escmanaze

I think you are probably pushing your luck to try to find a boat that is both wood free and efi for that price range. Given your mechanical inclination, I would tend to prioritize wood free and plan on getting something carbed. In that case, the first boat I would be trying to scope out is a 91-95 prostar 190. Even at that, I think you'll be pushing it to get that under 7k, but if you search long enough...

Awesome, thanks much.

@chef23 forgive my ignorance please, but why do you say that "if you can get it on easily dry, it is too big."

Hi Everybody, I think it's time for me to buy a new life jacket. I would love to hear your thoughts, opinions, experiences, and recommendations. Thanks Scott

Well I'm now going on my second summer with my boat, I bought it in the fall of 2012. It is a 97 SNOB with the Pro-ski engine and (I think) and ACME 422. I am having almost the exact same problem as @DanE, except that my problem mostly only shows up on the short setups, and sometimes it doesn't show up at all. The boat is often going significantly faster between 2 and 4 than it is for all the rest of the course. Sometimes, as I'm skiing on 30 or 32 mph settings, it will reach a max speed right around 3 ball of 2 mph higher than the set speed. It always runs within tolerance from gate to gate, it just has that really fast moment in the middle with slow on each end. If anybody has any suggestions in addition to what has been said here, I would love to here it.

So I was in the small minority that voted inappropriate, but especially knowing that Ambre has seen this thread, I feel the need to explain. I almost felt like there were other choices needed, because the choice I chose didn't really depict my thoughts. I don't intend to cast stones at Ambre and tell her she's a bad person or anything. I lived in France for two years, and it's just part of their culture that women showing breast is completely a non-issue, so especially with her French background, I don't mean to condemn her at all. However, I do know also, that I come from that "Puritan" (Prude) background and I'm trying to raise my kids the same way. I would really prefer that my daughter not have a picture taken like this in her lifetime, so it would be fairly hypocritical for me to hang out on a forum all day with this pic in the ad banners and then ask my daughter to behave differently. In the end, it's totally your choice Horton, and I don't consider you a bad guy either way. However, I would be part of that minority group who might consider this to be not completely "G" rated and frequent the site less or maybe even not at all if this became more prevalent.

As a guy who is missing parts of my meniscus on both sides something like this certainly sounds too good to be true. Here's to hoping it isn't.

Now that is pure awesome!!! The dude that didn't even wear a wetsuit, well, that's just pure insanity. Skiing in a snow storm though. So rad.

Ha ha ha!! Well, I'm not quite that cold here in Utah, but I also, unfortunately, am not in a position to be skiing right now. Early April is about the earliest I can possibly imagine my season starting.

I'm no expert, but i'm in a very similar position as you. I had run the course occasionally a few years back on my 67" KD6500 at 30 and 32 mph. After getting all the way up to 185 last spring (5'11") I knew I was going to have to slow it down to 28 mph and I knew that my ski sunk at 28 even back when I was 155. So I got a new ski. I chose a 69" Senate - yes, it's too large for me, but hitting 185, I wasn't sure if I was maybe headed all the way up to 220 or more, I didn't know where the weight gain was going to stop, so I wanted a ski plenty big. I've run it at 28 and 30 and it still feels great. I'm currently at 175, so I have a 2" longer ski, but I also have a few extra pounds more than you. Anyway, based on my experience, I would be surprised if your ski doesn't feel just fine at 28 and feel great at 30. I'm anxious to see what speed it bottoms out at for you so I can probably kick myself a little more for not getting a 67 or 68.

I think I would lean toward the 205. My buddy has a 96 205, and I'm told that is the year that the hull changed and the wake got bigger. I think the wake is still nicer than my other buddy's 95 SSLX. To be fair, the SSLX I'm talking about has the 454 and I can't imagine the extra large engine makes the wake any smaller. Also, one more disclaimer is that I'm only judging them at long line, and 15 off, also speeds of 30 mph and 32 mph, so basically rope lengths and speeds that you aren't concerned with unless you have people in your entourage skiing at that level. If walk through open bow is the only requirement, what about an echelon lx?

I think I would lean toward the 205. My buddy has a 96 205, and I'm told that is the year that the hull changed and the wake got bigger. I think the wake is still nicer than my other buddy's 95 SSLX. To be fair, the SSLX I'm talking about has the 454 and I can't imagine the extra large engine makes the wake any smaller. Also, one more disclaimer is that I'm only judging them at long line, and 15 off, also speeds of 30 mph and 32 mph, so basically rope lengths and speeds that you aren't concerned with unless you have people in your entourage skiing at that level. If walk through open bow is the only requirement, what about an echelon lx?

Wow! What a great ride. And a very reasonable price too. I dare say that is the exact boat I plan on being in the market for...in 5 years.

Guys, it's really not that complicated. If the population grows at a faster rate than the number of skiable courses, then the percentage of folks who can do it will decline. My siblings didn't all quit skiing because they couldn't afford to go borrow dad's boat and put gas in it. My siblings all quit skiing because all the lakes were insanely crowded so it wasn't fun anymore. Here in Utah, we aren't really building any more lakes, but we certainly are making more babies. It is the same thing with snowskiing slopes as in the article reference above by @Ed_Obermeier. How much actual skiable acreage has been added since I was 10? Maybe 10%. How much has the population increased? double. Sure, the resorts could let more people ski the same number of acreage, but then the experience is diminished, and people just quit the sport altogether like my siblings did with waterskiing.

I think @Skiray hit it right on the head with his final assumption. I mention the 2018 TXI not being really impressive, and shoot, maybe the 2022 TXI doesn't even exist? Obviously I hope I'm wrong and I hope they can find the business reasons to keep making the boat, and improving it as well, but I won't be surprised either if it quickly becomes all surf boats all the time.

Wow, what a bummer. Right at a time where I really think that the TXI would be the next boat I would own (and this coming from a current very satisfied CC owner) and suddenly the 2018 TXI doesn't look so attractive after the publicly traded demons have run through it. Hopefully by then the 200 will figure out it's gas consumption issues.

I love this idea. I was actually disappointed a few years ago to see that the rules were set up the way they were, as I knew right away, it would probably be years, and years, if ever, I would want to participate in such a tournament. I wouldn't even mind if we played it like golf, and added an extra "penalty stroke" or two, even in addition to the 6 already naturally in place, to the slow speed score, just to make sure that the faster skier doesn't feel cheated. I'm 32 years old right now, and skiing 30 mph -15 consistently. I'm loving it and having so much fun. If I can get to running 34 mph at -15 in the next year or two, my next step will be -22, not 36 mph simply because I don't want to ski at 36 mph...ever. I ski for the fun and the exercise of it, and I'm just not interested in jetting myself across the water that darn fast. Anyway, I love the idea, and I would say it would significantly increase my chances of showing up to a tournament if this rule were implemented.

Ah to be young and eternally optimistic again. I miss that.

Anybody have any idea on pricing? Is it actually in that $30k range? When I saw Centurion come out with the carbon pro, I thought they were heading that direction, but then the CP turned out to be significantly more expensive and really not that much cheaper than the big 3. I got a malibu 2013 catalog the other day and it actually did still show the response and response lx. I wonder what the bu base price is on those. If the base price on the Axis A20 is $45k, it seems like the response ought to come in at even less than that?

Whatever you do, please don't do video ads. The other forum I hang out on has video ads that automatically start up. I forget about it and it is suddenly blasting in my speakers and waking up my kids. The worst!!!

So I don't know what the rules are for tricking, but I know that with my 97 SNOB, I've dinked around with a few things for wakeboarding and wakeskating, and there is a world of difference at 22 mph between fat sac and no fat sac in the back. It's just a normal sack, probably 350 pounds. Without it, it is exactly as described above by @chuck_dickey. Between 18 and 22 the wake undergoes a complete transformation from rampy to roller. However, with a 350 pound sack in the back, it still hasn't hit that transition yet and it is still in the rampy phase at 22. I'm not saying it is a wakesetter wake or anything, but at least it maintains a proper shape, and the 350 pounds doesn't hurt the size either. All of this is with just my wife in the driver seat (so I actually offset the sack in the back a bit toward the passenger side.) I have a hard time envisioning why the same thing couldn't be done with this Prostar. If it has a good trick wake at 18, then it sure seems to be like it should need just a little weight in the back (let's say 500 pounds since the boat is wider the mine) in order to keep it from planing off as much at 22 and maintain a decent trick wake.

Oh, ok. so the lifetime warranty doesn't cover doing the new seals from normal wear and tear. I suppose that makes sense. thanks

@onamission you say you are replacing your 10 year old bare. The website says it has a lifetime warranty. Why are you replacing it?

@Horton, I bet you are correct about my misunderstanding. Can you clarify?

@joeprunc you are killing me here. I'm a little bit behind you, but you are still making me very hungry for a strada. Since my post above, I have taken off some pounds, so I'm down to 165 now and I've gone from longline to 15 off on the rope. I am now quite consistent at 28 mph and I'm getting 30 mph with increased frequency. I thought I was going to wait all the way until 34 mph before rewarding myself with a new ski (probably 67" strada), but with you talking about you skiing so much better on it even at 32, you have me wondering if I should reward myself with a new ski at 32 mph instead of at 34 mph. Anybody else have thoughts? once I'm running 30 consistently and 32 occasionally, would I be better of on my current 69" senate or a 67" strada? Let's assume I stay somewhere between 160 and 170. PS, Even though I'm jealous, I am really happy for you. Your wife made you buy a new ski, you're running 32 more easily than before, it doesn't get much better than that. Congrats Bro!!