Hole shot 200 vs 196

[TRBenj]

Any 176 or Ski Nautique with a GT40 will toast any Chevy powered CC out of the hole (by 1-2 boatlengths, with the exception of the XS-500, which isnt available in the DD's currently). The 6.0L TSC3 196's will pull away up top against a GT40 176 though. The TSC2 6.0L should run pretty darn even.

I honestly don't know how one would improve on the 200 wake and tracking?

Oh come on- Im sure people said the same exact thing in 1990, 1997 and 2002. There is ALWAYS room for improvement!

I'm with you on quality wakes though- I have no issues with my 1990 hull. Clearly Im no pro, though! Surely that is a big part of why I consider the downsides of the 200 (packaging and top speed) to outweigh the upsides (improved slalom performance). The 196 was no slouch.

[DealsGapCobra]

I suggest you try the test again with skiers...that is the only time the hole shot really matters. My 343 powered 200 has never shown any weaknesses other then top speed and that only matters to me when footin'.

[swc5150]

True, wakes can always improve, but I think hairs are starting to split on how much - and that started with the '90 NWZ hull (IMO anyway)? If the 200 wake were identical to the 196, but with the extra space it provides, they still would've had a winner. I still love the 196, don't get me wrong! Heck, I happily ski behind my '91 PS every night, so I'm truly old school! Awesome wake at 1/10th the price:-)

[jdarwin]

I've owned all 3 of the boats that have been mentioned prominently in this thread ( 196, 200, Carbon Pro). Out of the 3, my favorite boat is the 196. The fact that my boats run on a 2150’ private lake is the reason. The 196 is simply a slalom tractor and meets our needs. All three are good ski boats but the Carbon Pro is a handful when pulling shortline. I had mine set up where it drove pretty well but not near as good as the 196 or 200. The 200 is overkill for my needs - burns too much fuel and the wakes/tracking a not a significant improvement over the 196. The 200 is head and shoulders above anything else in the marketplace with the exception of the 196. I just sold my 2012 Carbon Pro. I could afford any boat available and I’m “downsizing” back into a 196. And, I couldn’t be happier.

[swc5150]

That's what I figured JD... the 200 is overkill for small tourny lakes. You've upheld my argument!

A smaller, snappy and efficient 2013 PS190 could make for some interesting discussions!

[ClemsonDave]

If someone told you that they purposely added weight to the hull in order to improve the slalom performance, then they must have been working for the marketing department.

Never did I say such a thing. I said their main concern was water displacement management (not creating an open bow boat like was assumed earlier). ie. how the water flows under the boat and what happens to it after it leaves the surface area.

Weight is immaterial with what they have done to the hull. Or, at least has very little to do with the size of the wake. For example, the 200 is apx 200# heavier than a 196. Put 200# in a 196 to even them up. Guess which boat wins in a drag race... the 196. The 196 and every other boat out there does not do what the 200 does to the bottom of the hull. If I was buying a drag racing ski boat, I'd get a 196. I did say that just by making a boat lighter, does not improve either the wake or the tracking.

My boat stays on a private small lake (2400'). I see zero benefit (other than gas mileage) to a 6" shorter boat. Both have PLENTY of acceleration. Heck, even the MC TT slug is fast enough.

As far as interior space, the 200 has more room to walk around than a 196 plus they added some nice storage areas. I agree that not everyone needs that storage, but also not everyone needs 4' to walk by the motor box either.

At our lake, we have two 196s and two 200s. There is no question which boats everyone prefers (even the 196 owners). If you are strictly shortline (-32off and shorter), there is no difference in wake. But if you ski anything longer or slower, you will appreciate the 200.

So, if we are talking all out acceleration or top end speed, I'll give a slight edge to the 196. But if I want to go fast, I'll get in my car. ;-)

[swc5150]

I agree with you on the shortline wakes Dave, but you to mention how much less spray the 200 puts out - especially if there's some wind. Shortline spray was my only minor 196 complaint, and it wasn't horrible - don't get me wrong.

[ClemsonDave]

Good point. I did a tournament in NC where we had white caps. Skiing behind the 196 that was there was impossible (and it's better than most boats). We even had some spray on the 200, but it wasn't like getting hit with golf balls! ;-)

[TRBenj]

Never did I say such a thing. I said their main concern was water displacement management (not creating an open bow boat like was assumed earlier). I did say that just by making a boat lighter, does not improve either the wake or the tracking.

If you put 4 people in the 200, does the slalom wake get better or worse? If you could lighten the 200 by 500 lbs, would the wake get better or worse? Even if the answer is "it remains unchanged", I still hold that if the designers were given a lower weight and size requirement to work with, that they would have produced a boat that threw a smaller wake. It takes a lot of design wizardry to combat the extra weight... And I do think you implied that heavier = better with the comment below

Also explain how a lighter boat makes a better 3 Event boat. The 196 is lighter, the Carbon Pro is lighter, a bass boat is lighter. Doesn't make them a better ski boat. In fact, they are worse.

At our lake, we have two 196s and two 200s. There is no question which boats everyone prefers (even the 196 owners). If you are strictly shortline (-32off and shorter), there is no difference in wake. But if you ski anything longer or slower, you will appreciate the 200.

It sounds like your lake is comprised of a pretty serious group of slalom skiers. I'll assume you dont have many barefooters that appreciate a boat that can hold decent 1-foot speeds? From everything Ive read, a 200 with the Excal wont cut it. And yes, I realize that footers were probably ignored entirely by CC when they designed the boat... but its still the best footing boat that they make and I wont be buying a non-CC, so its still relevant.

As far as interior space goes, I have a really hard time buying that. That is one of my biggest issues with the 200. You can barely fit between the driver's seat and motorbox. You cant fit a leg between the observer seat and the driver's seat on the CB- makes getting into the driver's seat a PITA. The side storage lockers infringe on useful seating space on the side of the motorbox. For the way we use our boats, the 196 is set up much better. Again, I realize Im in the minority, but these issues are very real for some people.

[swc5150]

Agreed Tim, the motor box does protrude more in the 200. I like the taper on the 196 motor box, allowing the observer to stretch the legs more. For a footer, the 200 would not be the boat of choice, maybe even with the 6.0 if you ever use a boom. Not sure anyone has designed one with the proper tapering? Your dad's boat is a flat out monster for footing I'll bet. I saw it rip by me, nearing 60mph in Green Lake. That might be the coolest 196 out there, although I was always curious why it wasn't an LE? Heck, the didn't spare expense anywhere else on it.

[ClemsonDave]

More assumptions. What I meant was that lighter does not always equal smaller wakes. In that quote you chose of mine, I provided three lighter boats that have a larger wake than the 200. That's proof, not assumptions. The Carbon Pro is the closest wake, but it is so light, it suffers in tracking dramatically. I had 6 people, plus a 50# counterweight, in my last year's 200 watching me. I didn't notice a difference in the wake (-28 through -39off). Want another example? How about the Sport 200? How much heavier is that than a 196? From what I hear, it's wakes and tracking are better than a 196. Again, I'm not saying heavier is better, I'm saying weight doesn't make that much difference with what they have done to the hull.

Why would you want to sit to the side of the motor box? The rope will hit you unless you have it on a tower. The space between the motor box and the side of the boat (ie: the walking area) is wider in a 200 than it is in a 196. I will measure next time I'm at the lake. Yes, the space between the motor box and the driver's seat is tight with the seat moved back. You have to walk all 2-3' around.... With Catalytic converters, I believe the day of small motor boxes is gone. At least until they can figure out how to make those things smaller!

Yes, we are 3 Event lake. Actually, only slalom. From what ya'll tell me, the 200 is not a good barefoot boat. I doubt it was designed to be. However, put a different prop on and you will be fine. Especially if you put the 6L in there.

I do see where you are coming from, I think. You believe that if you took the 200 hull and put a 196 top on it, it would be even better. I don't have a clue, but the wakes and tracking are so dramatically better than they used to be, I can't complain. I love the little extra space to go along with all the other improvements. Best of both worlds. In reality, it's not THAT much bigger. I'm struggling to understand how 4" wider suddenly makes it a big boat. It seems bigger inside because it is layed out better.

[east tx skier]

Another thing we noticed with the 200 is that you can have a number of people in the boat without affecting the wake much. 196's are pretty sensitive to weight, and where the observers are sitting. We can put two kids (one a teenager), a driver and a wife in the 200 and the wake doesn't seem to change. Makes for one happy family:-)

The trick for owning and skiing a TSC hull is to be able to sign "get out of the comfortable corner of the observer seat!" from 60 feet back. Once you know how to do that, you're set.

[east tx skier]

Never did I say such a thing. I said their main concern was water displacement management (not creating an open bow boat like was assumed earlier). ie. how the water flows under the boat and what happens to it after it leaves the surface area.

Weight is immaterial with what they have done to the hull. Or, at least has very little to do with the size of the wake. For example, the 200 is apx 200# heavier than a 196. Put 200# in a 196 to even them up. Guess which boat wins in a drag race... the 196. The 196 and every other boat out there does not do what the 200 does to the bottom of the hull. If I was buying a drag racing ski boat, I'd get a 196. I did say that just by making a boat lighter, does not improve either the wake or the tracking.

My boat stays on a private small lake (2400'). I see zero benefit (other than gas mileage) to a 6" shorter boat. Both have PLENTY of acceleration. Heck, even the MC TT slug is fast enough.

As far as interior space, the 200 has more room to walk around than a 196 plus they added some nice storage areas. I agree that not everyone needs that storage, but also not everyone needs 4' to walk by the motor box either.

At our lake, we have two 196s and two 200s. There is no question which boats everyone prefers (even the 196 owners). If you are strictly shortline (-32off and shorter), there is no difference in wake. But if you ski anything longer or slower, you will appreciate the 200.

So, if we are talking all out acceleration or top end speed, I'll give a slight edge to the 196. But if I want to go fast, I'll get in my car. ;-)

New Ski Nautiques and MCs are slower for one reason---wetted surface; more drag. In the 2003 BBG, the 196 was the fasted boat to 36 mph (in 5 seconds). MC abandoned submitting 1:1 geared boats or boats without the MCX in the USAWS tests by 2006. Just too much drag.

[east tx skier]

Not to say that weight doesn't make a difference. How does the 200 OB ski with people in the bow seating? My old 93 205 was a great little OB slalom boat, but if you put one person in the bow, the wake got hard as a rock. Made the decision to go closed bow easy. We wanted storage and hated it when people were in the bow anyway. I'm unlikely to go back to OB.

[swc5150]

The trick for owning and skiing a TSC hull is to be able to sign "get out of the comfortable corner of the observer seat!" from 60 feet back. Once you know how to do that, you're set.

Agreed. That's what we would do with my brothers kids, and it worked very well. You have the nicest TSC on the planet, so your boat doesn't count against the 200