boat that failed AWSA certification
Mark Kovalcson
when they were done designing their boat. The company in question is
MasterCraft. The fact that lots of competitors witnessed the event and
spread the news quickly was a real public relations black eye, but the
ProStar they currently have in production hasn't had any mishaps in the
tournaments it has pulled and appears to be safe and stable.
Grubbster wrote:
>
> Could someone fill me in on the "leading boat manufacturer" that failed
> AWSA certification? Which one was it? This was mentioned in Ask Dr. Bob's
> column from January 98, and I can't find any information on it.
> Thanks for any info you can give me.
Grubbster
erich zellmer
>
> This information won't buy you anything since they later recertified
> when they were done designing their boat. The company in question is
> MasterCraft. The fact that lots of competitors witnessed the event and
> spread the news quickly was a real public relations black eye, but the
> ProStar they currently have in production hasn't had any mishaps in the
> tournaments it has pulled and appears to be safe and stable.
>
> Grubbster wrote:
> >
erich zellmer
One of the Pfankuchs
>
> This information won't buy you anything since they later recertified
> when they were done designing their boat. The company in question is
> MasterCraft. The fact that lots of competitors witnessed the event and
> spread the news quickly was a real public relations black eye, but the
> ProStar they currently have in production hasn't had any mishaps in the
> tournaments it has pulled and appears to be safe and stable.
Appears to be safe and stable . . . but what will it be like in the
future when it is out of warranty?
Wonder how the insurance campanies will handle any future problems?
Just my thought provoking questions to ponder!
Pete
Eric Barnhart
digging up smut against the other guys.
Perhaps you should dig a little deeper and see what other major ski boat
manufacturers have failed to pass the test the first go around over the last
several years.
"Don't worry about the speck of dust in your brother's eye when you've got a
2x4 in your own!"
Sybil
any model of boat that has not been "certified", and
also to be aware of the warranty periods of such boats.
When the warranty period runs out, I'm sure the posting
will appear here in rsw. The warning will go out at
that time "do not stand on the beach when the offending
craft approaches".
Or not!
Art Kotz
That's a good point. Do you have some info on other boats that have failed? I
have no personal bias toward MC or SN or any of the other comp boat
manufacturers, but am interested in the answers. I would guess many following
this thread before it degenerates into a "shouting" match might be interested as
well.
Art Kotz
Opinions expressed herein are my own and may not represent those of my employer.
Bill
extra fin on the bottom are patches for a bigger problem, which is (I hear) the hull
design is prone to "chine lock".
--
Bill - bi...@airjunky.com
http://airjunky.com
Mark Kovalcson
>
> That's a good point. Do you have some info on other boats that have failed? I have no personal bias toward MC or SN or any of the other comp boat manufacturers, but am interested in the answers. I would guess many following this thread before it degenerates into a "shouting" match might be interested as well.
As I understand it a CC had a retest because a dealership had ground a
rudder one way and they ground it back before testing reducing the area
of the rudder. Once a new rudder was installed the test went fine.
I'm sure there are lots of things that have happened during those tests
over the years, and since the advent of the internet it is now possible
for information to spread very fast, that was easily contained before.
Since MC has "historically" been in the cat birds seat in the tournament
ski boat buisness, everybody watches them closely looking for chinks in
their armor and that is what happened last summer.
ray_pulley
>
>Correct me if I'm wrong here, but it looks to me like the rudder redesign & the
>extra fin on the bottom are patches for a bigger problem, which is (I hear) the
>hull
>design is prone to "chine lock".
>--
>Bill - bi...@airjunky.com
>http://airjunky.com
>
>Art Kotz wrote:
>
>> Eric Barnhart wrote:
>>
>> > You guys are unbelievable. You should go to work for a political party
>> > digging up smut against the other guys.
>> >
>> > Perhaps you should dig a little deeper and see what other major ski boat
>>> manufacturers have failed to pass the test the first go around over the last
>> > several years.
>> >
>>> "Don't worry about the speck of dust in your brother's eye when you've got a
>> > 2x4 in your own!"
>>
>> have no personal bias toward MC or SN or any of the other comp boat
>>manufacturers, but am interested in the answers. I would guess many following
>>this thread before it degenerates into a "shouting" match might be interested as
>> well.
>>
>>
>>Opinions expressed herein are my own and may not represent those of my employer.
>
>
>
>
>
>
It seems to me that there have to be other failures, and there are certainly
many that do not bother due to the time and expense, or the addition of a
feature in the design that disqulifies the boat (TAPS comes to mind, which is a
nice feature on an otherwise tourney hull).
As for political dirt digging, nonsense. This stuff is simple fact, and may or
may not be of interest to those that read this group (it is to me). I had read
about problems in WS tests that seemed to be explained by the designers as over
eagerness to introduce this design feature before intended, and therefore before
all of the bugs were worked out. Maybe so, maybe not.
What interests me is the concern over the warranty. How does this apply? Are
people having problems and taking the boat back for work/adjustments during the
warranty period? What are these problems? If so, and the problem persists, I
believe that the manufacturer would have to fix this problem out of warranty if
it popped up again and could be shown to be the same as that which was addressed
before. If it turns out to be a dangerous problem of some kind, I cannot imagine
that MC would ignore it in or out of warranty. Too much liability.
Lastly, I have to wonder at the intended purpose of the foil on the rudder. How
is more drag at the stern beneficial? I would also think that turns where the
boat banks a little would be interesting. My experience with I/O foils is that
they are a little spooky in high speed turns (and yes they are much bigger and
trimmable, so it is not apples to apples) and that they tend to "hook" or bite
sometimes.
As for a fourth fin, does the MC have some tracking problem, or is this just
more marketing gadgetry? I have always read that they were world class here
(although SN probably gets the nod for overall best). The Centurion articulating
fin system has to be the best tracking design innovation in recent years, IMO.
It would be interesting to hear from some calm MC owners on this one.
Ray
Bill
of the hull to create an "anti-spray" effect. Along with that came a tendancy to
"chine lock" or fall over in a turn & also a tracking effect (or lack of). The
addition to the rudder helped to keep the hull down in a turn & the 4th fin increased
the tracking.
BTW, I ride behind two different Prostars regularly, an '88 & a '94, both of which I
think are awesome boats (especially as far as tracking, cornering & driveability) so
I'm definitely not biased towards SN or any other brand of boat. I'd love to hear some
facts to disclaim or prove any of this.
erich zellmer
started porpoising at speeds above 40. is this common or just in 98's?
Did this hull get out with a hook in it as was rumored about the hull
that failed the test? I'll try it before I buy it!
erich zellmer
>
> Correct me if I'm wrong here, but it looks to me like the rudder redesign & the
> extra fin on the bottom are patches for a bigger problem, which is (I hear) the hull
> design is prone to "chine lock".
> --
> Bill - bi...@airjunky.com
> http://airjunky.com
>
> Art Kotz wrote:
>
> > Eric Barnhart wrote:
> >
> > > You guys are unbelievable. You should go to work for a political party
> > > digging up smut against the other guys.
> > >
> > > Perhaps you should dig a little deeper and see what other major ski boat
> > > manufacturers have failed to pass the test the first go around over the last
> > > several years.
> > >
> > > "Don't worry about the speck of dust in your brother's eye when you've got a
> > > 2x4 in your own!"
> >
> > That's a good point. Do you have some info on other boats that have failed? I
> > have no personal bias toward MC or SN or any of the other comp boat
> > manufacturers, but am interested in the answers. I would guess many following
> > this thread before it degenerates into a "shouting" match might be interested as
> > well.
> >
> > Art Kotz
> >
> > Opinions expressed herein are my own and may not represent those of my employer.
erich zellmer
Mark Lenox
> Forget last summer, why is this boat left on the trailer at tournaments?
> Or if used, its only for mens 3, no women, no children. Whats the
> problem?
> MC's new rudder hasn't been the answer. Has anyone else been witness to
> this tournament attitude toward the PS190?
I have seen this attitude expressed by people who's judgment and opinion
I respect. Apparently, there is a pretty strong feeling that the wakes
are particularly bad at 15 and 22 off. Shorter line lengths are fine.
Tricks are fine. I have no feedback on jump.
This is how I see it:
Personally, I don't see how the slalom wakes could be any worse than a
Malibu (not the very best slalom wakes, but not "bad" by a long shot),
and it is certainly substantially better than any Correct Craft built up
until 1990. As the boats have improved immensely over the last 10
years, so have our standards for performance.
Our demands on tournament boats have widened considerably lately. It
always has been difficult to build a good 3-event boat (slalom, trick
and jump). Usually they are good for slalom and jump and bad for
tricks, or vice versa. The inboard boating market is substantially
influenced these days by wakeboarding, which is encouraging boat
builders to build boats that will wakeboard (and trick!) better, but
this happens at the expense of slalom performance. It is a difficult
balancing act, with many boat sales hanging in the balance, in a
difficult market. A few bad decisions could destroy a boat builder very
quickly.
Tournament skiers are heavily dominated by slalom junkies. So when a
boat comes out that is less than absolutely perfect for slalom (but in
reality pretty darn good overall), they whine and squeal pretty badly.
So sorry. MC and Malibu both wakeboard and trick better than the
current SN (CC builds the Air Nautique specifically for those areas).
If they don't slalom quite as well, so be it, you have other options if
you're willing to pay the price. All around performance is becoming the
name of the game. MC and Malibu both have an edge on CC in this
respect, even if the traditional tournament skiers haven't realized it
yet.
If anybody wants to ski behind a really lousy slalom boat, try an '89 or
older Ski Nautique. After doing so, I assure you that you'll never
complain about a slalom wake from any of the modern boats again.
Mark Lenox
Former Men II U.S. National Trick Champion
AWSA Rated Judge
All around ski bum and troublemaker
scarlson
heart-stopping experience last night and before I go berate MC for the
occurance, I thought I'd get some other opinions. I'm still not clear
as to the cause of the failed AWSA certification you've been discussing
(does someone mind re-capping?) but maybe the problem I've just run into
is related.
I was making a right turn at the end of our club ski lake pulling a
skier behind our '98 MC ProStar 190 when the boat failed to respond to
the turn, as though the rudder was non-existant. I came out of what
began as a standard turn-around and headed right toward shore, nearly
beaching the boat (I did ground it). Has anyone had an experience like
this (possible hydrostatic lock?) on the MC or any other inboard for
that matter?
Steve C
EFW5414
EFW5414
>older Ski Nautique.
Aint' that the truth.
Tim Neal
Hammrski
>>older Ski Nautique.
>
The funny thing about this is that out here in California, owners looking to
sell these older 2001's are getting OVER high blue book. We see it every day,
they put at the front of their ad, "wakeboard special" and it usually sells in
the first week. I can't get anyone even close to trading one in, they are
just too high in demand right now.
Jim
Jim
www.hammerski.com
Hammer's Ski & Marine, inc.
Petaluma-Rancho Cordova Ca.
John Anderson
>
>>>If anybody wants to ski behind a really lousy slalom boat, try an '89 or
>>>older Ski Nautique.
>>
>
>The funny thing about this is that out here in California, owners looking to
>sell these older 2001's are getting OVER high blue book. We see it every day,
>they put at the front of their ad, "wakeboard special" and it usually sells in
>the first week. I can't get anyone even close to trading one in, they are
>just too high in demand right now.
>
It's too bad you can't get them with the higher output (285+) HP
engines. Maybe one of the smaller boat companies should copy the
older 2001 with a new engine and sell em for under $20k.
John Anderson
www.magicnet.net/~johna
Mark Lenox
> they put at the front of their ad, "wakeboard special" and it usually sells in
> the first week. I can't get anyone even close to trading one in, they are
> just too high in demand right now.
Wakeboarding is getting alot bigger than anybody realized it would.
Funny how that happens.
Mark Lenox
Mark Lenox
2001 Nautiques are probably only exceeded as wakeboard boats by the
current Air Nautique. $/air with the old 2001 is pretty hard to beat.
Mark Lenox
Bob Scibienski
had a humongous tail at 22 off, but it was relatively soft. That American Skier
tail was HARD!
bOB
Mark Lenox <le...@cti-pet.com-nospam> wrote:
>If anybody wants to ski behind a really lousy slalom boat, try an '89 or
scarlson
>
> This must be a joke- right?
This is absolutely NOT a joke. I've driven many different boats in many
different settings and I've never run into anything like this. I've
made this turn on our club's competition lake hundreds of times in our
MC ProStar, our SN and our Malibu. Since this happened two days ago,
I've just started looking into possible causes and I was surprised to
see a discussion on this type of problem on this exact boat. I'm now
trying to understand what "chine lock" is and if that is what happened.
The total weight in the boat was approximately 440 lbs: 175 lbs in the
driver's seat, 265 lbs on the spotter's bench seat. I was pulling a 160
lb skier.
It sounds like this is quite an inflammatory subject based on some of
the discussion I've seen. My apologies to these sensitive folks - I
just want to get to the bottom of this.
scarlson
The total weight in the boat was approximately 440 lbs: 175 lbs in the
driver's seat, 265 lbs on the spotter's bench seat. I was pulling a 160
lb skier.
Steve
Chet Lenox
>> > scarlson wrote in message <35C76D...@hp.com>...
>> > I was making a right turn at the end of our club ski lake pulling a
>> > skier behind our '98 MC ProStar 190 when the boat failed to respond to
>> > the turn, as though the rudder was non-existant. I came out of what
Scarlson, was this a "Rudder-wing equiped" '98 MC? It would be interesting
to note that MC's fix may not have completely solved the problem.
Chet.
One of the Pfankuchs
> I was making a right turn at the end of our club ski lake pulling a
> skier behind our '98 MC ProStar 190 when the boat failed to respond to
> the turn, as though the rudder was non-existant. I came out of what
> beaching the boat (I did ground it). Has anyone had an experience like
> this (possible hydrostatic lock?) on the MC or any other inboard for
> that matter?
>
> Steve C
>
This is exactly what I suggested might happen . . . the boat passed the
AWSA test but is it safe? It appears that there is still a potential
problem lurking . . . I would not want to put myself or anyone else at
risk.
It seems that we need an Independent Boat Testing Organization . . . or
at least one that is not financially tied to any of the companies
involved . . . any cost effective suggestions out there?
Pete
ps I try to return the boat or sell it to some MC lover!
Phil Yastrow
> >> > skier behind our '98 MC ProStar 190 when the boat failed to respond to
> >> > the turn, as though the rudder was non-existant. I came out of what
>
> to note that MC's fix may not have completely solved the problem.
>
> Chet.
How do you identify the rudder wing? Is it obvious?
Phil
Tom Evans
Bob Scibienski wrote in message <6q7kev$n6m$1...@mark.ucdavis.edu>...
>Excuse me, but the mid '80's American Skier takes this prize. The 2001
indeed
>had a humongous tail at 22 off, but it was relatively soft. That American
Skier
>tail was HARD!
>
>bOB
Yeah, but what a solid boat that was.
Mark Kovalcson
>
> involved . . . any cost effective suggestions out there?
I know a number of us would like to be involved in something like this,
Greg Wait mentioned he would be interested, I think Tom Ruta and myself
would be interested.
There is a problem in addition to the funds to get the boats and test
them. Let's say a group of us tested this new MC and were able to cause
it to chine lock repeatedly. What would keep MC from sueing us when we
released the results. Consumer's Union has been sued a number of times.
Each time they won, but at what cost in lawyers fees. A good example
was the Suzuki Side Kick. After Consumers Union released footage of it
flipping over during a lane change check, Suzuki went nuts.
The point I am making is that in order to actually say something bad
about a boat, even if it is true, you need substantial financial
backing.
Rating a boat for ergonomics, performance and build quality would be a
lot less of a liability, but it wouldn't save someone from buying a
truely bad boat.
Mark Lenox
> How do you identify the rudder wing? Is it obvious?
>
> Phil
It has about a 4" wide horizontal stabilizer welded to it near the
bottom, and three big holes drilled in the side near the trailing edge.
Unlike any rudder you've ever seen. Very obvious. MC started using it
as a fix to some steering "authority" concerns.
Mark Lenox
Mark Lenox
>
> Excuse me, but the mid '80's American Skier takes this prize. The 2001 indeed
> had a humongous tail at 22 off, but it was relatively soft. That American Skier
> tail was HARD!
>
> bOB
Yep, those were pretty bad too. I skied behind one in the '83
Nationals. Not my worst performance, but certainly not my best.
Mark Lenox
Tim Neal
hammered it about 1/2 way into the turn. The boat banked for the turn, then went right for shore.
Tim
scarlson wrote:
> Tim,
>
> The total weight in the boat was approximately 440 lbs: 175 lbs in the
> driver's seat, 265 lbs on the spotter's bench seat. I was pulling a 160
> lb skier.
>
> Steve
>
> Tim Neal wrote:
> >
> > How much weight was in the boat and where exactly was it?
> >
> > scarlson wrote:
> >
> > > Sorry to get in on this conversation so late, but I just had a
> > > heart-stopping experience last night and before I go berate MC for the
> > > occurance, I thought I'd get some other opinions. I'm still not clear
> > > as to the cause of the failed AWSA certification you've been discussing
> > > (does someone mind re-capping?) but maybe the problem I've just run into
> > > is related.
> > >
> > > I was making a right turn at the end of our club ski lake pulling a
> > > skier behind our '98 MC ProStar 190 when the boat failed to respond to
> > > the turn, as though the rudder was non-existant. I came out of what
> > > began as a standard turn-around and headed right toward shore, nearly
> > > beaching the boat (I did ground it). Has anyone had an experience like
> > > this (possible hydrostatic lock?) on the MC or any other inboard for
> > > that matter?
> > >
> > > Steve C
> > >
One of the Pfankuchs
> just want to get to the bottom of this.
It seems that in the quest to "build a better mouse trap" the
manufacturer has created some new handling problems.
It would seem that there is not enough water around the rudder to steer
the boat properly (under certain conditions) so the rudder has little or
no effect.
Normally (?) you might have this occur if there was a lot of weight in
the front of the boat and little or none in the back end. How much fuel
was in the boat?
Perhaps people with inboard open bows could have a similiar problem with
a couple of large people in the front, no one in the back (other than
the driver), little gas in the tank and a quick turn? Anybody want to
test this theory?
Outboards are unlike to have this type of problem as the motor in the
back should stay in the water and thus the boat able to turn!
Pete
Chet Lenox
interesting
>> to note that MC's fix may not have completely solved the problem.
>
Like Mark mentioned, it's extremely obvious, you can't miss it. An
excellent article explaining the rudder along with photos can be found at
Greg Wait's site:
http://www.behindtheboat.com/rudder.htm
I'd be interested to hear what MC has to say about your predicament. I'm
assuming they will strap one of those new winged rudders on free of charge
(and maybe another fin?), but maybe not. I didn't know they had sold many
of the '98s without the new rudder. Anybody that knows more (Lurking MC
dealer perhaps?) than me could speak up.
Interestingly enough, I browsed Mastercraft's web site looking for a photo
of the winged rudder for you, and didn't find it mentioned at all in the new
"'99 Showroom" section. If I remember right, it was prominentlly displayed
as a "technological advance" for last year's models.
Chet.
Little778
>of the winged rudder for you, and didn't find it mentioned at all in the new
>"'99 Showroom" section. If I remember right, it was prominentlly displayed
>as a "technological advance" for last year's models.
>
>Chet.
>
I have to agree. Pretty interesting. The new '99 brochure I picked up at the
show this weekend has no pictures either. And the only thing mentioned in the
literature toward this is the Positve Pressure Tracking System and the Pro Wake
II Hull but no elaboration on what these things are.
Jim Little
Tom Ruta
...
>Interestingly enough, I browsed Mastercraft's web site looking for a photo
>of the winged rudder for you, and didn't find it mentioned at all in the new
>"'99 Showroom" section. If I remember right, it was prominentlly displayed
>as a "technological advance" for last year's models.
It is at
http://www.mastercraft.com/showroom/prostar190.html.
There's no picture, though.
Tom
Mark Kovalcson
>
> I have to agree. Pretty interesting. The new '99 brochure I picked up at the show this weekend has no pictures either. And the only thing mentioned in the literature toward this is the Positve Pressure Tracking System and the Pro Wake II Hull but no elaboration on what these things are.
I'm willing to bet they got LOTS of negative response to it and withdrew
any mention of it to save face and not draw attention to it. No one I
have talked to has seen it as a positive advancement.
Chet Lenox
You are right:
"The revolutionary new Positive Pressure Tracking System® combines quad
fins, a radical dual-plane rudder and the second generation ProWake™II hull
for precision-straight runs, quick, tight turns and lower, softer
roostertail with less spray. "
I must have missed it the first time. Do I also read it right that the '99
MC has a new hull design? The ProWake II? Perhaps they have modified the
hull again in order to reduce the reported 15/22 off wake problem with the
'98s. They are definitely still leaving that "dual-plane rudder" on though.
Just not crowing about it too much. I think most folks realized it wasn't
an "enhancement" as much as a band-aid.
Chet.
Tom Ruta
>... Do I also read it right that the '99
>MC has a new hull design? The ProWake II? Perhaps they have modified the
>hull again in order to reduce the reported 15/22 off wake problem with the
>'98s.
It appears as though the new and improved PWII is only on
the ProStar 190. The others sport the 1997 hull methinks.
>They are definitely still leaving that "dual-plane rudder" on though.
>Just not crowing about it too much. I think most folks realized it wasn't
>an "enhancement" as much as a band-aid.
Ya got that right! And we all think we know why the 1999
rudder was added <g>.
Tom
scarlson
rudder. Well, I've inspected our boat and have verified that the '98 MC
ProStar 190 that I experienced this problem on DOES HAVE the "new and
improved" Wonder Rudder. We've gotten a contact name at Mastercraft
from our dealer so we'll see where this leads us. Stay tuned...
Steve
Chet Lenox wrote:
>
> >> Scarlson, was this a "Rudder-wing equiped" '98 MC? It would be
> interesting
> >> to note that MC's fix may not have completely solved the problem.
> >
> >How do you identify the rudder wing? Is it obvious?
>
> Like Mark mentioned, it's extremely obvious, you can't miss it. An
> excellent article explaining the rudder along with photos can be found at
> Greg Wait's site:
>
> http://www.behindtheboat.com/rudder.htm
>
> I'd be interested to hear what MC has to say about your predicament. I'm
> assuming they will strap one of those new winged rudders on free of charge
> (and maybe another fin?), but maybe not. I didn't know they had sold many
> of the '98s without the new rudder. Anybody that knows more (Lurking MC
> dealer perhaps?) than me could speak up.
>
> Interestingly enough, I browsed Mastercraft's web site looking for a photo
> of the winged rudder for you, and didn't find it mentioned at all in the new
> "'99 Showroom" section. If I remember right, it was prominentlly displayed
> as a "technological advance" for last year's models.
>
> Chet.
EFW5414
They have to,if they take it off now it will be like getting caught with their
pants down.
Tom Ruta
Till next year when the Positive Pressure Tracking System
Series II is announced; sans wings of course....
Tom
Sybil
major financial backing. If they sue you and you have
nothing, that ends that. Form a non-profit limited
liability partnership where after costs, all the profits
go to charity.
Dave Tozer
tournaments already this summer. One of the BIGGEST items of discussion
this year is the 1998 MasterCraft. I own a 1986 MasterCraft that I dearly
love. 1994 is the last year I would even consider buying as far as an MC
is concerned. My ski club held the IWSA (Indiana Water Ski Association)
spring kickoff this year at our site in Fairland, Indiana. This was my
first chance to drive and ski behind the '98.
First of all everyone heard about the boat failing the AWSA test. It
wouldn't turn. The "Patented" rudder system they came out with was a quick
band-aid to fix the biggest blunder I could see MC making. The boat had too
much lift to it and was increasing the air to water ratio flowing by the
rudder. Less water and more air going by the rudder means less turning
force. The end result was a failure in the AWSA test in the turning
department.
You will notice 3 things about your '98 ProStar that MC wants consumers to
believe are market innovations. These are all additional band-aids for the
turning problem. First, a fourth skeg, or fin in the mid section of the
boat. Second, your rudder has holes drilled through the trailing edge. The
goal is to get more water on the surface of the rudder and help turn the
boat. Third, the "wing" on the rudder is often compared to a wing attached
to many high-performance slalom skis. The wing on the MC is set up in the
opposite manor. The wing on the ProStar has the leading edge higher than
the trailing edge, which is designed to force the bow of the boat down on
the water. With more of the bow in the water, the air to water ratio back
at the rudder should lower, helping the boat to turn at "high" speed. This
is an unconfirmed opinion of mine, but I think this is where the low speed
turning problem comes from that you found. My guess is that some type of
"chine lock" or similar surface adhesion problem is at play.
During our IWSA Spring Kickoff, one of our most seasoned boat drivers nearly
ran over a person in the water, when he experienced the exact driving fiasco
you described. He was letting off the gas, the boat was decelerating and he
was trying to turn the boat. It went straight. I took the boat out for a
spin later that day and tried to duplicate the problem in a open part of the
lake. I had no problem finding the same problem. Practice duplicating the
problem and learn what kind of conditions it takes, in order to avoid them
during "normal" driving. I believe you can avoid these dangerous situations
as long as you know how they occur.
By the way, all of these turning problems came in the design of the hull.
Something MasterCraft has been getting worse and worse at through all of the
90's. The '98 is just the crowning achievement in idiocy. No one in
tournaments wants the MC to be put in the water. I had to ski behind one
last weekend at the Midwest Regional Championships in Wilmington, Illinois.
The wake at 15' off and 22' was so bad, I nearly fell. These two passes are
warm ups for me, but I almost lost it crossing the wakes. Everyone at
tournaments groans when the find out the MC is being used for their slalom
division. A seventh seeded skier threw the handle (intentionally quit) on
his first pass to "protest" the MC being used in his slalom division. In 10
years of competitive skiing I have never seen such poor design by one of the
all time, top inboard manufacturers.
Remember, I am the proud owner of a beautiful red and white 1986
MasterCraft. It has the 351 engine, PowerSlot transmission, and a safety
top (roll-bar with net). Each year I do more work on it and I like the boat
more and more as time goes on. I have gotten into 35' off at 36 MPH behind
it on the slalom course, and jumped nearly 100' behind it. This is a lot of
the reason I am so disappointed with MasterCraft now. They completely
strayed away from being a true 3-event tournament inboard ski boat. It is
sad. Right now the Ski Nautique is everything the MC is not. One of our
club members has a '98 SN and it is the total package. I think the '98 MC
looks better on the water, but I wouldn't buy one for 25% of dealer cost.
Sorry to rant, but this issue strikes home for me, both as a tournament
skier and as a MasterCraft owner.
Best of luck to you.
-Dave
(dto...@iquest.net)
scarlson wrote in message <35C5F0...@hp.com>...
HP Authorized Customer
The new Pro Wake II that you write of is for wake boarding
MATT
>
HP Authorized Customer
HP Authorized Customer
jstanton
Organization: CTS Network Services
Mime-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: rec.sport.waterski
On Fri, 7 Aug 1998 18:31:43 -0400, "Dave Tozer" <dto...@iquest.net>
wrote:
>opposite manor. The wing on the ProStar has the leading edge higher than
>the trailing edge, which is designed to force the bow of the boat down on
>the water. With more of the bow in the water, the air to water ratio back
>at the rudder should lower, helping the boat to turn at "high" speed. This
>is an unconfirmed opinion of mine, but I think this is where the low speed
>turning problem comes from that you found. My guess is that some type of
>"chine lock" or similar surface adhesion problem is at play.
>
The other way to look at it is the wing being an aid to design a
dual-purpose boat for wakeboarding and slalom skiing. The angle of the
wing would make sense in this case. For wakeboarding, a less than
50-50 weight distribution with more of the weight being in the back of
the boat is ideal. This would not be good for slalom which desires the
50-50 weight distribution. So the small wing would not provide enough
lift to bring the boat back to 50-50 until certain speeds are reached.
With that, you could design the angle and shape of the wing to kick in
when the boat reaches the high twenties.
I don't think MC is as dumb as this newsgroup likes to give credit to.
But, I also think that MC is not in one of it's brighter periods
either.
This is what I really think is going on: Malibu and MC have it right
in realizing that most of the buyers are into slalom and boarding. The
one who can figure out how to accommodate the serious skiers and
boarders in one boat will command a significant presence in boat
sales. The lead is Malibu right now with their patent wedge. They just
need to kick-up the slalom wake a notch. Also, they are not sharing
their patented wedge device either (perhaps some of the Malibu
employees in the newsgroup can confirm this). MC is trying the same
approach with other techniques to avoid patent infringement. This is
why we see the new hull and wings on the rudder. The wings were rushed
into production a year earlier to help with the steering problems.
Innovation doesn't come without a price. MC just needs to pay the
price more in prototypes rather than production. CC is sitting this
one out for reasons I don't see. Perhaps they are willing to let MC
get ahead to learn from their mistakes (if so, working quite well).
The risk to CC is that MC may end up with patents as well thus locking
CC out.
This makes sense to me. Does anybody really doubt that MC can make a
top-notch slalom boat. They already proved that with the 94 Prostar.
As discussed many times here before, MC can use the 94 hull with some
tweaks. They are not with the 99 line. So, its apparent that MC's
strategy is to build more than just a top-notch slalom boat. Outside
of boarding, what else can it be?
I have much respect for Malibu coming up with the wedge even though I
wished CC had done it (solely because that's the boat I own). Outside
of fuel injection, what other real boat innovations are there for the
90's?
SKIERJP
ruddder are for slalom not wakeboarding. This is done to lower the wake and
flatten the rooster tail.
Tom Ruta
<that wing thing...>
>I don't think MC is as dumb as this newsgroup likes to give credit to.
>But, I also think that MC is not in one of it's brighter periods
>either.
>
I'd say it is in a schizophrenic period. Some really bright
ideas (even if they are late) like the new open bow
SportStar exemplifies that.
...
>The risk to CC is that MC may end up with patents as well thus locking
>CC out.
>
At least CC still has a top flight slalom boat and a very
very good "all around boat" (the Air/Sport) to fall back on.
>This makes sense to me. Does anybody really doubt that MC can make a
>top-notch slalom boat. They already proved that with the 94 Prostar.
>As discussed many times here before, MC can use the 94 hull with some
>tweaks. They are not with the 99 line. So, its apparent that MC's
>strategy is to build more than just a top-notch slalom boat. Outside
>of boarding, what else can it be?
>
Entry level boats.
Here's my prediction. Another year of BS - then the winged
(s)he-devil gets moved to the ultra exclusive Sammy Series
and the 94 hull with next generation hull tweaks for low
speed wakes is introduced as the new, old ProStar Classic
II.
>I have much respect for Malibu coming up with the wedge even though I
>wished CC had done it (solely because that's the boat I own). Outside
>of fuel injection, what other real boat innovations are there for the
>90's?
I'd have to add that the open bow concept in "true" ski
boats and the towers are two more on the list.
Tom
HP Authorized Customer
HP Authorized Customer
HP Authorized Customer
Greg Wait
0cQy1.5184$1%4.12...@news2.randori.com...
>
>The new Pro Wake II that you write of is for wake boarding
No.
The new Pro Wake II combines last year's hull with add-on "winglets" that
are intended to reduce the rooster tail that many disliked from the '98
model. The winglets are available as an add-on to all existing '98 hulls.
I have no idea how they are attached, but they are added after the mold.
I was surprised to read not one word about this innovation on the new
MasterCraft website.
Greg Wait
http://www.behindtheboat.com
Bob Scibienski
> Outside
>of fuel injection, what other real boat innovations are there for the
>90's?
1. Wider hulls for reduced wake making (a real innovation)
2. Pockets or similar hull modifications for spray reduction (pockets were a
real innovation - IMHO)
3. The aforementioned wedge (another real innovation)
4. Speed control (like FI - a copy cat "innovation")
5. The winged rudder (quick fix or not, you can't argue that it's not
innovative, even if they did copy it from skis!)
6. Skylon / tower
7. I must be missing something - -
8. The '90's aren't over yet - - - - - - -
erich zellmer
Mark Lenox
> Does anybody really doubt that MC can make a
> top-notch slalom boat. They already proved that with the 94 Prostar.
That was '94, and the '99 model year is starting now. 5 years makes a
serious difference in the definition of "top-notch".
I don't think that the '94 Prostar hull will compete favorably with the
'97+ SN in slalom. I have driven, and skied both. The wakes may be as
good, or at least good enough, but they don't track as well, and they
have substantially more spray. For tricks, they are probably better.
Up until very recently, my best tournament performance in tricks was
pulled behind a '94 MC.
In my opinion, MC should not take two steps back to try and get one step
forward (although it may be better than one step forward to get two
steps back). If they want to be a player in this market, they
absolutely must build a boat that skis and drives as well or BETTER than
the '97+ SN. The '94 Prostar will not do it, and MC will still be left
playing second fiddle. This is a static market. If you don't play for
keeps, you don't play for very long. MC is finding this out the hard
way.
Just my opinion, of course.
Mark Lenox
Tom Ruta
...
>Cool, a 57 Chevy looking MasterCraft, HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
The fins seem to go well with the ever increasing size
,right Ray?
Tom