Nautique future developments?

[vision]

Something besides a bungee would be great for racks. But after several MCs with clamping racks, they are not the answer. Besides having 4 that failed (the spin release pin breaks) the original two handed technique to release them was stupid. Newer squeeze handle is better.

But I have to say that swing board racks in general are not terribly useful for me. In every boat I have owned the board racks allow the boards to drip into the boat. Forget to swing them before heading into a boat slip is dangerous, and the whole rotating them to retrieve or place a board in the rack is a bit tedious. Again, I realize I am alone on these thoughts.

We set most of our boards on the back locker covers or in the bow, with surf boards up in the Z5. I would prefer simple tension based slots to hold the boards in such an angle that they dripped out of the boat. No clamps or bungees.

[4th ski-doo]

Materials all around. Lighter, stronger, longer lasting.

Look at the Pavati boats, the 2015 F150s, now 1000bs lighter using aluminum. Lets shave 2000lbs off and have a 5000lb G23.

Nautique needs major help in tower racks.... hopefully they can improve them significantly without them becoming $3k a pair like MC's or the new $3k PTMs found on Malibus. I wish surf pockets on the current bimini were an OEM option. I would like to see 3 slots on each rack, only 2 racks.

Build the towers knowing 90% of folks will put a set of Rev10s, or the new JL 8.8s... and spec it for folks up to 6'2" without bumping their heads....vs building a tower and cramming speakers in afterthought. build the towers knowing folks will add a 8-10" speaker up in the corners.

Pivot and fold up swim platform for storage....vs the current full removal setup. Just pull pins, lift and lock it in the up position.

2-3x the oil resevoir, perhaps additional filtering... to allow 125hr oil change intervals. Truly 1x a season for 99% of folks.

200amp alternators as an option.... or perhaps use 2 of the existing 120amp alternators in a twin setup. Stereo, ballast pumps and blower running I loose 1-2 volts WITH the engine running.

Reliability and QAQC. Nautique/PCM leads the pack.... but can truly make headway here using the Toyota/Honda Taguchi Loss approach in Operational Research in the manf process... set a realistic goal for not a single defect or failure for X years. We know like 80% of Hondas/Toyotas will be consistently defect free for around 200,000 miles, and the car stands a great chance to hit 400,000 miles reasonably maintained. Lets get there on wakeboats 3 years/300hrs, not a single defect, 20-25yrs without major repairs.

Engine Octanes. Need 400, 450 and 500hp engines that run well and thrive on 87oct with 10% ethanol. And does well on it over 20yrs, without need to additives except for winter layup. we shouldnt be worried and spaz'd out over putting regular cheap gas in our boats. You all know what I am talking about.

Double ballast pumps on all tanks, for 1/2 the fill and drain times, and build in redundancy in the event of a pump failure. That's be $1000 well spent.

Toyo and Honda have their fair share of problems too. The Marine engines are pretty dependable and very strong on power.



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Brichter14]

Something besides a bungee would be great for racks. But after several MCs with clamping racks, they are not the answer. Besides having 4 that failed (the spin release pin breaks) the original two handed technique to release them was stupid. Newer squeeze handle is better.

But I have to say that swing board racks in general are not terribly useful for me. In every boat I have owned the board racks allow the boards to drip into the boat. Forget to swing them before heading into a boat slip is dangerous, and the whole rotating them to retrieve or place a board in the rack is a bit tedious. Again, I realize I am alone on these thoughts.

We set most of our boards on the back locker covers or in the bow, with surf boards up in the Z5. I would prefer simple tension based slots to hold the boards in such an angle that they dripped out of the boat. No clamps or bungees.

i agree. I think swivels are a waste of time, but i have long arms so maybe im weird. But the water dripping thing is annoying. I got some different racks this year to try to alleviate that problem as much as possible.

[durty_curt]

^^^^ i have short arms and find myself still not using the swivel racks. Kinda agree on that being a waste. Worst part is when you get underway and if they're not locked... Somebody is gonna get a board swung into there face!

[bradw]

Measure between your rack and you'll find you probably need to swing them in to be under your width requirements to legally drive down the road... Otherwise you'd be taking them off all the time...

[4th ski-doo]

Swivels make it easy to get under the cover on the boat lift.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[jonsquatch]

Measure between your rack and you'll find you probably need to swing them in to be under your width requirements to legally drive down the road... Otherwise you'd be taking them off all the time...

+1 and also make it a lot easier to pull up to some of the covered fuel docks, for rafting with other boats, and for tieing up along side a houseboat.

[jhersey29]

What about that F150 Ecoboost Ford Motor? It's a pulling and horsepower workhorse. I love it in my F150. Sweet 6 cylinder with better fuel economy and power.

[durty_curt]

+1 and also make it a lot easier to pull up to some of the covered fuel docks, for rafting with other boats, and for tieing up along side a houseboat.

OK Jon You have a point...

[Zach@n3]

A twin turbo gas V6 in a fully loaded marine application would 1) suck a ton of fuel and 2) eventually self destruct.

[nyryan2001]

What about that F150 Ecoboost Ford Motor? It's a pulling and horsepower workhorse. I love it in my F150. Sweet 6 cylinder with better fuel economy and power.

that is not in any way what the available data shows....

the Eco performs almost idenitcal power hp/tq wise when pulling heavy loads as the Ford 6.2L.... and when you are heavy on the throttle it sucks and burns JUST as much gas as the 6.2L, yep down to 6-8MPGs in the 7-9000lb loads just like all the other V8s.

Now granted, yes, they do get great fuel ecomnomy compared to the other V8s at 65-70mph at 1800rpm.

The niche where the Eco outperforms is big V8 capability with the ability to get V6 fuel economy when cruising unloaded along at 1800rpm.

Almost nothing on a wakeboat happens under 2000rpm...life starts at 3000, and you'd be sucking just as much fuel. Not to mention reliability issues... Ford has had how many recalls on the Eco? Can you even begin to imagine the cost upcharge for a PCM, Ilmore, or Indmar Ecoboost engine? <--- will make the 550hp engines look cheap.


I think the next step in the next 3-5 yrs efficiency wise continues in the transmissions... The step forward Nautique took with the new trannys and the 17x17 props is HUGE. we saw the equivalent of an entire engine upgrade in performance going this route. This is a big deal, I dont think gets the recognition or folks understand how big of a deal it is. The key to efficiency is a big symetrical prop where PITCH = DIAMETER. thats where props are inherently most efficient. the further they get from YY x YY the more the become inefficient. so the best tq props we have right now for the 350, 409, 450s, is the 2315s, 15"x12"s.... that tells you we have a TON of ground to gain in efficiency of power transfer, reduce prop slip...allows folks to run smaller engines for the same performance and pay less for their boats, burn less fuel etc etc.

[DanielC]

I think a few people are unaware of the obvious. It takes a lot of energy to make a big wake. To make a big wake, you have to displace a lot of water, you make a big hole in the water with the weight of the boat. That heavy, ballasted boat is now trying to climb up a 2 or 3 foot hill, in the lenght of the boat. Lets say two feet up in 25 feet. Same as going 8 feet up in 100 feet. That is an 8% grade. What kind of fuel economy would you expect from a truck hauling thousands of pounds up that steep of a hill? Never mind a wheel and tire on the ground transfers more energy to the motion of the vehicle, than a propeller, and it is easier to push something throught the air, than through water, at speed.

If you want fuel economy in a boat, you need a light boat. Running at planing speeds, not plowing through the water, at displacement speeds.

[swc5150]

Talking SN200, I would like to see the saddle bags become optional, either none, 1 or both. The ski racks in the new Prostar are sweet, so maybe borrow that idea? A snap-in carpet would also be great.

[s_kelley2000]

Talking SN200, I would like to see the saddle bags become optional, either none, 1 or both. The ski racks in the new Prostar are sweet, so maybe borrow that idea? A snap-in carpet would also be great.

Getting rid of the saddle bags or at least making them optional would be a good idea. They eat up a ton of space and don't really seem all that functional. I am not sure they would want to have to deal with having multiple deck molds to account for the options though.

[jonsquatch]

^^^^ i have short arms and find myself still not using the swivel racks. Kinda agree on that being a waste. Worst part is when you get underway and if they're not locked... Somebody is gonna get a board swung into there face!

OK Jon You have a point...

Hah didn't even realize that was you. You are right about not using them, in combination with the Z5 you really cant swivel them in all the way for use so they often don't get used for that. Thats why I listed what I think are the good uses for them. At least on my boat its usually the passenger side on that comes loose and whacks people so its not usually me who gets it... ;-) If the fix the racks making the swivel more robust is a good idea as well.