Question about Ski Nautique 1993-1996 vs 1982-1989 (2001)

[MattieK27]

Ok, so here is the deal. I am trying to get on the water for cheap. (well, cheap, but with a good boat, haha) I will mostly be wake boarding, but keep in mind I just started less than 2 months ago. I am not a pro, and I do not need a pro wake for at least a few seasons. This boat is all about me testing the boat ownership waters, I have no issue upgrading in a few years. (At the same time, if I never progress my wakeboarding to a higher level, I can just hang onto it and enjoy other activities)

I have read many threads here and over at the2001.com about the wakeboarding wake the 2001 throws. I have found a few great 2001s, but I am very concerned about rot. Just because bolts into the stringer dont spin by the engine mounts, that doesnt mean there isnt rot in the other seventeen feet of them. For people that have a workshop or fiberglass experience, a boat with some small rot might not be an issue. I do not have the space to fix that type of damage though, and nor do I want to. I also had hopes of EFI on a boat, and clearly the 2001 pre-dates that.

So this leads me to the 1993-1996 boats to get a boat that is completely fiberglass. I know they throw a bigger wake than the TSC boats which started in 1997, but how does it compare to the 2001? I know I have seen a few people on here that seem to use their 1990-1996 Nautiques for mostly wakeboarding, I am hoping to hear from them. Any input is appreciated.

For the record, I understand a Sport or Supersport would be a better wakeboarding boat, but each of those not only adds money at buy-in but also length and weight issues for storage and towing.

Quick summary: How good is the wake on a 1993-1996 Ski Nautique for beginner to intermediate wakeboarding?

Thanks!

[shag]

I would say the wake is ok for beginner, but the further you go into intermediate - you will want a bigger wake.... My .02

[Cornut]

Our first boat was a 1994 Ski Nautique. With a few fat sacks on the floor, the wake we got out of it was more than sufficient for learning the basics of wakeboarding. The wake was not huge, but it had a good shape and was nice & firm. Yes, you will eventually want something bigger once you get consistent with W2W's & stuff. We upgraded to an Air Nautique (21' DD), but it was mainly because we just wanted more space & hidden ballast, not because we were unsatisfied with the wake.

Like you, we knew that it was no Sport or SAN, but it was much less $$$ than those, and it was perfect for a first boat. It definitely got us hooked on boating, and I still miss it sometimes.

[TRIP]

Just get one. Get the basics down properly, then weight it down with some ballast, then get ready to upgrade to a SuperSport/SuperAir.

[maxpower220]

Since you are just learning, you should buy the "best" boat that you can afford. In my terms, best would be the one in the best condition both mechanically and appearance wise. The difference in wake between with DD boat will only be a few inches and not huge. Having a reliable boat is more important than a slightly larger wake. Also, since you are a wakeboarder, which model will have a better resale in a few years?

[ers906]

Another way to think about it is that your technique etc will be better not having to rely on a monster wake for W2W etc. You will want to upgrade at some point, but there will always be a market for entry level boats so that shouldnt be too much of a problem to sell it. I have seen very good wakeboarders pulling backflips behind tahiti style boats so if you work on technique etc with a smaller wake, you will be that much better when you upgrade. Just a thought. PS, look into picking up "The Book" DVD series for instruction. The second DVD (Cant remember the name of the disc) really goes into step by step instructions in working your edges etc. I use it as a warm up each time I go out, really gives you a good feel by the time you are ready to go full force

[MattieK27]

Thanks for all the advice. It definately gives me some things to think about. The recommendation on the DVD is right on the money, after watching the first disc of Shaun Murrays "Detention," riding became a lot more comfortable.

Just to add to the confusion, does anyone have experience wakeboarding behind a 2003+ 196? I found a ridiculous deal on a clean one, and from what I read in the 2003 brochure the Tsc2 hull responded better to added weight. Is this true, or just marketing bs? Again, not looking for a Sante style wake (just yet), but something I can get comfortable behind doing surface tricks and wake to wake jumps.

Thanks again for all the input, the Correct Craft family has definately won me over.

[TRIP]

I haven't ridden behind a 2003 or later 196, but I'd definitely chose the '93-'96 over that one. Or just go skiing.

[prairiethunder]

Putting weight in my 97 SN has had amateur-average boarders say it was the best wake they've ridden... with skylon. not close to a v-drive but very good for beginner... we've all quit pretending we can wake board and are back skiing..... 7 out of 10 times

[93nautique0710]

Putting weight in my 97 SN has had amateur-average boarders say it was the best wake they've ridden... with skylon. not close to a v-drive but very good for beginner... we've all quit pretending we can wake board and are back skiing..... 7 out of 10 times

i have my 93 for sale hooked up for boarding i enjoy the wake its great for wakeskating also very clean wake no wash lets make a deal

[acemech]

I've got a 92 snob that we wakeboarded behind before the towers came out. I'ts has a great wake with a little lead and 2 - 500lb fat sacks in it.You wont be disapointed. A friend bought a newer boat, at the time they had just changed the hull. I think it was around 95/96 not sure. Anyway that wake sucked for boarding...really bad. It was a great waterski boat though.
As long as you do an "on the water" test drive and check it for sound mechanics etc, you cant go wrong with a nautique......period.

Enjoy!

[Chopper]

I'll throw in my 2c for you.

I have owned the following nautiques & offer some comment based on my experiences with them.

1989 Ski Nautique 2001 "SN2001 hull"
1991 SKi Nautique 196 "no wake zone hull"
1998 Ski Nautique 196 "TSC hull"
2003 Super Air

Straight up, buy the nicest boat you can find / afford. And like you said, if you don't want to entertain the likelyhood of having to deal with rot, stay away from any pre 1993 nautique. These boats are min 17 years old, and will have water in them to some degree.

I'll probably get flamed for suggesting it, but each nautique I have owned has had a very similar (in shape) wake. Nautique wakes are quite distinctive - quite steep & solid.

The SN2001 hull lends itself as a very good platform for wakeboarding. It has a more narrow beam than the the 196 and is around the same weight. Thus sits down in the water more easilly with less effort than a 196. You will need less balast to achieve a comparable wake to a loaded 196. The SN2001 throws a nicely shaped wake with very minimal ballast & only grows with more ballast & crew. We only ran around 400lb on most occasions & it was nice. You can bomb them out though if you really want.

The 1990 - 1996 Ski Nautiques share the same hull design. 1990 - 1992 = wood substructure , 1993 - 1996 = composite substructure. You will need some ballast to gererate a nice wake. Wake shape is very similar in shape to the SN2001 hull, but it is noticibly wider with a nice lip. Plan to run 1100lb in this hull - a bag each side of the engine. Add more as necessary.

The 1998 TSC hull was designed for a softer ski wash. They are typically not recognised as a wake capable hull. However IMO anyone who tells you that you cannot get a nice boarding wake from one of these hulls is speaking from their backside. most people making the comments have probably never owned, or ridden in one that has been weighted and are just relying on hearsay. once weight is added, TSC benifits go out the window.

The wake is a slightly different shape to the previous models. The transition into the table is more rounded off rather than a lip, but overall the wake shapr & size is very similar to the 1990 - 1996 models. You do have to run al lot of ballast to get the wake though. Typically we ran 1650lb - 1870lb in different configurations. A buddy of mine could throw the biggest air raileys / flips / rolls / spins I have ever seen behind it. FWIW he owned a 1995 Ski Nautique 196 & alwayse told me the wake was pretty much exactly the same. I do believe that the differences outlined above are relevent though.

The early SAN hull produces a bigger wake than all. to me it's the same basic shape, just bigger all round. A fully loaded Ski Nautique wake is probabvly a few inches smaller than a SAN wake with zero ballast.

Bottom line. I would aim to find something in the 93-96 vintage for the best compromise. I'd probably also stay clear of poen bow models in the ski nautique. They are just too small, and interior space is compromised to fit them in.

However, if a screaming deal came up on a later model, I'd still check it out & take it for a test ride.

[Mikeski]

I sold my 1995 because I was afraid I was going to sink it. We got to the point where we had about 1500lbs plus the human weight in the boat trying to get a good wake. The wake was pretty good but being that far over the weight capacity put us very close to the rolling point of the boat (overloaded boats will roll over). The problem with the 90's Ski Nautiques is the sloping transom. It's a PITA to put your wakeboard on and the water rolls right up the back from other boats when it gets loaded down. For the money I would look elsewhere for a boat with a square transom and tall sides. The older Supra's make great wakeboard boats. If you can find an old Nautique Super Sport that would be the best bet.