Questions about the new 08 Air Nautiques

[lffish133]

Hi, I have been reading these forums for a long time, but this is my first post, I have some questions about the 08 Air Nautiques that I was hoping you guys could help answer, I have been reading all the threads you guys have been posting about the different boats however I still have a few more questions. I am an experienced wakeboarder, and I have been riding behind a 1995 Super Sport for 8 years just for reference. Now that Nautique has finally retired the original 210, I am thinking it is time to get a new boat, the main goals I want to achieve is more space, and a more versatile wake, where the shape can be changed more easily. Originally I thought the 220 was the obvious choice, however after riding in one I found the boat to be even more sensitive to side to side weight than the Super Sport which I found surprising considering it is a bigger wider boat. The conditions were bad to say the least and I think the boat was weighted funny, only like 1/2 ballast in the back. My first question is to all of you 220 owners, have you found it to be more sensitive than the old 210 also, and is the boat significantly more stable with full ballast? I also noticed the new 230, it is only .5 inches wider and 6 inches longer than the 220 according to the Correct Craft website, is the 230 just a little bit longer version of the 220? Or does it have a new hull also? Finally the new 210, is it any less sensitive to side to side load than the 220? I figured it would be because it is 2 inches wider, but I have never been in one. I would very much appreciate your input, thanks guys and sorry for the long winded post, they all look like fantastic boats and it is hard to figure out which one will work best for me, so I thought I could get some input from riders who have used them, thanks again!

[jos]

RE: Questions about the new 08 Air Nautiques

We had a 1990 SN for one year and know a 2003 210SAN for one year

The sensitivity on side tot side weight in my opinion is not really related to the width.
The wake is generated by a combination of factors each more or less important as we all know.
You cannot generate a wake on a loaded SN what we tried, we could make some more but could not come even close to a SAN.
A SN is designed for slalom.
A SAN is designed for wake.

The SAN for sure has a bottom rocker profile what generates more wake and makes it nervous on weight distribution.
Half an inch less botom rocker on an SS makes a world.

We ride 3, 4, 5 and 6 passengers, rear balast an mid balast.
One or two passengers less or more changes the setup dramaticly.
We shift the passengers from seat to seat to have a symetrical wake.
So you need a crew of 2 or 3 to have a quick balanced combo. Its difficult to explain and expect to the public, the longer they ride the better they get it.

I have been into windsurfing and wavesurfing, rocker and scoop design are the keys.
Zero rocker gives maximum speed and no steerability.
Maximium rocker gives maximium steerability, but surges the back dowm and so reduces the speed.
Those fysics, is see, coming back in allwatercraft designs every time, since my long career.

The SAN surges the back down thus creating extra the wake, therefore it needs 100 horses extra to come in plane.

Most important the rider on the wakeboard has to adapt the SAN. This takes time and practice.
My budy rode a BuVLX and still strugles the SAN wake.
On the SN and the VLX you can cut as far out as you like, and speed W2W.
The SAN needs only 1/2 out cut, stretch your knees, fly double the hight.

A proffesional coach is worth every cent, to help your board skills progress.

So, top sport, top artists, top crew and top equipement, you need it all, boat only does not do the job

Succes
Jos

[GCN-01]

Alright, firstly let me say that I am a CC dealer, but we are only a small dealership & we also assist with the running of a Wakeboard School so our time on the water is quite extensive compared to some & we are constantly working with different loadings to achieve bigger wakes.

Secondly, the information currently on the CC website about the 230 is incorrect. The specs are identical to the 236 model. What is up on the site at the moment is the 226 specs. the 230 is 100.5" wide

Having started my first owenrship experience on an 05 210TE, I was always quite one-eyed about that wake... it was ridiculously large with only factory ballast but was a little sensitive side to side so you obviously had to get your distribution right. The 220 I find is very similar to the old 210 although I do find it a little easier to get right. The thing we have found with the 220 hull is that it is not one to keep taking more & more weight, we have found that 1200-1350kgs extra plus factory ballast is its peak loading.

The new 210 is a different animal altogether... you can just keep loading it & the wake keeps growing, has minimal issues with side to side distribution (very similar to the 230 IMO) & with the new U-shape tank you can squeeze more ballast in that is out of site. Our new school boat is being fitted with a under seat nose sac (fly High), center locker mushroom sac (custom made) & two rear sacs in the rear lockers (fly high or custom). This should give us an extra 800-950kgs. The wake shape on the 210 I find is so predictable, not that the 220 isn't, I have just been riding the 210 more lately so have become quite accustomed to it.

Here is how I see it... if you plan to load it up considerably over std ballast & can live with a little less storage space the 210 would get my vote. If you are more of a family/crew based rider and won't be loading it up excessively over std I would get the 220. You will get a slightly bigger wake out of the 220 with factory ballast alone, but the 210 has the bigger potential.

Now we are yet to get our 230 so have not had much of chance to drive/ride the boat, although 2 of our Australian Nautique Team Athletes Dean Smith & Mitch langfield have spent quite a bit of time behind Watson's 236 & Lidberg's 210 & obviously the way these boys load their boats is to the extreme. I know both of our boys have a 230 waiting for them when they go back to the States, while Dean has a 230 here for the Aust Summer & Mitch has a 210. The feedback we got on the 230/236 has been nothing but amazing... if you can stretch the budget to a 230 then really you will be getting the best of the 220 & the 210.

Hope this helps, but it is just what I have found working with these boats for the last 2 years

[lffish133]

Hey GCN-01 thanks for your input on the new boats, I have another question for ya, do you find that the hydrogate does much at all? I know Nautique makes big claims that lowering the hydro gate can really change the wake shape, what are the differences between the wakes with the hydro gate up versus down in both the 210 and the 220? As far as the 210 shape compared to the 220, you say you find it predictable meaning that it feels the same every time you hit it?, how does the feel of the pop compare on each boat, which wake hits you harder?. I know the old 210 really hits you hard. Thanks for you help.

[GCN-01]

On the hydrogate - I have found that it has more of wake shaping ability on the 220 compared to the 210, on the 210 it is more of a performance enhancer to get the boat onto the plane quicker although it does have some impact on its shape.

On the 220 I have found that you have to have the weight distribution right to have the gate in the lowest possible position, but the most consistent results seem to be a halfway deplotment of the gate.

On the 210, the wake is just cleaner with the wake gate all the way the down and has a bit more of a lip to it.

I have found the 220 wake has a slightly more vertical shape to it, but lends itself to a faster riding speed. The 210 can be ridden at either fast or slow speeds depdnding on your style of riding. When I say it is predictable I mean exactly that, nothing is going to catch you unaware, there is no bucking, no trough & the traditional vertical pop is still very similar to the 210 of old, it is just not as hard to judge. You can cut at the wake as hard as you like for any type of trick...

To give you an example our coach rides a 90ft line & we were doing a photo shoot, we had a 220 right next to the boat to create a spine which gave us something differnt to shot and he took a massive cut at the 210 wake & landed 3 m outisde of the 220 wake which was just insane... he said there was no way he could have controlled it behind his 06 boat, so that is just his feedback

[tdc_worm]

i agree with most of GCN's observations---but here are my specific thoughts:

i think the 220 is at least as sensitive as the old 210, particularly when it is unweighted. add more weight, and the weight sensitive goes away and the boat handles a lot better. with moderate weight (i.e. 1k over stock), i run the boat nose heavy. with the a lot of weight (i.e. 2k+ of weight), the boat likes more in the rear. the shape, in my opinion, is as steep as you can come to the old 210 without being in the old 210. as far as the hydrogate is concerned, i put it down to get it on plane, the pull it up to ride. the way i weight my boat, the hydrogate is used for performance only. there is almost no bow rise on the 220. spend a day in one, and your concerns about the interior will be completely reversed.

the new 210 wake is meaty, but much more rampy than the 220. the wake seemed less sensitive to side to side weight. it reminds me of an old school VLX without the wedge. i have no personal experience, but i have heard that the new 210 wants around 2.5k - 3k+ weight to get respectable. my sources are unrelated and both said the same thing. the 210 also has significantly more bow rise than the 220. the interio is too cramped for the reverse seating (at least compared the 220).

for the 236/230, i have heard a lot of positive comments. i have only ridden one unweighted, and it is similar to the new 210. i have also heard that it can keep taking all the weight you throw at it...suposedly very meaty with a nice lip (a la slammed X Star). the interior is nice, but not as functional as the 220 from a riders perspective, but is still better than anything else out there.

for my money, i am not sure that if you spend 10k more on a 236, you will get 10k more worth of wake over a 220. again for my money, i feel that you do get 5k more of boat out of the 220 than the 210.

[lffish133]

Hey guys thanks for your comments, I have one more question, How much of a difference does the ZR6 have in both boats vs the standard excalibur? Thanks