1992 vs 1989 SN

[chill99]

Trying to decide between a SN 2001 hull design and a post 1990 hull. I've owned a 1988 SN 2001, so I know what that is like. But I like to run the slalom course and that's not so good behind the SN 2001 hull. What I don't know is how wakeboarding compares between the two hull designs. Again, I've done lots of boarding behind the SN 2001 hull, but never behind a post 1990 hull.

Let the knowledgeable opinions roll.... :grin:

[M3Fan]

RE: 1992 vs 1989 SN

Post 1990 is a great wake even by today's standards. Even softer with a 4 blade prop, which seems to flatten the rooster nicely.

[TRBenj]

RE: 1992 vs 1989 SN

Supposedly you can weight the 90-96 hull and get a pretty nice wake for wakeboarding. Im not sure if it will be as good as the 2001 hull, but my guess is that it would be pretty close. Its definitley better than the 97+ hulls for wakeboarding.

As far as slalom goes, the 90+ hulls are much improved over the 2001's. If slalom is a major consideration, Id go with a newer boat (not that i'm biased Yellow_Flash_Colorz: ).

[Hollywood]

RE: 1992 vs 1989 SN

You can always add weight and build up that wake, but can't go the other way around. If I were you I'd go with the '92 no question, especially after already owning an '88

[darrel409]

RE: 1992 vs 1989 SN

If skiing is the prioity its a no brainer for the 90+ hulls. For boarding it can still be good but the wake will never be as steep as the 2001 series hulls. I think there is a little more room in the newer Skis too.

[882001]

RE: 1992 vs 1989 SN

wake=2001 ski=92

[jeepn]

RE: 1992 vs 1989 SN

i've never wakeboarded behind a 2001, but i don't think the wake behind my 92 bad, especially when it's really weighted down. and the wake at higher speeds is pretty nice when the weight has been drained.

[SHREDHEAD]

I love my 89. But for skiing, the 22 off bump is hard and the spray on the short lenghts is really bad.