buechsr

thanks everyone. unk, wouldn't the bmx helmets get waterlogged? Or is it really just a bit of foam and the rest air/shell?

Philippe, 537 actually seems to be a reasonable start for a slalom focused prop. If youre running a vdrive heavy like most people, a larger diameter with less pitch is desired. However, that means the prop is spinning big (ger) rpms at slalom speed and disturbing more water due to the diameter. You want as small a diameter as possible (likely 13") and steepen the pitch and cup. The 537, I recall, has a .105 cup so not much more to go there, but an acme 497 will get you to a 17.5" pitch (from 16"). That move will certainly not hurt the wake/wash, but will it get it to your standard? Don't know. It will improve it though. As to your "flaps" proposal, for years Malibu has offerred the scarpa suppression plate which essentially acts like a big trim tab. It is preferable for (some) barefooters as it sharpens the wake crests, however, it also makes them harder. Using the SSP is not preferred by any slalom skier. As you drive the bow of the boat deeper at speed (which is what will happen with your proposed "flaps") you will experience the same, and it also bring the propwash higher. Not a solution I would be pursuing. That said, there are reports that some people with Malibus are running the wedge in "lift" mode (requires power wedge 2 or 3) at ski speeds. I've never tried that with any of my malibu Vdrives because the speed warnings will go off like a Christmas tree in a lightning storm. On paper your trim tab theory can de-weight the stern but doesn't necessarily make the change worth it because it will degrade in other ways. In summary, try a smaller steeper prop, and get some weight up front. YMMV.

Anyone have a lead for a good source? Used is preferable since everything else they wear gets outgrown in no time. There's never anything on ski it again. Performance appears to only sell icaro's large. Would any of you feel comfortable with your kids using a wake park helmet with no chin protector? Yes I know that has been the standard before but Mom would be less than pleased with me if one of ours had a chin impact. Thanks.

MI is right, like old jeep, but fu_man you have to be careful without the letters to follow. Response is a lot different than a response lxi, just like a "sunsetter" is a lot different than a sunsetter lxi. Even though the TMCs chart is right, the sunsetter lxi riding surface is that of a response not a response lxi, even though have the same width. That's because sunsetter lxis were made 99-04. Response lxi didn't debut until 2003. Stay away (if you're a skier only) from the "regular" sunsetters. Totally different hull. I've owned multiple responses, lxi, and sunsetter lxi. I found the response lxi to be a "10", response a "9.5", and sunsetter lxi a very solid "9".

Dave, Please be specific as to the nuances of why the specifics of prior programs failed. Then, lets kick around what worked and what didn't. Otherwise, it sounds to me like you're of the mindset that nothing works, it's all been tried, and give up. Did you seriously type "the ride is over"? In a thread looking for ideas? You're welcome to your opinion and perspective, but that's a conclusion looking for an excuse. I respect and appreciate your contributions and time through the years, good for you. But the challenges that lie ahead are going to require optimism and thinking outside the box.

Chad, I understand. My proposal does not cost the manufacturer a penny more. However, and I'm not trying to be argumentative, but just because there are 2000 orders in doesn't mean there's 2000 pre-sold boats. If my dealer has an available January build slot, there may well be an order, but it can be changed if and when a customer walks in and wants to customize it. Doesn't mean he'd have to wait until March, unless all of my dealer build slots were in fact spoken for. I would agree and speculate that net profit per unit is higher for a wakeboard boat, but there is a guy on the malibu crew who really tears into MBUUs financials and its surprisingly small how much profit is in each unit. I don't think Jack Springer gets too upset seeing a txi on the line. M220 required WAY more R&D and requires WAY more in materials. If there weren't a legitimate business justification for 3 event boats, they'd have already killed them. Same with the promo program. If that's changing, I'm all in favor of finding solutions, as I would think you are too.

Horton: "ok @buechsr I do not get your idea at all. Lets say the Acme boat company can build a 3 event boat for $50. Acme needs to make a profit so wholesale is $70 The dealer pays $70 and needs to make a profit so prices the boat at $90. The Promo guys buys the boat for $90 and puts 200 hours on it so the boat is now worth $80. The Promo guys sells for boat for $80 and is out $10. In your plan how does the Promo guys get his $10 back?" Dealer-excluded model will make more sense for now. Lets face it, they're not adding much to direct drive boat prep and are unnecessary for a pre-sold boat. No offense. Yes, they might have to paper it, but there is not much to prepping a new boat, and certainly every promo guy knows how. My model would be for promo guy to buy from Acme for 80. Promo guy runs a year and has to hit 200 hours. If so, Acme compensates him 10 (put the 10 in a promo guy escrow account, etc for a year, it doesn't matter). Promo guy can sell for whatever he wants (I think it would be closer to 70 than 80). The point is, if promo guy does that which the manufacturer wants him to (travel, run the boat, etc.), he is made whole (he "spends" 70, less if sells for more), and the manufacturer's net sale was precisely the same (70), just as if it was sold to the promo guy at wholesale under today's paradigm, or a dealer for that matter. Now, if dealers were required, still use the 80 sale price, and leave everything else the same. Dealers won't scoff at making 10 per unit per year, guaranteed, from a customer who requires no handholding, floor planning, etc. Furthermore, promo guy could still trade and allow that dealer to sell outside of territory as a used boat. So, in summary, there is no new net expense to the manufacturer yet its ensured MORE exposure, promo guy had some more responsibilities, perhaps, but is ensured a good value for the product at the end of its usage cycle and has no disincentive to use it because he's being rewarded for doing so at the end of the year, or, dealer sells a boat it otherwise wouldn't in perpetuity without lifting much of a finger, and event organizers have access to more boats with more available hours. Now, based on what I've already received so far, this will be met with "they won't do that", "that won't work", etc. Every multi-faceted problem is hard to solve in a balanced way. The problem is that the current paradigm is working, in totality, less and less for everyone. I (humbly) believe that the prospect of an "over-houred" boat scares more promo people than their schedules prevent. In other words, I know promo guys are tremendously generous with their time and travel. I'd hazard a guess that if they had more security in knowing their increased hours were not costing THEM money, they'd be seen even more. They're the only group being asked to do more (use their boat more), but doing that which they love, anyway.

Dave, I'm the one proposing an idea for change! Promo programs have been, more or less, the same for decades. Anecdotally at least, boats are more scarce, with less manufacturer interest/justification, which could easily snowball within and across all 3 programs. Respectfully, it would appear (some) of the current players in the current system are the ones out of touch hence why this thread even exists! If the current framework worked, there'd be no scarcity of boats/hours and manufacturers would be bring more people into their programs. The opposite is the case. Yet I'm the one out of touch? Other than those who suggested event participants pay more, I think I'm the only person who offered a paradign shift in this thread, and yet the old school status quo excuse for why things are the way they are get likes, and I get told my proposal is illogical. :/ Secondly, I never suggested promo boats should be sold "for retail". I understand owners need financial incentive to participate given their contributions in other currency like their time. If you actually read my idea, it does just that! My idea would have no net effect on the expense for the owner, nor for the manufacturer. It merely rewarded (maybe, compelled) owners for more exposure. We both know there is a huge difference between dealer cost and "retail". Either way, the net effect is no different to the owner or manufacturer. Third, you should read my most recent post. We are in complete agreement as to the value of the promo program and why an end of the year audit of "direct" sales is a flawed study of the value of a promo program. Fourth, I completely agree that promo drivers do it for the love of the sport. But there are exponentially more consumers out there doing even more to promote the sport, always on their own dime, with no annual/semi-annual new boat hookups. I don't begrudge the deal promo owners get and I don't blame them for wanting to keep hours off their boats so they can recoup their investment. My idea, however, at least addresses those (potential) trimetrically opposed interests of events/owners/manufacturers.

Chad, I understand. Sounds like you were fortunate. But your experience doesn't provide a solution to Horton's posted problem. But, see #3, below. If the manufacturers are pulling back for want of more clear evidence of resulting sales from promo boat exposure annually, that's short-sighted and flawed for 3 reasons (minimum): 1) It discounts the value of the perceived goodwill of the brand to participants 2) It discounts the reality that one ski ride (or event) doesn't translate to immediate sales, rather, it understandably takes multiple exposures to convert to a sale 3) discounts the importance of brand exposure to participants who also own or will buy $150,000 surf and wake boats. As to #3, I think that's a bigger number than (some) may realize. I think there are a lot of people out there who may have a 15 year old 196 that they're happy with, but are also own or will soon be in the market for a V drive. I can think of 4 of my lake neighbors who have slalom boats and Vdrives. I do too. If I heard on here that a manufacturer ended or so massively trimmed their promo program so that it was not contributing to the furtherance and support of the core crowd upon which their current success has built for deacdes, it would have an effect on me when shopping for my next Vdrive, for sure. Maybe more folks in Vonore, Loudon, and Orlando need to hear that. Yes I realize that the days that a customer could get Bob Alkema or Walt Meloon on the phone are long gone, but it would be remiss of the manufacturers' review of their programs to not understand the influence that competitive 3 eventers have on many boat buyers OTHER than just people in the direct drive market. Point is, if there is some evidence that the current model is not sustainable, and contributing to that enigma is manufacturers are pulling back in terms of number of units and providing insufficient financial perks, they should be shouldering a larger investment in these programs because its influence goes much further than how many 3 event skiers bought prostars by the end of the year.

Horton's original post was: "Here in south / central California we had just enough promo boats for tournaments last year. This year we will have 1 or 2 less factory supported promo boats. The remaining promo boats engine hours are going to be more of a premium. We are in a pinch. Talking to boat industry people has convinced me that we simply need to find a new paradigm. Expecting new boats to simply show up at tournaments is no longer realistic. I think the hardest hit is going to be college tournaments. A boat company executive challenged me to ask you guys for new ideas." In summary: too few boats, and those that remain are running from hours. My idea would spur the opposite. Everyone can disagree, but I fail to see how my idea is illogical. The specific request was to "find a new paradigm". Dave, while I've never been part of a program, given the number of boats I've purchased I've been a de facto uncompensated promo owner for years. As such, while I recognize and appreciate their time and travel commitment, they don't evoke financial sympathy from me if they can't break even anymore. If promo drivers are being lost because of that (which doesn't appear to be the problem anyway, the problem is manufacturer cut backs), then to an objective outsider, it would seem they need to renegotiate, rather than try to keep hours off their boats. If the factories are trimming programs because they're not seeing the value, doubling the hours doubles the exposure and doubles the value to the program. Stop the incentive to stay away from events to save resale. Classic chicken or the egg.

As one who has never having been a promo owner, but one who has bought many new boats with the same concern, it appears to me the fundamental tension is (some) promo owners are becoming disincentivized to provide their boats due to higher hours and therefore (perceived) lower resale. Thats kind of always been the case but it's no longer SN 2001s for $15,000. When that keeps promo boat provision away, event organizers are not getting what they need, and manufacturers are not getting the exposure they could (if) promo drivers are "skipping" events to save hours. Thus, the purpose of the whole system collapses. The solution, it seems to me, is not passing the burden onto the market to compensate the promo owners, but should come from the manufacturer. The way to accomplish this (could be) for manufacturers to charge higher prices for their boats but then reward the promo owner FOR higher hours, making up the difference between what would have otherwise been less depreciation. It's nothing "extra" for the manufacturer since they're getting more for the product, but yet ensures they're getting the benefit of the whole purpose of their programs (exposure and rides). For the bean counters, its really kind of a loan, that costs nothing extra to the manufacturer. For example, if a promo price on a new txi is $60,000, Malibu could charge $65,000 and at the end of the year, if the boat has 200 hours, rewards the owner with $5,000. It's the same difference for Malibu. Does the boat have more hours, thus penalizing the owner further on resale? Yes, but that could also be worked out with Malibu. It's just a line item for marketing, and perhaps the best back for their marketing buck in the 3 event boat world....If the boats are getting where they need to be, and getting used. Same could even be accomplished by simply requiring that if someone is part of the promo team with a presumed annual boat, they must hit a certain hour threshold. That may have been the case for many in years past but seems to be an issue now based on what I've read here. Lastly, I realize promo drivers have logistical challenges and financial commitment to gas, weekends, etc. But lets not act like they're getting a raw deal. They're getting new, cutting edge product on the cheap in exchange for contributing to a scene they presumably love. I'm not saying selling boats is always fun, but ordering, unwrapping, and dialing in a new boat makes it worth it. Yes I'm sure this is a naive take, but if manufacturers are not getting the exposure they deserve, the whole purpose has failed.

What Jeff posted was from me. I gave Jeff permission to post it. I appreciate the perspective of others who have had kids come through the ranks and their view that in the past, elite kids who move up in division to get whipped for a year or two can/should use that for motivation. That is fair (and true for many), but it skews its catering to the elite skiers (it seems), who are (and would be) members and participating already...and times are different. If membership and meaningful participation is a concern, then the next generation's engagement is a concern, and it at least needs to be asked: what framework helps spur more youth skiing that will be sustainable? I always thought that was a (the) goal. If there is an example of a regional this year at which there was one participant in G2, is it really that much more fulfilling if G2 was a spread of 4 years and there were 5 skiers? From my cheap seats that's an overall participation problem not a bracket problem The fact is childhood is busier than it has ever been for many people. Between dance teams, state lacrosse, travel club soccer, golf teams, and other stuff, we're stinkin' busy, and much of today's generation of kids are similar. They're far from the tv-addicted stereotype so many make them out to be (sorry boomers). Those that are, are not our target "market" anyway. TVs aren't youth skiing's enemy, it's the now overwhelming youth sports "machine", that is so demanding yet appealing to so many kids. Skiing's seat at the table for the kids considering their limited time for their athletic endeavors is bolstered by this change, in my view. I find it hard to believe that elite junior skiers will be pushed away for lack of motivation, but since I don't have one, maybe that's true. Nonetheless, ample elite opportunities exist for their motivation including Jr Open, Masters, Pan Am, elite teams, worlds, etc. A silly analogy but true: just because the US Golf Association runs the US Open doesn't mean they don't understand that annual rounds and the demographics thereof are any less important to their mission. If there is legitimate concern over the elite feeling a lack of challenge, how about an "Open Junior" division decided not based on pure buoy count given speed differences, but by line length? Notably, the winners of B3, 4, and 5 last year were separated by just 2 buoys at 11.25. Just another thought...Or maybe that's "too many" medals. lol

if it doesn't matter, then its irrelevant, but you don't need Zbox for buoy times, just star gazer, which it appears you have. Just need to map course(s). Glad it worked out!

I'm going to contradict the other posters, but I don't think you're best served with a Vapor of any iteration, nor Senate. They are both advanced designs, require appropriate weight distribution, react instantly, and will bite off turns and angle much more aggressively than someone learning to ski should want (or need). If we're talking Radar, At "most" I'd suggest a Union so you could ski it down to 26, but I'd look for a katana or butterknife. Both are much wider, softer, more forgiving, and provide a much more "fun" experience learning the basics while going slower. Bonus, both are relatively cheap as far as skis go, and will be a much more forgiving ride in rougher water.

will be relatively firm and bigger than most dedicated slalom boats, but passable depending on your expectations. If you need a bigger family direct drive, there is a huge difference between a sunsetter (LX) and sunsetter Lxi, which came out in 99. HUGE difference. There's a nice one in wisconsin with a tower for 17 I think on SIA.

spend $75 and get an upgrade stick (may have to upgrade your display too). It is so well worth it. So much simpler to use, even aside from its better pull.

UW, I have vague recollection that was one of the early work arounds, perhaps thanks to Peter? Nice boat banana....we all want to know..how much?

I'd look for a 01-04 sunscape lsv (or a wakesetter VLX on the diamond). Other than the vtx to follow, best vdrive ski wake there is. Plus its longer than a VTX and easily surfable with added ballast, and is under your budget. Still have one in our family. Great all around boat.

My 7 year old skied in her first "competition" last year. She was first off the dock with 6 open level skiers on shore nearby. She let out a "hit it" that woke up the neighborhood. Dad was proud. :D

dv, yes, that was posted because it appeared to be the same boats that did not sell on ebay, the link for which was previously posted.

looks like the 196 is listed on SIA? https://www.ski-it-again.com/php/skiitagain.php?endless=summer&topic=Search&category=Boat_3Event&postid=55123

@Ilivetoski It's a reference from another thread where someone was considering repowering a bubble butt AND installing zero off. Poster was soliciting opinions on value and whether it was worth it to do so. I said that "for the right person", I didn't think 25k is out of the realm of possibility, but predicted a 20k value, much to Orlando's disagreement. My logic being that at 20 it would still be the cheapest zero off in the country, and there are some people who would prefer a BB to a 200.

Inspect the IAC.

I'm not going to be a Malibu apologist (OK, maybe I am), but a boat owned by a pro, then a ski school, is not "normal and even above average wear and tear"....it's literally the toughest existence imaginable. That boat likely never got covered and was exposed to the elements its entire life, not to mention (likely) inadequate professional servicing. Since the boat went back to the factory, I'm assuming Malibu warranteed the floor and that your buddy didn't pay for a factory repair. Seems a commercially used boat with likely very little care, covering a floor warranty years after production, and for its 3rd owner, actually speaks pretty highly of Malibu.

au, you and I see things similarly, but apparently we're in the minority. I still think like the value proposition of the conversion. Especially if it's just $2,500 to go DBW, and you have a block sitting around already.