Are 196's rare?

[ClemsonDave]

Who's to say that it was a compromised design limit? Your assumption is that they could have done better. What qualifies you to say that?

He has been on this forum for quite a while, and I respect his opinion on many things. This one I struggle with though. The two people on here that call it a 'compromise' have never driven nor skied the 200. It's all theory. Call me crazy, but I have a problem with that. I had the same theory until I drove/skied the 200. My eyes were opened from day 1 with it. There is no way in **** this is a compromised boat. We will never convince them of that until they experience it; so not sure why we are beating our heads against the wall. I wish they would both come to Va and ski with me to see for themselves. Fly out here and I'll take care of the rest!

Products can always be better. I guess the wake could not exist (in theory). Don't see how tracking or driver's view can get any better than the 200 though, it's pretty amazing.

FYI, cannot discuss numbers, but there were a lot more 200s sold in '10 than 196s in '09 or '08. So, somebody must think it was a good move. That's despite a big increase in price and a down economy.

[DanielC]

About compromise, please reread my post number 54 in this thread. I point out several things about the design and location of major items in a boat, and how it could influence the performance of the boat.

[Quinner]

Fly out here and I'll take care of the rest!


FYI, cannot discuss numbers, but there were a lot more 200s sold in '10 than 196s in '09 or '08. So, somebody must think it was a good move. That's despite a big increase in price and a down economy.

Dave, Is that invite only for Tim & Daniel, LOL??

In all fairness should the 206 be included in those numbers, it was replaced by the 200 OB, yes??

[DanielC]

The 1997 SNOB was replaced with the 206 in 2003, and 196 and the 206 were in turn replaced by the 200.

[swc5150]

I figured the sales figures would be much improved with the 200. It definitely has way more broad appeal.

I came REALLY close to buying one, but after factoring the additional cost over another 196, plus the personal likes versus dislikes, I went 196 again. I was so hot and cold on the 200 during my test drives/skis. One minute I loved it, then something would bug me about it. I HAD to have a 196 from the moment I first drove one, and that feeling just never went away.

Back to the original thread, finding a clean/low hour '08 or newer 196 was not easy. Stumbling upon one that was even the color I wanted was close to a miracle!

[ClemsonDave]

About compromise, please reread my post number 54 in this thread. I point out several things about the design and location of major items in a boat, and how it could influence the performance of the boat.

Exactly... how it 'could' effect performance. It's a theory.

However, in 'reality'...
- you can see the buoys right up to the point where the bow could touch them. Moving helm forward is of no use.
- I see no correlation to where the driver sits or motor sits in relation to the size of the wake. In your opinion those locations are 'worse' in the 200, yet in reality the wake and driving is MUCH better. The two don't add up. Who cares where those things are as long as everything is better? If you would ski it, you would see just how good it is.

I fully admit that the open bow design of the 206 compromised some of the 3 event attributes of the 196. That is NOT the case for the 200.

In my opinion, they just did a heck of a job with the hull. Take a look at the 200 Sport. Who would have thought you could get those wakes out of a V drive??? Running 39off behind a V drive? No way! Yet, they did it. The top of the boat doesn't matter as much as you think as long as everything is balanced well.

Again, before I spent time with the 200, I had the EXACT same opinion you do (Daniel, I do respect your knowledge and read your post many times). Experiencing it in real life totally changed my opinion.

Quinner, that invite is open to anyone (just bring some attractive females!). I'll pick you up at the airport and have a couple spare rooms. Private lake 10 minutes away.

[TRBenj]

The two people on here that call it a 'compromise' have never driven nor skied the 200. It's all theory. Call me crazy, but I have a problem with that.

I cant speak for Dan but since I havent driven or skied the boat, but I am willing to concede the fact that the 200 skis and drives better than the 196. That is certainly an amazing accomplishment, as the 196 was excellent in both regards- and the 200 had several larger hurdles to overcome due to the weight and size increases.

As far as compromises, I noted several, but Ill reiterate:
-You cant walk between the driver's seat and motorbox, theyre too close together.
-The saddle bag storage infringe on (seating) floor space to the side of the motorbox.
-The top speed is significantly lower (our TSC2 is good for 46, the TSC3 should be better with the gate up, so 42-44 is a significant hit).

All of these compromises are a direct result of the incorporation of the open bow and new storage arrangement. I wont include the inability to run a straight boom, pick up a ski in the water from the driver's seat, or difficult ingress/egress for the driver on the C/B, as I would consider those "goofs" in the design- ie, nothing was gained by changing those things.

For those who will find the new features (open bow, side storage, etc) useful, these compromises are minor. If you dont barefoot, you wont mind the lower top end. But for those of us who wouldnt find the new features useful, the boat seems like a step backwards in certain regards... especially those of us who feel that the skiability of the 196 isnt holding us back. That may not be you- and thats ok. The new features combined with the better wake and driving experience is probably more than enough to overlook any of the small annoyances I take issue with. Im sure youre in the majority anyways.

In regards to the hypothetical "compromise" that CC made with the 200 hull, we probably wont get a definitive answer on that one unless one of the designing engineers pipes in and tells us one way or the other. My *guess* is that it could be improved upon, if the constraints of having an open bow were removed from the design requirements. But of course, the same thing could be said for many features that add weight or size... interior panels, motorbox, carpet, windshield. The Ski Nautique has to do everything well- ski, drive, carry people in comfort, etc. And the 200 does it very well. If more emphasis had been put on the skiing performance and less on the ability to carry people, would a better ski boat have resulted? Probably.

MattieK, I suppose since Im not in a position to buy a new boat puts me in a poor position to offer an opinion? I wouldnt want cause you any grief. Nonetheless, Im still in a unique position to directly influence a buying decision... after looking at the 200, Dad and I went out and bought a classic Barefoot Nautique instead. No top end issues with that boat.

[ClemsonDave]

Ok, you concede that the 200 skis better. But do you know just how much? Honestly, it doesn't effect me much at all. At -32off through 39 a I can barely tell (although the spray is MUCH better behind the 200, esp in wind). At -28, I never noticed a bump behind a 196 until I spent some time behind the 200 where there is none. Now, when I ski a 196, I can feel it. No big deal, it's not that big and it's only -28, but it is there.

But take my 9yr old daughter. She started slalom last year. She skis the course at 17mph long line and -15off. The wakes are easily HALF as big behind the 200 compared to the 196. I've had kids that come to my tournaments that will almost cry when they get anything except my boat. It is a dramatic difference.

Another example. A friend of mine talked his in-laws to come to one of our tournaments. They were die hard MC 197 fans. Loved their boat. She did one round behind my boat and shook my hand to buy my boat on the spot! No questions asked. She skied 15off apx 24mph. They love the 200 so much, they skied well into the winter in some cold water.

The wake improvement is HUGE! I have never seen such a dramatic improvement. Could something possibly be better? I guess, but gees. Remember, though, if you make a boat too light and/or too narrow, you will effect driving in a negative way. A boat has to have some mass to keep it in a straight line. As I've said, there is a new boat out there that proves this point.

As far as interior space. My 200 has more walk around space than my 196s PLUS it has the saddle bags. Yes, if you took out the saddle bags you would have more, but how much do you need?? How many people have had a recoiled rope yank a ski out of the boat that was lying beside the motor box. I've seen it happen many times in my 196s. It's great that you ski somewhere that you can keep everything on the dock. I do too, however, I prefer to keep it in the boat under cover. It also saves time from having to go back to the dock for each skier. So, if there is ample room, why not have some covered storage? Store the removable observers seat from my OB under the bow and you have tons of space, way way way more than a 196.

Speed. So, top speed on a 196 is 44-46. Top speed on the 200 is 41-42 with the stock prop and 44 with a different prop. Unfortunate that it effects you, but how many people out there need that extra 1-2-3mph? Is that their target market for this model boat?

[MattieK27]

I cant speak for Dan but since I havent driven or skied the boat, but I am willing to concede the fact that the 200 skis and drives better than the 196. That is certainly an amazing accomplishment, as the 196 was excellent in both regards- and the 200 had several larger hurdles to overcome due to the weight and size increases.

As far as compromises, I noted several, but Ill reiterate:
-You cant walk between the driver's seat and motorbox, theyre too close together.
-The saddle bag storage infringe on (seating) floor space to the side of the motorbox.
-The top speed is significantly lower (our TSC2 is good for 46, the TSC3 should be better with the gate up, so 42-44 is a significant hit).

All of these compromises are a direct result of the incorporation of the open bow and new storage arrangement. I wont include the inability to run a straight boom, pick up a ski in the water from the driver's seat, or difficult ingress/egress for the driver on the C/B, as I would consider those "goofs" in the design- ie, nothing was gained by changing those things.

For those who will find the new features (open bow, side storage, etc) useful, these compromises are minor. If you dont barefoot, you wont mind the lower top end. But for those of us who wouldnt find the new features useful, the boat seems like a step backwards in certain regards... especially those of us who feel that the skiability of the 196 isnt holding us back. That may not be you- and thats ok. The new features combined with the better wake and driving experience is probably more than enough to overlook any of the small annoyances I take issue with. Im sure youre in the majority anyways.

In regards to the hypothetical "compromise" that CC made with the 200 hull, we probably wont get a definitive answer on that one unless one of the designing engineers pipes in and tells us one way or the other. My *guess* is that it could be improved upon, if the constraints of having an open bow were removed from the design requirements. But of course, the same thing could be said for many features that add weight or size... interior panels, motorbox, carpet, windshield. The Ski Nautique has to do everything well- ski, drive, carry people in comfort, etc. And the 200 does it very well. If more emphasis had been put on the skiing performance and less on the ability to carry people, would a better ski boat have resulted? Probably.

MattieK, I suppose since Im not in a position to buy a new boat puts me in a poor position to offer an opinion? I wouldnt want cause you any grief. Nonetheless, Im still in a unique position to directly influence a buying decision... after looking at the 200, Dad and I went out and bought a classic Barefoot Nautique instead. No top end issues with that boat.

Your opinion is just as valuable as any other non-buyer. Unfortunately, CC meeting your requirements as a non-buyer does not make a profit. Designing a boat that not only skis better but also offers more seating does. If a 200 was an option for your dad, and you both agreed the 196 was better, why didn't you buy one?

This thread has been pushed well past its original purpose; as I am partially to blame I apologize. It is my opinion that a ob/cb design constraint did not effect the end result, and could have actually helped create a more advanced design. Agree or disagree; one thing that cannot be debated is the success of the new model.

[2gofaster]

I want to reinforce something that Dave mentioned. It really is a DRAMATIC difference in the wake at slow speeds behind the 200. 15-24 is easily half the wake height of the 196. The kids love to ski behind it.

[swc5150]

My g-friend liked the 196 wake better at 22mph, but it was because she felt it was more narrow and could get over it faster - she just learned to ski last summer. Sorry for the takeover of the thread! I wonder what people would've written when the 2001 became the NWZ, or the NWZ the TSC?

Chris makes a good point. Did the 200 outsell the two boats it replaced combined? If not, I'm sure it's still more cost effective to use a single mold design in the factory?

Let's settle this debate once and for all over a game of drink, this summer in Green Lake! Quinner's buying round #!;-)

[2gofaster]

Yes, it did outsell the 196 and 206 combined. By a healthy margin.

[CCfan]

I want to reinforce something that Dave mentioned. It really is a DRAMATIC difference in the wake at slow speeds behind the 200. 15-24 is easily half the wake height of the 196. The kids love to ski behind it.

The wake for kids was the ultimate deciding factor for me. My son and I skiing at 34/36mph would have been happy with any of the Big 3, but the smaller wake at slower speeds for my daughter and the other junior skiers at our lake tipped the scale to the 200.

[SkiTower]

Let's settle this debate once and for all over a game of drink, this summer in Green Lake! Quinner's buying round #!;-)

What day is summer in WI again? Can't remember if it's July 3 or 4?

[Quinner]

Scott, I am in on that for sure, first round is on me!! BTW, Josh has the spot right next to us this year, Yikes!!

Timmy should be there this year if he doesn't sissy out like 2010, now we just have to figure out how to get some of these other guys to show up, Dave, Mattie, Daniel, 2Go, ETAL!!

Lauderdale Lakes brought their 200 last year for all of us to ski behind and drive, so I would imagine we should see another one this year!!