Barefoot MasterCraft-no good?
IFlyLear31
Fellow footers,
I'm getting alot of e-mail from other footers after I put up a post
looking for a MasterCraft barefoot boat. I'd like to hear from some more
people,are they really that bad? Is that why they didn't make one this
year? I saw a prototype on the lake when I visited the MC plant a few
months back and they would not tell me much about it. I heard scarpa and
seipel are in FL testing it...any truth to that?
I appreciate the honest opinions.
Thanks for the help,
Dave
kevin R Baugh
Hmm I wonder how I got my 1996 promo boat if they didn't make one?
For Sale $20500.00 firm Promo Boat
1996 MasterCraft Barefoot 200
1996 Mercury 200efi Motor
red & white
Cover
Promo package 2 extra seats 1 rear facing speedometer
4 Blade prop
MasterCraft Trailer with brakes
In excellent shape
always kept in garage
I may be a little bias since I have been a MasterCraft promo since 1991 as
are the people who don't like the MasterCraft. If you haven't caught on to
skiers yet the best boat in the world is the one they ski behind and the
rest are junk. I believe that the MasterCraft Barefoot 200 is a great boat
it has more storage and seating than any of the other barefoot boats
The Mastercraft has a great kurl and a very narrow wake. I would agree
that the Flighcraft (a very small boat with very little storage and very
low profile)
and the Sanger (about the same size as a MasterCraft but lower profile not
as much storage.) Have a smother table. The MasterCraft has a great wake at
45+
The Mastercraft and Sanger have no problem with 47+ mph with a tournament
load. The Flightcraft has had top end speed trouble since they brought out
there new boat a couple years ago..
Mastercraft has a new boat for 1997 it just passed the Awsa test. It is an
open bow and while have a Mecury 200 efi. The bottom of the boat is all
new...
Try all three and purchase the one you like the best!!!!!!!
--
Kevin R Baugh
krb...@ezl.com
IFlyLear31 <iflyl...@aol.com> wrote in article
<53o1el$d...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>...
Barefootr
Seipel may be testing the new Mastercraft... (I don't know)
But I assure you, Scarpa is not. His Sister-in-law happens to make her
Flightcraft available to him should he need an outboard.
Bare. :)
_____________________________________________
Upper Valley Watersports Malibu Boats Promo Rep
In the business because I love the sport
HO Sports/Hyperlite * Straightline * Masterline * Eagle
^_____________________________________________^
kevin R Baugh
I have found that you should never say never!
Because never is a very long long time! :)
--
Kevin R Baugh
krb...@ezl.com
:Seipel may be testing the new Mastercraft... (I don't know)
Don Passenger
IFlyLear31 wrote:
>I cannot speak to the mastercraft barefoot boats. My neighbor has a hydrodyne outboard which is an awsome barefoot boat. The best table I
have ever seen. I understand they will again make an outboard again this
comming season and I would at least check into it. Plenty of speed and
power. He pulled out 4 deepwater barefoots w/ it.
Bill Musselman
kevin R Baugh wrote:
>
> The Mastercraft and Sanger have no problem with 47+ mph with a tournament
> load. The Flightcraft has had top end speed trouble since they brought out
> there new boat a couple years ago..
Kevin,
Please excuse my naivety. I don't understand how three boats powered
by the same motor, weighing about the same, with similar hull design
(we're not talking displacement vs. semi-displacement hulls) would have
a big difference in performance. At 47 mph, only the last few feet of
the hull is in the water, so the minor differences in hull shape at the
transom shouldn't have a significant impact.
If anything, I expect the Flightcraft to hold it's speed better, due
to a better power to weight ratio. As I recall, in 1995, the
Flightcraft was faster and lighter than the Mastercraft according to WS
test data. Also, Malibu offered the 225XRI in '96 (as an option?)
according to last year's web page.
Maybe it would help if you could explain to me what you mean by a
"tournament load." Also, isn't 47 mph a bit extreme? Wouldn't you
have to be around 270 lbs to require 47mph?
This is not intended to be an attack on Mastercraft. I am just
curious how you came to the conclusion that there is a problem with the
Flightcraft. I agree with your comments about trying all three boats.
Each are great boats in their own way.
Bill (Yes, a Flightcraft owner)
Barefootr
[...]
<<<<<Maybe it would help if you could explain to me what you mean by a
"tournament load." Also, isn't 47 mph a bit extreme? Wouldn't you
have to be around 270 lbs to require 47mph?>>>>
Bill,
A "Tournament Load" in the boat would be Driver, Videographer, and 3
judges. I other words, a full boat. In 1995 the Flightcraft used a 3 blade
prop due to the Mercury 200 XRI seemingly not producing as much power as
had been seen before. In 1996, the power was back, and a Hi-Five prop was
again used. The 225 is not a good option for barefooting due to the
increased weight, and the size of the bullet on the lower unit. The 225 is
a 3.0 liter engine, in which Mercury must use a larger set of gears,
forcing a much larger and heavier engine. The effect on the wake and table
turbulence is noticable.
In terms of speed, many competitors call 45-47 mph speeds for their wakes.
An experienced footer can use the hardness of the water and narrow wake at
that speed to grab another partial or complete wake cross. Ask Brian Fuchs
what he called when he posted a record in wakes. He always liked it fast,
but I think it was in the 47-48 mph range. And he had to be 150 lbs
soaking wet! Remember, these footers are crossing on one foot...not two.
Bare. :)
_____________________________________________
Smooth Water Sports Malibu Boats Promo Rep
In the business because I love the sport
Eagle * Straightline * Masterline * Bemman * Barefoot Co.
^_____________________________________________^
kevin R Baugh
I will try to clarify what I was Saying..
Bill Musselman <william_...@calstate.edu> wrote in article
<32622A...@calstate.edu>...
> kevin R Baugh wrote:
> >
> > The Mastercraft and Sanger have no problem with 47+ mph with a
tournament
> > load. The Flightcraft has had top end speed trouble since they brought
out
> > there new boat a couple years ago..
>
> Kevin,
> Please excuse my naivety. I don't understand how three boats powered
> by the same motor, weighing about the same, with similar hull design
> (we're not talking displacement vs. semi-displacement hulls) would have
> a big difference in performance. At 47 mph, only the last few feet of
> the hull is in the water, so the minor differences in hull shape at the
> transom shouldn't have a significant impact.
With all three boats much more of the hull than the last few feet are in
the water.
Hull design has a great impact on lift.
> If anything, I expect the Flightcraft to hold it's speed better, due
> to a better power to weight ratio. As I recall, in 1995, the
> Flightcraft was faster and lighter than the Mastercraft according to WS
> test data.
The Water Ski Test is talking about top end not top end with a tournament
load pulling a barefooter..
Also, Malibu offered the 225XRI in '96 (as an option?)
You cant use the 225xri at a tournament unless the boat was AWSA tested
with that engine.
> according to last year's web page.
> Maybe it would help if you could explain to me what you mean by a
> "tournament load."
Tournament load is 5 people in the boat 150+ each pulling a 200 pound
barefooter.
motor trimmed all the way in..
Also, isn't 47 mph a bit extreme? Wouldn't you
> have to be around 270 lbs to require 47mph?
Many tournament barefooters Wake slalom at 45 to 47 mph. Many would go
faster if the boats would. At 47 mph the wake is narrower this translates
into more wake crosses in 15 seconds. Plus the water is very hard
(obviously) thus making it harder to put your foot through the water and
fall ( and yes it does hurt at 47 )
> This is not intended to be an attack on Mastercraft. I am just
> curious how you came to the conclusion that there is a problem with the
> Flightcraft.
This is not always a problem with Flightcraft it just depends on the boat,
the motor and the weight of the boat crew.. If they use the new rules that
only call for 2 people in the boat Flightcraft has no problem.
> I agree with your comments about trying all three boats.
I believe that all three boats are great boats they just have different
things to offer..
MasterCraft has more interior room, deeper boat and 2 feet longer than the
Flightcraft.
The Flightcraft is a lower profile boat with a sportier look
> Each are great boats in their own way.
> Bill (Yes, a Flightcraft owner)
>
Have fun Footin
kevin R Baugh
Barefootr <bare...@aol.com> wrote in article
<53uml2$p...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>...
> [...]
> <<<<<Maybe it would help if you could explain to me what you mean by a
> "tournament load." Also, isn't 47 mph a bit extreme? Wouldn't you
> have to be around 270 lbs to require 47mph?>>>>
> [...]
>
> Bill,
> A "Tournament Load" in the boat would be Driver, Videographer, and 3
> judges. I other words, a full boat. In 1995 the Flightcraft used a 3
blade
> prop due to the Mercury 200 XRI seemingly not producing as much power as
> had been seen before.
I believe it was more the new hull than the engine but it could have been
both
In 1996, the power was back, and a Hi-Five prop was
> again used.
The power is better but they still had trouble at midwestregionals with
bigger footers and boat crews.. But we are picking at nits!!!
The improvement came from 2 changes to the boat they raised the engine on
the transom. and moved the gas tank to the back of the boat. this
eliminated there small rear storage compartment.
The 225 is not a good option for barefooting due to the
> increased weight, and the size of the bullet on the lower unit. The 225
is
> a 3.0 liter engine, in which Mercury must use a larger set of gears,
> forcing a much larger and heavier engine. The effect on the wake and
table
> turbulence is noticable.
I would agree with this...
>
> In terms of speed, many competitors call 45-47 mph speeds for their
wakes.
> An experienced footer can use the hardness of the water and narrow wake
at
> that speed to grab another partial or complete wake cross. Ask Brian
Fuchs
> what he called when he posted a record in wakes. He always liked it fast,
> but I think it was in the 47-48 mph range. And he had to be 150 lbs
> soaking wet! Remember, these footers are crossing on one foot...not two.
I couldn't have said it better!
Barefootr
[...]
<<<The improvement came from 2 changes to the boat they raised the engine
on
the transom. and moved the gas tank to the back of the boat. this
eliminated there small rear storage compartment.>>>>
Moved the Gas Tank?? When? Where? Someone in the field did this?
The 41 gal. Fuel tank on the Flightcraft is in the bow...it runs
longitudnal positioned dead center to not disturb any side pitching. It
has been located there since the 1994 1/2 model year....ie, the new hull.
On the old hull you could move the pylon to a second location in front of
the engine. This is now the oil fill for the oil injection tank mounted in
the rear with the battery.
In terms of Mid-west regionals I wasn't there...how hot was it? I've seen
problems getting the speed/power when it's 104 and a full boat load.
Stephan Varty
iflyl...@aol.com (IFlyLear31) wrote:
> Fellow footers,
>
> I'm getting alot of e-mail from other footers after I put up a post
>looking for a MasterCraft barefoot boat. I'd like to hear from some more
>people,are they really that bad? Is that why they didn't make one this
>year? I saw a prototype on the lake when I visited the MC plant a few
>months back and they would not tell me much about it. I heard scarpa and
>seipel are in FL testing it...any truth to that?
>
> I appreciate the honest opinions.
>
>Thanks for the help,
>
>Dave
Since I actually own a Mastercraft Barefoot 200 I guess its not suprising
that I think the boat is great. Its the perfect boat for me. There is tons
of storage space. I can ski with 5 or 6 people in the boat without the
skier noticing any performance hit. It is a very dry boat which is good
for me since my cottage is on a big lake. This is also great when using a
boom since hardly any spray makes it into the boat. (I'm pretty sure
that's why the big sunpad is there.) Everyone I know likes the boat. I
think the curl is excellent for footing but the table could be a little
smoother. (I don't foot well enough for it to hold me back though, when I
fall its always technique that is to blame not little ripples in the
wake.) This boat does everything well for me and I would definately buy
another one. I even like the way it looks.
When I bought the boat it wasn't what I was looking for but it turned out
to be exactly what I wanted. Look at every boat that you think might suit
you and buy the one that does the most for you.
Stephan
The Georges
For the average recreational barefooter 47 is a bit fast, but in tournaments everyone
wants to go as fast as possible for wake slalom, I know at our regionals for one guy
they could only get 43 out of a Flight Craft, you also need a little bit more speed
when you do mor advanced tricks like one foot turns and toe turns, unless you ski at
slow speeds enough that you are used to it and you have really good form. I trick at
37 and wake at 45!
>
> Also, isn't 47 mph a bit extreme? Wouldn't you have to be around 270 lbs to
> require 47mph?
> --
oooO Oooo
( ) The Barefoot Media Page: ( )
( ( http://waterski.net/foot/media/index.html ) )
(_) (_)
Chris A. Pye
Barefootr wrote:
> > turbulence is noticable.
>
> In terms of speed, many competitors call 45-47 mph speeds for their wakes.
> An experienced footer can use the hardness of the water and narrow wake at
> that speed to grab another partial or complete wake cross. Ask Brian Fuchs
> what he called when he posted a record in wakes. He always liked it fast,
> but I think it was in the 47-48 mph range. And he had to be 150 lbs
> soaking wet! Remember, these footers are crossing on one foot...not two.
>
> _____________________________________________
> Smooth Water Sports Malibu Boats Promo Rep
> In the business because I love the sport
> Eagle * Straightline * Masterline * Bemman * Barefoot Co.
> ^_____________________________________________^
My son is 12 yrs old, weighs in at about 90 pounds, He does wake
slalom at 46 forwards and 42 backwards. (he wakes 15.2).
tricks at 42 forwards and 41 backwards. speed depends on comfort
and what kind of tricks are being performed
Chris Pye
delray Beach, Fl
