Has anyone skied a 96 Tige with TAPS???
Thomas W. Howe
Look for comments on anyone who has skied a Tige
with TAPS. Have skied 94 and 95 Tige's and they have always had the best
wakes. What inprovments have people seen? See http://www.tige.com
Thanks Tom
Rex Edmiston
Just got my Tige' 2002 w/TAPS back from first 20hr svc. Still
experimenting but have NO complaints. TAPS takes the older Tige's
great wakes and makes them better and....changeable to whatever
you want. The thing really works. Just bought my 1st wakeboard
last wknd. Haven't been on it yet...haven't been on ANY yet...
sure hope WB is what some peple crack it up to be.
rex
Bill Walker
In article <31ADBB...@mcimail.com>, Rex Edmiston
<redm...@mcimail.com> wrote:
>Thomas W. Howe wrote:
>>
>> Look for comments on anyone who has skied a Tige
>> with TAPS. Have skied 94 and 95 Tige's and they have always had the best
>> wakes. What inprovments have people seen? See http://www.tige.com
>>
>> Thanks TomTom,
[... Replying to Rex's post because Tom's hasn't shown up here yet]
I'll let you know. I'm getting it installed on my '94 next week.
----------------------------------------------
Bill Walker, QUALCOMM, Inc., San Diego, CA USA
WWa...@qualcomm.com
Jeffrey P. Jones
Thomas W. Howe wrote:
>
> Look for comments on anyone who has skied a Tige
> with TAPS. Have skied 94 and 95 Tige's and they have always had the best
> wakes. What inprovments have people seen? See http://www.tige.com
>
slalom. However, when I skied behind a 95 Tige without TAPS, while I
found the wake to be vanishingly small, I thought they were very hard. My CC
has a bigger wake, but I don't feel a thing when I cross it. By the way I was
talking with someone who had the bigger Tige (I think the 2002)and it was
throwing a pretty big roster with TAPS. He is looking to trade this
back in for the 2000. His word after skiing on the 2000 and returning to his
wife in the 2002: "We should just pull the plug on this thing"(the 2002)
They really look cool though ;)
Jeff
Andy Strawn
I wakeboarded behind one about a week ago, it was insane. The wake was as
huge as a io but had the consistency of a compboat.
On the way back we checked out the slalom wake. just by pushing a button
the wake changes size and shape. It was really pretty cool.
Stephen Kennedy
Thomas W. Howe wrote:
>
> Look for comments on anyone who has skied a Tige
> with TAPS. Have skied 94 and 95 Tige's and they have always had the best
> wakes. What inprovments have people seen? See http://www.tige.com
>
> Thanks Tom
I have not skied behind a Tige, but I did the same thing on my Supra and
it made a lot of difference (Supras came with a manual tab); I'm glad I
went to the trouble. As for rooster tails, I can produce them on my
boat if I run the tab down too far, but if I adjust the trim right they
are not a problem. I suspect that like mine, it will take a little
practice to find just the right location for the trim tab (although they
have probally done most of this for you already with the indicator).
Does anyone know if the hull on the Tige is recessed where the tab is
mounted.
Bill, do you have to modify your hull oe just mount the tab with screws?
Steve
Bill Walker
In article <31B633...@nando.net>, Stephen Kennedy <kenn...@nando.net> wrote:
[...]
>Does anyone know if the hull on the Tige is recessed where the tab is
>mounted.
The Tige' hull already has a recess where the "fixed" wake plate was mounted.
>
>Bill, do you have to modify your hull oe just mount the tab with screws?
Just got it installed on my boat yesterday (haven't been able to try it
yet, probably won't get a chance until 6/15). It's just screwed in, but
again, there was already a recess for the wake plate that the TAPS
replaces. However, the screws for the TAPS tab are nowhere near as flush
as those for the wake plate were (I haven't examined the mounting on the
new boats that come with TAPS for comparison, to see if it's different).
On most boats, hydraulic trim tabs (which is really all TAPS is - what
they patented was the use of a single, center-mounted hydraulic trim tab
for the primary purpose of changing the shape of the wake, rather than for
changing the attitude of the boat) are screwed into the transom, i.e., the
back of the boat, where the attachment is out of the water stream. The
TAPS tab, however, is screwed into the bottom of the hull where the
previous wake plate was mounted.
TJSSKIER
Dear Tom,
I have taken three 95 Tige's in on trade at my dealership. Two open-bows
2002's and one 2000 closed-bow. One of the 2002's had TAPS added to
it. All 3 customers trading them in liked the slalom wakes behind the
boats but complained of...
Low power and top speed.
Tenderness or difficulty with leaning when boat is off-weighted
Poor handling.
Cavitation when pulling or turning
Boats were very wet except in glass smooth water and the open-bows
tended to take alot of water over the bow when turning to pick up
the skier.
I sold two of the boats and delivered them in the water. I demoed two
guys in the boat equiped with TAPS and noted the following.
Although TAPS does effect the shape of the wake in a small way
it can't make the wake bigger. The back of any boat is only so
wide and can only displace as much water as there is boat in the
water. All Tiges have always had a cavitation plate on the back
of the boat to lessen cavitation. All TAPS does is makes the plate
adjustable. In other words if you took the plate off the boat the wake
would be the same size as it is when you adjust the TAPS to the
highest up position or what they call wakeboard/cruise setting.
I know the 96 models have less "hook in the bottom" than the 95
I drove and skied with TAPS, thats why the 96 "porpoises" at top
speed.(According to Water Ski BBG and a 96 I myself drove).
The 95 was almost scary to dirve when I attempted to set it at
the Slalom setting when going 34 mph. The spray of the boat
was breaking 3 to 4 feet from the bow instead of 3 feet from the
back of the boat. My speed went down to 25 MPH and the boat
went from pulling right to pulling hard left. I floored the boat and
got back up to 32MPH.
As an experiment two of my staff sat in the open bow and we tried
to turn the boat when set at the middle "Kneeboard setting". Big
Mistake! Water plowed over the front of the boat and drenched
all of us.
Ive been driving and sking behind inboard boats for 15 years and
have been a dealer for 9 years. I even use to sell Tige's when they
first came out so I know something about them. I beleive TAPS
is a marketing gimick...one that is possibly very dangerous to the
inboard boat owner. The idea is great! Make a big wake or a
small wake at the push of a button...The problem is an inboard
by its design with the motor in the middle and the angle of the
prop shaft already develops alot of "transom lift" that is what
makes them have minimal bow rise and small wakes and stable
handleing. Excessive transom lift causes "rudder stall", "bow
steering" and a lack of stability.
Tige's as well as the Centurian Falcon bottom it came from
have alot of "Wetted, bow-down surface area" without TAPS. With
TAPS I beleive the boat could be unstable when loaded in cer-
tain water conditions. IF IT SOUNDS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE..
ITS PROBLY MARKETING!
When I skied behind the boats I found the wakes to be small. They
were soft at long line and 15 off and hard at 22 and 28. The wake
board wake was to small and when I would cut at the wake I would
slow the boat down by 2-3 MPH. Skiability is only one part of a
boat purchase. The wakes and spray with these boats was good.
The handling of the boats is poor.
These are my opinions and I'm sure some will disagree with me and
claim I'm thrashing a competitors boat. Before you buy try as many
different boats as you can. Find the one that has the "least amount
of comprimises for the way you want to use it and buy it"!
Inboards have a pretty good saftey record with the public and I would
like to see that continue. I beleive the only real benifit from TAPS is
its marketing value to sell a product. I don't beleive you will see any
responsible manufacturer making adjustable bottoms available to the
public. Several manufactures have experimented with adjustable trim
in R & D years ago and never brought it to the public because
of the saftey concerns. My worst fear is that people will start putting
these things on all types of hull bottoms and the industry as well as
people could get hurt. This is not new technology.
I know the local Tige dealer is putting these things on older boats.
Before
you have it done to yours if your in the southern cal area come by a
take this one for a ride. E-mail me if interested.
Beware of the 'Silk purse....it may be a sows ear"!
TJSSKIER/ Tim
Bill Walker
In article <4pb0um$m...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, tjss...@aol.com (TJSSKIER)
wrote:
>Dear Tom,
>
>I have taken three 95 Tige's in on trade at my dealership. Two open-bows
>2002's and one 2000 closed-bow. One of the 2002's had TAPS added to
>it.
I own a '94 2002. Just had TAPS added, haven't used it yet, but I have to
respond to some of your more general comments.
>All 3 customers trading them in liked the slalom wakes behind the
>boats but complained of...
>
>Low power and top speed.
I had a small problem in this area, until I adjusted the original wake
plate up a little bit. Didn't affect the slalom wakes, although the
rooster tail got a little bit longer (only an issue at 15 off).
>Tenderness or difficulty with leaning when boat is off-weighted
I've never experienced this with my boat.
>Poor handling.
Hmm. Depends on what you're used to, I'd guess, and what you mean by
"poor". I'm generally happy with the handling of my boat. I'd need more
specifics to comment on this.
>Cavitation when pulling or turning
I've experienced small amounts of cavitation when making "bat turns". In
normal use, I've never had a problem.
>Boats were very wet except in glass smooth water and the open-bows
>tended to take alot of water over the bow when turning to pick up
>the skier.
I think you can go a bit beyond "glass smooth", but I'll agree that if
it's windy there's certainly a tendency to take spray aboard, especially
if you have riders in the bow area. And you do have to be careful to
avoid hitting a wake (even your own) just as you're coming off or on plane
to keep from taking water over the bow. This is actually my only real
gripe with the boat. That stylish, swooping bow makes it very easy to
take water over the bow.
>
>I sold two of the boats and delivered them in the water. I demoed two
>guys in the boat equiped with TAPS and noted the following.
>
>Although TAPS does effect the shape of the wake in a small way
>it can't make the wake bigger. The back of any boat is only so
>wide and can only displace as much water as there is boat in the
>water. All Tiges have always had a cavitation plate on the back
>of the boat to lessen cavitation. All TAPS does is makes the plate
>adjustable. In other words if you took the plate off the boat the wake
>would be the same size as it is when you adjust the TAPS to the
>highest up position or what they call wakeboard/cruise setting.
True. I've changed the wake on my boat by adjusting the factory wake
plate. And the wakeboard-speed wake did get bigger. But then, that
wasn't the optimum setting for slalom. So I think having it adjustable
from inside the boat makes sense.
>
>I know the 96 models have less "hook in the bottom" than the 95
>I drove and skied with TAPS, thats why the 96 "porpoises" at top
>speed.(According to Water Ski BBG and a 96 I myself drove).
Only happens with the tab fully up, no? Same thing happens with many
stern drives when trimmed up too far. If it porpoises, trim it down a
little.
>The 95 was almost scary to dirve when I attempted to set it at
>the Slalom setting when going 34 mph. The spray of the boat
>was breaking 3 to 4 feet from the bow instead of 3 feet from the
>back of the boat. My speed went down to 25 MPH and the boat
>went from pulling right to pulling hard left. I floored the boat and
>got back up to 32MPH.
I guess you can trim down too far, too. As they told me when I got it
installed, the gauge is there only to give you a reference point so you
can duplicate desired settings. There's a whole range of adjustment
there, and the bottom end of the "slalom" mark isn't necessarily the
desired operating point. I'll grant you that it'd be safer if it didn't
go down far enough to achieve the condition you describe. But there has
to be some leeway, because the right setting with people in the bow may be
too high when the bow area isn't being used. Did you have passengers in
the bow when this happened?
>
>As an experiment two of my staff sat in the open bow and we tried
>to turn the boat when set at the middle "Kneeboard setting". Big
>Mistake! Water plowed over the front of the boat and drenched
>all of us.
At what speed were you turning, and how sharp? Were you on plane, or
off? The current setting of my wake plate is probably at about this level
(compromise between slalom and wakeboarding), and I've never experienced
this in any turn while on plane. As I mentioned, I have had problems with
water over the bow when off plane.