Hole shot 200 vs 196

[qstufflebeam]

I just received my 200 a few weeks ago. I had a 196. My ski partner has a 2005 196 with the 330 Excal in it. We were at the lake the other day(the lake is at 4500 feet in elevation) and decided to run the boats side by side and see how they performed. I have the 409 and 442 prop on my boat. Out of the hole the 196 easily took the 200. The 196 had at least a boat length on the 200 by the time the boats were up to speed. Eventually the 200 caught the 196 but I had my trick plate up which is an unfair advantage since the 196 didn't have a trick plate. The 200 is definitely a slower boat than 196. It would be interesting to see how the 343 in the 200 would perform against the same engine in the 196.

[swc5150]

Although I believe the 196 will have the edge on a 200 in drag race, an '05 196 has the advantage of having a motor with some hours on it. Your 200's performance will increase in time, as I have no doubt you're aware. When pulling a deepwater start, my bro's 200 actually seems to have more initial snap out of the hole than our 196's did, and it has the 343. However, that could just be perception, and not reality. Either way, (and not to dog the 196) I sure prefer the 200

[TRBenj]

I assume you mean that the 200 had an Acme 422 prop on it (not a 442)?

I would have expected a 6.0L and 343 Excal to come out of the hole the same, if youre comparing like hulls and props. (The 6.0L's advantage is above 3,000 RPM.) It shouldnt be a surprise that a larger, heavier hull (the 200) would be slightly slower out of the hole, even with the "larger" engine. Though, try again with the hydrogate down (slalom mode) and then put it up (trick/jump) after you get on top of the water. That may help a bit.

Good to know that the 6.0L 200 is a bit faster than a TSC2 196... that boat should be good for 45-46mph, so the 200 should be 47+. Its no 196 when it comes to top speed (dad's 6.0L TSC3 is a 54mph boat) but at least its respectable... and wouldnt hold most people back when it comes to footing speeds.

SWC, the more "snap" youre feeling with your brother's 200 out of the hole is most likely due to the smaller factory prop. The Excal powered boats are usually propped with the 1868 (12.5x14.25) and the 6.0L boats usually get the 654 (12.5x15). The 196's ran 422's and 1668's, both of which were 12.5x15.5 with varying amounts of cup. Less pitch = better holeshot.

[swc5150]

Good point on the props Tim! Perhaps it isn't in my head afterall

[ClemsonDave]

The 200 may be slower than the 196 by a little, but it's way faster than the MB and Bu. Small sacrifice for killer wakes and driveability. The 200 isn't much heavier, it just manages the water displacement different, and better, than the 196.

[east tx skier]

The 196's ran 422's and 1668's, both of which were 12.5x15.5 with varying amounts of cup. Less pitch = better holeshot.

I haven't seen a 1668? 3 or 4 blade? More or less cup? How does it perform compared to the 422?

[TRBenj]

I haven't seen a 1668? 3 or 4 blade? More or less cup? How does it perform compared to the 422?

Sorry, I fat fingered it... I meant 668. Its the same prop as the 422, but with .150 cup instead of .105. It was the standard prop on the 196 6.0L's. It does a decent job of keeping the engine closer to its hp peak at WOT (which is also the rev limiter at 5600rpm). As such, its the fastest prop we've tried on Dad's '09.

Otherwise, it performs very similarly to the 422. I wouldnt recommend it for the most part... I am not a big fan of increasing cup by that much, generally speaking. I think the extra cup hurts the prop's efficiency. At some point, Id like to try a few other props that have a bit more diameter and/or pitch and less cup in order to keep the revs close to where they are now, but hopefully speed the boat up a touch.

[DanielC]

The 196 is a lighter boat, with a narrower beam the 200. lighter boat, better acceleration. narrower beam, less drag, more speed.

I have said this many times before. The 200 was designed as an open bow boat, that you could put a closed bow deck on. A open bow boat is an inherently weaker design. Think of the cross section of the boat, about where the windshield is. It is an open top "U" shape. You have to build strength in the bottom of the "U", to prevent the top of the U from flexing. More material to add strength. If you design the boat as a closed bow, you do not have a "U" section, you have a box, closed at the top. A much stronger design, that needs less total material to make it rigid. This means you could make it lighter.
Lighter boats perform better. A lighter boat displaces less water.

Please, Correct Craft, take what you have learned designing the 200, and give us a true, designed as a closed bow ski boat again.

[east tx skier]

Sorry, I fat fingered it... I meant 668. Its the same prop as the 422, but with .150 cup instead of .105. It was the standard prop on the 196 6.0L's. It does a decent job of keeping the engine closer to its hp peak at WOT (which is also the rev limiter at 5600rpm). As such, its the fastest prop we've tried on Dad's '09.

Otherwise, it performs very similarly to the 422. I wouldnt recommend it for the most part... I am not a big fan of increasing cup by that much, generally speaking. I think the extra cup hurts the prop's efficiency. At some point, Id like to try a few other props that have a bit more diameter and/or pitch and less cup in order to keep the revs close to where they are now, but hopefully speed the boat up a touch.

Good to know. The 422 has worked very well for me. Even after last year's "refurb," it still does great. Kind of afraid to mess with a good thing.

[ClemsonDave]

The 196 is a lighter boat, with a narrower beam the 200. lighter boat, better acceleration. narrower beam, less drag, more speed.

I have said this many times before. The 200 was designed as an open bow boat, that you could put a closed bow deck on. A open bow boat is an inherently weaker design. Think of the cross section of the boat, about where the windshield is. It is an open top "U" shape. You have to build strength in the bottom of the "U", to prevent the top of the U from flexing. More material to add strength. If you design the boat as a closed bow, you do not have a "U" section, you have a box, closed at the top. A much stronger design, that needs less total material to make it rigid. This means you could make it lighter.
Lighter boats perform better. A lighter boat displaces less water.

Please, Correct Craft, take what you have learned designing the 200, and give us a true, designed as a closed bow ski boat again.

Not this again.... Do you know the weight difference between the 196 and 200? It's about one good sized passenger and some gear. That is not the main reason the 196 can drag race faster than a 200.

The "U" argument would be great in a Corvette that goes around turns. That's why I have a Z06 and not a convertible. For straight line, who cares? No turns in 3 event 'ski boat.' Acceleration is not a factor for 3 event either. 3 event concerns: track straight and have a small wake.

The revolution with the 200 is the hull design. Take the factory tour and you will learn all about it. There is a reason for every little corner under the 200. Water displacement management.

The Carbon Pro took your advice of a light closed bow purpose built ski boat. Great wake (not as good as the 200 at slower speeds). Go drive one. Or, try to.... It's too light! Even the smallest skier can pull it side to side. When I'm pulling a skier with the 200, I bet my wheel doesn't move more than a couple inches. On the Carbon Pro, I bet I have to move it 30-45 degrees! Same reason a jet ski is not a good ski boat.

Light weight and rigid is NOT the answer to a great ski boat. Management of the water displacement is the answer. To date, the 200 has proven it. Take a look at the Sport 200. That boat proves it doesn't matter too much what is ABOVE the water or how much it weighs. It has an amazing wake because it has the DD 200 hull.

I encourage everyone to take the factory tour. You will learn that the secret is not in the size or weight. It is truly revolutionary.

[TRBenj]

I agree with Dave... and DanC.

CC could design a better ski boat if interior space and an open bow were not design requirements. I too, wish they would design and build a smaller and lighter boat that made use of all the good engineering they did on the 200 hull. Make it top out in the mid 50's with a 6.0L and I'll buy one in 10 years.

The 200 is a great slalom boat DESPITE its increased size and weight (as compared to the 196), not BECAUSE of it. If larger, heavier hulls made inherently better slalom boats, the 200 would be the same size as a G23 (or bigger?). If the Carbon Pro doesnt drive or track as nice as a Nautique, its not because its lighter and smaller... its because Centurion isnt as capable of building a slalom boat as CC is.

I have never heard anyone say that the 200 isnt a better slalom boat than the 196, and I wont dispute it either. I still prefer the 196 for various reasons- packaging and top speed being the 2 heavy hitters.

[swc5150]

Before spending considerable time in a 200, I practically lead the charge in bringing back the 196. Now I'm a 200 kool aid drinker. I even love the open bow, which I never thought I would. With that, I still see why people would desire a 196, as it's a killer boat, and small and efficient enough for private slalom lakes. The 200 almost seems like overkill for private lake use, as it has so many creature comforts for family pleasure use. It would be cool if CC would just offer both, but I understand the $ behind the decision. When MC's 2013 Prostar comes out, it'll be interesting to see how many choose it as an option, since it'll be back to 19', and supposedly more hardcore 3 event dedicated. If it drastically bites into 200 sales, perhaps CC will start producing a smaller boat out of demand? But as of now, they certainly don't lack in demand for the 200. Sorry for taking the thread on a tangent!!

[ClemsonDave]

Still seems like a lot of assumptions around here. I have spoken face to face with a lot of key players at Nautique. Open bow was not the design requirement. Almost all of the R&D was around the hull, not what's on top.

Please explain in detail why a closed bow makes a better 3 Event boat. I can tell you it's not because of rigidity. It's not needed. Most of the front of a ski boat doesn't even touch the water.

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. Put two people in a 196 and one in a 200 and they will be about the same weight.

The 200 is 4" wider, 6" longer and apx 200# heavier than a 196. Not that big of a difference. It's the engineering of the hull that made the difference. The little bit of extra size on the bottom allowed them to channel the water where they want it to as is passes underneath.

If you take the tour, ask them: why is there is no bump at 22off; why is the wake smaller given it's a bigger boat; why does it track better; why is the spray so small. I think you will all be converts (like swc5150) when you learn those answers.

[TRBenj]

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.

The 200 is the best slalom boat out there because its the newest slalom boat that CC has designed. Like you said, its all about the hull shape. In no way am I discounting the work they did here- I think its fantastic. Ive crawled underneath several 200 and admired all the features... I realize it took a lot of development to get the wake and tracking where it is. Still, if CC management told the designers to make the best slalom boat they could, but make it 19' instead of 20' and 2200 lbs instead of 2800 lbs, do you think the results would fall short of the 200 or surpass it?

Unless that conversation at the factory magically makes it easier to walk between the driver's seat and motorbox, seat someone between the motorbox and gunnel storage lockers, and adds 5mph to the top end speed, I cant foresee becoming a convert. I ski from the dock on a small lake and dont spend the majority of my time in a course... so obviously I am not the target market. Thats ok and I have no doubts its a great ski boat (and a better slalom boat than the 196), but its just not for me.

[swc5150]

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:-)

I honestly don't know how one would improve on the 200 wake and tracking? I actually think tournament boat wakes have been pretty stellar for years now (my '91 190 rocks!), it was just a matter of how to maintain great wakes, while enlarging the boat to be more user/family friendly. The SN 176 was a little rocket ship, with a killer wake, just way too tiny for family use, and most of us do have to please a family. My answer to the question of whether or not CC built the best boat they could have, has changed to a yes. I just think they were able to make their best effort an open bow as well. The 196 was their best CB effort to date, and the 200 surpassed it - strictly talking wake/tracking.

But back to the thread: yes, 196 will toast a 200 in drag race - but a GT-40 176 will toast them both