Are 196's rare?

[ClemsonDave]

Someone PLEASE explain to me why a closed bow makes a better slalom boat than an open bow? Is there something magic about that piece of fiberglass on top of the bow? Does the open bow create some sort of black hole vortex that disrupts slalom skiers? Will the lack of vinyl in the bow make me run 38off more often? ;-)

[chris196]

Someone PLEASE explain to me why a closed bow makes a better slalom boat than an open bow? Is there something magic about that piece of fiberglass on top of the bow? Does the open bow create some sort of black hole vortex that disrupts slalom skiers? Will the lack of vinyl in the bow make me run 38off more often? ;-)

I can't do that for you Dave, but I'm not a boat designer. But you're missing the point of what's being said. Most agree that the 200 is a better slalom boat than the 196.
However, when the design team sat down to design it, they were not given carte blanche. They were told they had to design a boat that could be both an open bow and a closed bow. The theory is that they could have made a boat better than the 200 if they didn't have the requirement of the open bow version.

Speaking as an engineer as a guess to your question, there is one word that comes to mind: rigidity. That magic piece of fiberglass provides rigidity and strength that the designers could not take advantage of because the hull had to accomodate an open and closed bow version.

[swc5150]

I would think size comes into play as well. The boat had to be bigger to accomodate an adequate open bow layout. I could instantly tell when driving the 200 that it felt bigger and less nimble than the 196. It's still a great boat, don't get me wrong. I wonder what kind of wake that hull would produce, if it was simply scaled down around the size of a 196?

[MattieK27]

I can't do that for you Dave, but I'm not a boat designer. But you're missing the point of what's being said. Most agree that the 200 is a better slalom boat than the 196.
However, when the design team sat down to design it, they were not given carte blanche. They were told they had to design a boat that could be both an open bow and a closed bow. The theory is that they could have made a boat better than the 200 if they didn't have the requirement of the open bow version.

Speaking as an engineer as a guess to your question, there is one word that comes to mind: rigidity. That magic piece of fiberglass provides rigidity and strength that the designers could not take advantage of because the hull had to accomodate an open and closed bow version.

I think the misconception here is that just because it was designed as both an open and closed bow model, CC somehow left capability on the table. I am not a huge 200 fan, but that line of thinking cannot be further from the truth. For example, often times when a car is designed from the start as both a coupe and a convertible, the coupe ends up gaining dynamic qualities because the rigidity was designed in without the need for a roof. The same principals can be applied to a boat. The difference here though is rigidity is not as important of an issue with a fiberglass vessel running in water. Let’s just play devil’s advocate and say they could have designed a more rigid boat if it was just a closed bow model (keeping in mind the rigidity gained from a closed bow on an open deck boat is small once looking at torsion in the middle or stern of the boat), how does that added rigidity automatically equal a better ski boat? Engineering is a complex and iterative process; you cannot just assume the addition of one design change will equal an increase in any specific area of performance.

The one area I will agree with is the 200 is a slower boat. That is pretty much common sense since it uses the same engines as the 196, and its heavier and wider. Guess what though; a closed bow is not going to change that. If you want to debate anything about CC's design, question the increase in size. Unfortunately, looking at sales, it looks as if CC made the right choice.

I get why the 196 guys like their boat better. Just don't assume CC would have had a much better boat if they just designed it as a closed bow. I think it would have made everyone happen to continue making 196’s alongside the new 200, CC chose not to do that. Of course I felt the same way when the new SAN 210 came out.

I would think size comes into play as well. The boat had to be bigger to accomodate an adequate open bow layout. I could instantly tell when driving the 200 that it felt bigger and less nimble than the 196. It's still a great boat, don't get me wrong. I wonder what kind of wake that hull would produce, if it was simply scaled down around the size of a 196?

Unfortunately, hydrodynamics is a very complicated area, and scaling something is not as easy as just a simple downsize. Thats why when scale models are tested in the wind tunnel, certain factors and elements need to be adjusted to obtain results that would be comparable to a life size design. My guess is a 196 scaled 200 would produce a wake very similar to the departed 196.

I love the passion the 196 guys have for their boat. I say keep fighting guys; if CC caves and re-releases the 196 for a limited run there is more of a possibility the old 210 hull could make a return.

[CradGen2]

I'm not sur ehow much bigger the 200 could feel. Felt close to the same to me.

196 19' 5.25" W/O Plat 90.25" Beam 2610 LBS

200CB 20' 0" W/O Plat 95" beam 2800 LBS

So the difference is something like 6.75" and 4.75" and 190 LBS.

I'm scratching my head on the size comments.

[ClemsonDave]

But why do you need rigidity or a nimble boat if it is going in a straight line? If the BOAT was going around the buoys, doing flips or going over the jump then a smaller boat would be better. In a straight line, I'd say bigger is better (to a point). Think about trying to pull a skier with a jetski. My 200 holds a straight line way better than any of my 196s did. Besides, it is only 6" longer and 4" wider.

Think about what this boat's purpose is. Not in any specific order:
1. Small soft wake
2. Hold a straight line when pulling skiers (slalom, trick and jump)
3. Great visibility for drivers
4. Nice wake for trickers

What else is there for a dedicated 3 event boat? The 200 is better than the 196 in every one of those categories. Honestly, I couldn't care less if it is an open or closed bow. I just want those things to be the best. I have yet to hear how a piece of fiberglass on the bow makes them any better. Now, if it's function was to make crazy turns like on a road course, then you might have a point.

I'd be willing to bet that the major reason people have not traded in their 196 for a 200 is price. That certainly is the case for all 5 196 owners around me. I acknowledge there are some that like the 196 over the 200, but I bet they are in the minority. In all my tournament travels, I have yet to run into one of those people.

I went skiing this past Saturday. Met a bunch of people at the course. There were 2 196's there. Guess which boat they ALL wanted to ski behind....

[CradGen2]

I might be one of the few on this comment. First I love the look of the 200 either open or closed. Me not owning one has nothing to do with price, although I would agree price could be an issue. I'm buying a 196 because we (wifey) like the interior layout better. We like the small sundeck and access to the equipment form the platfirm.

There are other reasons, but not important in this thread.

Next I decided on the 2006 vs the 2008-2009 models. There weren't many 2007 models out there while I was looking. Why the 2006, DTW. Why not the 08-09. Although I like ZO, we don't ski the course. I couldn't justify 8-10k more for an 08 just to get ZO. I figured that there are people that still desire the 97-2001 Ski Nautique and I expect there will be people that desire the 02-07 196 without ZO. But what do I know about boats and the market.

IMO if you are looking at an 08 or 09 with less then 300 hours, realistically the boat should be around 33-38K, where they sell is market driven. So if you are looking for a 38K boat you could be in a 200 for 5-7K more. If that is the case by a 200 IMO.

[swc5150]

Good questions Dave! I have no doubt price is huge factor too. For me, I live on a public lake and enjoy taking the boat out and whipping around corners and buring an occassional nose dive - not driving like an idiot, just having fun with a high-performance toy. It is more than just a wasterski tool to me, to drive in a straight line. The 200 is capable of those things too, I just think the 196 does it a little better - just my opinion. It kind of reminds of when the 911 changed in '99. It was faster and more refined than the 997's, probably sold better too, it just lost the race car feel of its predecesor.

I guess it's all a matter of opinion. I like the 200. I can, however, name at least a half dozen people people I know who hate it, and wouldn't buy one if it was 196 money. One of them bought my '07 196 from me. The 196 will only exist in CC's rear view mirror, and I'm fine with that. I'd buy one if they made them again, but oh well. Heck, there's a good chance I'll own a 200 someday.

Out of curiosity, anyone know how many 196's were built in '09 versus 200's in 2010? Just wondering how many more 200's have been built and sold, since they are a little more $$.

[DanielC]

"Someone PLEASE explain to me why a closed bow makes a better slalom boat than an open bow? Is there something magic about that piece of fiberglass on top of the bow? Does the open bow create some sort of black hole vortex that disrupts slalom skiers? Will the lack of vinyl in the bow make me run 38off more often? ;-) "

Creating a boat with an open bow does a few things. Most obvious is the location of the driver and helm fore and aft. The location of the helm then influences the location of the engine.

Compromise number one, with an open bow. You are limiting where you locate the weight of major components to balance the boat fore and aft.

Compromise number two, with an open bow. The farther aft the engine is, the more propeller thrust is down, rather than forward.
Having to move the engine farther aft influences the prop shaft angle to the bottom of the hull. And remember, you have already compromised where major components can be located to balance the weight.

Compromise number three, with an open bow. the design is simply not as strong in the cross section area of the walk through. A box with a closed top is stronger than an open top U section. If you have been in a open bow boat, you can easily notice the windshield gap changes in rough water. There are even posts on Planet Nautique about windshield fit changing on open bow boats when boat are put on lifts, and when taken off a trailer. To compensate for this, the bottom of the U section at the walk through has to be made stronger. That means more material in the hull, and more weight. You do not have the luxury of moving this weight, it has to be in the walk through section. And we already have decided where to put the driver, and engine to balance the boat.

Compromise number four, the additional weight of the seats, speakers, cupholders, for the open bow.

Now, it is true that some of the additional weight changes complement each other, for example, moving weight aft by pushing the engine back can be balanced with additional weight of the open bow components, and the structure of the boat, but you are still adding weight to the boat.

If you are trying to improve the performance of any vehicle, on land, water, or even in the air, number one rule is this. Weight is your enemy. On a boat this is even more true when you are trying to reduce the size of the wake. One of the major factors influencing the wake size is the weight of the boat. Every wakeboarder know the more weight, the bigger the wake. Every slalom skier should know that the less a boat weighs, the smaller the wake. Additional weight also adds additional drag to the boat, and given the same size engine, makes it accelerate slower, and limits the top speed, assuming you are not moving the weight aft, because that increases the wake size.

I have said this before, and I will say it again. The Ski Nautique 200 has a better wake than a Ski Nautique 196. I fully believe that, based on what I have heard. I have never skied behind one, nor driven one. In fact, it was late summer 2010 before I could even see one at my local dealer.

However, it is not the best slalom boat Correct Craft could make, had the compromises of having an open bow ski boat ski the same as the closed bow version not been forced upon the design of the boat.

[chris196]

But why do you need rigidity or a nimble boat if it is going in a straight line? If the BOAT was going around the buoys, doing flips or going over the jump then a smaller boat would be better. In a straight line, I'd say bigger is better (to a point). Think about trying to pull a skier with a jetski. My 200 holds a straight line way better than any of my 196s did. Besides, it is only 6" longer and 4" wider.

....

Dave, I don't know these things for sure as I'm not a boat designer. I was just giving a possible example.

I can tell you, as a design engineer myself, that I can always make something smaller, faster if I don't have constraints put on me. Now, I design silicon chips, so it's different. But if someone tells me I have to accomodate 2 interfaces into my chip even though only 1 will be used a time, it will be larger, slower and burn more power. All of those are bad things in my world.

[ClemsonDave]

With all due respect Daniel, if you have not driven nor skied a 200, you may not know what I am talking about. I had the same opinion when the 200 was announced with an OB. However, after my first experience driving and skiing it, I was totally sold.

With any product, you can always say it could be better. Just the nature of manufacturing.

The 200 is a whopping 6" longer. So moving the driver's seat adjustment position will change more than just the length difference. When driving, I can see the buoys almost until the bow hits them. How it can get any better than that. Is the motor in a different position? If so, it can't be more than an inch or two.

With regards to an OB flexing. Years ago, I had a big OB I/O boat and yes, I could see the windshield flex. My 200 doesn't flex more than 1/4". Don't see how that effects anything with regards to a 3 event boat.

The 200 is apx 200lbs more than the 196. That's nothing. Plus, the OB is the same weight as the CB. If weight was the major factor in wake size, then why is the 200 wake so much smaller than the 196? Weight over a given surface area and hull design are more important than just weight. Also, since the 196 has less surface area, adding crew and gear effects it more than the 200. I'm not a wakeboarder, but I've heard that the 210 (I think) has a better wake than the 230. It's weight to surface area.... That is exactly why the 200 has a smaller wake than the 196. It's weight is dispersed over a larger area. Smaller does not always = better.

I do agree that the 200, while still very agile, will not turn corners like a 196, but that is not it's intended purpose. It also does not accelerate quite as fast as a 196 (but closer than you think). It will still out accelerate a Bu or MC even with the 5.7.

I'm certainly not saying the 200 is perfect, nor is it the boat for everyone. However, we will have to agree to disagree that it is any sort of compromise to a 3 event skier.

I invite you to come to Va and we'll ski/drive both boats and you can see just how good this new boat is. Then you can show me where it is a compromise. ;-) I have had 2 people (that were just as adamant as you) take me up on that and both walked away with a different opinion than when they arrived.

[CAN'TSKI]

I just got back from Colorado at about 3:30 am. 27 Hours of driving in a 36 hour period.
The trailer is my 211 trailer, and no no no it will not fit a 196. I have the dinged skegs to prove that.
$33,000 plus about $450 in gas. The boat is in excellent condition, and I could not be happier.
2008 Limited. 250 hours.
I have never driven a 196. I hear they handle like a tank. I can't wait to pull my boy behind this thing and get him used to the ZO.
As you can see by the For Sale sign, I have to sell the house to afford the boat.

[MattieK27]

Creating a boat with an open bow does a few things. Most obvious is the location of the driver and helm fore and aft. The location of the helm then influences the location of the engine.

Compromise number one, with an open bow. You are limiting where you locate the weight of major components to balance the boat fore and aft.

Compromise number two, with an open bow. The farther aft the engine is, the more propeller thrust is down, rather than forward.
Having to move the engine farther aft influences the prop shaft angle to the bottom of the hull. And remember, you have already compromised where major components can be located to balance the weight.

Compromise number three, with an open bow. the design is simply not as strong in the cross section area of the walk through. A box with a closed top is stronger than an open top U section. If you have been in a open bow boat, you can easily notice the windshield gap changes in rough water. There are even posts on Planet Nautique about windshield fit changing on open bow boats when boat are put on lifts, and when taken off a trailer. To compensate for this, the bottom of the U section at the walk through has to be made stronger. That means more material in the hull, and more weight. You do not have the luxury of moving this weight, it has to be in the walk through section. And we already have decided where to put the driver, and engine to balance the boat.

Compromise number four, the additional weight of the seats, speakers, cupholders, for the open bow.

Now, it is true that some of the additional weight changes complement each other, for example, moving weight aft by pushing the engine back can be balanced with additional weight of the open bow components, and the structure of the boat, but you are still adding weight to the boat.

If you are trying to improve the performance of any vehicle, on land, water, or even in the air, number one rule is this. Weight is your enemy. On a boat this is even more true when you are trying to reduce the size of the wake. One of the major factors influencing the wake size is the weight of the boat. Every wakeboarder know the more weight, the bigger the wake. Every slalom skier should know that the less a boat weighs, the smaller the wake. Additional weight also adds additional drag to the boat, and given the same size engine, makes it accelerate slower, and limits the top speed, assuming you are not moving the weight aft, because that increases the wake size.

I have said this before, and I will say it again. The Ski Nautique 200 has a better wake than a Ski Nautique 196. I fully believe that, based on what I have heard. I have never skied behind one, nor driven one. In fact, it was late summer 2010 before I could even see one at my local dealer.

However, it is not the best slalom boat Correct Craft could make, had the compromises of having an open bow ski boat ski the same as the closed bow version not been forced upon the design of the boat.

And if they were given 5 more years of development time, it would have been an even better boat. And if they used more expensive materials like kevlar, it would be lighter and better. And, and and....

There is always compromise in product development, don't treat the 200 like its some sort of unique platform. Here is something to think about. What if, by making the 200 a larger boat with an open bow design, Correct Craft was able to project a higher sales volume. That higher sales volume allowed a much higher budget for development, which allowed them to dial in a hull design with even better wake charactistics. Maybe if they limited themselves to only a closed bow version, the budget for development would not have been the same and the hull characteristics would not have been as good.

My point is, you cannot just sit there and say the 200 was a compromise and CC could have easily made a better boat. Perhaps the compromise of the 200 layout allowed more to be spent on development, leading to a better boat.

[jjackkrash]

I just got back from Colorado at about 3:30 am. 27 Hours of driving in a 36 hour period.
The trailer is my 211 trailer, and no no no it will not fit a 196. I have the dinged skegs to prove that.
$33,000 plus about $450 in gas. The boat is in excellent condition, and I could not be happier.
2008 Limited. 250 hours.
I have never driven a 196. I hear they handle like a tank. I can't wait to pull my boy behind this thing and get him used to the ZO.
As you can see by the For Sale sign, I have to sell the house to afford the boat.

Wow, she's a beauty. I am sure you will absolutely love that boat.

[ClemsonDave]

Here is another interesting note. There is a new boat out there (not CC) that is a similar size to the 196. It is much lighter and uses exotic materials. The wake is better than a 196 (or similar), but not as good as a 200. It is so light, I don't like the feel of it. We'll have one around here this summer so I'll get to spend more time with it to make a real assessment. I hope, for manufacturer competition, that it is a success.