Minimum h.p. required for water-skiing

[The Weasel]

Hi guys, I have a question for some of you seasoned water-skiers. I am
looking to buy a boat for some casual water-skiing...may look at an older
boat...what is the minimum h.p. I need to be able to tow a skier (say, a 200
pound man)? Can I get by with a 50? or do I need at least a 60 or 70? I
know that there are many variables involved, weight of skier, age of motor,
hull design, etc. But your thoughts would be appreciated.

Another question, do you need more h.p. for slalom skiing? Or is it pretty
much the same requirements as 2 skis.

Thanks for your help.

[Doug Meredith]

"The Weasel" <wease...@home.com> wrote in message
news:LIiKa.3665$iM4.5...@news20.bellglobal.com...

> Hi guys, I have a question for some of you seasoned water-skiers. I
am
> looking to buy a boat for some casual water-skiing...may look at an
older
> boat...what is the minimum h.p. I need to be able to tow a skier (say,
a 200
> pound man)? Can I get by with a 50? or do I need at least a 60 or
70? I
> know that there are many variables involved, weight of skier, age of
motor,
> hull design, etc. But your thoughts would be appreciated.

I learned how to ski on 2 skies behind a 50 HP boat, but I wouldn't
recommend it, unless you like water enema's and being drug for a good
while. and at the time, I was probably 170 lbs. Depending on the boat
size, you should have more than that.

> Another question, do you need more h.p. for slalom skiing? Or is it
pretty
> much the same requirements as 2 skis.

A LOT more. that slalom ski put a LOT of drag on the boat. I watched a
very good slalom skier get up behind that 50 HP boat, and he got beat up
pretty bad.

This is just a WAG, but as you seem to be looking at outboards, I'd say
that you are gonna be a lot happier with 100-150 HP at least.

[Peter Richards]

Your question appears to assume an outboard motor....

For the 200-lb man getting up on 2 skis, 90 hp would be okay for a 17'
Whaler, which weighs under 1000 lbs and planes readily. But 90-hp would
be insufficient for a 21' Bayliner.

150 hp behind an 18 - 19' Sea Ray probably makes more sense.

If you go I/O, probably looking at a 165 - 210 hp pushing an 18'-20' boat.

Do an on-water demo of the boat. If you punch it from steerage speed
and it feels like a dog, it will not suit your purpose.

[The Weasel]

"Doug Meredith" <changethene...@rcn.net> wrote

> This is just a WAG, but as you seem to be looking at outboards, I'd say
> that you are gonna be a lot happier with 100-150 HP at least.

Doug, I appreciate your input, but you seem to have misunderstood the
question. I am wondering about the minimum h.p. that I need to be able to
reasonably pull adult waterskiers. I know for a fact that a 200 pound man
can easily ski behind a 75 h.p. motor because I have done it many times.
Given this, and the nature of my original question (the minimum
requirements) your suggestion that I would be a lot happier with at least
100-150 HP seems unreasonable. Of course I would be a lot happier with
100-150 HP, but I would be a lot happier with a Ferarri, too. I would be a
lot happier with a lot of better, more powerful things, but $$ reality must
be taken into account at some point. That's why I am asking about the
minimum hp requirements.

I don't mean to say that I didn't value your input, Doug, because you made
some good points. You seem to be saying that you can ski behind a 50 but
it's a bit of a struggle? What about a 60 or 65? I am just wondering
what's the minimum to still be able to reasonable ski behind? I know that I
(about 200 pounds) can easily ski behind a 75, so I presume that the minimum
required hp must be below 75.

[Tom Ruta]

On Wed, 25 Jun 2003 13:30:38 -0400, "The Weasel"
<wease...@home.com> wrote:

>..I know that I

>(about 200 pounds) can easily ski behind a 75, so I presume that the minimum
>required hp must be below 75.
>

Get a shaped ski (Connelly Big Daddy) and your 200 lbs can ski behind
a 40 hp.

[MX-Pilot]

my under 200 # nieghbour gets dragged around the lake on 2 skis for like
miles on his 80hp... so at least get around 100hp on a 16.5 boat..

"The Weasel" <wease...@home.com> wrote in message
news:LIiKa.3665$iM4.5...@news20.bellglobal.com...

[c.haidar]

I am 170 lbs and i have waterskied behind a 15 ft 40 hp boat. I got dragged
a little, but got up with no problems. The problem begins when you start
cutting outside the wake, the boat slows down to an unbearable speed.
Depending on the condition of the engine, design of the boat, no less than
75 HP??!!
"MX-Pilot" <n...@spam.thxs> wrote in message
news:1_oKa.17295$O31....@news02.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...

[MX-Pilot]

my buddies is a deep hull bow rider 16.5 and with its 80 hp he can't barely
hit 30 mph skiing so...

"c.haidar" <c.ha...@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:XcpKa.19165$Ab2.38550@sccrnsc01...

[The Weasel]

I don't understand. Why are so many people saying that you need 100+ HP? I
am about 200 pounds, and I currently ski on an 18 foot boat with a 75hp
motor and I have no problems at all (even have no problem with slalom). A
75 seems to work just fine. I have also heard of people skiing on a 50hp
motor, so I can't understand why people think that you need 100+ hp. Am I
missing something?

"MX-Pilot" <n...@spam.thxs> wrote in message
news:1_oKa.17295$O31....@news02.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...

[The Weasel]

"Tom Ruta" <ru...@softhome.net> wrote

> Get a shaped ski (Connelly Big Daddy) and your 200 lbs can ski behind
> a 40 hp.

Good idea!! If I end up with a lower hp motor, and am having problems I
will try a ski like this. Thanks.

[Jim Little]

Yes.

You asked the question and now you answered it. Looks like around 50 to
75hp to me. Myself, I can't ski very well behind 335hp. Damn boat keeps
winning. If your going to berate the opinion of the people in this group
why even ask the question.

Jim

"The Weasel" <wease...@home.com> wrote in message

news:6mpKa.4104$Fe3.6...@news20.bellglobal.com...

[The Weasel]

"Jim Little" <j...@nwcair.com> wrote

> Yes.
>
> You asked the question and now you answered it. Looks like around 50 to
> 75hp to me. Myself, I can't ski very well behind 335hp. Damn boat keeps
> winning. If your going to berate the opinion of the people in this group
> why even ask the question.

Berate the opinion? What are you talking about? But anyway, I asked the
question because I am sure that there are lots of people in here who know
much more about waterskiing and have much more experience with waterskiing
than I have. I am sure that you can imagine my surprise to hear people
telling me that I need a minimum of 100hp when I have skied fine behind 75
hp for years. I asked the question because I thought that it was a pretty
straightforward question that experts could relatively easily answer. I
know that there are some variables like I mentioned in the original message,
but I thought that there would be an answer from someone with lots of
experience skiing behind many different sizes of motors.

[Baileys]

I think the more information you give us the better the answer is going to
be.
Variables that need to be accounted for.
1. Boat length and weight
2. HP age of motor( they changed the HP rating in the late 80's)
- from crank to prop
3. Ski or ski's your using or planning on using 1, 2, wide shaped
4. What you consider skiing. Just staying behind the boat, cutting on two
skis, cutting on one ski, going through the course.

After all this information you will still get lots of opinions, but it
should narrow it down a bit for ya.

I pulled a guy up behind my 14' sea ray with an old 72 40 Hp motor that
weighed the same as you, but he dragged himself a few hundred feet to do
it. He also couldn't cut very hard cause he slowed down the boat so much.

Drew

I still enjoy free skiing and messing around on tricks. SO my min is a 16'
boat with a 90 hp. If I'm at all serious, then its a boat with tracking
fins and at least 150 hp. If I'm going to do the course then the boat has
to track very well and pull much harder still.(inboard tournament type boat)

"The Weasel" <wease...@home.com> wrote in message

news:qasKa.4423$Fe3.6...@news20.bellglobal.com...

[Grover]

The minimum h/p required is 37.24

There.

Good luck.

Grover

[Reg]

Your claim that you have, "skied fine behind a 75 hp boat for years"
points up the bigger question; What do YOU call skiing ?
75 hp (assuming a reasonably low drag boat) can get a 200 lb
guy up on two skis, maybe on one - especially if it is a wide one.
Then what ? Drag him around the lake at 25 MPH maybe ?
If that is all you want from your "skiing" then 60 or 75 might work for you.
THIS skier would want a drop ski to get going on a 65 inch ski, but that
wouldn't
work because I use double high wraps. If I ever DID get up and going I would
pull so much speed off the boat at the first real pull that it would have a
hard time getting back up to 34 - if it ever got to 34, so this would be useless
in the course. So, for ME skiing the way I ski, 200+ Gee gees, (though it is
more
about torque than peak HP., but that is a whole 'nother topic).

\R

[Doug Meredith]

"The Weasel" <wease...@home.com> wrote in message

news:6mpKa.4104$Fe3.6...@news20.bellglobal.com...

> I don't understand. Why are so many people saying that you need 100+
HP? I
> am about 200 pounds, and I currently ski on an 18 foot boat with a
75hp
> motor and I have no problems at all (even have no problem with
slalom). A
> 75 seems to work just fine. I have also heard of people skiing on a
50hp
> motor, so I can't understand why people think that you need 100+ hp.
Am I
> missing something?

As I said, I learned behind a 50 HP, But, as several other people have
said, what do YOU call skiing? Are you getting pulled behind the boat,
and not cutting? Are you running the course? What speed are you skiing
at? If you want to run 20 mph, than any engine will work fine for you.
If you want to SKI, then you need more power.

[Doug Meredith]

"Jim Little" <j...@nwcair.com> wrote in message
news:OhqKa.7063$8Q6....@news.uswest.net...

> Myself, I can't ski very well behind 335hp. Damn boat keeps
> winning.

Damn, I have the same problem. Must be too much HP. <vbg>

[Frank and Ronnie Maier]

"The Weasel" <wease...@home.com> wrote...
> I don't understand. Why are so many people saying that you need 100+ HP? ...snip... Am I
> missing something?

Well, ya gotta remember most of the denizens of this ng have
tournament boats. Anything less than 300hp is too weenie for a lotta
people here.

Now, me, I started skiing in the late 50's and hardly anybody had more
than 100 hp back then; so I understand where you're coming from. But
as many folks have said, if you wanna goof around the lake, that's one
thing. If you wanna run the course, that's another. And this ain't the
50's; it's the Third Millennium.

My 1995 MasterCraft has, IIRC, 275 hp; we never come close to using
its full capacity. If you're happy with 75hp, why don't you just call
that your "baseline"?

Frank

[Jim Thompson]

"The Weasel" <wease...@home.com> wrote in message news:<LIiKa.3665$iM4.5...@news20.bellglobal.com>...

When I was kid (long time ago) I used to laugh at the ads in the
paper for "Ski Rig" 35 HP Johnson.

I could get up behind a 50hp on a slalom but it took awhile!

[The Weasel]

"Frank and Ronnie Maier" <f_r_...@msn.com> wrote

> Well, ya gotta remember most of the denizens of this ng have
> tournament boats. Anything less than 300hp is too weenie for a lotta
> people here.

Hi everyone. Thanks for all of your responses. Yes, I think that the above
is the reason that I have been told by people in here that I need 100+ hp.
This is the reason that I made a point of saying in my initial message that
I was looking for a boat for some "casual waterskiing." I am not looking
for a boat do get involved with tournament skiing or extreme slalom or
course skiing. I am just looking for something to play around with some
skiing at the cottage. It would mainly be used for skiing with 2 skis but
also some slalom. I would like to be able to cut across the wake, not hard,
but cut across nonetheless. Anyway, I think that if I put all of the
answers together I can come to the conclusion that probably 50hp is the
lowest that I would want to go for sure, and would probably be much happier
with a 65 or a 75 on the low end of the scale. And thanks to responses, now
I know that if I get a 50 or a 65 or 75 and I am still unhappy with
performance, I can do things like tinker with different skis (Connelly Big
Daddy skis) or other things like trimming the motor to get better results.

Thanks for your responses, everyone. And sorry, I didn't mean to sound
harsh at times, I was just very surprised to hear people telling me that I
need 100+ hp. But I think that I have it sorted out now.

[Tom Ruta]

On 26 Jun 2003 12:38:35 -0700, f_r_...@msn.com (Frank and Ronnie
Maier) wrote:

....
>Now, me, I started skiing...

I thought that was you in that pic with Ralph Samuelson!

[George Mills]

For 200lbs I'd say 70HP (Outboard 2 stroke). Slalom does not take that much
more than combos to get up and if you just ski around like you would on
combo's but when you carve on Slalom against the boat it will slow down a
lot. Getting up is more technique than horse power.

You can pretty much do anything with a 90HP (Outboard 2 stroke) and up
recreational wise. I don't know about running a course though.

For an I/O I'd say 140HP is about equal to a 80-90HP outboard 2 stroke.

I'm talking about the average boats you'd see on these motors. 70Hp
probably would be a 16ft boat. The 90OB or 140I/O would probably be a 17-18
ft boat. Both fiberglass runabouts.

"The Weasel" <wease...@home.com> wrote in message
news:LIiKa.3665$iM4.5...@news20.bellglobal.com...

[R.J.(Bob) Evans]

On Wed, 25 Jun 2003 10:53:15 -0400 "The Weasel" <wease...@home.com>
wrote:

>Hi guys, I have a question for some of you seasoned water-skiers. I am
>looking to buy a boat for some casual water-skiing...may look at an older
>boat...what is the minimum h.p. I need to be able to tow a skier (say, a 200

We have good friends that often spend time at the lake with us. They
have a 17 or 18' Lund with a 90 HP Yamaha that is a very nice
occasional ski-boat. If you have "big" people trying to slalom I
don't think you would want much less. Until we bought our Response we
had an 18' FBG with 140 I/O. It wasn't enough to have fun with. YMMV

R.J.(Bob) Evans
(return address needs alteration to work)

[Skip Gundlach]

Coming late to this party, but ignoring most of the previous stuff, I'll
observe:

My first boat was a stressed skin plywood 14' with a 25HP Johnson. No, I
wasn't a kid, I was well over 200#, and I skied behind that, and taught
numerous others how to ski with a 2x4 mimicking a barefoot pole before they
existed. I used double lines - 150' - in order to get enough maneuvering
room to get some speed, because it probably wasn't going 20 mph. But I sure
enjoyed the heck out of that boat.

Next was a Larson lapstrake 16' with a 'big' 65 HP motor. I learned to drop
and slalom behind that. Search the archives for descriptions of how I used
to do a circular run up to full speed and then straightened out in order to
launch once I started to go from slalom deep water starts (dragging my rear
foot for steerage). All the way up to 35 mph, on a Taperflex biggie, still
well over 200#. Woo Hoo!!

Skipping forward, today I do the course (www.justpickone.org/skip/gallery -
third and beyond ski folder page) in/behind an oldy-moldy early-era ski
boat. Flat out, it won't go any faster than 40, but I'll never do the
course at that speed, so it's irrelevant. If I want to go 50, I'll use the
Baja behind which I *used* to ski, and pull as many as 7 at a time, just for
grins.

So, your question really has to be one of what boat you intend using, how
many people will be aboard (planing characteristics and potential top
speed), and what you want if anything more than just cruising down the
lake/river. The harder you cut, regardless of whether you can get out of
the water, and stay out of the water, on whatever you're riding (kneeboard,
wakeboard, ski, skurfer, etc.) , the more impact you'll have on the boat
direction and speed. If either of those is important to you (to keep
constant), the more weight and horses you have, the better.

OTOH, if what you want is to go out and have good, inexpensive, reliable
fun, then the smallest, lightest boat, with the most modest horses you can
hang on there, will do it. My next door neighbor has an aluminum rowboat
with a 30 HP on it, and he skis his kid slalom, wakeboards and tubes behind
it.

From the sound of what you posted, since I didn't see reference to crowds of
people and friends/family mentioned, a closed-bow stressed-skin ply like I
first had, with a 50 hung on the rear, will give you all you need. At that,
I easily and comfortably seated 5 in that boat, having made a folding rear
seat to put in it to go with the really neat bench seat in the front...

L8R

Skip

[Frank and Ronnie Maier]

Tom Ruta <ru...@cadvision.com> blathered...

Oh yeah, Ruta? Wait'll *you* hafta switch from your walker to your
ski. That's why I hate Nautique platforms; they're just not big
enough! It really sucks when ya can't fit all four walker tips(feet)
on the platform.

Ain't you retired yet?

[henry masters]

My landlord has waterskied behind a 1 HP rig..a horse!! He did it
with a pair of tricks and hooked the rope to the saddle horn.

[Reg]

You don't need much speed OR power, it has been done many times along
canals. Smooth take off and transitions can be problems, double-ups
are believed to be impossible.
My riding instructor has harsh comments for people who
"waterski" with their reigns (-:

\R

[Ski4Fun]

I skied in an irrigation canal behind a Hodaka 90 once :)

"henry masters" <he...@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:de0vfvcd4ptd1vcov...@4ax.com...

[Ed Weber]

>behind a Hodaka 90 once :)

you're showing your age.

[Joe Blow]

Part of the problem seemed to be what you would call skiing and what
others would call skiing. I have skied behind a 110 hp Jet Ski as well
as a 310 hp tournament grade ski boat. I wouldn't call dragging the Jet
Ski backwards around the lake skiing, but others may.

Can you ski behind a 50hp outboard? Maybe depending on boat weight,
people weight and ski design. Will you enjoy the experience? That
depends on your definition of skiing. Can you slalom behind a 50hp boat?
Not without dragging the boat sideways through the water once you
finally do make it out on a plane. But if that doesn't bother you, go
for it.

Everything depends on what experience you want to achieve. If you do
advance, you will get tired of it quickly. But if you are just someone
who wants to go fishing for a little while then ski back in while your
buddy dries, go for it.

[Bauldy]

My brother and i have slalomed at same time behind our 60 hp seadoo , we
had to drop a ski , but we got up eventually

"Ed Weber" <efw...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20030630082826...@mb-m18.aol.com...

[Ed Weber]

> >behind a Hodaka 90 once :)

What I meant was, not many people would remember that bike. (I use to work on
them)

[Ski4Fun]

Ed - I knew what you meant. I loved that bike. It liked to foul plugs
unless you ran it hard. I traded it for a Montessa 250. Couple years later
Honda came out with the Elsinore and the rest was history.

Old Fart

"Ed Weber" <efw...@aol.com> wrote in message

news:20030703013511...@mb-m29.aol.com...

[Ed Weber]

>Honda came out with the Elsinore and the rest was history.

That was the first real motocrosser I ever had. A 1973 CR250M----$1278.65 (
That was a fast ride ) In 1974 I was pumping gas on the thruway when one of
Honda's factory riders and R&D test guy came in for the Elsinore. Bruce Baron
was his name. Well they got careless filling their motorhome and sprayed a
little gas on the pilotlight to their stove and up in flames it went. ( we put
it out) more useless trivia
I traded that bike for a Combat Wombat.
PABATCO=Pacific Basin Trading Company

[FLY135]

"The Weasel" <wease...@home.com> wrote in message

news:S8JKa.6040$OE2.7...@news20.bellglobal.com...

>
> "Frank and Ronnie Maier" <f_r_...@msn.com> wrote
>
> > Well, ya gotta remember most of the denizens of this ng have
> > tournament boats. Anything less than 300hp is too weenie for a lotta
> > people here.
>
> Hi everyone. Thanks for all of your responses. Yes, I think that the
above
> is the reason that I have been told by people in here that I need 100+ hp.
> This is the reason that I made a point of saying in my initial message
that
> I was looking for a boat for some "casual waterskiing." I am not looking
> for a boat do get involved with tournament skiing or extreme slalom or
> course skiing.

You won't be doing any tournament skiing even with a 100hp. Most people
here would probably pass at the idea of skiing behind a 75hp boat, except as
the occasional amusement. Based on that I'd say you have the most
experience in enjoying skiing with an underpowered boat. So you are really
the expert here.

> Thanks for your responses, everyone. And sorry, I didn't mean to sound
> harsh at times, I was just very surprised to hear people telling me that I
> need 100+ hp. But I think that I have it sorted out now.

What's suprising is that you haven't grasped that people who think of skiing
as an even semi serious hobby or sport would consider what you want to be a
waste of time and money. Rather than trying to find the min HP, you should
be looking for a way to get the most HP for the money you can afford to
spend.

[FLY135]

"henry masters" <he...@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:de0vfvcd4ptd1vcov...@4ax.com...

Tricked skied in a ditch behind a car back in the 70's

Actually I wakeboard several times a week with what I think is about 80 HP.
Not only that, but it can pull 6 skiers/boarders at the same time. It's
called a cable.

[Greg Cain]

Back in my teens, when I was a po boy, I skied with my friend behind his dads
14" Glasply with a 60 hp Johnson. We did one foot beach starts in a cove which
spared us the drag that would occur if we were to do deep water starts. Back
then in 1970 we did not have access to a slalom course but we would pretend we
were skiing one. We could slo that engine down by 4 mph each cut from about
31 to 27mph. We were skiing on wood Obriens and Connellys in those days. We
were young and strong back then and we could deep water start behind anything if
we kept one foot out. Now at nearly 50 years of age I ski the course at 34,
15off behind a 340 hp tournament boat. I would not want to subject my back to
going back to 60hp at my age. If you want a short lightweight multipurpose boat
then get 75 and you won't torture your friends who ski on standard cut slalom
skis with double boots. Granted it won't be a tournament boat but your friends
won't be going to the chiropractor the next day.

[Jeanne]

<< Back in my teens, >>

Back in my 30s, slalomn, deep water start, behind a 35HP on a 13.5 ft. Boston
Whaler. ;) I think if I had kept both feet in I wouldn't have been able to do
it.

Jeanne

[Reg]

I remember THAT boat (-:
Fun times.
OK, everyone up front while we TRY toget Reg up - AGAIN !
or was that your much larger Baja ? time plays havoc
with memory.

\R

[Jeanne]

<< or was that your much larger Baja ? >>

Hi Reg, that was my much larger 16 ft. Baja. :)

Jeanne

[Dave]

As a kid weighing about 100 lbs, we use to tie the rope on the lower unit of
a 10 hp motor and ski behind a 7' jon boat. Once up, we would drop a ski
and keep on going. This seemed to work fine for a couple of years.

Dave

"Jeanne" <jmdj...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20030724083708...@mb-m16.aol.com...

[Reg]

That was a long run (-:

\R

[kcnie...@gmail.com]

[kcnie...@gmail.com]

When I was in my early 20's and weighed about 130 lbs, I was pulled around behind a 15' runabout. There were two in the boat. The boat would struggle to get me out of the hole, but had little problem if I started from a sitting position on the dock.
Later on when I was in my late 20's, I bought a 16' Aluminum Starcraft with a 50hp Johnson motor. This boat could not lift a person over 200 lbs. out of the water. That is, until I purchased a new prop with a smaller pitch. After installing the new prop, I could pull a 210 lb man out of the water. While a smaller pitch provided the power for pulling, it slowed the boats overall speed.

[glenn...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, June 25, 2003 at 10:53:15 AM UTC-4, The Weasel wrote:
> Hi guys, I have a question for some of you seasoned water-skiers. I am
> looking to buy a boat for some casual water-skiing...may look at an older
> boat...what is the minimum h.p. I need to be able to tow a skier (say, a 200
> pound man)? Can I get by with a 50? or do I need at least a 60 or 70? I
> know that there are many variables involved, weight of skier, age of motor,
> hull design, etc. But your thoughts would be appreciated.
>
> Another question, do you need more h.p. for slalom skiing? Or is it pretty
> much the same requirements as 2 skis.
>
> Thanks for your help.

Hi Weasel I have skied and boated for years. You could use a 70 hp and ski just fine.

[mera...@gmail.com]

Hi guys im looking to buy a boat. Im 230 lbs and want to deep water start on Salomon ski. How much hp do i need to pop out of the water quickly?

[cap...@gmail.com]

First of all, there are a lot of variables. But let's take a light 16' - 17' multi-chine v-hull. Shallow draft. Flat ride. No foam core like in a whaler or McKee. They're heavy. Assume you have a helmsman and a spotter, to be legal. You now have 3 adults to move through the water. Call it 500 pounds to err on the heavy side. Go with a lighter 2-stroke instead of the heavier 4-stroke. The two stroke has more punch out of the pocket, too. Now think about skis. Trick skis, boards, concave slalom. Once you're up, it'no biggie, but getting up on a slalom start in a concave ski is a lot of drag. Hardest for the boat and motor. Taking that into consideration, ideal situation, I say 70 hp on the low end, 90 hp to be safe. You can get up and ski behind 50 or 60 hp, but it's no fun. You start cutting, and you'll find yourself sinking. What happens with the lower hp ob is that it has a small propeller, and as soon as you load it up, it loses its bite. That's the real problem. Like trying to pull a 50' triple axle trailer with a pickup truck. You're fine on the straightaway, but wait until you get to a hill.

[chris linsley]

On Wednesday, June 25, 2003 at 10:53:15 AM UTC-4, The Weasel wrote:
> Hi guys, I have a question for some of you seasoned water-skiers. I am
> looking to buy a boat for some casual water-skiing...may look at an older
> boat...what is the minimum h.p. I need to be able to tow a skier (say, a 200
> pound man)? Can I get by with a 50? or do I need at least a 60 or 70? I
> know that there are many variables involved, weight of skier, age of motor,
> hull design, etc. But your thoughts would be appreciated.
> Another question, do you need more h.p. for slalom skiing? Or is it pretty
> much the same requirements as 2 skis.
> Thanks for your help

This is way late to help weasel, but I’ll post in case others have a similar question. During the late 70’s the neighbors pulled some college aged boys who looked like they might be on the football team behind a 14’ aluminum boat with a 60’s vintage 18 hp. Evinrude. Years later I have a 14’ boat that I bought a 1978 25 hp Johnson thinking I could ski behind it, no way is that motor going to get me up! Maybe if I start off the dock with a slack towline, I don’t know. I was told the older motors had lower gears and larger propellers.
About that time my neighbor had a 55hp Chrysler on a15’ cathedral hull (Yarcraft I think) and I had a1969 Johnson 55hp on a 16’ semi v aluminum hull, the old Johnson was a superior water skier puller. The Johnson had a through hub exhaust and a larger propeller. So it seems the hp. rating alone is not going to tell the whole story!