Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

______________
12" White Stickers
______________
BallOfSpray $5 Donation
______________
BallOfSpray $10 Donation

Carbon TSC1 vs Ski Nautique 200

aguylikesharkaguylikeshark Posts: 140
edited August 2010 in Videos, Photos & Media
Wake off: The FM Carbon TSC1 vs the best in the business the SN 200.


<object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/PbJ-8GaMmRQ?fs=1&hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/PbJ-8GaMmRQ?fs=1&hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="385"></embed></object>
«1

Comments

  • BoodyBoody Posts: 613 Baller
    The 200 is amazing, especially at shortline. But this boat may give it a run for it's money. I hear the 15 and 22 bump is gone. Wonder how shortline is and drivability. Will be pretty hard to beat the 200 overall.
  • Chef23Chef23 Posts: 6,066 Mega Baller
    So how did it ski?
    Mark Shaffer
  • BoodyBoody Posts: 613 Baller
    Chef, I have only skied behind the SN200. I've talked to a few who have skied behind the TSC1, but it is also still in development, sounds like it will be done soon.
  • thagerthager Posts: 5,312 Mega Baller
    TSC 1 is Total Surface control on CC Ski Nautiques up to 2001? I don't think he's talking about the Centurian Carbon Slalom boat.
    Stir vigorously then leave!
  • BoodyBoody Posts: 613 Baller
    Ahh, disregard, carbon threw me off.
  • Chef23Chef23 Posts: 6,066 Mega Baller
    Threw me off also.
    Mark Shaffer
  • AndreAndre Posts: 1,660 Mega Baller
    So,did someone used the TSC 1 mold to make a carbon fiber boat?
  • HortonHorton Posts: 31,040 Administrator
    No. Paul just likes to confuse everyone.

    Support BallOfSpray by supporting the companies that support BallOfSpray

    Barts★ Connelly ★ DBSkis ★ Denali ★ Goode ★ Follow ★ Hobe Lake ★ MasterCraft ★ Masterline ★ 

    McClintock's ★ Performance Ski and Surf ★ Reflex ★ Radar ★ Rodics OffCourseStokes

  • Than_BoganThan_Bogan Posts: 6,952 Mega Baller
    edited August 2010
    Ok, I'll bite:  What the heck <em>is</em> this boat we're talking about?
    Nathaniel Bogan -- GUT Padawan
  • thagerthager Posts: 5,312 Mega Baller
    I think it's a 99 SN 196. Paul put a carbon swim platform on it and claims the slalom wake was much improved. Bunch of hoohey if you ask me!!
    Stir vigorously then leave!
  • tru-jacktru-jack Posts: 241 Baller
    thager, agreed. but don't forget he also repalced the rear floor board with a carbon one and almost saved 20lbs... less than a .25 tank of gas or a small post ski cooler in total weight difference.
  • HortonHorton Posts: 31,040 Administrator
    <p>
    What does a tank of fuel weigh?
    </p>
    <p>
    I know when a boat is on fumes I always change my settings, bindings and fin. I also change my skiing from a semi-neo-mid-old school to a half-reverse new school.
    </p>
    <p>
     No wait... no I do not feel any difference.
    </p>
    <p>
    Add a tower or BIG folks up front, the rooster at 28 can grow a bit with some boats.
    </p>

    Support BallOfSpray by supporting the companies that support BallOfSpray

    Barts★ Connelly ★ DBSkis ★ Denali ★ Goode ★ Follow ★ Hobe Lake ★ MasterCraft ★ Masterline ★ 

    McClintock's ★ Performance Ski and Surf ★ Reflex ★ Radar ★ Rodics OffCourseStokes

  • Than_BoganThan_Bogan Posts: 6,952 Mega Baller
    edited August 2010
    <p>
    7 lbs per gallon (EDITED!  This is wrong -- actually 6 lbs per gallon) is an adequate density figure for approximating the weight of gasoline, so that's around 200 lbs difference from full to empty on a modern 30-ish gallon tank.
    </p>
    <p>
    That said, the placement of the weight <em>could</em> be very important?  There might be a reason the fuel is right where it is?
    </p>
    <p>
    Btw, if the weight of the platform makes so much difference (and I remain on the skeptical list on that one), did you try just removing it?  I think I'd want the result of that experiment before I'd design any further experiments around the platform.
    </p>
    Nathaniel Bogan -- GUT Padawan
  • thagerthager Posts: 5,312 Mega Baller
    Don't forget the water in the bilge!!
    Stir vigorously then leave!
  • tru-jacktru-jack Posts: 241 Baller
    agreed, my lxi has a 41 gallon tank, and I can't tell if it's full or not, but toss in my ex-pro linebacker father in law and you kinda notice, It's about 300 extra lbs in the seat beside my already non svelt 200lb ski partners and we have some serious crew weight, even still not much of a difference. My problem exists entirely between my ears... couldn't stop laughing during pullout from one of our boat crew referring to his wife as the "handbrake"...for me at least giggling like a school girl is much more distracting than a few extra lbs...
  • thagerthager Posts: 5,312 Mega Baller
    edited August 2010
    All the above mentioned weight items while not improving the wake will help tone down ZO!
    Stir vigorously then leave!
  • RogerRoger Posts: 1,596 Mega Baller
    <p>
    <strong>Thanimal, gasoline weight:</strong>
    </p>
    <p>
    <strong>2.69 to 2.91 kg (5.93 to 6.42 lbs), depending on temperature, type and blend (e.g. with methanol, water, benzene etc.)</strong>
    </p>
    <p>
    Most people I've heard discuss it (from my auto racing days) just said 6lbs/gal.
    </p>
    <p>
     
    </p>
    <p>
    I agree that on my 2002 SN, and now my 2009 SN and my ski partners 2000 SN, I can't tell the difference between full and empty tanks as a skier.
    </p>
    <p>
     
    </p>
    Roger B. Clark - Okeeheelee skier. Senior driver, Senior Judge
  • RogerRoger Posts: 1,596 Mega Baller
    <p>
    thager, I believe the more weight at the boat end, the better for ZO. I believe this is why the 200 feels softer to most skiers than the 196 did, more mass takes longer to speed up/slow down and tends to keep it's speed better as the skier pulls. A lighter boat that the skier can really effect with the pull would be applying more throttle to compensate, not less (IMO). One of my ski partners is Harold Hintringer who runs regularly into 41 at 55k. He uses C1 behind his 2009 SN, but uses C2 behind the 200 to get the same "zing."
    </p>
    <p>
     
    </p>
    Roger B. Clark - Okeeheelee skier. Senior driver, Senior Judge
  • Than_BoganThan_Bogan Posts: 6,952 Mega Baller
    <p>
    6 lbs per gallon, huh?  I stand corrected!
    </p>
    <p>
    I guess I've had that filed wrong in my head for about the last 30 years!
    </p>
    Nathaniel Bogan -- GUT Padawan
  • eleeskieleeski Posts: 3,989 Infinite Pandas
    <p>
    Weight at the rear of the boat will raise the bow and cause the boat to push more. The wakes will grow larger. I weight the back of the boat to make the trick wakes bigger - it is a real effect.
    </p>
    <p>
    The MC fuel tank is ~15 gal. Difference between full and empty is about 90 pounds. I add at least that much for tricks. My old Marlin skier was a horrible slalom wake with full 40 gallon tanks and one of the best when empty. Weight at the back of the boat is most critical for the feel of the wakes.
    </p>
    <p>
    The 200 has an interesting hull design. Several unique features soften the wake and the pull. The size and weight of the boat plus the added drag from the hydrogate leave little excess horsepower and give a soft slalom pull. Perhaps weight in the front of this boat will make the wake worse - I don't have enough 200 time to know. The trick wake is very small, flat and soft. Adding weight to the rear of the 200 makes the trick wake bigger.
    </p>
    <p>
    Weight in the front of my MC makes the slalom wake better. Throwing the extra spectator in the bow seats is standard proceedure.
    </p>
    <p>
    It is possible that weight in the front of the boat might make the propwash come out of the water more. At deep shortline the propwash might be more critical than the wake size. Of course, if the boat is a lot lighter the propwash won't need to push as much water so it might be softer even if it is more pronounced.
    </p>
    <p>
    Shark's project is cool and valid.
    </p>
    <p>
    Eric
    </p>
  • Jody_SealJody_Seal Posts: 3,376 Mega Baller
    <p>
    Back in the day when I was in the R&D dept at CC I did quite a lot of ski testing with and with out the floor board,platform and in some instances without the whole top of the boat. Anyway I do find it a little hard to swallow that loosing around 25-30 pounds total in the rear of a 196 or 99 ski nautique has any noticable effect on the slalom wake. now remove 200 pounds yea! that will have an effect. I played around with a 97 that had the fuel tank in front of the motor ( well it was a 5 gal outboard tank under the deck with a few lead weights for extra representation of fuel) now this boat had no 22 off bump and did have an impact on overall wake size as it was noticably smaller. 
    </p>
    <p>
    I am trying to Get Nautiques to offer a teak platform for the 200, I know it will add about 10 pounds but wood is sure easier on the ski bottoms then Gel coat. 
    </p>
    Hobby Boats can be expensive when the hobbyist is limited on their own skill and expertise.


  • DWDW Posts: 2,369 Mega Baller
    <p>
    There are two components to the story or thread here, one is simply total weight and the other is location.  Reducing total weight certainly helps, and lets make the assumption for this that it is evenly done across the length of the boat or perhaps done at the engine (ie:  LS v. LT engines were the LS has lots of aluminum and less weight).  Pull a fair amount out and it is noticable, I have done that on my particular boat.  Location, that is actually a simple teeter totter example, take some out of the back and the teeter totter raises the tail, reverse and the nose comes up, pivoting around the center of gravity, approximately near the pylon/engine.  Most effective areas to best take advantage of this effect is at the very ends of the boat, so the platform or the running light at the front.  That is also why fuel can be a noticible change considering there can be 180# (30 gals) of fuel on board one of these boats, since it is weight and at one end.    That is one of the reasons behind where the Infinity fuel tank was located (midship), keeping a constant balance.
    </p>
    <p>
    Eric also brings up a good point about pitching the boat making the propwash change, much like the jets on a sauna where angling them changes the water characteristics on or near the surface if aimed reasonably close.
    </p>
  • eleeskieleeski Posts: 3,989 Infinite Pandas
    <p>
    I believe that Coast Guard rules prefer fuel in the rear of the boat. Small gas tanks solve the balance issues.
    </p>
    <p>
    Brick replaced his big gas tank with a 5 gallon outboard tank. It worked quite well and was easy to refuel - clip in a new tank! 
    </p>
    <p>
    Eric
    </p>
  • ForrestGumpForrestGump Posts: 6,243
    <p>
    A valid comparison is a Malibu RLXI with a wedge and without. That's about 80-100 lbs hanging off the transom. With the wedge stowed up, the wake is huge and very hard. Unbolt it and the size and hardness diminish.
    </p>
    Shane "Crash" Hill

  • tru-jacktru-jack Posts: 241 Baller
    shaneh, I have a wedge on my boat but it's currently not on the boat as we lost a pin.  I have replaced but haven't got around to re-installing, but it's closer to 10-15 lbs not 80-100.  I'm guessing by memory on the 10-15 but its not that heavy as my 2 year old can easily pick it up.  I don't notice the difference with it on or off either.  It's much lighter than the difference from .25 to full tank of fuel as I recall the tank is about 40us gallons.  I don't even notice the fuel difference though.
  • Wakes are so low they're spooking me. Kinda like this thread.


    <object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/qbNfvcl1VGA?fs=1&hl=en_US"></param><param
    name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/qbNfvcl1VGA?fs=1&hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="385"></embed></object>
  • MattPMattP Posts: 6,287 Mega Baller
    do you have any before and after video of you skiing behind the boat to put in a side-by-side for us to see?
  • east tx skiereast tx skier Posts: 598 Solid Baller
    Okay, so carbon fiber swim platform and glove box cover.  I think I read something about carbon fiber floorboard.  Back seat is gone.  Probably running low on the gas.  Anything else I'm missing.  I messed with weight in the bow and didn't love the results on my 98.  Wake and tracking seemed as good as before or a negligible difference at the longer line lengths.  Handled like a pig at idle and sluggish out of the hole (this is with 45 lbs in the nose).  I should probably take the back seat out more often, but it's so easy to hide things under it.
    Perpetual Longline Baller and curvy ski boat owner.
    My real name is in my profile.

  • Chef23Chef23 Posts: 6,066 Mega Baller
    Wouldn't you rather practice behind something with wakes that are a little bigger. That way you don't get surprised when you go to a tournament.
    Mark Shaffer
  • east tx skiereast tx skier Posts: 598 Solid Baller
    Kind of hard with a 98 Ski. <img src="http://www.ballofspray.com/vanillaforum/js/tinymce/jscripts/tiny_mce/plugins/emotions/images/smiley-laughing.gif" border="0" alt="Laughing" title="Laughing" />
    Perpetual Longline Baller and curvy ski boat owner.
    My real name is in my profile.

Sign In or Register to comment.