waterski new boat reviews

[Sybil]

I once asked a very rich friend what he wanted most, but couldn't afford.
His answer was "a girlfriend". I reminded him that he was married. He
laughed and reminded me that he knew that but it was something he couldn't
afford.

[Skiboy70]

I just got the latest waterski mag with the boat reviews for 1998. I almost
fell over when I saw that the "ultimate family runabout" (MC Maristar 225 VRS)
was tested at $40,350!! My god, this sport is going to become even more
elitist than it already is!! For that kind of money I would expect to have at
least a galley, a bathroom, and sleeping quarters. Maybe a second inboard,
too! I guess my point is this: Where is it going to stop? Are the base
models going to be in the $30K range in the near future? Are low end ski's
going to be $500+? I just don't see the point! (Please note, I ponder the
prices/quality of the new cars & trucks every year too!)

I just thought I would start a heated discussion regarding the new boats. I
don't want to say that Mastercraft is overpriced, because all of the new boats
seem to be a lot higher than last year. I also understand that the prices in
W/S are just the suggested retail, and they may not be the price your dealer is
asking for his boats. I only wanted to express my opinion (or shock!!)
reagrding the prices!!

Just my $0.02
Doug

[EFW5414]

>Are the base
>models going to be in the $30K range in the near future?

looks like those Malibu sportsters have beat that up pretty bad.I just looked
at one yesterday ,they look like a lot of boat ,for the money.

[Tom Ruta]

skib...@aol.com (Skiboy70) wrote:

>I just got the latest waterski mag with the boat reviews for 1998.

When the heck was that issue printed? I don't subscribe but
have been trying for a week to find it here in Canuck land.
Yeesh...

> I almost
>fell over when I saw that the "ultimate family runabout" (MC Maristar 225 VRS)
>was tested at $40,350!! My god, this sport is going to become even more
>elitist than it already is!!

You should see the MSRP (list) prices in Canada. With the
loonie at close to an all time low, the costs of most high
end models will take your breath away. Rumour has it that a
fully loaded MB Sports will be near $50,000 !!! OUCH!
CC's SNOB is supposed to be in the high 30's.

My understanding is that Maristar is supposed to go "man a
mano" with the Cobalts of the world in the sport luxury
category (like look at sport utility trucks - check them
prices!!!)

Then again, a lot of run of the mill I/O's are into the high
twenties now.

> For that kind of money I would expect to have at
>least a galley, a bathroom, and sleeping quarters. Maybe a second inboard,

>too! I guess my point is this: Where is it going to stop? Are the base

>models going to be in the $30K range in the near future?

Malibus seem to be the most reasonably priced inboards here
so far. You can get a brand new 98 Response for under $30
and the Sportster is about 25K, both in base configurations
but with trailer.

I suspect you'll see all of the major mfg's release the
decontented "lite" versions (like the Sportster or Sport
Star).

Tom

[Tom Ruta]

[Brian & Alex O'Neill]

I just bought a 97 v210 ski sanger with the black scorpion. I work the
sales rep got a depth gauge, boat cover, 5 year extended warr. bumpers
mooring lines all for the low cost of 26,800 out the door the deals are
out there. If you know what you want and no what your talking about and
but in the winter you can get a swinging deal baby.

[jstanton]

I agree that the ski industry pricing is become insane. This is a
factor of our economy however. Consider that it has been doing good
for the past couple of years and that gas prices are at an all-time
low (adjusted for inflation) as long as I can remember.

Manufacturers are jumping in with the Mercedes-like pricing for the
upper models. What the heck, there are people out there spending bonus
and stock option money for Expeditions and Suburbans. Why not boats?

My hats off to MC and Malibu for not forgetting the average Joe and
Jane with their 19K entry-level tournament boat. Which, I believe is
unfair to call them entry-level. And to CC as well even though they
cut-off two feet from their entry-level boat.

Some of you might remember my neophyte posting about a year ago when I
was asking if anybody knew what the dealer invoices are for SN's. That
generated a lengthy thread!

Because of the heated local economy here in Santa Clara county and
most of the state, I hate to pay about 6K more for my 97 than my 95. I
did visit every CC dealer in the state (four) to make sure that my
local dealer wasn't pulling my leg asking $32K for what I wanted. As a
result with all of the haggling I did, I cannot go to any CC dealer in
this state without receiving somewhat of a colder reception by the
sales people. I do feel sorry for the folks who paid close to the
asking price of the SN since I noticed that used 97SN's with GT40s are
selling for about 26K at the end of this summer. Ouch! So much for CC
boats holding their value.

This is should be a better year for the buyers to negotiate with CC
dealers since the '98SN is not the new model introduction as was the
'97SN and MC and Malibu have more of a serious threat since CC's
entry-level boat is too short. Take advantage of this when
negotiating.

Remember that the phrase "buyer beware" really means get educated on
the boat market before buying.

[ShariF27]

I have been reading some of your comments regarding the new WaterSki Mag new
boat reviews and current pricing. My company custom builds ski boats. This
allows each individual person to choose the options they want at a price they
can afford. There are people out there spending 60-70K for a boat - crazy, I
know - but that is the minority, not the majority.

I also agree with the comment made earlier - know what you want and know what
your price range is. A respectable dealer will never talk you into something
you cannot afford.

Shari Foerster
Ski-Pro, Inc.
Builder of Extreme Boats

[SKIERJP]

Be carefull thinking that the Malibu price is so much cheaper than Master Craft
or Correct Craft. If you option a Malibu exactly like a MC or CC I think you'll
find that the prices are nearly the same. Don't forget about warrenty. Make
sure you're comparing apples with apples. I think all three are fine boats ,
but I'll stick with MC.

[Vamckeever]

> If you option a Malibu exactly like a MC or CC I think you'll
>find that the prices are nearly the same.

That was how I ended up with a MC. Best place to go is the boat shows -was
looking at Tige a couple of years back but when you add EFI then compare the
boats again-some boats are better investments than others-not a knock on
Tige-nice boat-just think the price difference isn't as large as it
appears...and resale enters into the picture later. I don't see much of a price
difference in price between the top inboards, including Malibu and I suspect
the prices are better at the dealer than in Waterski Mag.

[Mark Kovalcson]

Did it seem strange to anyone that the Malibu Response LX and Sportster
LX had better wake hardness for slalom than their closed bow versions
and that of all four of these the boat with the best hole shot was the
Sportster with the base Vortec engine? Historically the closed bows had
always received highest marks in these comparisons.

Did it also seem funny that the 20K MSRP Sportster LX had better
tracking at a weight of 2200 lbs, better wakes if you include the
wakeboarding score and higher top end even with the base engine than the
CC Ski Nautique and the MasterCraft ProStar 190?

I noticed that Malibu says they have made a few hull tweaks on their
proven hull. Have they changed the wake that much? The hull they
introduced in 1993 was good but even then had more spray then many of
the competitors. It also was not as good at shortline as MC and many
others back then and I know there have been many advancements in
Shortline wakes in the last few years.

I also noticed that the Sportster has a flat spot to sit on at the
transom. Thankyou Malibu. The old Sportster was a great looking boat
but didn't have a very good slalom wake. The Tantrum looked like a toy.
This new Sportster looks like a very good compromise of features and
price. The MC SportStar and CC Air Tique didn't test nearly as well for
similar cost boats. In fact I was very surprised to see the poor
tracking score for the Air Tique which is basically a 176. CC has
always been known for very good tracking at least in their more
expensive models.

[Tom Ruta]

Mark Kovalcson <kova...@usit.net> wrote:

Well, here in th really frozen north (El Nino, El Schmnino,
my butt... it's currently -26C (freaking minus $%^% F!) and
that seems to have slowed the delivery of the boat review
mag for some bizarre reason...

>Did it seem strange to anyone that the Malibu Response LX and Sportster
>LX had better wake hardness for slalom than their closed bow versions

Not really, OB's would probably have a different centre of
gravity that might account for the better weight
distribution; ergo, better wakes.

>and that of all four of these the boat with the best hole shot was the
>Sportster with the base Vortec engine?

Even last year the mags said the Tantrum was a rocket, due
to light weight and narrower hull I'd guess.

>Historically the closed bows had
>always received highest marks in these comparisons.
>

Backs up my statement, no?

>Did it also seem funny that the 20K MSRP Sportster LX had better
>tracking at a weight of 2200 lbs,

This surprises me, especially given the narrower hull.

>better wakes if you include the
>wakeboarding score

Did the tests include the Wedge?

> and higher top end even with the base engine than the
>CC Ski Nautique and the MasterCraft ProStar 190?
>

Again, weight is probably the reason.

>I noticed that Malibu says they have made a few hull tweaks on their
>proven hull. Have they changed the wake that much? The hull they
>introduced in 1993 was good but even then had more spray then many of
>the competitors.

According to the promo literature, the hull SV23 Diamind,
is only used on the Response and Sunsetter models. The
Sportster uses the "old" hull design (a variant of the
SV23).

>It also was not as good at shortline as MC and many
>others back then and I know there have been many advancements in
>Shortline wakes in the last few years.
>

How short of shortline? These reviews that say "a small
pimple was detected in the wake at 41 off, but disappeared
at 43 off" don't apply to me to be sure <g>.

>I also noticed that the Sportster has a flat spot to sit on at the
>transom. Thankyou Malibu. The old Sportster was a great looking boat
>but didn't have a very good slalom wake. The Tantrum looked like a toy.

Yup!

>This new Sportster looks like a very good compromise of features and
>price.

Yup again - it's on the shortlist.

>The MC SportStar and CC Air Tique didn't test nearly as well for
>similar cost boats. In fact I was very surprised to see the poor
>tracking score for the Air Tique which is basically a 176. CC has
>always been known for very good tracking at least in their more
>expensive models.

The shorter hull dooms the 176 to fare poorly in
performance test, IMHO. But I've got 5 bucks taht says CC
introduces a "lite" Nautique within 2 model years!!!

One quick question: has malibu fixed the noise problem? CC
always seems to win this hands down.

Tom

[erich zellmer]

Amazing that some people will pay 25-35k quite often for a new boat. I
very much like my 1985 Hydrodyne comp. At 84 inches wide it has
excellent slalom wakes and with a new 175 FFI Johnson outboard, rocket
like acceleration and incredible fuel economy and turnkey starts will
keep me an outboard man for years to come

[Mark Kovalcson]

Tom Ruta wrote:

> >Historically the closed bows had
> >always received highest marks in these comparisons.
>
> Backs up my statement, no?

No, since their open bow recieved the highest marks this time around.

> Did the tests include the Wedge?

No. The tests show the shape hardness and width to be great but the size
was another issue. Although the 2600 lb ProStar got the same rating for wake
size.

> According to the promo literature, the hull SV23 Diamind,
> is only used on the Response and Sunsetter models. The
> Sportster uses the "old" hull design (a variant of the
> SV23).

Interesting. Then I would say these tests are for the birds unless the old
hull works much better with a narrower hull and a couple hundred less
pounds.

> How short of shortline? These reviews that say "a small
> pimple was detected in the wake at 41 off, but disappeared
> at 43 off" don't apply to me to be sure <g>.

There was a noticable trough on the original SV23 design which is more
relevant than any pimple. The Ski Nautique uses canoeing which creates a
single wake instead of the double wake most of us are used to. I would put
the "small pimple" comment in the category of material for saleman to
quote. Keep in mind many manufacturers have been selling No wake, No spray
boats for the last 10 years and yet each new hull design creates less wake
than the previous model. I guess what we have now are negative wakes ;)

> The shorter hull dooms the 176 to fare poorly in
> performance test, IMHO. But I've got 5 bucks taht says CC
> introduces a "lite" Nautique within 2 model years!!!

I've told by people close to CC that they thought the 176 was purposely
hobbled so as not to cut into their SN sales.

> One quick question: has malibu fixed the noise problem? CC
> always seems to win this hands down.

The CC is still quieter especially for any passengers sitting at the
transom.The CC is also still built from better materials. But many who want
to save money will pick a boat that performs better than one that may be
built better and doesn't perform as well for the same money. So I personally
think the 176 will lose in most comparisons to the Sportster. Malibu
definitely brings something good to the mix with this boat.

Some of Malibu's cost cutting is due to good engineering and advanced
construction techniques, but some of it is also due to cutting into the
expense of materials like resins. Quite frankly I think American Skier uses
the best materials in their contruction and they are not cheap but they also
do not perform as well. Correct Craft uses very good materials and besides
their 176 based boats have some really good performers. Malibu has a good
stock of good performers, but I have some mixed feelings about their
construction techniques and materials.

I still have a few things to figure out. AME 5000 is definitely better than
vinylester resins, but the different between using coremat or not using
coremat or using Teveria like American Skier is still fuzzy in my mind. I
like the aluminum and steel based engine mounting systems the CC, MC and
American Skier use. I am less impressed with the engine mounting system of
Malibu's and Supra's. I definitely like shoe box construction over the
butted construction that Malibu uses in all but its Sportster. There are so
many different ways to do things.

MasterCrafts and Supra's are built very similarly but the Supra uses AME
5000 resins and has multiple engine manufacturers to pick from unfortunately
they have a less sturdy engine mounting system than MC. Malibu and CC share
some good construction techniques and both try to get as close to a seamless
solid boat as possible, but where they differ CC almost always does better.
Obviously this will be disputed by many Malibu die hards who trust the
butted deck/hull system and believe that the Fibecs engine mounting system
is somehow superior to the aluminum and steel based mounting systems used by
others.

If I were on the great lakes or a large lake/ Ocean I would definitely opt
for the better engine mounting system and better materials. Of the failures
and cosmetic(or not so cosmetic) cracking I have heard of with Malibu's,
almost all were in much harsher environments than the one I am in. In my
environment I think any of these boats would endure the test of time. The
trouble with good/better/best comparisons of this nature is that to prove
something is better than something else a failure needs to take place.
Failures are few and not very well publicized, which makes it easy for
anyone to make great claims.

[Tom Ruta]

erich zellmer <bi...@execpc.com> wrote:
...

>Amazing that some people will pay 25-35k quite often for a new boat.

I wonder what the cyle time/turnover rate is on boats?
Anyone know how long the average inboard is kept?

> I
>very much like my 1985 Hydrodyne comp. At 84 inches wide it has
>excellent slalom wakes

'Cept they don't track worth a hoot. I spent thousands of
hours in Hydrodynes and while they are a decent boat, they
don't (MHO) hold a candle to a modern inboard. And I
especially liked the way you could roll them up on their
side - great power turns to scare the crap out of the
uninitiated. ;=O

>...and with a new 175 FFI Johnson outboard, rocket

>like acceleration and incredible fuel economy and turnkey starts will
>keep me an outboard man for years to come

I thing that these new Ficht systems will soon become
standard (probably starting in California - EPA driven). I
still like the sound of the OMC motor, FWIW.

Tom

[Tom Ruta]

Mark Kovalcson <kova...@usit.net> wrote:
...

>Some of Malibu's cost cutting is due to good engineering and advanced
>construction techniques, but some of it is also due to cutting into the
>expense of materials like resins.

Didn't we previously see ( about 6 months ago on this
newsgroup) that this was only a couple of hundred bucks for
a boat? Given that, maybe there is a method to the madness.

>Quite frankly I think American Skier uses
>the best materials in their contruction and they are not cheap but they also
>do not perform as well. Correct Craft uses very good materials and besides
>their 176 based boats have some really good performers. Malibu has a good
>stock of good performers, but I have some mixed feelings about their
>construction techniques and materials.
>

You know, I've seen these arguments for bicycle
construction. So-and-so's carbon fibre is better than
who-nots; my aluminum alloy is better than theirs, etc.
Quite frankly, I believe that one you start to get "up
there" there really is not that much difference. There are
pluses and minuses to each variety of material. Besides (as
I'm fond of saying about some of my carbon bikes) can you
say "lifetime warranty"?

>I still have a few things to figure out. AME 5000 is definitely better than
>vinylester resins, but the different between using coremat or not using
>coremat or using Teveria like American Skier is still fuzzy in my mind.

As it should be... do you think it really matters? I
personally don't.

> I
>like the aluminum and steel based engine mounting systems the CC, MC and
>American Skier use. I am less impressed with the engine mounting system of
>Malibu's and Supra's.

Each seems to have its strengths and (pardon the pun)
weaknesses. In a double blind test, do you think anyone
could actually tell? You are really trading odd multiple
point attachment versus the material of attachment.

>I definitely like shoe box construction over the
>butted construction that Malibu uses in all but its Sportster. There are so
>many different ways to do things.
>

And they are all basically producing a good product. And
isn't it ironic that that the "cheapest" Sportster uses the
same technique as the most expensive Nautique?

>MasterCrafts and Supra's are built very similarly but the Supra uses AME
>5000 resins and has multiple engine manufacturers to pick from

And don't they still use wood in the hull???

>unfortunately
>they have a less sturdy engine mounting system than MC. Malibu and CC share
>some good construction techniques and both try to get as close to a seamless
>solid boat as possible, but where they differ CC almost always does better.

According to whom? I'm certainly no marine engineer, but
I'd be surprised to see any significant differnces in a
marine engineering report of same.

Tom

[Mark Kovalcson]

Tom Ruta wrote:

> Didn't we previously see ( about 6 months ago on this
> newsgroup) that this was only a couple of hundred bucks for
> a boat? Given that, maybe there is a method to the madness.

I think it actually came out to a lot more than that, but there is a method to
their madness and they are selling lots of boats because of it.

> You know, I've seen these arguments for bicycle
> construction. So-and-so's carbon fibre is better than
> who-nots; my aluminum alloy is better than theirs, etc.
> Quite frankly, I believe that one you start to get "up
> there" there really is not that much difference.

Having had a Tange #2, Columbus SL and and for the last 10 years an aluminum
frame set on my Cannondale bicycle I am very familiar with what you are talking
about. I had one of the original aluminum Cannondale bicycles with the defective
front forks that crack and fail and had to replace mine. My Columbus SL frameset
was worn out after about 25K miles. My Tange frameset was too heavy and I
replaced it before wearing it out. I currently ride(when I do) on a combination
of Shimano 600 and Dura Ace componentry. Many years ago advances by Shimano left
Campagnolo in the dust, but competition bred better componentry by both
companies. In other words there were big differences between the manufacturers. I
used to ride and race with the CCBI out of Tewksbury, MA and was a card carrying
USCF member. One guy on my team who's frameset had a life time guarantee, sheered
off at the bottom bracket 3 times. Each time he got a new frame. He was
nationally ranked and one year finished 2nd place in Senior Men.

> >I still have a few things to figure out. AME 5000 is definitely better than
> >vinylester resins, but the different between using coremat or not using
> >coremat or using Teveria like American Skier is still fuzzy in my mind.
>
> As it should be... do you think it really matters?

Probably. Coremat can be brittle. Treveria is much lighter.

> > I
> >like the aluminum and steel based engine mounting systems the CC, MC and
> >American Skier use. I am less impressed with the engine mounting system of
> >Malibu's and Supra's.
>
> Each seems to have its strengths and (pardon the pun)
> weaknesses. In a double blind test, do you think anyone
> could actually tell? You are really trading odd multiple
> point attachment versus the material of attachment.

As I said this is a point of failure issue. I only metal mounting system that I
ever heard of breaking was on a MC ProStar that had been rolled on the highway,
repaired by an unscrupulous dealership and sold as new. This is well outside the
abuse that any boat should endure and is not meant to slight their system.

On the other hand in the drive train I have heard of some problems with the
Fibecs system and one complete failure of the hydrophonic damping system.

> And they are all basically producing a good product. And
> isn't it ironic that that the "cheapest" Sportster uses the
> same technique as the most expensive Nautique?

I have been told that the butt fit is just a quirky thing that some west coast
manufacturers adopted. It does require that the hulls be mated more exactly.
Malibu will argue that because of this more "exact" fit that they build a higher
quality boat. My main reason for disliking this method of attachment is because
I have never heard of a shoebox fit boat with screws, and or rivets holding it
together come apart. On the other hand there have been more than one failure of
the butted hull design. The most noteworthy I have the police report from. Last
Spring a 17 hour old Echelon came apart at the seams in the Orlando Florida
area. There is a hard to reach spot on the passenger side behind the seat where
they glass the halves together. Hopefully they have addressed this issue in their
manufacturing process. I'm just stating that it is a riskier process. The old
tried and true method was full proof, so why fix it if its not broken?

> >MasterCrafts and Supra's are built very similarly but the Supra uses AME
> >5000 resins and has multiple engine manufacturers to pick from
>
> And don't they still use wood in the hull???

Absolutely not. There is no wood in the floor, stringers or hull on either of
these boats. In fact for 1997 MC has no wood except in the platform. Supra was
using wood in their dash and combing pads just last summer, but I understand that
they have completely eliminated wood in the new Supra Comp and possibly other
boats as well. I seriously doubt either would fail, but AME 5000 resists
blistering better, is much stronger and lighter than vinyl ester resins.

> >unfortunately
> >they have a less sturdy engine mounting system than MC. Malibu and CC share
> >some good construction techniques and both try to get as close to a seamless
> >solid boat as possible, but where they differ CC almost always does better.
>
> According to whom? I'm certainly no marine engineer, but
> I'd be surprised to see any significant differnces in a
> marine engineering report of same.

I watched an argument over using aluminum vs steel. It was of course a MC vs CC
argument. I'm pretty comfortable with either system. On the other hand in an all
fiberglass mounting system such as Malibu uses I have a few worries. They have
had problems with some cracking in their hulls, why not in their Fibec's system.
Fiberglass can be brittle and over time can crack. I have had reports of
failures but once again they are few and far between. Also as in the case of the
Echelon that came apart the owner was compensated with a brand new boat as I
understand it a special edition Corvette boat at that. This is why people don't
hear about this much. What kind of engineering report are you talking about?
Failure rate, deformation, strength, life cycle models of fiberglass vs steel vs
aluminum.

Once again, during normal use I don't see this kind of failure as being a common
thing so during your hypothetical blind test most would not see a difference.
There are thousands of Malibu's out there that are structurally intact and
running great and I believe the risk is extremely low. There are differences
though and some are significant if only for 1 in 500 boats or less.

Malibu does build a good boat and so does MC, CC and Supra, but they are not
created equal.

[Tom Ruta]

Mark Kovalcson <kova...@usit.net> wrote:

>Tom Ruta wrote:
>
>> Didn't we previously see ( about 6 months ago on this
>> newsgroup) that this was only a couple of hundred bucks for
>> a boat? Given that, maybe there is a method to the madness.
>
>I think it actually came out to a lot more than that, but there is a method to
>their madness and they are selling lots of boats because of it.
>

Anyone recall the number? Surely on a 30K boat the delta
for AME 5000 versus what-not _can't_ be more than $500, can
it???

>> You know, I've seen these arguments for bicycle

>> construction....

>Having had a Tange #2, Columbus SL and and for the last 10 years an aluminum
>frame set on my Cannondale bicycle I am very familiar with what you are talking
>about. I had one of the original aluminum Cannondale bicycles with the defective
>front forks that crack and fail and had to replace mine. My Columbus SL frameset
>was worn out after about 25K miles.

Wore out? Good gawwd, man, surely you aren't suggesting the
old "steel wears out" thing again? That old saw only gets
duller with time. I wonder what Jobst Brandt would say...

>My Tange frameset was too heavy and I
>replaced it before wearing it out. I currently ride(when I do) on a combination
>of Shimano 600 and Dura Ace componentry. Many years ago advances by Shimano left
>Campagnolo in the dust, but competition bred better componentry by both
>companies. In other words there were big differences between the manufacturers.

My point was that if you compare Durace against Record (top
line stuff), for all intents and purposes, there is *no*
difference. Although I have to add that my experience Campy
is way ahead of Shimano now in durability, construction
technique, resale (oh, ohh... starting to cound like a
Correct Craft salesperson...<grin>)

<... let's play dualling bike qualifications - not!>

...

>Probably. Coremat can be brittle. Treveria is much lighter.
>

So one makes for a better boat? That being the case, how
does the other stay in business?

>... On the other hand there have been more than one failure of

>the butted hull design. The most noteworthy I have the police report from. Last
>Spring a 17 hour old Echelon came apart at the seams in the Orlando Florida

>area. ...

Oh oh... hope you can back that up lest we see Sue Posters
back on usenet!

>> >MasterCrafts and Supra's are built very similarly but the Supra uses AME
>> >5000 resins and has multiple engine manufacturers to pick from
>>
>> And don't they still use wood in the hull???
>

I was referring to last years info on Supra where the photos
even _show_ wood in construction. If only in the combing
pads.

>Absolutely not. ...

...

>I watched an argument over using aluminum vs steel. It was of course a MC vs CC
>argument. I'm pretty comfortable with either system. On the other hand in an all
>fiberglass mounting system such as Malibu uses I have a few worries. They have
>had problems with some cracking in their hulls, why not in their Fibec's system.

A huge generalization - material may be suitable in one app
and not in another or mybe so, depending on its engineering.
Ever hear of concrete toboggans?

>Fiberglass can be brittle and over time can crack. I have had reports of
>failures but once again they are few and far between. Also as in the case of the
>Echelon that came apart the owner was compensated with a brand new boat as I
>understand it a special edition Corvette boat at that. This is why people don't
>hear about this much. What kind of engineering report are you talking about?
>Failure rate, deformation, strength, life cycle models of fiberglass vs steel vs
>aluminum.
>

Anyone want to pony up a couple of craft for NDT? or DT?

>Once again, during normal use I don't see this kind of failure as being a common
>thing so during your hypothetical blind test most would not see a difference.

Wait a minute... if the failures don't happen in normal use,
why worry. Your argument is starting to sound like those
pick-up gas tank exposes or that SUV rollover stuff taht
besmirched a certain testing organization. I thought you
were doing pretty good to this point.

>There are thousands of Malibu's out there that are structurally intact and
>running great and I believe the risk is extremely low. There are differences
>though and some are significant if only for 1 in 500 boats or less.
>
>Malibu does build a good boat and so does MC, CC and Supra, but they are not
>created equal.

MHO - none of them are created equal.

Tom

[Mark Kovalcson]

Tom Ruta wrote:

> Anyone recall the number? Surely on a 30K boat the delta
> for AME 5000 versus what-not _can't_ be more than $500, can
> it???

For just the AME 5000 you are probably right I was also including other things like
the metal used in the engine mounting system etc...

> Wore out? Good gawwd, man, surely you aren't suggesting the
> old "steel wears out" thing again? That old saw only gets
> duller with time. I wonder what Jobst Brandt would say...

This is the same as wearing out a waterski. After a while they get spongy and don't
accellerate as well. Many serious riders would wear a bicycle frameset out in a year.
By this I mean the frame was still intact but would not accellerate as well up hill.
In a long climb the flexing of the frame slows you down. Yes the metal did fatigue
with use. My Columbus SL frameset was mushy, creaked and did not accelerate nearly as
well after 25K miles of use.

Also you are correct that Campy components has always had a great reputation for
reliability. They had to be awakened by Shimano when they hadn't improved their
designs in many many years. They got lazy. They are doing much better now.

> ...

> >Probably. Coremat can be brittle. Treveria is much lighter.
> >
>

> So one makes for a better boat? That being the case, how
> does the other stay in business?

Since when does having the best product guarantee anything. Without the right
combination of advertising, sales, distribution, sponsorship etc... it doesn't
matter. Malibu has a great advertising machine, they have a good product and their
product performs well and is priced lower than much of the competition. That is
enough to sell plenty of boats.

If I were buying a new 20K boat, I would pick the Sportster over the 176 or SportStar.
At this price point, I would make concessions in build quality for what I consider
better ergonomics, and performance. If CC built a 20K boat that performed like the
Sportster and had a flat place to sit down on the transom I would probably buy it.

On the other hand once you start to anti up the bigger bucks for a Responce or a Ski
Nautique, the Ski Nautique starts to look like the better deal to me. I would also
probably keep the SN longer.

> >... On the other hand there have been more than one failure of

> >the butted hull design. The most noteworthy I have the police report from. Last
> >Spring a 17 hour old Echelon came apart at the seams in the Orlando Florida

> >area. ...
>
> Oh oh... hope you can back that up lest we see Sue Posters
> back on usenet!

Would you like me to email you the scans of the police report? They are too bulky to
post to the newsgroup(ie. multiple megabytes). I could post the time, date, county and
report number so that anyone who was interested could look it up in the public
records. I think this incident points to a potential problem with quality control
that may have just affected a few of boats. It does not mean a butt fit can not
work. It just points out that it must be done carefully.

When I visited United Marine's facility, I saw how they put their deck and hulls
together. Once the deck is on the hull they put stainless screws through the deck and
hull about every 3 inches. Then when they put the rub rail on they use another set of
screws staggered every 3 inches. If this was a perfect process there would be one
screws every 1.5 inches holding the hull and deck together. The fiberglass strip that
Malibu runs along the inside of the deck and hull is a more brittle connection. When
the hull and deck flex the likely hood of the screws coming apart is nil, whereas this
has already happened to a couple Malibu that I know of.

> I was referring to last years info on Supra where the photos
> even _show_ wood in construction. If only in the combing
> pads.

When I toured their plant last summer, they were still using Marine plywood in the
floors and stringers of the Moomba's and in the dash, combing pads and other places of
the Supra's. Since then they have introduces some new boats and I was told during a
ride in a Supra Comp test boat that they had gotten rid of all the wood in the new
Supra Comp. The test boat still had wood in it. So I am going on the word of someone
who works for United Marine.

[Tom Ruta]

Mark Kovalcson <kova...@usit.net> wrote:

>Tom Ruta wrote:
>For just the AME 5000 you are probably right I was also including other things like
>the metal used in the engine mounting system etc...
>

I just checked. Motor mounts for a 351 are less than a
hundred bucks.

>> Wore out? Good gawwd, man, surely you aren't suggesting the
>> old "steel wears out" thing again? That old saw only gets
>> duller with time. I wonder what Jobst Brandt would say...
>
>This is the same as wearing out a waterski. After a while they get spongy and don't
>accellerate as well.

Bicycle frames get "spongy"???? Surely you jest! Bike
frames crack, but they sure as heck don't get spongy. And
if somehow they did, then you should be as concerned (or
perhaps moreso) for metal engine mounts. Especially for the
aluminum ones, given Al's propensity to notch (read:
catastrophic ) failure.

As for skis getting "spongy", there are different
construction issues involved- like delamination of the top
surface.

>Many serious riders would wear a bicycle frameset out in a year.

Horse hockey! They change them because they get them free!
I've had a couple of friends on the National (Canuck)
cycling team and to a one, they all got new equipment
regulary, perhaps giving the impression that the old one
"wore out".

>By this I mean the frame was still intact but would not accellerate as well up hill.
>In a long climb the flexing of the frame slows you down. Yes the metal did fatigue
>with use. My Columbus SL frameset was mushy, creaked and did not accelerate nearly as
>well after 25K miles of use.
>

Creaking is a good sign of cracking; perhaps you should have
been more observant.

...

>If I were buying a new 20K boat, I would pick the Sportster over the 176 or SportStar.
>At this price point, I would make concessions in build quality for what I consider
>better ergonomics, and performance. If CC built a 20K boat that performed like the
>Sportster and had a flat place to sit down on the transom I would probably buy it.
>
>On the other hand once you start to anti up the bigger bucks for a Responce or a Ski
>Nautique, the Ski Nautique starts to look like the better deal to me. I would also
>probably keep the SN longer.
>

Let's see, no wedge, significantly higher initial cost (in
Canada anyway), more expensive to repair, harder to get
parts (see Don M's post on his 96 Nautique problem from
Oz)...

>> >... On the other hand there have been more than one failure of

>> >the butted hull design. The most noteworthy I have the police report from. Last
>> >Spring a 17 hour old Echelon came apart at the seams in the Orlando Florida

>> >area. ...
>>
>> Oh oh... hope you can back that up lest we see Sue Posters
>> back on usenet!
>
>Would you like me to email you the scans of the police report?

Not necessary. I believe that one boat did in fact do that
if you say the police reports show so. But to suggest that
this indicates a potential problem in Malibu's quality
control is simply ludicrous - not to mention litigous. Look
at auto recalls if you want evidence of quality control;
AFAIK, the ski boat industry is simply not plagued with
QC/QA problems, nor does one or three isolated incident(s)
(of *any* manufacturer) suggest so.

Need we recall the hype surrounding beached boats???

>... I think this incident points to a potential problem with quality control
>that may have just affected a few of boats....

>When I visited United Marine's facility, I saw how they put their deck and hulls
>together. Once the deck is on the hull they put stainless screws through the deck and
>hull about every 3 inches. Then when they put the rub rail on they use another set of
>screws staggered every 3 inches. If this was a perfect process there would be one
>screws every 1.5 inches holding the hull and deck together. The fiberglass strip that
>Malibu runs along the inside of the deck and hull is a more brittle connection. When
>the hull and deck flex the likely hood of the screws coming apart is nil, whereas this
>has already happened to a couple Malibu that I know of.
>

Guess that explains the failure of monoque contruction in
aircraft, eh?

Besides, drilling holes in components of a frame of any type
(willy-nilly) is not recommended so I'm curious to know how
they've engineered the drilling pattern.

>> I was referring to last years info on Supra where the photos
>> even _show_ wood in construction. If only in the combing
>> pads.
>
>When I toured their plant last summer, they were still using Marine plywood in the
>floors and stringers of the Moomba's and in the dash, combing pads and other places of
>the Supra's. Since then they have introduces some new boats and I was told during a
>ride in a Supra Comp test boat that they had gotten rid of all the wood in the new
>Supra Comp. The test boat still had wood in it. So I am going on the word of someone
>who works for United Marine.

I'll check out the new boats at the boat show in a few weeks
and report back, rather than relying on heresay.

Tom

[Sybil]

Okay...Okay...Tom and Mark...it's an interesting argument...Go to neutral
corners!

The LA Boat Show is Feb. 7th to 15th and I plan on being there on more than
one day.
Please tell me the questions to ask of the different manufacturers regarding
their qa / qc and manufacturing innovations and / or anything else you want
all of us to know. As an independent (although an enthusiast with a 6 year
old Supra comp) I will report my findings to this ng. Anyone want to meet
mid-week at the show????

FRED

[Mark Kovalcson]

Tom Ruta wrote:

> Lot's of stuff

Alright. It is obvious that you have decided that you like the construction of Malibu's.
Fine. I was sold on Malibu for about a year or so. I changed my mind, you may not. When I
toured Malibu's plant here in Tennessee, Scott Crutchfield was pretty convincing. Many
around here love Malibu's. I am in no way the voice of the club I belong to. We have
happy owners of quite a variety of boats. Heck I'm still pretty happy with my 1981 Ski
Supreme despite its build quality, age etc... It has been reliable, it's paid for and it's
servicable as well as having a pretty decent slalom wake. I can give 100 reasons other
boats are better than mine, but I can also give 100 reasons I should keep for a long time.

If you want this Sportster, buy it. It should make a fine boat. If you want to believe is
it the best thing since sliced bread, then believe it is the best thing since sliced
bread. Just try not to fall into the category of people who have ego attached to their
possessions and decide just because they made a decision that it was the only decision to
make. Buyer beware and remember there is no free lunch, a cheaper boat is well a cheaper
boat.

Sybil and others, I'm sorry this turned into a "boats wars" thread. I know many have had
more than enough of this. I'd love to hear your "unbiased" analysis of the boat show ;) I
like to consider myself unbiased since I haven't absolutely fallen for any boat that is
currently on the market. Each boat is a compromise. Here are my "biased" views on the a few
of the top boats

The Supra Comp has lots of nice features and ergonomics that fit the way I use a boat, but
it does not perform as well as some others and is not built as well as some others.

The Correct Craft Ski Nautique has great performance and build quality, but my children
can't pull up on the sealed platform and I feel very uncomfortable sitting on their swoopy
eurostyled tail.

The Malibu Sportster has low cost, good performance good ergonomics but is not built as
well as some others.

The MasterCraft ProStar has good performance, good ergonomics, but has new gadgetry on it
that I don't trust yet and some others are built better.

The Tige' is not available around here and I won't buy a new boat with wood stringers.

[Frederick Weber]

Does not everyone go through a little buyers remorse; no matter
what they buy?

How does one test for the "remorse factor"?

Would you rate it "World Class", if your remorse is huge? Like everytime
you see another boat you want to evaluate it to death!

Or would you rate it "Recreational" when your remorse drives you to say
"nice boat" when you see another brand ?

Or maybe the other way around.

Hmmm

[Mark Kovalcson]

Frederick Weber wrote:

> Does not everyone go through a little buyers remorse; no matter
> what they buy?

If this is aimed at me. I have no remorse about my old Ski Supreme. It cost
me 7500 5 years ago and hopefully the next few years will be as fun as the
last 5 have been. Unfortunately I love to analyze everything. Be it
computers, bicycles, stereo equipement, cars, ski boats etc... I own an old
truck, an old BMW and old tournament ski boat and hopefully soon an old
houseboat. I have no problem with old servicable stuff. I like to look at
the new stuff because eventually it becomes old stuff ;) and it is much
harder to find information about old stuff. I love to fix stuff and here in
lies my problem.

All you guys looking to spend 30K for a new boat. Remember if you keep the
old tub, you might be able to swing a houseboat and have a lot more time on
the water :)

[Mark Kovalcson]

OK enough about the spongy steel. Let's put this issue to rest since it
seems to be bothering you so much.

If you bend a metal object slightly, but repeatedly you stress that
object. In the case of bicycle framesets the braze points or weld points
are your more tensil and less ductile points. Over time the repeated
stress will cause fatigue. My Columbus SL frameset was only rated for a
160lb or lighter rider which I was back then. Some riders put less
stress on their frames if they are out of their saddle when they hit
bumps etc and some are just not as strong. The cummulative stress of
repeated use will cause eventual failure of the frameset usually at the
braze points where the metal is more brittle. What you said about the
cracking is in part correct, but think of it as microscopic cracks
forming through out the structure. Eventually it begins to give more and
more and thereby putting less energy to the wheels of the bicycle and
more energy to creaking, heat dissipation etc...

If this is not a good enough explaination, maybe I can contact a
metalergist. I give up!

Good night Mrs. Calabash where ever you are!

[Tom Ruta]

Mark Kovalcson <kova...@usit.net> wrote:

>Tom Ruta wrote:
>
>> >Historically the closed bows...

>> Backs up my statement, no?
>
>No, since their open bow recieved the highest marks this time around.

Oops! I misread that one. Although Malibu has been using
their open bows in tournaments for a while and I wonder
about "investigator bias".

>> Did the tests include the Wedge?
>
>No. The tests show the shape hardness and width to be great but the size
>was another issue. Although the 2600 lb ProStar got the same rating for wake
>size.
>

I'll bet CC and MC are glad of that! (Although CC could
always tout their new system in response).

>> According to the promo literature, the hull SV23 Diamind,
>> is only used on the Response and Sunsetter models. The
>> Sportster uses the "old" hull design (a variant of the
>> SV23).
>
>Interesting. Then I would say these tests are for the birds unless the old
>hull works much better with a narrower hull and a couple hundred less
>pounds.
>

Too many variables, IMHO. But I'd lay odds it is the lower
weight - which is why the Sportster will be a competitor
killer.

>> How short of shortline? These reviews that say "a small
>> pimple was detected in the wake at 41 off, but disappeared
>> at 43 off" don't apply to me to be sure <g>.
>
>There was a noticable trough on the original SV23 design which is more
>relevant than any pimple. The Ski Nautique uses canoeing which creates a
>single wake instead of the double wake most of us are used to. I would put
>the "small pimple" comment in the category of material for saleman to
>quote. Keep in mind many manufacturers have been selling No wake, No spray
>boats for the last 10 years and yet each new hull design creates less wake
>than the previous model. I guess what we have now are negative wakes ;)
>

I think you missed the humour there - most of the reviews
seem to comment on the wake at things like 35 and 38+ off!
I'll never see the wake at 41 off unless I happen to be
swimming in the slalom course when Jeff Rodgers goes by!
<grin>

>> The shorter hull dooms the 176 to fare poorly in

>> performance test, IMHO. But I've got 5 bucks that says CC

>> introduces a "lite" Nautique within 2 model years!!!
>
>I've told by people close to CC that they thought the 176 was purposely
>hobbled so as not to cut into their SN sales.
>

I's believe that - but then what about Malibu? As I've said
perviously, I think Malibu is on the mark here - the "My
First Sony" approach to hook 'em and keep 'em in your line
of products.

...<whole bunch snipped on materials engineering>

Tom

[BOYD38OFF]

>>MasterCrafts and Supra's are built very similarly but the Supra uses AME
>>5000 resins and has multiple engine manufacturers to pick from
>
>And don't they still use wood in the hull???
>
>

"they" who???? I don't know about Supra, but MC hasn't used wood in any part
of the boat structure for YEARS!

Boyd

[Tom Ruta]

Mark Kovalcson <kova...@usit.net> wrote:

>Tom Ruta wrote:
>
>> Lot's of stuff
>
>Alright. It is obvious that you have decided that you like the construction of Malibu's.

Er... not to put too fin a point on it, but it was you who
disparaged the construction of Malibu boats, not I.

>Fine. I was sold on Malibu for about a year or so. I changed my mind, you may not. When I
>toured Malibu's plant here in Tennessee, Scott Crutchfield was pretty convincing. Many
>around here love Malibu's. I am in no way the voice of the club I belong to. We have
>happy owners of quite a variety of boats. Heck I'm still pretty happy with my 1981 Ski
>Supreme despite its build quality, age etc... It has been reliable, it's paid for and it's
>servicable as well as having a pretty decent slalom wake. I can give 100 reasons other
>boats are better than mine, but I can also give 100 reasons I should keep for a long time.
>

Sure... most of the stuff today is pretty good. Is some of
it better than others WRT construction and/or materials?
Sure. But in the big scheme of things there is really
precious little to obviate one from another. and you still
have to factor in cost, maintenance, resale, etc.

>If you want this Sportster, buy it. It should make a fine boat. If you want to believe is
>it the best thing since sliced bread, then believe it is the best thing since sliced
>bread.

And then you pulled out the argument that steel goes "soft"
or spongy. Hardly adds credence to your arguments, IMHO.
Not that they are totally invalid, but to tot out such
mythology (tribilogy??) as accurate makes your argument
patantly false and highly improbable implausible.

>Just try not to fall into the category of people who have ego attached to their
>possessions and decide just because they made a decision that it was the only decision to
>make. Buyer beware and remember there is no free lunch, a cheaper boat is well a cheaper
>boat.
>

In the big scheme of things, none of this really matters. I
know a guy with a Malibu Euro F3 that is at least 10 yrs old
- it is still sweet. I merely want the best
price/performance in my next (only?) boat. And since I
don't make my living at the end of a ski rope, I'm not sure
it all really matetrs. If I was loaded, I'd have a Nautique
for slalom, a Wedge-equipped Sunsetter for boarding and
family crusing and a Mastercraft for tricks.

>Sybil and others, I'm sorry this turned into a "boats wars" thread. I know many have had
>more than enough of this. I'd love to hear your "unbiased" analysis of the boat show ;)

I really don't think it is boat wars. I don't consider it
as such.

>I
>like to consider myself unbiased since I haven't absolutely fallen for any boat that is
>currently on the market. Each boat is a compromise. Here are my "biased" views on the a few
>of the top boats
>

I, too, am still in shopping mode - I'll let you know (stock
market willing <g>) what I decide on.

>The Supra Comp has lots of nice features and ergonomics that fit the way I use a boat, but
>it does not perform as well as some others and is not built as well as some others.
>

Too niche IMHO.

>The Correct Craft Ski Nautique has great performance and build quality, but my children
>can't pull up on the sealed platform and I feel very uncomfortable sitting on their swoopy
>eurostyled tail.
>

And still a premium price.

>The Malibu Sportster has low cost, good performance good ergonomics but is not built as
>well as some others.
>

Open to debate on the latetr point obviously... <smile>

>The MasterCraft ProStar has good performance, good ergonomics, but has new gadgetry on it
>that I don't trust yet and some others are built better.
>

What about the SportStar?

>The Tige' is not available around here and I won't buy a new boat with wood stringers.
>

I agree wholeheartedly.

So, what defines *your* perfect boat?

Tom

[Sybil]

What do you call it when you see someone towing another brand and you want
to tell him / her "too bad, you could of had a good boat"?

[Mike Scannell]

Mike Scannell <vita...@uniserve.com> wrote in article
<01bd1ac6$c5adf240$53a3f4cc@Vitalsns>...
>
>
> Mark Kovalcson <kova...@usit.net> wrote in article
> <34B1A749...@usit.net>...

> > OK enough about the spongy steel. Let's put this issue to rest since it
> > seems to be bothering you so much.
> >
> > If you bend a metal object slightly, but repeatedly you stress that
> > object.
>

> Fiberglas cracks, wood rots, aluminum wears, who knows what some of the
> composites will do over time. Everything is a compromise. My bud's '91
Euro
> F3 with wood stringers is still going strong. If you guys split these
hairs
> any finer you won't be able to see them with an electron microscope.
>
> Everything works. It boils down to value.
>
> Lessee, A '97 Nautique for $47,000 Canadian, or a '97 Tige, with
> encapsulated wood stringers and a guarentee for $24,000. Hmmmm. If the
> stringers rot in 10 years, I can use the money I saved to buy another
boat.
> If I buy the Nautique, it'll probably be obsolete in 10 years anyway.
>
> Just a thought.
>
> Mike
>

Sorry. Haven't had my morning coffee. His boat is a '89. He paid $20,000
and he could still get $18,000. Not bad resale for a boat with wood
stringers.

Mike

[Mark Kovalcson]

Sybil wrote:

> What do you call it when you see someone towing another brand and you want
> to tell him / her "too bad, you could of had a good boat"?

Just like how to avoid hangovers. You just don't do it. If you can offer
advice not only before a sale, but before the person has already made up his
or her mind than be frank.

I would add to that being careful about responses to what you think of various
attibutes of a boat. It is the same question you get when your wife asks you
how her new hair style looks. In most cases unless you really know the
individual and how that person will take it, humor that person. As you can
imagine I have been scowled at before reguarding this.

I was out on a new boat owners boat a few years ago when another person in the
boat asked me a couple questions about what I thought of it. I was brutally
frank. Big mistake. That makes two people I will probably never go skiing
with and a possible friendship that never happened.

[Tom Ruta]

"Sybil" <team...@netxn.com> wrote:

>What do you call it when you see someone towing another brand and you want
>to tell him / her "too bad, you could of had a good boat"?

Salesmanship? Or just a guarantee of never getting a tow
from them (at least a decent one! <smile>)?

Tom

[Tom Ruta]

Mark Kovalcson <kova...@usit.net> wrote:

>OK enough about the spongy steel. Let's put this issue to rest since it
>seems to be bothering you so much.

Yes, Mark - let's. But Again, you are the one who has
suggested that bicycle frames "go soft".

(Note to the uninterested: I'm not a metallurgist, nor an
engineer - but I pretend to be one on the Internet <g>.
However, I've studied this stuff WRT fatigue as it relates
to bicycles - my other "hobby")

>If you bend a metal object slightly, but repeatedly you stress that
>object.

Yes, this is correct. At least in part. If you bend metal
within its normal range (as dictated by its composition,
construction, impurities, et al) the bonds between the
molecules, bend but do not break. This is called elastic
deformation.

When higher stresses are applied, permanent (plastic)
deformation occurs. For example, when a paper clip is bent a
large amount and then released, it will remain partially
bent. This plastic deformation involves the breaking of
bonds, often by the motion of dislocations.

Riding a bicycle within its normal range (ie. not trashing
it against a tree) simply does not move the metal past its
elastic deformation. Period. Ergo, frames simply do not go
"soft" or "spongy".

An interesting side note is that steel bike frames or
components can be engineered to NEVER fail, but that
aluminum WILL fail (it's inherent in that material).
Nomatter how you engineer it. Remember that the next time
you get on board a commercial airliner! So if your motor
mounts are aluminum... (as Elmer Fudd would say...) "Be
Afwaid... Be Wery, Wery Afwaid... <smile>. Seriously, most
of these things like motor mounts are engineered to provide
a useful life long after everything else has gone south. So
the probability of _any_ of these systems failing in today's
inboards is so close to zilch as to not be worth worrying
about. You have a much great probability of dying on or
getting to the water than you have of seeing a motor mount
fail.

>In the case of bicycle framesets the braze points or weld points
>are your more tensil and less ductile points. Over time the repeated
>stress will cause fatigue. My Columbus SL frameset was only rated for a
>160lb or lighter rider which I was back then. Some riders put less
>stress on their frames if they are out of their saddle when they hit
>bumps etc and some are just not as strong. The cummulative stress of
>repeated use will cause eventual failure of the frameset usually at the
>braze points where the metal is more brittle.

Obviously you haven't heard of terms like annealing and
quenching or tempering. And I suppose that you have an
explanation for the large number of old bikes with hundreds
of thousands of kms on them?

>What you said about the
>cracking is in part correct, but think of it as microscopic cracks
>forming through out the structure. Eventually it begins to give more and
>more and thereby putting less energy to the wheels of the bicycle and
>more energy to creaking, heat dissipation etc...

This simply ain't gonna happen in the normal life of a
bicycle. Or by extension in motor mounts. In normal
stress conditions, that is. And creaking from internal bond
damage? (yeesh!)

I'm done! Class dismissed! <smile>

Tom

[Bob Scibienski]

"Sybil" <team...@netxn.com> wrote:

>What do you call it when you see someone towing another brand and you want
>to tell him / her "too bad, you could of had a good boat"?

elitism

Bob S.

[Bob Scibienski]

Hey Tom - contact Boeing. I'm sure that they will pay big bucks for your
expertise in formulating stress resistant metals, steel included. Boy o boy,
could they extend the life of their engines with crack free rotor blades. And
scheduled maintenance could become a thing of the past. <g>

Unfortunately nothing is perfect. All metals (all materials for that matter)
have flaws, and stresses exacerbate them and make them grow until the material
reaches a failure point. True, this takes a LOT of repetitive stress in the
better materials. But most (all?) things built for the types of competition you
guys have been talking about are built as light as possible. They have a design
lifetime, after which they do indeed go "soft" (if you will pardon the use of
the term) due to accumulated microfractures and bonding failures. When you
start with the best materials, the only way to extend that lifetime is to
overbuild (or underuse, heaven forbid).

IMHO - Bob S.

[Greg Falconer]

I hope I can get 90% of my boats purchase price after 8 years. I bet my 97
CC will not hold its value that well, unless the world is full of suckers in
2005.

my 2cents

Mike Scannell wrote in message <01bd1ac8$27f83040$899ef4cc@Vitalsns>...

>
>
>Mike Scannell <vita...@uniserve.com> wrote in article
><01bd1ac6$c5adf240$53a3f4cc@Vitalsns>...
>>
>>
>> Mark Kovalcson <kova...@usit.net> wrote in article
>> <34B1A749...@usit.net>...

>> > OK enough about the spongy steel. Let's put this issue to rest since it
>> > seems to be bothering you so much.
>> >

>> > If you bend a metal object slightly, but repeatedly you stress that
>> > object.
>>

[John Anderson]

In article <68u2mc$lrg$1...@mark.ucdavis.edu>, rjscib...@ucdavis.edu (Bob Scibienski) says:

>Unfortunately nothing is perfect. All metals (all materials for that matter)
>have flaws, and stresses exacerbate them and make them grow until the material
>reaches a failure point. True, this takes a LOT of repetitive stress in the
>better materials.

Tom's explanation is consistant with a book I read on motorcycle frame
design. Steel doesn't fatigue until the fatigue point is reached, and
then you'll know you broke it. Whereas aluminum has a very low fatigue
point and is constantly degrading with use.

I'm only reciting what I read, but at least Tom's theory is backed up
by another source.

John Anderson
www.magicnet.net/~johna

[Tom Ruta]

rjscib...@ucdavis.edu (Bob Scibienski) wrote:

>Hey Tom - contact Boeing. I'm sure that they will pay big bucks for your
>expertise in formulating stress resistant metals, steel included. Boy o boy,
>could they extend the life of their engines with crack free rotor blades. And
>scheduled maintenance could become a thing of the past. <g>
>

Ha, ha, ha.... that's a good one, Bob! But where did I say
that steel doesn't stress? Remember that Mark was saying
that bikes go "soft" in a year! That was where this
started.

>Unfortunately nothing is perfect. All metals (all materials for that matter)
>have flaws, and stresses exacerbate them and make them grow until the material
>reaches a failure point.

In other words, plastic deformation has taken place.
Repetitive stress within the elastic range of a material
(like the steel in a bike frame) simply does not cause
failures that MArk suggested. Period. Go find a single
bike engineer (Olsen, Papadapoulos, Helfriech, Brandt etc.)
who agrees with Mark. (It'll be a long search...)

> True, this takes a LOT of repetitive stress in the

>better materials. But most (all?) things built for the types of competition you
>guys have been talking about are built as light as possible. They have a design
>lifetime, after which they do indeed go "soft" (if you will pardon the use of
>the term) due to accumulated microfractures and bonding failures.

Yet another falls to the myth of bike frames going soft.
Bonding (weld or otherwise) are a different matter. Hope
design is not your strong suit!

Tom

[Bob Scibienski]

It'll take me a few days to get by the physical sciences library (this is a busy
quarter for me). I'll let you know what I find. But think about it for a
moment. All those parts in airplanes which have to be replaced whan the cracks
become big enough to detect, have they undergone plastic deformation? I don't
think so. They have, however, undergone millions of cycles of elastic
deformation. Can you reach these numbers on a bike in a year?. Some riders
probably could, but if the bike is built close enough to the limit it probably
wouldn't take this many cycles. Also, why do springs become spongy (just
another word for soft, you know) with constant use within their designed limits
of movement?

Bob

[Mike Scannell]

[Mark Kovalcson]

Mike Scannell wrote:

> Sorry. Haven't had my morning coffee. His boat is a '89. He paid $20,000
> and he could still get $18,000. Not bad resale for a boat with wood
> stringers.
>
> Mike

So the 1994 Echelon that I could have bought for 18K new must have been a
fluke.
He certainly could not get 18K around here.
We see 1 yr old Responses for about 20K every year.
18K might get you a nice 1993 MC ProStar Stars and Stripes.

[Sybil]

The 1966 VW Bug priced at 1998 prices (infaltion etc.) would be $5800 (per
NBC NEWS), and the new "Bug" will be out in March for $15000 to $20000.
GAG!!!!!!

[Mark Kovalcson]

cox@antispam_ix.netcom.com wrote:

> Mark.... there is a good reason that platform is sealed as you call it.
> I posted it here a year or so ago. Look it up in the archives if you
> don't remember the reason. You might no agree but you'll see why CC will
> not change this.
>
> John

I am very familiar with the law suits involving children asphyxiating on the platform. As I
understand it both MC and CC had such dealings. MC has a fiberglass platform as a option, but
you can still get teak. Supra also has fiberglass platforms. The thought of the children with
hands caught in the platform being idled along unconsciously by some poor excuses for parents
makes me want to scream !

As a responsible parent, I don't run my engine with the children playing back there and I very
much like having slots in my platform. I understand why a company would do what CC did after
being burnt in a law suit, but I still don't like sealed platforms. I also still think the
platform on the SN is too small.

[c...@antispam_ix.netcom.com]

On Mon, 05 Jan 1998 20:15:11 -0500, Mark Kovalcson <kova...@usit.net>
wrote:
<snip>

>The Correct Craft Ski Nautique has great performance and build quality, but my children
>can't pull up on the sealed platform and I feel very uncomfortable sitting on their swoopy
>eurostyled tail.

Mark.... there is a good reason that platform is sealed as you call it.

[Mike Scannell]

Mark Kovalcson <kova...@usit.net> wrote in article

<34B2C4FE...@usit.net>...

In the first post that this was a correction to I did say CANADIAN dollars.
Exchange is now at 40%. Your 18k boat goes for 26K up here.

Mike

[Tom Ruta]

Mark Kovalcson <kova...@usit.net> wrote:
...

> So the 1994 Echelon that I could have bought for 18K new must have been a
>fluke.
>He certainly could not get 18K around here.
>We see 1 yr old Responses for about 20K every year.
>18K might get you a nice 1993 MC ProStar Stars and Stripes.

Mark , that was Canadian dollars (like Monopoly money to you
Yanks!). I saw a 1988 Supra with 500 hrs for $17K CDN as
another example.

Tom

[jstanton]

@cts.com
Organization: CTS Network Services
Newsgroups: rec.sport.waterski

On Tue, 6 Jan 1998 14:33:15 -0600, "Greg Falconer"
<g**falc...@gte.net> wrote:

>I hope I can get 90% of my boats purchase price after 8 years. I bet my 97
>CC will not hold its value that well, unless the world is full of suckers in
>2005.

I have been following the resale market of my boat, a '97SN. It
appears that selling a used '97SN (w/GT40) is currently depreciated at
about 10% nation-wide. It also appears that California may be one or
two points higher in depreciation (because of premium prices). So, I
would conclude that since the market is suggesting that you could get
90% now for a year or less old boat, it seems bleak for a 10%
depreciation in 8 years.

It has been my experiences that most salesperson will throw some small
bull in the sales pitch. And, resale value is one of the more popular
bull items. This is because the vast majority of buyers don't do any
homework on resales and thus can't tell if it is true or not. This is
easy to do. Just get a copy of the for-sale ads that contain the boat
model your negotiating on. When the salesperson talks "high resale
value". Ask specifics. Chances are you will hear numbers that are
better than the ads. Show the ads!

Most of the posters here talk about construction, this is fine but it
doesn't help you in determining what would be a fair price for the
boat. The only way to conclude if the price is fair is TO CHECK THE
PRICE! Around here, I see that there is a surprisingly wide price
fluctuation in the selling prices for the same models among CC, MC,
and Malibu buyers. Remember, "buyer beware" really means that you
should educate yourself on the market before buying.

[Tom Ruta]

rjscib...@ucdavis.edu (Bob Scibienski) wrote:

>It'll take me a few days to get by the physical sciences library (this is a busy
>quarter for me). I'll let you know what I find.

Okay... but I'm pretty confident you'll find nothing that
supports Mark's assertion that bike frames go "soft".

>But think about it for a
>moment. All those parts in airplanes which have to be replaced whan the cracks
>become big enough to detect, have they undergone plastic deformation? I don't
>think so. They have, however, undergone millions of cycles of elastic
>deformation.

Not being totally "up" of aircraft design <smile>, I assume,
since we are dealing with flying craft that a major
constituent of such beasties is light alloys, often with
aluminum. As such, they then become susceptible to the
fatigue stress from less that plastic deformation.

>Can you reach these numbers on a bike in a year?. Some riders
>probably could, but if the bike is built close enough to the limit it probably
>wouldn't take this many cycles.

Even if you pedal 20K miles in a year, I don't think you'll
get anywhere near the design life of any bike in existence
today. And surprisingly enough, "stupid light" is not all
that common; hence the trend away from drilled components.
A lot of CAD/CAM CNC machining is done, but that's totally
different realm (BTW, you are aware that Malibu is rather a
standout amongst boat mfg's for its early and prevalent
adoption of CNC - computer numerical control - machining?)

>Also, why do springs become spongy (just
>another word for soft, you know) with constant use within their designed limits
>of movement?

Haven't a clue on springs - but intuition alone tells me
that there's some "funny science" involved with the
electrons in metal springs. Besides, I don't think you can
use them in waterskiing to get phat air!

Tom

[Tony Sloss]

I'm looking at buying a 1998 Four Winns 22 foot (Horizon model 220) as a

family waterski and lake cruising boat for Lake Tahoe, up at 6200' elev.
Anybody have any coments on or experience with this line. Also, what is
the 'real' value of the boat -
what range can I expect to negotiate in? The dealer's first asking was
$31,409 (with duo-prop, and efi, 5.7GSi/DP engine). Any help would be
much appreciated. T.

[Greg Falconer]

I would venture to guess that that a Ski Nautique would not be obsolete in
10 years. Not wanted to spawn too much flame, but it seems like all the
comp. manufacturers are trying just keep up with the technology of CC and
MC. Since 1987 Nautiques are only worth about $10K, I guess that qualifies
them for obsolescence.

EVERYBODY, take your 10 year or older boat to your local pick and pull,
because its not worth the space it takes up.

Mike Scannell wrote in message <01bd1ac6$c5adf240$53a3f4cc@Vitalsns>...

>
>
>Mark Kovalcson <kova...@usit.net> wrote in article

[Greg Falconer]

Do you really think that "poor excuses for parents" would actually by a SN?
They are probably too indebted to the local drug dealer and too busy getting
drunk each night at the bar, while their kids are left at school.

Do you really think boat owners are that clueless? Especially boat owners
who are willing spend the bucks it takes to own a comp. boat.

On a more serious note, why do you like slots in the platform? When I skied
behind a friends '92 Prostar 190, I got my fin, fingers (when trying climb
in), and toes in those little holes. I like the new CC platform because it
is smaller, I can put my ski on it and the fins stick off the end and I
still have enough leverage to get in the ski while out of the water.

Mark Kovalcson wrote in message <34B2E892...@usit.net>...

>cox@antispam_ix.netcom.com wrote:
>
>> Mark.... there is a good reason that platform is sealed as you call it.
>> I posted it here a year or so ago. Look it up in the archives if you
>> don't remember the reason. You might no agree but you'll see why CC will
>> not change this.
>>
>> John
>

[Bob Scibienski]

At the risk of appearing to crave the last word, I offer the following:

ru...@cadvision.com (Tom Ruta) wrote:

>Not being totally "up" of aircraft design <smile>, I assume,
>since we are dealing with flying craft that a major
>constituent of such beasties is light alloys, often with
>aluminum. As such, they then become susceptible to the
>fatigue stress from less that plastic deformation.

Turbine fan rotors & other engine components, engine mounts, bolts, etc., all
steel alloys and all subject to fatigue and scheduled maintenance, AFAIK.

>Even if you pedal 20K miles in a year, I don't think you'll
>get anywhere near the design life of any bike in existence
>today.

Not knowing what those design lives are I can't answer this one. But consider
if those 20K miles are mostly downhill on a trail bike in rough terain. All
those little bumps add up rather quickly.

>Haven't a clue on springs - but intuition alone tells me
>that there's some "funny science" involved with the
>electrons in metal springs.

Steel is steel. No, not really, actually. What's alloyed into it makes a world
of difference, re your comment about the metallurgy. But your basic springs are
basic steel, appropriately forged and heat treated. Turbine rotor blades and
the like are made of much tougher alloys and consequently have greately extended
"design life" capabilities. But they are all still "steel", which you implied
(I think) should not suffer from fatigue accumulation.

Bob S.

[Tom Ruta]

rjscib...@ucdavis.edu (Bob Scibienski) wrote:

>At the risk of appearing to crave the last word, I offer the following:
>

No way - it's mine, all mine <insert evil laughter here <g>

>ru...@cadvision.com (Tom Ruta) wrote:
>
>>...light alloys, often with

>>aluminum. As such, they then become susceptible to the
>>fatigue stress from less that plastic deformation.
>
>Turbine fan rotors & other engine components, engine mounts, bolts, etc., all
>steel alloys and all subject to fatigue and scheduled maintenance, AFAIK.
>

Exactly! Alloyed with Ni, Ti, Nb, Al and God-knows-what
else. Besides, Mark's contention was that his Columbus
steel (alloy without Al) frame went soft and that all bikes
go soft. So if you believe that, then you really better
worry about metal motormounts in a boat application (or buy
a Malibu!)

>
>>Even if you pedal 20K miles in a year, I don't think you'll
>>get anywhere near the design life of any bike in existence
>>today.
>
>Not knowing what those design lives are I can't answer this one. But consider
>if those 20K miles are mostly downhill on a trail bike in rough terain. All
>those little bumps add up rather quickly.
>

Again, he referred to a road bike. Besides, MTBing can
easily push past the design and metallurgy of the frame
(which is partly why shocks are de riguer).

>
>>Haven't a clue on springs - but intuition alone tells me
>>that there's some "funny science" involved with the
>>electrons in metal springs.
>

>... But they are all still "steel", which you implied

>(I think) should not suffer from fatigue accumulation.

My bottom line: bikes don't get soft or spongy. And if
those who believe that are basing boat design evaluations on
such faulty science, then they do a disservice to the
manufacturers.

Tom

[Mark Kovalcson]

Greg Falconer wrote:

> Do you really think that "poor excuses for parents" would actually by
a SN?
> They are probably too indebted to the local drug dealer and too busy
getting
> drunk each night at the bar, while their kids are left at school.

Sorry, even some idots have taste.

> Do you really think boat owners are that clueless? Especially boat
owners
> who are willing spend the bucks it takes to own a comp. boat.

Does that include MasterCrafts and Ski Supremes. I saw a person after
having 4
or 5 beers just jump out of a Ski Supreme(not mine) going about 36 mph.
I know
of many people use used to drink and ski and God forbid some of them
were MC
owners. Hell Malibu used to have a "joke" on there on hold message
bragging
about their incredible beer.. uhh beverage holder built into the seat.
I'm sure
others found that in poor taste besides me.

> On a more serious note, why do you like slots in the platform? When I
skied
> behind a friends '92 Prostar 190, I got my fin, fingers (when trying
climb
> in), and toes in those little holes.

I put the fin off the end of the platform on my Supreme and my friends
MC's and
the transom surface is still flat enough to sit on comfortably. I like
putting
my hand though the platform when I pull up. I can manage open handed on
a
Nautique but I am less comfortable with it. My small children need the
slots to
grab so that they can pull themselves onto the platform and into the
boat. Sorry
about your fingers and toes, but I've never had had a problem with
that. I also
have friend with a 1992 Prostar that I ski behind every 3rd time out in
the
rotation I am in. He has a comfortable transom to sit on where the
Nautique is
perilous at best. The Malibu's besides the Sportsters and older Malibu
Skiers
are sloped so that they are less comfortable than my Supreme or my
friends MC
but I don't they don't make me worry about falling in the drink when I
put my
ski on.

I have been in a boat rotation with the same 3 guys for 5 years now. We
do
certain things every time we go out. Sitting on the transom waiting out
rollers,
sitting on the transom replacing a ski ball, and comfortably sitting on
the
transom while putting my ski on are things I am very used to. You have
obviously
grown accustomed to a different way of doing things. Neither is the
best way to
do things, they are just different. Unfortunately the transom on the
back of
the SN doesn't allow us the flexibility to do the things my friends are
used
to. I recently talked to someone who told me he really liked the
styling CC has
adopted but when he tried to put his wakeboard on he almost fell in.
I'm not
the only one who feels this way and unfortunately CC will probably never
have me
as a customer so long as their transoms are shaped like they currently
are. I
consider this unfortunate.

In my mind any improvements in safety by having a sealed platform are
lost my
the number of people who may fall hitting their heads or getting other
injuries
because of their sloped transom. Since I believe it would be hard to
sue them
because you fell off the boat, this is probably not an issue to their
legal
department.

[SKIERJP]

I think he would be lucky to get 12,000 out of it. There has been to many
improvements over the years

[KENGIBBONS]

: rjscib...@ucdavis.edu (Bob Scibienski)

> Turbine rotor blades and
>the like are made of much tougher alloys and consequently have greately
>extended

>"design life" capabilities. But they are all still "steel", which you

>implied
>(I think) should not suffer from fatigue accumulation.

Actually, even the trickest steel alloys can fatigue from cyclic loading. You
have to look at the magnitude of the stress AND the number of cycles. Then you
consider the materials property called the "endurance limit", the stress level
(well within the elastic range) where the material can go an infinite number of
cycles without failure. Hopefully, critical parts are designed below the
endurance limit.

Aluminum has an interesting property, it has no endurance limit. In other
words, all stressed aluminum parts will eventually fail. It may be in a
jillion years stress cycling continously at 20 MHz, but they will fail. Steel
parts designed under the endurance limit wont..

[KENGIBBONS]

"Greg Falconer" <g**falc...@gte.net> wrote:

>On a more serious note, why do you like slots in the platform? When I skied
>behind a friends '92 Prostar 190, I got my fin, fingers (when trying climb

>in), and toes in those little holes. I like the new CC platform because it
>is smaller, I can put my ski on it and the fins stick off the end and I
>still have enough leverage to get in the ski while out of the water.

I think the reason for the deck slots is functional. I have watched the deck
on our MC 205 in slow turns and fast decelerations. A lot of wash comes over
the deck, which (guessing) could conceivably pull the transom down in some
undesireable way. Anyway, I doubt it's to save wood. The construction of our
deck looks like it would be quite time consuming compared to just using solid,
full length planks.

We like the large deck. Especially since there are two people on it most of
the time when it is used. My wife can't put the slalom double boots on by
herself, so we tango on the deck for that process. My 10 year old can't put
his G1 high wraps on either, I have to help him and then hoist him into the
water. Our six year old can put the wakeboard bungies on, but can't jump in.
Yup, I have to hoist him in too.

I always hang the fin off the end when getting in the ski on my ProStar
platform, so no snags. We all learned pretty quickly to keep the fingers out
of the slots when climbing onboard.

[Daniel J. Hunter]

Tom Ruta wrote in message <34b169a1...@news.supernews.com>...
>Mark Kovalcson <kova...@usit.net> wrote:

>>I definitely like shoe box construction over the
>>butted construction that Malibu uses in all but its Sportster. There are
so
>>many different ways to do things.
>
>And they are all basically producing a good product. And
>isn't it ironic that that the "cheapest" Sportster uses the
>same technique as the most expensive Nautique?

My favorite arguement I've seen in this group is that butted construction
using fiberglass is brittle. Well, so is the rest of the boat I guess so
let's go back to wood, I guess.

>>unfortunately they have a less sturdy engine mounting system than MC.
Malibu and CC share
>>some good construction techniques and both try to get as close to a
seamless
>>solid boat as possible, but where they differ CC almost always does
better.
>
>According to whom? I'm certainly no marine engineer, but
>I'd be surprised to see any significant differnces in a
>marine engineering report of same.
>
>Tom

Tom, you're the bravest man alive. Going after the antidote for buyers
remorse takes courage. How'd I do on the cut and paste?

Hunter

[Tom Ruta]

"Daniel J. Hunter" <hun...@kdn0.attnet.or.jp> wrote:

>
>Tom Ruta duking it out in all sorts of mettalurgical minutiae with Mark Kovalcson <kova...@usit.net> ::
...

>Tom, you're the bravest man alive. Going after the antidote for buyers
>remorse takes courage.

Interesting comment. I had no intention of going there.
Since I don't own one and covet the other (actually I covet
ANY inboard!) I wonder if anyone actually has had "buyer's
remorse"?

How about it? Anyone buy a one boat and after a few months
(days?) wish they'd bought something else? Why?

Tom

Note: Let's keep spouses out of this <grin>

[Sybil]

Tom,
Don't go there...
I decided (wihtout consultation) to buy our tournament boat in 1992. In
1997 I (just to test the water) suggested we get a 25' Howard or Eliminator
and my spouse told me we can't afford to have two boats at once.
ttfn ;-)
fred

[Tom Ruta]

"Sybil" <team...@netxn.com> wrote:

Was that you first or second wife who nixed the second boat?
<grin>

Tom

[Bob Scibienski]

Thanks for the fresh air. You saved me that trip to the lib. Now a quick
question. In general, how much broader is the elastic limit relative to the
endurance limit for something like, say, chrome molyb. steel?

Bob S.

[KENGIBBONS]

: rjscib...@ucdavis.edu (Bob Scibienski) wrote:

>Thanks for the fresh air. You saved me that trip to the lib. Now a quick
>question. In general, how much broader is the elastic limit relative to the
>endurance limit for something like, say, chrome molyb. steel?

It is defined by both the stress magnitude AND the number of cycles. The more
cycles, the lower the endurance limit. If the sample only undergoes one cycle,
the endurance limit is the same as the elastic limit. I don't have my
reference books in front of me, but it seems like a "normal" steel's worst case
endurance limit is about half of it's elastic limit. As the cycles increase,
the endurance limit decreases. If you graph the failure stress-to-cycles data,
it makes a logrithmic line.Keep the design stresses below that line, and you're
good to go forever.

[Tom Ruta]

cox@antispam_ix.netcom.com wrote:
...

>Mark.... there is a good reason that platform is sealed as you call it.

Looking in Waterski mag's boat review issue, it appears that
sealed platforms are all the rage. I guess they'd be less
likely to trap gunk, thereby making cleaning easier, but I
don't know...

Tom

[Tom Ruta]

kengi...@aol.com (KENGIBBONS) wrote:
>....Keep the design stresses below that line, and you're
>good to go forever.

Bingo! That's the answer. Design engineering. The S-N
diagrams for the chromoly tubing (Columbus, Reynolds, etc.)
commonly used in bikes show fatigue life that is essentially
infinite. Even though the bike may appear fragile, the
tubing is still way overspec'ed such that softness is never
encountered.

As for boats, I suspect the same thing: good engineering
and overbuilding that prevents any issue of failure under
normal conditions. Now those aluminum pieces... well, they
too are most likely overengineered as well, even though the
metal itself will ultimately fail. (But not in the normal
lifetime of the boat)

Tom

[Sybil]

I sincerely hope (for all of us) that the "BINGO" is like "EUREKA" and means
you've found out how to end this thread. (bigger grin)

And what does "emeritus" really mean?

[Mark Kovalcson]

Tom Ruta wrote:

> kengi...@aol.com (KENGIBBONS) wrote:
> >....Keep the design stresses below that line, and you're
> >good to go forever.
>
> Bingo! That's the answer. Design engineering. The S-N
> diagrams for the chromoly tubing (Columbus, Reynolds, etc.)
> commonly used in bikes show fatigue life that is essentially
> infinite. Even though the bike may appear fragile, the
> tubing is still way overspec'ed such that softness is never
> encountered.

I guess all those 150-180lb guys I know whose frame sets failed had over
engineered frame sets too?The average guy will keep a bike indefinitely,
but many could not.

> As for boats, I suspect the same thing: good engineering
> and overbuilding that prevents any issue of failure under
> normal conditions. Now those aluminum pieces... well, they
> too are most likely overengineered as well, even though the
> metal itself will ultimately fail. (But not in the normal
> lifetime of the boat)

I'm sure they are all over engineered ;)

That's why Malibu has had hulls split apart, engine mounts fail, and a
hydrophonic damping system fail.
That's how the first Echelons with rotocast combing pads had warpage
problems until they thickened the material and added more attachment
points while other "inferior" boats were using plywood and having no
problems.
That's how Malibu jumped the gun on reducing engine box sizes and had to
enlarge the box on the Responses because of vapor lock problems.
If a structure is over engineered it shouldn't split. Malibu has had
problems with a cracks forming by the passenger seat on their SunSetters
because of a combination of a brittle hull flexing and the placement of
the bow reinforcement. In fact the first time I posted about this
problem I got emails from Malibu owners wondering if they could band
together to force dealerships to fix these problems.
The fact that the Malibu warrantee is written so loosely that
dealerships don't really have to take care of some problems that should
never have happened wouldn't be a problem.

On the other hand, I have never heard of a fiberglass CC have an engine
mount failure and the only MC failure I know of involved a boat that had
been wrecked and resold. The Malibu failures have typically been on
young boats less then 2 years old. This means one of two things.
Malibu's have an infant mortality rate like electronics such that if you
get it past a certain period of time it should work indefinitely or this
is just the beginning of things to come.

As far as your reoccurring comment about Malibu's bottom line boat not
using butted hulls and therefore making generalizations about other
boats that also use a shoe box fit I have a few comments.

1. You are correct that it takes more time to butt a hull and you have
to let the molds cure longer to ensure a good fit.
2. This can be a good means of attachment.
3. However the time tested shoe box fit has been empirically proven to
be less prone to failure.

[Mark Kovalcson]

Tom Ruta wrote:

Yes, since Malibu has adopted them too, let's hear how much you like them
now.

[Tom Ruta]

"Sybil" <team...@netxn.com> wrote:
...

>And what does "emeritus" really mean?
>

That's what you tell folks the preacher said when they ask
what was the result of the wedding ceremony. <g>

Tom

[Mark Kovalcson]

Tom Ruta wrote:

> Looking in Waterski mag's boat review issue, it appears that
> sealed platforms are all the rage. I guess they'd be less
> likely to trap gunk, thereby making cleaning easier, but I
> don't know...

Actually they perform a couple functions.

1. Keep children and other things from getting stuck in the slots.
2. Keep fumes from wafting up at you as much when someone is on the platform
and the engine is running.

My slotted platform is a little harder to clean in the slots, but I have
never trapped any "gunk".

There are benefits to both designs, I prefer the functionality of a platform
with slots, but once my children are bigger and can pull up into the boat
without slots I may not feel as strongly about this and may adapt to a
sealed platform. Since I probably won't be in the market for a new ski boat
until then ;) it probably doesn't matter.

[Sybil]

Re: Reason #2..."Keep fumes from wafting up at you as much when someone is

on the platform and the engine is running."

Let me get this straight YOU RUN YOUR ENGINE WHILE SOMEONE'S SITTING ON
THE SWIM PLATFORM?

Point 1. The fumes come around the edges too.
Point 2. Don't mention this to the Boating Safety Instructors around here.
You'll give them more fodder for their bosses to get us boaters licensed.

Mark Kovalcson wrote in message <34B6BE36...@usit.net>...

[Ivan Hansen]

Sybil wrote:
> Let me get this straight YOU RUN YOUR ENGINE WHILE SOMEONE'S SITTING >ON THE SWIM PLATFORM?

He never said SIT ON, he said ON the platform.

I always stand on the platform while the engine is running (and fumes in
my face) as I prep to ski. I think we all do this especially in cold
water conditions.

[Mark Kovalcson]

Sybil wrote:

> Re: Reason #2..."Keep fumes from wafting up at you as much when someone is

> on the platform and the engine is running."
>

> Let me get this straight YOU RUN YOUR ENGINE WHILE SOMEONE'S SITTING ON
> THE SWIM PLATFORM?

Remember my comment that the boats in my rotation have comfortable places on
the transom to sit. Very typically while we are chatting and the skier on
deck(who is sitting comfortably on the platform) is putting his ski and gloves
on, the boat will drift. Therefore once the skier is ready to go we turn on the
engine and idle to a spot that is usually lined up with the center of the
course. Then the skier drops in. Once he says he is clear we engage the prop
again.

We consider it rude to turn the engine on when a skier has just dropped in
behind the boat because it can splash the skier with hot exhaust water.

Anyway I've got to rest up for the Eskimo Escapades tomorrow. Which you could
all be there; each of the last three years has been fun!!!

[H2oski53]

We bought a 1998 Malibu Sunsetter in September. We called everywhere within a
500 mile radius and was surprised to find out that we were able to get a brand
new 1998 model with everything we wanted for less money than a 1997 boat that
had been sitting on a showroom floor. We were able to get our Sunsetter with a
Wake Wedge,heater,CD player,covers and a Skylon for under $25,000.Many of the
dealers had been trying to sell us demos for close to $28,000. It really paid
to shop around.

[KENGIBBONS]

"Daniel J. Hunter" <hun...@kdn0.attnet.or.jp> wrote:

>My favorite arguement I've seen in this group is that butted construction
>using fiberglass is brittle. Well, so is the rest of the boat I guess so
>let's go back to wood, I guess.

The problem with butted constuction is that if the joint is not built extremely
well, it results in a natural "stress riser". Stress risers are fissures which
enhance the tendency to fracture. A good example is common tile or glass. To
cut these, you scratch or "score" them with a sharp object, and apply a stress
(bend) which causes them to crack on the scratch. A score which is only a
couple of thousandths deep is all that is need to crack a base material
hundreds of times thicker, depending on the material.

When we were considering Malibu, the dealer raved about their butt joint
construction, and even had a cross section cutaway demonstrating the joint.
But take a look inside the boat, and then think about the gymnastics the guy
glassing the joint from the inside would have to perform to glass the joint all
the way around. It just seems like some places are pretty inaccessible for a
good, quality job, that you could consider better than a shoe box construction.
And anywhere the work isn't perfect, you have a stress riser, which is the
potential for trouble down the road. True, there is no history of massive
failures, but it is something to think about.

Besides making them harder to open, there is a reason that shoe boxes don't
have their lids taped on to form a butt joint. The shoe box's over lap gives
the flimsy box (hull) and lid (deck) strength to resist deformation. It is
intuitively obvious.

The Malibu dealer really ripped on MasterCraft's shoe box construction. I just
grinned and told him I really like the Malibu's gelcoat, but don't try to give
me a line about structures. We bought the MasterCraft.

[Tom Ruta]

Mark Kovalcson <kova...@usit.net> wrote the following
vituperative passage...:
..

>I guess all those 150-180lb guys I know whose frame sets failed had over
>engineered frame sets too?The average guy will keep a bike indefinitely,
>but many could not.
>

Guess that explains the roadsides littered with bikes
pushed beyond their plastic limit to exceed their design
lifetime in only a few short months, eh?

And I suppose all the failures were the result of
deformation within the tubesets and not at the welds, right?
Ah yup, sure, whatever...

...
>I'm sure they [boats] are all over engineered ;)
>
<whole bunch of Malibu bashing snipped - I hope you like
your lawyer. Are there laws in your state to save at least
a part of your estate so the kids won't go homeless?>

>The fact that the Malibu warrantee is written so loosely that
>dealerships don't really have to take care of some problems that should
>never have happened wouldn't be a problem.
>

Wait... didn't we hear about that a while back with some guy
and his Mastercraft? Nah...

>On the other hand, I have never heard of a fiberglass CC have an engine
>mount failure and the only MC failure I know of involved a boat that had
>been wrecked and resold.

Holy Suffering Slalom Ski! Only *TWO* falilures in over a
hundred combined years of manufacturing!! These guys ought
to take over Chrysler! Or AT&T. Or the White House
<smirk>.

>Malibu's have an infant mortality rate like electronics such that if you
>get it past a certain period of time it should work indefinitely or this
>is just the beginning of things to come.
>

But that wouldn't be consistent with your flawed argument on
edurance (fatigue) life, would it?

>As far as your reoccurring comment about Malibu's bottom line boat not
>using butted hulls and therefore making generalizations about other
>boats that also use a shoe box fit I have a few comments.
>

Why am I not surprised...

You know Mark, as I said in my private email to you, I
enjoy your posts (well, most of them <smile>). I've learned
something from (most of) them. And I am sorry that you
are obviously very upset by all this engineering stuff and
for whatever reason, have a huge hate on for Malibu.

Maybe you just need to spend more time on the water and
learn to relax.

Tom

p.s. I was serious in my email; when I get a boat (CC or
Malibu or MC or Moomba (not!) or whatever) the invitation to
come for a ski remains open.

[Tom Ruta]

kengi...@aol.com (KENGIBBONS) wrote:

>"Daniel J. Hunter" <hun...@kdn0.attnet.or.jp> wrote:
>>My favorite arguement I've seen in this group is that butted construction

>>using fiberglass is brittle. ...

>
>The problem with butted constuction is that if the joint is not built extremely

>well, it results in a natural "stress riser". ... A score which is only a

>couple of thousandths deep is all that is need to crack a base material
>hundreds of times thicker, depending on the material.
>

Interestingly (and back to bikes for only a moment -
honest!), there have been serious accidents with aluminum
handle bars. AAMOF, a lot of the manufacturers of the
really light ones urge caution on installation as scratches
shorten the life considerably. As it stands now, a lot of
racers (MTB) I know change the bars out routinely. I always
thougt titanium would be the way to go here...

>When we were considering Malibu, the dealer raved about their butt joint

...

What about Supra - they tell of the wall attaching not at
the "top" of the hull but near the floor. Doesn't that just
move the stress riser lower?

[Note to Mark: I'm NOT bashing Supra, just asking a
question!]

Tom

[Mark Kovalcson]

Tom Ruta wrote:

> What about Supra - they tell of the wall attaching not at
> the "top" of the hull but near the floor. Doesn't that just
> move the stress riser lower?

What you are referring to is their double wall construction. They have two
attachment points.

The hull and deck are screwed together with stainless screws at the normal hull/deck
line and in addition the wall screws into the floor. My Ski Supreme also has this
double wall construction. In the case of my boat I do loose floor space because of
this but it is an extra attachment point which I can assume brings some added
structural stability.

[Mark Kovalcson]

Tom Ruta wrote:

> enjoy your posts (well, most of them <smile>). I've learned
> something from (most of) them. And I am sorry that you
> are obviously very upset by all this engineering stuff and
> for whatever reason, have a huge hate on for Malibu.

I don't hate Malibu! They have a good product and they bring a lot to this
market. I'm trying to show the differences. There are bad things about all
boats and there are good things about all boats. I believe I said weighing
all things that I would buy a Malibu Sportster over a CC 176. That is after
looking at the big picture and making decisions about ergonomics and other
things. Malibu does not make a shoddy boat, on the contrary they build a
good boat. They just don't do everything the best. No boat company can. They
have gotten a lot of market share with a good boat that is reasonably
priced. As I said before my perfect boat does not yet exist.

> Maybe you just need to spend more time on the water and
> learn to relax.

I'm skiing this morning and hoping to have a houseboat soon so I expect to be
out on the lake a LOT this year. Thankyou for caring about my emotional well
being.

[Steve Cobb]

CC uses solid platforms because they believe that slotted platforms
increase the possibility of exhaust gases venting back into the cockpit of
the boat. I don't know if that's true or not, but I'm neither an engineer
or a boat builder, I'll have to defer to their expertise.

I've never had any problem pulling myself up on the platform of my SN;
although I'll have to admit that my kids preferred the slotted platform of
my previous boat (a MC).

[Sybil]

I'm guess as guilty as anyone for standing on the platform while the engine
runs...I'm overly concerned about dangling feet near a prop that could
start-up at anytime. ( "In reverse" could suck up foot quickly) Even in
neutral the prop can turn due to the torque effect of the oil in the
transmission.

Moving props scare me.

[Tom Ruta]

"Sybil" <team...@netxn.com> wrote:
..
>Moving props scare me.
>
It'll scare you even more if you've seen the effects of
being hit by one. One glorious summer day I watched a wally
(sitting on the gunnel of course -- why DO they do that???)
drop his skier and do the power turn to go back. The poor
sucker fell over, the observer (small kid - paniced an was
useless... - ) could only watch as the boat made a nice
loop back and ran over the guy before anyone could lasso the
boat. Ugly, ugly, ugly.... The guy suffered permanent brain
damage and the scars from the outboard prop were amazing.

Tom

[Dynatechnics P/L]

I always thought the first Rule when getting back into the boat,
was to turn the engine Off. Maybe I'm wrong but I thought it was
just common sence.

DAN

[Tom Ruta]

Er... I think you missed the point. It was the DRIVER that
got hit by his own boat. Ouch, and double ouch!

Tom

[Stuart Zura]

I am new to the ski boat market even though I've
been boating for 30 years. I've owned fishing
boats i.e. Grady White and Boston Whaler. This
review and other articles all refer to boating on
lakes - freshwater. Does anyone have any
experience with these boats in saltwater? All of
my boating is done in New York on Eastern Long
Island. In general, does a fully carpeted, heavily
vinyled last 7-10 years in salty conditions?
What about prop longevity in a body of water
averaging 4 feet (sandy bottom)?

-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet

[Greg Falconer]

Of course we run the boat while someone is sitting on the platform. Many
times we keep the boat running when we change skiers, thought not in gear.
I personally believe that engine starts add the most stress on the engine
and want to keep cycles down to a minimum. Since we are in neutral, there
is no prop danger.

Anyway, the problem I noticed in the MC with the slotted platform, is that
you get the fumes sitting in the back seat when idling or in neutral. Yes,
you will get fumes coming out the end on the sealed platform, but it is not
as strong as when it wafts through the slots straight upward.

Sybil wrote in message <696ifn$304$1...@usenet47.supernews.com>...

>Re: Reason #2..."Keep fumes from wafting up at you as much when someone is
>on the platform and the engine is running."
>
>Let me get this straight YOU RUN YOUR ENGINE WHILE SOMEONE'S SITTING ON
>THE SWIM PLATFORM?
>

>Point 1. The fumes come around the edges too.
>Point 2. Don't mention this to the Boating Safety Instructors around here.
>You'll give them more fodder for their bosses to get us boaters licensed.
>
>Mark Kovalcson wrote in message <34B6BE36...@usit.net>...
>
>>1. Keep children and other things from getting stuck in the slots.

>>2. Keep fumes from wafting up at you as much when someone is on the

[Sybil]

Greg Falconer wrote in message <69dj86$be5$1...@gte1.gte.net>...
>Of course we run the boat while someone is sitting on the platform. .

Since we are in neutral, there is no prop danger.
>

Why does this remind me of the "I didn't think it was loaded" excuse?

KEEP YOU FEET FROM UNDER YOUR BOAT WHIST EGRESSING FROM THE WATER! I
sincerely hope you don't get hurt.

[Mark Kovalcson]

Sybil wrote:

I agree. To consider engine wear above safety is silly. When the I pick up
a skier I always get the ski platform spinning to a point in front of the
skier, but I always cut power as soon as the platform is positioned
reasonably well. I have never idled a boat with someone sitting with legs
over the edge of the platform. That is well beyond the limits of what I
consider safe.

[gmayer]

Greg

Next time your ideling in neutral lift your engine box cover and look at
your prop shaft. Every one I ever saw was turning on a PCM engine, yours
could different but I don't want to bet a prop cut on it.

George

In article <69dj86$be5$1...@gte1.gte.net>, "Greg Falconer"
<g**falc...@gte.net> wrote:

> Of course we run the boat while someone is sitting on the platform. Many
> times we keep the boat running when we change skiers, thought not in gear.
> I personally believe that engine starts add the most stress on the engine

> and want to keep cycles down to a minimum. Since we are in neutral, there
> is no prop danger.
>

> Anyway, the problem I noticed in the MC with the slotted platform, is that
> you get the fumes sitting in the back seat when idling or in neutral. Yes,
> you will get fumes coming out the end on the sealed platform, but it is not
> as strong as when it wafts through the slots straight upward.
>
>
> Sybil wrote in message <696ifn$304$1...@usenet47.supernews.com>...
> >Re: Reason #2..."Keep fumes from wafting up at you as much when someone is
> >on the platform and the engine is running."
> >
> >Let me get this straight YOU RUN YOUR ENGINE WHILE SOMEONE'S SITTING ON
> >THE SWIM PLATFORM?
> >
> >Point 1. The fumes come around the edges too.
> >Point 2. Don't mention this to the Boating Safety Instructors around here.
> >You'll give them more fodder for their bosses to get us boaters licensed.
> >
> >Mark Kovalcson wrote in message <34B6BE36...@usit.net>...
> >
> >>1. Keep children and other things from getting stuck in the slots.
> >>2. Keep fumes from wafting up at you as much when someone is on the
> >platform
> >>and the engine is running.
> >>
> >
> >
> >

If you want to respond by email, please remove the nospam
**********************************************************************
_________ (((
/_________\-------------<|___0___ ((((
\ | / \ / (((((
))) \ | / ((( \_\_(((((
~~~~~~~~~~~~~0~~~~~~~~~0~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~0~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
**********************************************************************

[Dane Mrazek]

Dude, stop the motor! I can not believe someone is worried about engine
wear compared with passenger saftey! Besides, the only added engine wear
is likely to be in the starter motor and the battery. You know, the only
problem with boating is that it is dangerous and it is a sport available
to any average idiot.

[CRMUSE]

>Next time your (sic) ideling (sic again) in neutral lift your engine box cover

and look at
>your prop shaft. Every one I ever saw was turning on a PCM engine, yours
>could different but I don't want to bet a prop cut on it.

Yes, the prop may be turning, but it doesn't have any significant torque on it.
Even if someone shoved their foot into the prop while slightly spinning in
idle/nuetral, the resistance would just stop the prop, and likely not even
break the skin. You can test this by grabbing the shaft on a smooth area while
topside and notice that you can stop the spinning shaft (If in neutral of
course).

I start the engine before the skier jumps in, but turn it off when the platform
is accessible to the skier or the skier gets too close for my comfort,
whichever comes first.

Bob Muse
CRM...@aol.com

[Dynatechnics P/L]

Greg Falconer wrote:

> Since we are in neutral, there
> is no prop danger.

No prop danger!!!!!!
WHAT? I can't believe you just said that.
Whether the boat is in neutral or in gear, the
prop is still moving. If I'm not mistaken, if
you put a body part near a moving prop, it
is DANGEROUS.

DAN

[Eric Barnhart]

>Whether the boat is in neutral or in gear, the
>prop is still moving.

Maybe I've only owned an inboard for 12 years now, but it seems to me that
if your prop moves in neutral, there's something wrong with your
transmission. Would't your boat move if your prop was moving?

As always, better safe than sorry. I'm sure we all agree that it's safer to
shut down when loading and unloading. However, I must admit, when I'm with
some very experienced skiers, we rarely shut down unloading. Though we do
shut down when we're getting back into the boat.

[TJSSKIER]

In article <yflashunospamn-...@dalport245.nkn.net>,
yflashu...@kn.net (gmayer) writes:

>
Next time your ideling in neutral lift your engine box cover and look
>at
your prop shaft.

George,

The prop should not be turning in neutral with the engine running unless there
is "too much " trans fluid in the trans. The extra fluid causes a "viscious
coupling" between the plates....they drag, which causes the prop to turn.
Lower the fluid level and it goes away. If it dosen't, take it to the dealer
for service. I have seen this problem most often with Borg-Warner
transmissions. On older ones you need to change the control valve to stop the
turning in neutral. (The control valve has a hole in the wrong place and it
dumps fluid on the plates causing the boat to "creep in neutral".

Don't go" too low"....If your fluid is "too low", the boat will appear to
cavitate in a turn. It is caused by the trans fluid pickup sucking air when
the fluid is pushed to the side of the trans in the turn.

Tim/tjss...@aol.com

[BORDEN1000]

In article <19980113143...@ladder02.news.aol.com>, crm...@aol.com
(CRMUSE) writes:

>
Yes, the prop may be turning, but it doesn't have any significant torque on
>it.
Even if someone shoved their foot into the prop while slightly spinning
>in
idle/nuetral, the resistance would just stop the prop, and likely not
>even
break the skin. You can test this by grabbing the shaft on a smooth
>area while
topside and notice that you can stop the spinning shaft (If in
>neutral of
course).

Why are you grabbing the bare shaft? Shouldn't you be grabbing the blades to
test your bravado ???

bl

[Sybil]

He's probably protecting both bravados and his amigo by doing it this way

.>>You can test this by grabbing the shaft on a smooth

[Tom Ruta]

"Sybil" <team...@netxn.com> wrote:

>He's probably protecting both bravados and his amigo by doing it this way
>

Protecting his "bravados"? <g> I thought we were talking
about stopping a drive shaft or prop with his hands, not
something else! (Sorry, I couldn't help myself!)

Tom

[BBeri...@aol.com]

In article <19980110054...@ladder02.news.aol.com>,

kengi...@aol.com (KENGIBBONS) wrote:
>
> "Daniel J. Hunter" <hun...@kdn0.attnet.or.jp> wrote:
>
> >My favorite arguement I've seen in this group is that butted construction

> >using fiberglass is brittle. Well, so is the rest of the boat I guess so
> >let's go back to wood, I guess.
>

> The problem with butted constuction is that if the joint is not built
extremely

> well, it results in a natural "stress riser". Stress risers are fissures
which
> enhance the tendency to fracture. A good example is common tile or glass.
To
> cut these, you scratch or "score" them with a sharp object, and apply a
stress

> (bend) which causes them to crack on the scratch. A score which is only a

> couple of thousandths deep is all that is need to crack a base material
> hundreds of times thicker, depending on the material.
>

> When we were considering Malibu, the dealer raved about their butt joint

> construction, and even had a cross section cutaway demonstrating the joint.
> But take a look inside the boat, and then think about the gymnastics the guy
> glassing the joint from the inside would have to perform to glass the joint
all
> the way around. It just seems like some places are pretty inaccessible for a
> good, quality job, that you could consider better than a shoe box
construction.
> And anywhere the work isn't perfect, you have a stress riser, which is the
> potential for trouble down the road. True, there is no history of massive
> failures, but it is something to think about.
>
> Besides making them harder to open, there is a reason that shoe boxes don't
> have their lids taped on to form a butt joint. The shoe box's over lap
gives
> the flimsy box (hull) and lid (deck) strength to resist deformation. It is
> intuitively obvious.
>
> The Malibu dealer really ripped on MasterCraft's shoe box construction. I
just
> grinned and told him I really like the Malibu's gelcoat, but don't try to
give
> me a line about structures. We bought the MasterCraft.

Gents,

I think you're overstating the potential problems with a butt seam. Most
commercial and military aircraft make generous use of butt seams or flange
seams.

True, the aerospace seam geometry is much more tightly controlled than
ANY seam in recreational boats. However, if the boat designer accounts
for manufacturing tolerance variability expected during the factory's
fabrication and finish of the seam (butt or shoebox), he will design in
sufficient strength margin to permit the presence of 'stress risers' that
will NOT ititiate unwanted cracks or failures. He will do this fully
mindful that the seam will not be "perfectly" executed (as you describe)
by the factory laborer. Desired 'stiffness' of the resulting structure is
also designed in up front. A designer can achieve whatever strength,
stiffness, and resistance to stress cracking he wants -- and can do it in
full awareness of the ability of the laborer's skills, capabilities and
quality variability on the factory floor. In aerospace, we call this
'design for manufacturability'. Your statement that shoebox is
inherently superior fails to consider how robust the designer made the
butt joint. For a shoebox (or any seam) to be superior, it would have to
have higher stiffness and greater strength margins designed in. How can
you be confident unless you've seen the actual structural design
calculations of each and every individual hull model?

Your alalogy of cracking glass or tile via scribe marks is not fitting
for this argument.

Apparently Malibu isn't too worried about the durability of their hulls
since they offer a lifetime structural integrity warranty. Probably
because they are confident they have generous strength and stiffness
margins.

I'm not aware of any significant structural problems with any of the
sixty odd comp boats on our lake over the last 10 years. Although a few
years back, there was a new Brendella that had some hull seam leaks that
couldn't be repaired. Brendella gave the owner a new boat.

Barry Berisford
Lake St. Louis Water Ski Club

[DSmith3426]

This is a very enlighting subject. I was on an inboard ski boat when a roller
rocked the boat causing a stop watch race across the dash towards the H2O. The
driver reached for the watch in a normal reactionary way and put the boat in
forward and threw his child off the platform. Thank God nobody had legs etc in
the water if he had jumped the boat in reverse. I used to keep my engine on,
but it will shut off from now on any time anybody (child or adult) get near
the transom.

[jstanton]

@cts.com
Organization: CTS Network Services
Newsgroups: rec.sport.waterski

Sounds like to me that someone removed their safety lock. Not a smart
thing to do. Truly so, if one does not shut the engine off during
egress or ingress.