Tige Boats
clu...@pclink.com
I was looking a some Tige boats tonight. The Tige PRE 2000WT looks like it
would fit my needs. Anyone with experience with Tige boats? Am looking at
the TBI engine. Main skiing is in the slalom course. Is the TAPS worth
getting. How are the wakes at 34mph and 15-22 off? Any problems with the
hull? ETC.
Any comments on Brendella boats?
Mark Lenox
clu...@pclink.com wrote:
>
> I was looking a some Tige boats tonight. The Tige PRE 2000WT looks like it
> would fit my needs. Anyone with experience with Tige boats? Am looking at
> the TBI engine. Main skiing is in the slalom course. Is the TAPS worth
> getting. How are the wakes at 34mph and 15-22 off? Any problems with the
> hull? ETC.
>
> Any comments on Brendella boats?
I owned a '93 Brendella Pro Comp for 4 years. It was an absolutely
fantastic
experience. It skied great and we had almost zero problems with it
(a cupholder cracked, replaced under warranty). After 400 hours, no
rattles, no fading, PCM 285HP ran perfect, gelcoat was perfect, many
people thought it was brand new. Can't speak for the new ones as I
have no experience with them. I'd buy another
one in a minute if they were still AWSA rated and active enough to
pull at the Nationals. Even so, after all that use
I only lost about $3500 when I traded it in on a new boat. Can't
complain about that either.
Mark Lenox
Jeff Stanton
clu...@pclink.com wrote:
>
> I was looking a some Tige boats tonight. The Tige PRE 2000WT looks like it
> would fit my needs. Anyone with experience with Tige boats? Am looking at
> the TBI engine. Main skiing is in the slalom course. Is the TAPS worth
> getting. How are the wakes at 34mph and 15-22 off? Any problems with the
> hull? ETC.
>
I'm currently in the process of buying a boat. I did look at the Tige
boats
at my local dealer. However, I soon dropped interest when I learned that
the deck and stringers are wood. My first boat was wood as well and it
took
a pounding (normal season is about 100-150 hours for me). So, now only
Ski Nautique, Mastercraft, and Malibu are on my short list. It looks as
if
Malibu will drop off due to the stringer design.
Jeff
Bill Walker
In article <01bbf6cf$8fb09c40$3c00...@EISPSCb.netbios.mmm.com>,
<clu...@pclink.com> wrote:
>I was looking a some Tige boats tonight. The Tige PRE 2000WT looks like it
>would fit my needs. Anyone with experience with Tige boats? Am looking at
>the TBI engine. Main skiing is in the slalom course. Is the TAPS worth
>getting. How are the wakes at 34mph and 15-22 off? Any problems with the
>hull? ETC.
I have a '94 2002 fslm (pretty much the same as the current Pre 2002WT)
that I bought new in September of '93. If memory serves, I have about 800
hours on it. I had it retrofitted with TAPS last year. Our usage is as a
family recreational ski boat, with an occasional trip to the slalom course.
I've been very satisfied with the performance of the boat, and it's holding
up well. Adding TAPS added a little bit of turbulence behind the boat for
slalom, which isn't a big deal. It also made a huge difference in the
wakes at wakeboarding speeds. And TAPS allows you to trim the boat for
more efficient cruising and a better rough water ride. The only
reservation I have with my boat is with the very low bow in an open bow
boat, which doesn't apply to the closed bow boat you're contemplating.
----------------------------------------------
Bill Walker, QUALCOMM, Inc., San Diego, CA USA
WWa...@qualcomm.com
H2OSkiNutz
I would buy a Tige' over a Brendella hands down. The wakes behind a Tige'
are better than ANY other boat I have seen even at 32 and 34 MPH. The
Tige' won't track as well as some of the others, but its a great ride for
the skier. The build quality on a Tige' is better than a Brendella also.
Keep in mind that both of these boats have wood floors and stringers.
Happy Hunting :)
Scooter
clu...@pclink.com wrote:
>
> I was looking a some Tige boats tonight. The Tige PRE 2000WT looks like it
> would fit my needs. Anyone with experience with Tige boats? Am looking at
> the TBI engine. Main skiing is in the slalom course. Is the TAPS worth
> getting. How are the wakes at 34mph and 15-22 off? Any problems with the
> hull? ETC.
>
Many years behind many boats, Tige is at the top of my favorites list.
Taps works as good as advertised.
I mailed you earlier, I couldn't post to news board.
Ski ya later!
Scooter
borde...@aol.com
In article <32C978...@hp.com>, Jeff Stanton <jeff_s...@hp.com>
writes:
> So, now only
>Ski Nautique, Mastercraft, and Malibu are on my short list. It looks as
>if
>Malibu will drop off due to the stringer design.
Whoa...what is wrong with the Malibu stringer design ? ? If I am not
mistaken, they have a patented fiberglass stringer design. Am I missing
something ?
bl
Mark Kovalcson
I really doubt that any of the modern fiberglass stringers will fail.
New for 1996, Malibu runs hollow stringers to pass incoming air to the
engine and I believe blower air to evacuate gas fumes.
Here is another reason why Malibu can build a cheaper boat. They reduce
construction time and parts when they integrate something like this.
The only thing I would compare between these boats are engine mounting
systems. Nautique uses a large chuck of aluminum that they claim is
much stronger than steel. MasterCraft uses steel and Malibu uses a
fiberglass mounting system. Fiberglass is cheaper than aluminum and
steel and easier to work with hence lower cost.
I'd be willing to bet the Nautique system is stronger, but since I have
never seen any of these fail and Malibu is once again reducing costs and
then trying to sell its design as a feature. Malibu has done the best
marketing buy differenciating itself with a feature that lowers the cost
of constructing the boat and then telling the customer that they made an
improvement. This is one of the reasons they are sell more boats.
In 1994 Malibu made great claims for interior sound levels with the
Echelon. Since then this difference has all but vanished do to newer
louder fuel injected engines.
BTW the just noticable hearing difference is 3 decibels. You will not
hear a 1 dB difference between boats. A stereo amplifier must nearly
double its power to increase loudness by 3 dB.
--
Check out the Skiers of Knoxville Web Site
http://www.public.usit.net/kovalson
KENGIBBONS
Mark Kovalcson wrote:
>The only thing I would compare between these boats are engine mounting
>systems. Nautique uses a large chuck of aluminum that they claim is
>much stronger than steel. MasterCraft uses steel and Malibu uses a
>fiberglass mounting system. Fiberglass is cheaper than aluminum and
>steel and easier to work with hence lower cost.
Does Nautique say their aluminum frame frame is stronger than
MasterCraft's steel system, or just stronger than the steel used in some
other boats? Some of their advertizing zings are direct MC shots.
However, where a MC design feature is indisputeable, they still use the
"some" and it's automatically assumed that it must be MC.
Let's do some napkin engineering. Look at the modulus of elasticity for
aluminum and steel. You need a whole bunch more aluminum to equal the
strength of steel. Which means the section modulus of the structural
members needs to be a whole bunch higher. Compare the dimensions of MC's
steel plates with CC's aluminum angles. Who has the highest section
modulus? Now, when it looks like the MC section modulus is higher, and
the material is stronger, how can CC infer that they are stronger? Maybe
in this case they are talking about someone else.
When the mounting plates are integrated into the stringer, making broad
comparisons like I just did becomes extremely complicated. Like Finite
Element Analysis computer stress analysis complicated. And believe me,
FEAs aren't as easy as plugging numbers into a spread sheet. So, broad
claims are pretty hard to make.
So here's a broad claim anyway: I do not believe that CC's 20 lag bolts
(can you say "screws"?) into 1/4" aluminum is as strong as MasterCrafts 8
real bolts drilled and tapped into 3/8" steel (modulus of elasticity,
again). I am sure glad they did't use lag bolts on my LT-1's aluminum
heads ;-) I hate screws, but that's a personal opinion.
But since Malibu, MC, and CC Malibu have lifetime structural warranties,
it probably doesn't matter anyway. They're all nice boats.
Scooter
Don't forget the modulus of elasticity(E) is proportional to the tensile
strength of the material. For aluminum, "E" is about 10x10^6, for
steel "E" is about 30x10^6 or three times that of aluminum. Since the
effect of "E" is equal to that of the tensile strength, the aluminum's
tensile strength should be atleast three times that of steel for the
same section modulus and "true" strength of the member in question.
This is possibly the case, I'm not sure what alloys are being used in
the engine mounts on these boats.
The biggest problem with aluminum is fatigue failure, typically
structural aluminum parts should be designed twice as strong as required
when they're subject to cyclic loading, as would be the case in motor
mounts.
My tige' has bolted structural aluminum angle supporting the stock merc.
motor mounts, after 250 hrs., no problems. Even if so, it's covered
under a lifetime warranty.
Bill Snook
Scooter wrote:
[snip]
> Don't forget the modulus of elasticity(E) is proportional to the tensile
> strength of the material. For aluminum, "E" is about 10x10^6, for
> steel "E" is about 30x10^6 or three times that of aluminum. Since the
> effect of "E" is equal to that of the tensile strength, the aluminum's
> tensile strength should be atleast three times that of steel for the
> same section modulus and "true" strength of the member in question.
> This is possibly the case, I'm not sure what alloys are being used in
> the engine mounts on these boats.
Scooter is not quite right on this point. The fact is 'modulus of elasticity'
is not proportional to tensile strength and is not related. For example,
the modulus of elasticity of steel(all steel except stainless) is 30x10^6
pounds per square inch yet the tensile strength of low carbon hot rolled
steel is about 60,000 psi while high alloy heat treated steel may approach
300,000 psi.
The aluminum alloy that Correct Craft uses in our engine frame, frame mounting
system, and pylon is 6061 T6. The yield strength of this aluminum alloy is
higher than that of structural steel. But, for the same section under the
same load the aluminum will deform elastically three times as much as the
steel. Many of us have noticed how much the aluminum tow pylon of our
inboard ski boat bends when a good slalom or jump skier is being towed.
If the pylon was made from structural steel, like for instance most boat
trailers are, then it would deform elastically one third of what the
aluminum pylon does but it would actually fail at a lower load. By fail
I mean it would bend as the load was applied and then stay in a bent position
after the load was removed.
By the way, Correct Craft has been putting aluminum engine frames in our boats
since 1980. The pylon mount and engine frame that we use today is the same
in production boats as the parts used in the Correct Craft's at Sea World.
If you have seen a Sea World show then you know how strong our engine frame
pylon mount system is.
I hope this information helps.
Regards,
Bill Snook
Chief Engineer
Correct Craft, Inc.
Zoomifier
This is ONLY a test
Scooter
Bill,
Your right, I'm no engineer, but I don't follow your explanation of the
physical properties of the materials in question.
Where do you get a low carbon hot rolled steel with a 60ksi yield?
For aluminum 6061 tempered to T6, yield is only 40ksi and the endurance
limit is only 14ksi.
I think from a materials standpoint your point remains unproven, but we
all know from a practical standpoint, I've never seen a CC's engine
mounting system fail.
Scooter
DerylRobin
Give it a rest. Every drag racing boat uses aluminum engine mounts. I
think they're good enough for a ski boat.
Has anyone calc'd the load on an engine mounting bolt? I'll bet it's way
less than the capacity of any of the mounting systems.
Mark Kovalcson
Here, Here.
If an engine lag bolted into wooden stringers can last 16 years, most
other mounting systems will out live the owner. Also keep in mind the
older flat bottom hulls give a much harder ride (ie. put a lot more
stress on the mount points.) So a new smoother riding boat (ie. MC, SN,
Malibu and others) should not worry about engine mounts falling apart.
DerylRobin
16 years?
I just sold a 1965 Rowdy flatbottom with a 389 Pontiac with alum mounts
bolted thru wood stringers. Almost no sign of stress or fatigue.
The new owner is having the time of his life.