WaterSki Magazine Boat Test

[skinautique]

I need to complain a little bit about their method of doing the testing. In my opinion, they should show each of the boats and their features as well as videos of the wakes instead of trying to Rate each of the boats. Obviously they said that every boat is world class or outstanding, etc but we all know that is not true. I think they should just present the viewers with the true facts and let the consumers use this as a reference more than anything. This way they can see the majority of the boat and get a general idea of wake shapes and then start forming their opinions from there. I think this would be much more effective for everyone. What are everyone elses opinions?

[get6]

in agree. i just got home late tonight and i am excited to pore over the 2004 edition which just arrived. as in years past, i believe the magazine uses a sophisticated group of high end waterski and wakeboarding professionals and amateurs to do the tests, so no doubt they have some insightful and helpful observations. however, as in years past i am expecting something much closer to a series of ads on each boat as opposed to a fact based evaluation using a common set of objective and incisive criteria by which readers could really understand the differences among boats in the same classes and between classes. it would be very interesting, for example, to compare wake shapes and sizes at different line lengths and boat speeds for slalom and weighted and unweighted wake characteristics for boarding. ditto for boat handling characteristics in different types of water (glass, light chop, heavy chop). similarly, subjective categories of "we really liked these features" and "these features really stink" would lend credibility to the reviews. in short, it seems like unfortunately the ads department has a much bigger impact on the reviews and ratings than does any objective intention to rate boats on their merits and features. i am not much interested in buying a moomba or centurion, but for certain buyers out there they are an excellent choice. too bad it is nearly impossible for buyers, especially relatively newer ones to our sport, to come away with useful info as a result of the tests. all my little bitching aside, i am likely gonna be up a few hours reading this issue and will file it away for years with the last four or five editions that i still read! my two cents.

[Tony-M.]

I remember back in the day, they use to measure wake height and give a lot more detail. Both Waterski and Wakeboard magazines seem to be getting more fluff and no substance. That's the reason I have let my subscriptions expire. I don't have a problem with them having a generic boat issue which is basically an ad for each manufacture, but they need to have a several issues during the year with head to head comparisons. Maybe a v-drive issue with pros and cons of each boat, an issue comparing multi-purpose DD boats. I hate not supporting the mags in our sport. But it's hard paying money for info that can be found on manufactures sites and in forums. Enough venting.....

Tony

[Pratt]

You boys need to understand that those manufacturers are the bread and butter for there advertising. You are never going to see any change in there each boat is outstanding attitude. In fact they would be foolish to do so.

Better to collaborate with your friends that have different boats and check them out for yourself. Afterall, you are not going to buy a boat from a magazine anyway.

[BIGMAC]

Pratt man you nailed it on the head!!!

[skinautique]

bigmac
i know they are all a gimmick to get money from the manufacturer and all that i am saying is that they could provide some more useful information other than "this boat is world class". They could provide more pictures of storage compartments and pictures of the wakes and engines, etc. I think that information like that would go farther than "this boat is worldclass". That doesn't help. You can say that any boat is world class but it doesn't provide you with any real good facts.

[SGY]

I just spent three days in Grand Lake Colorado for the holiday. Its cold there so not much to do while resting from a hard day of snowmobiling. During my down time I read over the WSM test. I must say that, if read carefully, there are some subtle criticisms of boats--that are given a positive spin.

For example, the Gekko inboard was panned a little for a bump a 22off. The writer said it has great wakes if you can overlook a small bump at 22off.

And, it was not just the small market manufacturers that were criticized. The writers also pretty heavily criticized the Prostar 209--saying at 22off, the bump is pretty firm. Look also at the article of the Sammy Duvall 209. The writer stated that the wakes are best at middle lengths with spray a problem at above 35off. The 209 is not a patsy. It's essentially a Mastercraft 206.

WSM also didn't jump up and down too much about the 216 slalom wakes. The 216, like the 209, is no patsy. CC worked hard on making sure the 216 would be a good ski boat. They even got it AWSA approved. Yet it did not earn the "hardcore ski" rating.

The same is true for the Bu Sunsetter 21 XTI. If you read that article, you will see the bump at 22off is criticized. I was also surprised to see that the Sunsetter LXI only received a "ski" rating. That is a darn good ski boat in my opinion. I think Edwin of this forum would agree.

I'm not too unhappy with the testing/reporting by WSM. The criticisms levied made me feel better when WSM raved about the 206.

Just my .02 cents.

[skinautique]

The 216 isn't designed to be a hardcore ski boat by any means. It is a family recreational ski boat.

[SGY]

The reason I was suprised is I personally veiwed the 216 as more than a recreational ski boat. Perhaps I was inferring too much from the AWSA certification--and CC's own description of the boat. In speaking with CC representatives, I got a very strong impression that they believed the 216 slalom wakes to be just a notch bigger and harder than the 206.

Anyway, my point was not so much to debate the various boats but to point out that WSM did include some minor journalistic integrity--no matter how screwed up or inconsistent the test is relating to top speeds, motors, etc. On the other hand, skinautique's characterization of the 216 as a recreational boat--to which I would defer--compared to the WSM descritpion of it as a "ski", disproves my point.

There goes my theory. Oh well, reading the WSM guide sure beats a stick in the eye during these cold weather months.

[skinautique]

SGY
The only reasons that I say the 216 is a recreational boat is because they already have 2 hardcore ski boats (196 and 206). The 216 is also listed in the "sport" classification from CC. As far as the AWSA testing, it is only a guess that they did this to market the boat a little bit differently or possibly a little bit more effective but that is all a guess. I have skied the 216 and it skis well but it doesn't rank up there with the 206 or the 196.
Hope that kind of clears up my point?? but maybe not.

[Edwin]

I happen to agree w/ ya SGY regarding the WSM ratings. The thing that amazes me the most is to look at 2,3 or even 4 years worth of reviews on the same boat. The slalom wake quality on my boat has ranged from tournament quality to near world class to soft clean wakes in a family package. The only constant is the boat...it hasn't changed since it's inception in 1999.

Take a peek at the Supra Comp review - it has a pic of the Excalibur motor from the 196.

[NautiqueJeff]

I just received a copy of USA Water Ski's publication The Water Skier (Jan/Feb 2004). In this issue, they describe some of the techniques used to certify boats for USA Water Ski events. Take a look at the article below. If WaterSki Magazine would use quantifiable techniques like these in their boat testing, I think their general reader population would be much happier.

[Tony-M.]

For some of you that have ridden behind a 216, how good is the wakeboard wake compared to some of the other multi-purpose DD boats?

Tony

[SGY]

Tony, my son rode behind the 216 middle of last year. He loved it. It has better wakeboard wakes than the old Sport Nautique and much better slalom wakes. A friend of mine is thinking of replacing his 94 Sport for a 216.

For a intermediate rider the wakes are more than enough--IMHO. That is not to say the wakes are not good enough for an advanced rider--I'm just not sure. I'm sure someone else on this forum can give you more specific information. I think the 216 is a great cross over boat.

Skinautique, I don't disagree with your assessment of the 216. Like I posted before, I would certainly defer to someone who has skied behind the boat more than I have. I took one quick run at a demo with a half full ballast tank and several large passengers. I just wanted to survive.

Happy New Year!

[skinautique]

Tony,
The 216 will provide a great wake for boarders up to an intermediate advanced level. The wakes are a little bit steeper than some of the other DD boats out there so that they get a little more lift off of the wake instead of the distance that some of the other boats provide. From my experiences, the 216 is a very stable boat and isn't affected very much by weight shifting in the boat (ie, where passengers are placed).
Hope that helps. SGY you are a good man!! I am not here to argue either. Just want to help people out!