Are 196's rare?

[cotton]

200 running in high altitudes, RPM's

Any truth to the rumor that the 200 has trouble running in high altitudes?

Also, are the 200's RPM's still 4,200 at 34.2 MPH or have they been brought down with prop changes, etc?

[cotton]

[QUOTE=MattieK27;154303]

Sadly, I am a mechanical engineer lol. I have worked with a few boat companies in the past though.

That's funny MattieK27! Congrats on being blessed both as an analytical and with a business mind as well!

This subject (why CC replaced the 196 with the 200) is especially funny to me. Only 25 month ago I had never owned a Ski Nautique (MC, Bu, etc.), never run the slalom course, hadn’t even free skied in well over a decade, but decide it was time to get back on the water and buy a ski boat. After searching for a month or so, on March 1, 2009 I posted this thread here on Planet Nautique:

196 closed bow "misses the boat" on better resale
http://www.planetnautique.com/vb3/sh...-better-resale

As you can see, the thread went on for 6 pages; and, this was my introduction to both PN, and the closed bow verses open bow debate.

P. S. A few days later I bought a 206 and have been extremely pleased ever since.

[2gofaster]

Hey Shane or Jody, if you are reading this, I know both of you put a different prop on the 200 and the RPM lowered by 300-500. Did you test top speed? The factory prop was not chosen for top speed. It was chosen because testers thought it skied/tricked/jumped the best.

Scott, I've asked about sales numbers, but I'm betting that is not public knowledge. I do know that they sold out of '10s very early in the year. Of course, that doesn't equate to numbers, layoff, etc.

Dave, Charles called and talked to one of the engineers at CC when we were testing props he was told that they typically pick the prop to hit a specific rpm that PCM wants at WOT and then let the chips fall. With the 1868, our 343 powered 11 ran 42.2mph top speed. With the 422 on it, it runs 44 flat.

I had been given 2010 200 production #s at one time. I think it was 167 OB's and 123 CB's.

[TRBenj]

Going back to my point, maybe increasing the size and having an open bow allowed a higher sales forecast, which allowed for more development dollars to be spent; the result being a boat with a superior wake for both slalom and tricking.

Want to debate this? You argue tooth and and nail that the 196 concept (smaller, true closed bow design) is better and that the 200 is a compromise, but did you buy a 196?

Maybe you missed my first post, where I clearly stated how I understand perfectly why Correct Craft made the 200 the way they did. This "debate" seems to have struck a cord with you- but I find it fascinating. The simple fact is that the 200 is a pretty big departure from the 196- so obviously some people are going to be excited about the changes, and others arent. I fit into the latter category, but I can see both sides.

For the way I (and the people I ski with) use our boats, the 200 is absolutely a compromise that does not fit our needs as well as the outgoing model- and I dont think any of the true skiers in the group will be trading in their 196's for a 200. My father was all geared up to trade in his '03, but is now planning to hold onto it after seeing the 200 in person and hearing reports of the slower top speed.

As for me, Im too young and poor to afford a new boat, so my '90 will have to get me by for a few more years. Maybe if I stopped collecting older CC's, I could upgrade sooner. When the time does come, a late 90's TSC1 or late 00's TSC3 will be on my wish list... the 200 just doesnt appeal to me as much.

[ClemsonDave]

I have no problem that it is not the boat for you. I just HATE the word 'compromise' for a boat that is MUCH better than the 196 or anything else out there for it's intended purpose - 3 event skiing. I don't think you get much more of a 'true skier' than me. I do 12-14 tournaments a year and ski 4-5 days/week and am extremely active in the skiing community.

This boat was not built for top speed. However, I think the top speed of my '08 196 was 44-45. Shane said they have seen those speeds with their 200 and a different prop.

[MattieK27]

Maybe you missed my first post, where I clearly stated how I understand perfectly why Correct Craft made the 200 the way they did. This "debate" seems to have struck a cord with you- but I find it fascinating. The simple fact is that the 200 is a pretty big departure from the 196- so obviously some people are going to be excited about the changes, and others arent. I fit into the latter category, but I can see both sides.

For the way I (and the people I ski with) use our boats, the 200 is absolutely a compromise that does not fit our needs as well as the outgoing model- and I dont think any of the true skiers in the group will be trading in their 196's for a 200. My father was all geared up to trade in his '03, but is now planning to hold onto it after seeing the 200 in person and hearing reports of the slower top speed.

As for me, Im too young and poor to afford a new boat, so my '90 will have to get me by for a few more years. Maybe if I stopped collecting older CC's, I could upgrade sooner. When the time does come, a late 90's TSC1 or late 00's TSC3 will be on my wish list... the 200 just doesnt appeal to me as much.

I didn't miss anything. It just pains me to read a boat that skis better at all three events is labeled as a compromise, especially when it's by a person who isn't in position to buy. The 200 is a "big" departure? Please...

[SkiTower]

but is now planning to hold onto it after seeing the 200 in person and hearing reports of the slower top speed.

Did he just look at it (seeing) or did he actually drive it and / or ski it? The reason I'm asking is this: After seeing the 2005 F150's at the autoshow, I said "no way". But due to other reasons I won't go into, the day I went to buy a Tundra I decided to drive one. Needless to say I never made it to the Toyota dealership.

Just saying, you can think something, but til you do it you don't know. Everything I've read over the past few years, if CC would give it enough kick for barefooting and make it the price of a 196 (not reality, but...) then nobody would have a complaint. Just sayin'...

[DanielC]

I was spoiled. When I bought my boat, there were two Ski Nautiques available. A closed bow and an open bow.
The closed bow was the better skiing boat for three event skiing. It was lighter boat than the closed bow. To accommodate the open bow, the helm, and engine in the SNOB were shifted aft to make room. At trick skiing speeds it rode noticeably bow higher.

In 1997, Correct Craft designed the best ski boat they could, the TSC 1 hull. They made changes on that hull to accommodate the the open bow. They were different boats. If you had to have a open bow you could get it, but you gave up some of the performance potential that was in the closed bow version. In all aspects of its skiing, and driving. Not much but some.

I am not saying the Ski Nautique 196 is a better slalom boat than the 200. The 200 has a better wake than the 196.

What I am saying is this. By insisting there is no skiing difference between the closed bow, and open bow boats, they did limit the performance of the closed bow. They did hit the target of a better boat than the 196. They arguably did design the best slalom boat currently available. I am sure some "M" boat people will argue with the last statement. But Correct Craft went to the compromise of designing one hull that you could just put on the deck you wanted, to get the open, or closed bow version.

Again, I am saying the Ski Nautique 200 is the best slalom boat available. But it is not the best Correct Craft could do. They set a design target that was good enough, but not the best.

[MattieK27]

I am not saying the Ski Nautique 196 is a better slalom boat than the 200. The 200 has a better wake than the 196.

What I am saying is this. By insisting there is no skiing difference between the closed bow, and open bow boats, they did limit the performance of the closed bow. They did hit the target of a better boat than the 196. They arguably did design the best slalom boat currently available. I am sure some "M" boat people will argue with the last statement. But Correct Craft went to the compromise of designing one hull that you could just put on the deck you wanted, to get the open, or closed bow version.

Again, I am saying the Ski Nautique 200 is the best slalom boat available. But it is not the best Correct Craft could do. They set a design target that was good enough, but not the best.

I keep going back to this, but not a single person has addressed it. What if by creating a design that was able to be open or closed bow, they had a higher sales forcast and therefore had more dollars to budget for R&D. The higher R&D budget allowed them to create a design that never would have been possible with the budget for just a closed bow design. In other words, even though its an open and closed bow design, it is better than what they could have done with just a closed bow budget.

How then is it a compromise?

Engineering isn't just simple math. Just because a boat is designed as just a closed bow does not mean it will automatically be a better boat. Just because that was the case with the TSC1, it does not necessarily hold true for the 200; meaning CC didn't just "dumbed down" the 200cb to match the 200ob.

[DanielC]

I would think having to design around an open bow would mean you would need a higher R&D budget.

I also think a lot of engineers do not discount "simple math" You cannot fight physics. Starting out with a compromised required design limits the performance of the end product.

[CAN'TSKI]

Is there a noticeable difference in the pull behind a CB and OB 200? I realize many are saying the 200 CB would have been designed differently if not for the OB mandate; but, are they different?

[MattieK27]

I would think having to design around an open bow would mean you would need a higher R&D budget.

I also think a lot of engineers do not discount "simple math" You cannot fight physics. Starting out with a compromised required design limits the performance of the end product.

There is no reaching you on this. Your mentality is much too "black or white" in regards to product development.

Is there a noticeable difference in the pull behind a CB and OB 200? I realize many are saying the 200 CB would have been designed differently if not for the OB mandate; but, are they different?

His arguement is that because the OB & CB had to ski the same, they must have decreaed the capability of the CB.

[CAN'TSKI]

I understand. Do they really ski the same?

[2gofaster]

Starting out with a compromised required design limits the performance of the end product.

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?

[2gofaster]

I understand. Do they really ski the same?

Yes, they do. If you had a CB and an OB to ski behind and did eenie, meenie, minie, mo between them without looking, then you would never know which one you were behind.