Which CC model was the best barefoot boat?

[shag]

Just getting opinions. Which boat in the correct craft line, new or old, was the best for barefooting? Composing speed, wake shape, table, ect. Looking to change things up next year. I know that one of the best barefoot boats was the old Flightcraft 18xlb, but it's impossible to find one.

[TRBenj]

Uhh, the Barefoot Nautique? Never been behind a v-drive (91-94) version, but I cant see how it would have outperformed the direct drive in any way, save for possibly being a touch faster than the later (87-90) versions with their pushed forward cockpit. The earlier DD's (79-86) ran right about 50mph from the factory with the stock 330hp 454. The later ones ran ~47.

The table is flat and smooth, and the boat is great at knocking down chop if you ski in windy or rough conditions. The wake is tall though- so it does not compare well in that respect to the outboards and flat bottomed inboards like Sangers and Malibus. Just the nature of the v-hull.

Id be interested to hear how the 1st gen (89-92) Sport Nautique foots though... has a semi-vee hull shape that might lend itself well. Would need extra oomph added to the powerplant though... 240hp couldnt have pushed it much past 41-42mph.

[DanielC]

Was out yesterday with my 1997 Ski Nautique. Went on the boom, with a five foot handle. Is it the best barefoot Correct Craft boat made, I do not know. But it will do the job.

[Quinner]

The table is flat and smooth, and the boat is great at knocking down chop if you ski in windy or rough conditions. The wake is tall though- so it does not compare well in that respect to the outboards and flat bottomed inboards like Sangers and Malibus. Just the nature of the v-hull.

Id be interested to hear how the 1st gen (89-92) Sport Nautique foots though... has a semi-vee hull shape that might lend itself well. Would need extra oomph added to the powerplant though... 240hp couldnt have pushed it much past 41-42mph.

Not sure you did the behind the boat wake of a BFN it's full justice, it is way better then any other boat I have ever been behind, like a magic carpet.

Also wonder how the BF wake on a TWC hull would be.

There are other CC models of the BFN era that shared the same hull as the BFN, like a Dominique or Martinique (depending on model year), that should be comparable or same wake as a BFN.

[s_kelley2000]

Id be interested to hear how the 1st gen (89-92) Sport Nautique foots though... has a semi-vee hull shape that might lend itself well. Would need extra oomph added to the powerplant though... 240hp couldnt have pushed it much past 41-42mph.

I loved our first generation Sport Nautique but it was far from a great barefoot boat. The wake seemed very soft and turbulent when you were crossing it. I was pretty spoiled because I could almost always foot behind an Austrailan Flight Craft that another member of our boat club had so I am sure that made the Sport wake seem even worse by comparison. I think the Ski Nautiques from that same era and beyond had a better barefoot table than the original Sports. I was only about 160 lbs when I used to foot a lot so the Sport had plenty of top speed for me but it was a little slow to get there.

[TRBenj]

Not sure you did the behind the boat wake of a BFN it's full justice, it is way better then any other boat I have ever been behind, like a magic carpet.

Also wonder how the BF wake on a TWC hull would be.

There are other CC models of the BFN era that shared the same hull as the BFN, like a Dominique or Martinique (depending on model year), that should be comparable or same wake as a BFN.

Yup, wake on the early 80's Martiniques and late 80's Dominiques would have been the same as the DD BFN (same hull)... though those 2 models were the luxury version and more typically had small blocks (so will be a touch slower).

I used to say that the NWZ Ski Nautique hull made a lousy barefoot wake... our '92 had a trough in the middle that was like stepping in a ditch when you tried to cross. My '90 (same hull) has no such ditch, and is very crossable at longer line lengths. Strange. I remember the TSC being a bit better than the NWZ, and the TSC2/3 to be a tick better yet. Not a great table, a little turbulent and frothy in the middle, but crossable.

The BFN has a terrific table... not sure it gets any better than that. It'll knock down some serious chop (or even rollers) to boot. But getting in and out of the wake isnt to be taken lightly- its a big step up (or down)! Dont forget that Ive skied behind them a bit, ha.