It will have two rope release systems, one specific to trick the other to slalom. The wake is supposed to be so faint and soft that it will sure to see new world records. As far as power plant, there is talk of a turbo charged V6 that is supposed to get better gas consumption than anything we have seen before.

Shedule 40...80? Probably easy to work with just not sure if it would be strong enough at the mounting point to withstand the torque? What about squeezing muffler tubing in a large vise?

The options list on some of the sites refer to it as UHMW. But yes, it is Teflon.

Canadians need them because their high test beer impairs their judgement. Then they go and jump beaver dams and run the shallows. They should call the UHMW (ultra high molecular weight polyethylene) plastic bottom a 'Dam Rockhopper Bottom' http://www.outlaweagle.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=34

Got a response from Edge Marine about cost. MSRP depends on options and bottom design along with motor selection. We sell these boats between $55,000 - $80,000. Lots of variables on price. Let’s just say we sell this model quite often. The boat has optional rockhopper bottom that usually sells to the Canadian market. Thank you Edge Marine Rueben Weickum 541.679.9563 http://www.edgemarine.com

Yeah...I guess that makes sense. Making a row of these 'suck tubes' and mounting them under the swim platform might be an interesting winter garage project. Shouldn't cost too much and don't really have to drill holes into the hull. Maybe a few into the swim platform or swim brackets. Question is do you make 3 large tubes of the size in the YouTube video or half a dozen or more that would maybe be half the size or smaller?

Wow, some good stuff here gentlemen! @Bracemaker - Thanks for stearing us in the 'fresh air exhaust' direction. I remeber hearing about this product years ago. This video link shows exactly what you explained. Very interesting that the guys that recorded this video were (assumably) doing it to prove that their underwater exhaust did not exert back pressure. Quite the opposite as the vid shows...massive suction and exhaust evacuation. Something else they weren't looking for but may have discovered by accident...notice how aerated the wake becomes in the middle portion! Position 3 of these tubes (port/center/starboard) behind the transom and I wonder what would happen?? @DW - Perhaps these drawings below will better explain what I had in mind yesterday (with some updates). All 3 areas would receive some volume of aeration. Fig. 3 If tracking is adversely effected by the port/starboard air induction the amount could be controlled via a damper. If that idea is more complex than neccessary and/or any amount of frontal air induction kills the tracking or handling then fig. 4 provides a simpler solution. Not sure how having 3 slender oval pipes dragging in the water would effect handling? If the picture below is studied it looks like the table is made up of 2 'types' of water. 1) The water pushing back up after passing under the boat, including prop wash(easier to aerate). 2) The water converging again after being pushed outward to both sides(more difficult to aerate). As we know these all come together usually around the 22 off rope length while slaloming to give the wake that 'rooster tail' bump we all dread. Not sure how to deal with point 2 unless the port/starboard portlet aerators (fig. 3) contribute. The obvious ultimate goal would be max. aeration to provide wake softening and possibly reduced wake height by providing a bit of lift to the hull without adversely affecting tracking and handling beyond acceptable limits.

As we know the big boat companies are busy taking ideas for making a bigger or more surfable wake not the reverse. And as times are tough they do not have a lot of R & D time and money left over to chase every idea that comes along. However @Horton posses an interesting and I believe possibly better senario. Have some or all the exhaust gases introduced just behind the water break line on the hull on the outsides of both strake lines. Introducing gases in the center section may cavitate the prop. The exhaust gases would break up the surface tension of the water reducing drag and aerate the outer sides of the wake. Maybe you use a portion of the exhaust to aerate both sections outside the strake line and use the other portion to aerate the section inside the strake lines, just behind the rudder. Whole wake aerated, no cavitation.

Very nicely done. Maybe replace the windshield with a more tournament version? Although I really like the look of the one on the boat. Other than that the lines are nice and it has a killer paint job.

I would imagine that a switch to choose between full aeration for slalom and jump to no aeration for trick and a smooth wake would not be that difficult to accomplish. Also the deeper the aeration the further back in the wake the effect.

I have noticed that various ballers have made reference to softening the wake via aeration. The most common comment I have encountered is that MC has tested, fine, comb like fingers at the back of the transom to soften/aerate the wake. Sounds like an interesting idea! Why not use the motors exhaust and spent water to help with the proccess? Either drive the spent gases and water through the bottom of the hull right at the end of the running surface (fig.1) or expel the waste through a transom piggy back box that has hollow comb like fingers (fig.2). The holes/fingers could all be the same size or be variable? Maybe larger holes would be needed right behind the rudder with smaller ones starboard and port? As a side benefit exhaust noise would likely be reduced. What other types of wake softening/reduction concepts are there?

From the limited info I have I think most of the smaller engines posing in place of larger displacement offerings are usually supercharged instead of turbocharged. No lag, fewer bearing issues as you are working on the cooler intake side as opposed to the hot exhaust side. Over the years engine hp has gone up from the bullet proof PCM 351 - 240 hp to todays 340-350 hp and at the upper end 400+hp engines. Even considering that the old boats weighed about 2,250 and todays tugs are at 2,850 the weight/hp ratio in todays boats is, as expected, better. Leaving the drag of a larger wetted surface out of the equation for now the old 240 hp had to push 9.4 pounds for every 1 hp were the 350 hp only has to push 8.1 pounds. Todays elite athletes are doing better partly because of newer technology. Stronger pull, straighter tracking, carbon fiber, etc. While I am all for a smaller fuel efficient motor to power todays boats. I don't think I would vote with my wallet to pick a boat that would be slower out of the hole and give up some of that solid pull todays thundering V8's give us. The only way thats going to happen is if that supercharged 6 pulls as hard or harder, has better fuel economy, frees up a bit more interior space and gives me an ever so slightly smaller, softer wake before it gets the nod. Check, check, check...and check.

@Bracemaker - Thanks for clarifying. What was the scoop with that engine. Was it a variable valve timing 3 liter as the name suggests?

Didn't Mazda have the RX8 and wankel motor? Toyota made some boats with a Lexus motor. Heard they were great engines.

Oops

Thanks eveyone for your thoughts on this. If anyone out there gets the guts to drill some holes do some fabricating and experiment with this keep us in the loop.

@bracemaker - While the Evinrude 300 HP E-Tec is a viable option I left it out because it is a 90 degree V.

My wife supports me and encourages me to go skiing as she knows, as I do, that everyone needs a hobby or sport to stay sane and lead a healthy, balanced life. She comes out on really hot days to hang out and swim. Refuses to drive. Unfortunately I was too hard on her in the early years and she knows if she smoked the dock and put a gouge in the boat (wife #2) I would get just a little bit upset. Says she does't need the stess and I can't blame her.

@jfw432 - Hmmm...seem to recall that the fiberglass boat manufacturers claim to have 'highly skilled craftsmen'. LOL. Seriously though, I get the point. Thanks @jedgell for reporting back. Sounds like it was more of a fishing, river running type of show. To bad you were not able to talk to one of the rep's. I like the way @GAJ0004 thinks about smaller, more compact, power options.

@GAJ0004 and @EdObermeier commented in another thread (Aluminum slalom boat maybe soon) about a lighter smaller aluminum V6 for improved power to weight ratio. I have also pondered the same thing almost since the day I owned my first tournament boat (1987 Centurion tru trac II). Why has one of the larger outboard makers not approached a ski boat manufacturer with a direct drive version? These high tech aluminum block engines are lighter, more compact and have a higher wide open throttle or max. rpm range. Possibly being able to push speeds into the 50 mph range. Important if you also like to barefoot. Yamaha makes a high tech 350 HP 5.3 liter DOHC 60 degree V8 (W.O.T. 6,000 rpm) that would likely be a little more compact than a regular low tech by comparison cast iron block push rod 90 degree V8 (W.O.T. 5,200 rpm). If you don't need as much power or you have a lighter aluminum hull Mercury makes a supercharged inline 6 with 300 HP (W.O.T. 6,400 rpm). Although I would suspect that the torque would not be there as it doesn't have the displacement at 2.6 liters. Bet that would skinny up the motor box. http://www.yamahaoutboards.com/outboards/V8-5_3L/specifications http://www.mercurymarine.com/engines/outboards/verado/pro-fourstroke/?model=1