Slalom Wakes

[swooddc]

RE: Slalom Wakes

I would think a 206 would be a significantly better wake than your 92 MC205. its just that at lower speeds, the 206 doesn't compare well with a ski nautique196, which has the best wake period.... IMO.

[jjackkrash]

Re: RE: Slalom Wakes

I would think a 206 would be a significantly better wake than your 92 MC205. its just that at lower speeds, the 206 doesn't compare well with a ski nautique196, which has the best wake period.... IMO.

I am a course skier and I love skiing behind my 206 at 34-36 mph, especially as the line gets shorter. No problem with the wake at all. I also like the fact that the wake is slightly larger at slower speeds for tricking and (yuck) wakeboarding. It also tracks as good or better than the 196, imho. And its a very solid ride (for a dedicated ski boat) in rougher water. There are trade offs in any boat, but I am very happy with my 206.

[SGY]

RE: Slalom Wakes

All late model ski boats are great--open bow or not. They all are more than good enough to take anyone into shortline skiing. After pressing about this issue of wake size and hardness for years, I've come to the conclusion that a discussion about wakes is just a small part of the equation--and is very subjective. Some days the wake behind my 2005 196 feels dang nice and others, when I'm not skiing well, it feels large and hard. I've taken my share of painful OTF's behind multiple ski boats--including the 206, 197, RLXi and 196 and it wasn't the wake size that caused my doink.

To the OP, get in a 206, drive it and ski behind it. I owned a 2003 and the really good shortline skiers didn't mind it at all. And, I just skied behind Jaret Llewyllen's 2008 206 and it felt great. Not a single complaint. The 206 is a nice boat--just like the rest.

[Quinner]

RE: Slalom Wakes

Also have a 206 and have skied behind the 196, MC 197 and Various Responses. Comparing the 206 to the MC & BU it is pretty close however the 206 is really sensitive to weight, when not overloaded and running 34-36 range the wake is not bad, the BU is better and the MC is about the same. Also note my comparison is based on 15-22 off range and my 05' 206 has tower and tanks, considering what a difference one additional passenger makes, my guess would be w/o tower and tanks the wakes should be even better. One other note, IMO the responses all handle/track horribly, never drove a 197.

[mathews01]

I would echo the comment that the 206 is weight sensitive. I had an '06 206 without a tower and now have an '07 with the FTC and the wake on the '07 is larger than the '06 without the tower. I've also noticed that in my current boat when it is just me puling my wife (33-34 mph) I can tell that the wake is bigger on the driver's side because I have nothing in the boat to offset my weight. It evens out if you get someone else in the observer's seat.

That being said, my wife likes the boat, as do my brother and buddy who both ski at 35 mph in the 22 to 28 off range (I'm not much of a slalom guy). And the boat is extremely solid and tracks very, very well.

[SGY]

The 2002-2005 196 is weight sensitive too. I notice the wake seems softer with a driver and passenger or a driver with about 100lbs of ballast on the passenger side.

[skisix@38]

The 2002-2005 196 is weight sensitive too. I notice the wake seems softer with a driver and passenger or a driver with about 100lbs of ballast on the passenger side.

You can keep going all the way to this years boat too. The narrowness of the 196 lends itself to weighting. When only the driver is onboard I would much rather drive a RLXi, MC197 and then a 196 in that order. When evenly loaded they all drive well. When there is 600 lbs of crew weight up front the spray off the 196 can be a distraction.

[M3Fan]

The 2002-2005 196 is weight sensitive too. I notice the wake seems softer with a driver and passenger or a driver with about 100lbs of ballast on the passenger side.

You can keep going all the way to this years boat too. The narrowness of the 196 lends itself to weighting. When only the driver is onboard I would much rather drive a RLXi, MC197 and then a 196 in that order. When evenly loaded they all drive well. When there is 600 lbs of crew weight up front the spray off the 196 can be a distraction.

And, you can go all the way back to 97 on this one too. The TSC1 hull is extremely weight sensitive side to side. If a heavier observer is even a couple inches right or left on the observer seat, you'll see very uneven spray and wakes behind the boat. Must have to do with the whole canoe-hull design, which keeps a lot of hull in the water rather than the M brands which use lots of lifting strakes to ride atop the water rather than through it.

[TRBenj]

Must have to do with the whole canoe-hull design, which keeps a lot of hull in the water rather than the M brands which use lots of lifting strakes to ride atop the water rather than through it.

Agree with the canoe-shape affecting weight sensitivity. Malibu definitely seems to get a lot of hull out of the water- not sure about MC though. Their 197 hull seems to run pretty low- that hook in the back lowers the nose pretty good. Probably why they only run in the low 40's for top end too.

[MARK-S]

What does that do to fuel burn? I dont have stats to back it, but the 196 will give you the most pulls per gallon.

[SGY]

The 2002-2005 196 is weight sensitive too. I notice the wake seems softer with a driver and passenger or a driver with about 100lbs of ballast on the passenger side.

You can keep going all the way to this years boat too. The narrowness of the 196 lends itself to weighting. When only the driver is onboard I would much rather drive a RLXi, MC197 and then a 196 in that order. When evenly loaded they all drive well. When there is 600 lbs of crew weight up front the spray off the 196 can be a distraction.

Maybe CC will come out with a radically re-deisgned 196 one day....

ha.

[M3Fan]

The 2002-2005 196 is weight sensitive too. I notice the wake seems softer with a driver and passenger or a driver with about 100lbs of ballast on the passenger side.

You can keep going all the way to this years boat too. The narrowness of the 196 lends itself to weighting. When only the driver is onboard I would much rather drive a RLXi, MC197 and then a 196 in that order. When evenly loaded they all drive well. When there is 600 lbs of crew weight up front the spray off the 196 can be a distraction.

Maybe CC will come out with a radically re-deisgned 196 one day....

ha.

No thanks. I'll take freight-train tracking and unparalleled driving feel over weight sensitivity any day.

[DanielC]

It is easy to design a boat with no wake. Just make the bottom flat.
A skier will be able to pull the boat from side to side, and it may not turn when you want it to, but it will have a flat wake. It will also ride very rough.
I am no expert on boat design, but I believe CC is.
In the mid nineties, one brand of "M" boat brought out a new hull. Occasionally the boat would chine lock, and stop turning, and then suddenly lurch sideways, and possibily flip upside down. Three years later, the boat was redesigned, and failed to pass the AWSA boat tests, running aground, going around the turn island at the end of the ski course. The boat was recalled and retrofitted with a different rudder.
Another different "M" boat brand I have driven wanders all over the place when pulling a slalom skier, but will not turn when trying to do an around the boat with more than three people.
I think more people have skied their personal best behind the TSC1 hull, than any other boat.
At least Correct Craft knows to balance prop rotation with the drivers weight.
I tell my passengers to watch the wake. The side with more white needs more weight.

[skisix@38]

M3- I dont' know about your boat because I have never driven it, the 196's I have been driving since 2002 track well when balanced evenly, otherwise they don't track well at all. Show me a private lake that has a club 196 and I'll show you a dock that has some sort of weight on the dock that the members load in the 196 when there isn't a third person there to ski.

And Daniel, that prop rotation thing is the biggest load of crap I've ever heard! MC190's of the early 90's had a hull that's about the same beam as the 196 right now and they didn't have "a balanced prop rotation with the driver weight" and they listed to the same degree as the 196 does today- meaning the torque imparted on the boat due to prop rotation has only a marginal affect at best and is insignificant when the driver is over 170lbs.

[east tx skier]

I can't speak to the 206, but I can offer a comparison between the early 90s 205 and the TSC1 and forward SN. In short, the improvement is pretty much amazing, though backing in the opposite direction will drive you nuts for a while.

The Pro Sport 205, as you probably know, didn't have the rear facing observer seat. It also had about 100 lbs over the Pro Star 205.

Slower speeds and longer line lengths is where you'll see the most noticeable difference between these two boats. Tracking is also night and day.

The TSC wakes can take some getting used to if you're coming from an early 90s MC. The MC had a single, somewhat rigid, but low bump at longer line lengths. The width of this bump increased at slower speeds. The TSC1 has outer ridges that someone used to a older MC will find unusual. The good news is after a few runs, you won't even notice this and will be pretty much thrilled with what an exceptionally small wake there is. I found these outer ridges less noticeable on the TSC2 and TSC3 boats.

As others have said, the reverse rotation causes the boat to be a bit more weight sensitive when it comes to observers. Just keep them out of the corner, i.e., the most comfortable spot on the whole boat, and you'll be fine.