Are 196's rare?

[2gofaster]

"The theory is that they could have made a boat better than the 200 if they didn't have the requirement of the open bow version."

That's quite a theory. And the reality is, had the open bow not been a requirement, we probably would have still gotten a very similar hull according to people I have talked with at CC in the past.

[Kenv]

"I just got back from Colorado at about 3:30 am. 27 Hours of driving in a 36 hour period.
The trailer is my 211 trailer, and no no no it will not fit a 196. I have the dinged skegs to prove that.
$33,000 plus about $450 in gas. The boat is in excellent condition, and I could not be happier.
2008 Limited. 250 hours.
I have never driven a 196. I hear they handle like a tank. I can't wait to pull my boy behind this thing and get him used to the ZO.
As you can see by the For Sale sign, I have to sell the house to afford the boat."


Beautiful boat. Now you can change your screen name to "CANSKI"

[TRBenj]

The 200 is apx 200lbs more than the 196. That's nothing. Plus, the OB is the same weight as the CB. If weight was the major factor in wake size, then why is the 200 wake so much smaller than the 196? Weight over a given surface area and hull design are more important than just weight. Also, since the 196 has less surface area, adding crew and gear effects it more than the 200. I'm not a wakeboarder, but I've heard that the 210 (I think) has a better wake than the 230. It's weight to surface area.... That is exactly why the 200 has a smaller wake than the 196. It's weight is dispersed over a larger area. Smaller does not always = better.

While your argument holds some water (weight vs. area), surely youre not implying that larger and heavier always = better, right? If that were the case, then CC's flagship slalom boat would be a direct drive version of the 230!

Like I stated earlier, I totally understand how the 200 is the natural evolution of the Ski Nautique. The fact that they had very high hurdles to clear (longer, wider, heavier, incorporation of the open bow) during the development, and still were able to improve on the slalom wake of the 196 is an amazing accomplishment.

That being said, I dont see how it can be argued that CC was not capable of building a better slalom boat had the design not been put under the same enormous constraints. If they had been allowed to keep the 196 the same size or make it smaller, and take weight out, and then utilize the new features used on the 200 hull, of course it would have resulted in a better slalom boat!

I also understand how the 200 can be viewed as a compromise- and I am not a fan of it either. While Ive only crawled around a few of them (and havent driven or skied any of them) I will concede that the 200 skis better and might even drive better... though I am a little skeptical of the latter. A few things I am not happy about are:

1. The incorporation of the open bow moves the dash, drivers seat and observers seat back. There is less foot room for the observer. It is difficult to squeeze between the driver's seat and motorbox.

2. The increased weight and larger running surface has slowed the boat down significantly... almost 5mph as compared to the 196. Barefoot speeds are marginal with the Excal 343 according to what has been shared here- which would force any barefooter interested in 1-foot speeds to choose the 6.0L at a pretty hefty upcharge.

3. The saddlebag storage areas are cavernous and most certainly will appeal to those who carry multiple skiers and gear... for those of us who ski off the dock, theyre useless and eat up (floor) seating space.

4. The open bow eats up valuable under bow storage.

5. These arent really compromises dictated by the open bow or larger size, but I would certainly consider them goofs in the design...

-The windshield extends too far back and will require the use of a contoured boom, putting the skier further into the side spray of the boat.

- The observer seat on the closed bow version is too wide- it is so tight to the driver's seat that you cant pass a leg in between the 2 seats. Getting into the driver's seat requires some flexibility, like a mid 90's Mastercraft.

[MarkSkelton]

Beautiful boat! Congratulations!

[ClemsonDave]

TRBenj, you missed the part of my quote where I said additional size and weight are better (to a point). Let me put it another way. Take two boats that weigh 10,000lbs. One is 50' wide with a flat bottom and one is 10' wide with a V hull. Which would have the smaller wake? It's not about the weight, its about weight vs surface area.

Let's approach this in a different way. Exactly how could it be better? The 196 was the king of the 3 event boats, no doubt. However, with the 200...

1. The wakes are almost non-existent and considerably better than a 196 from -28 and longer/slower. Also better than anything else that has ever been produced! Other manufacturers are scrambling to keep up!
2. It tracks way better than a 196.
3. Driver's view ahead is way better than a 196.
4. Driving the course is much easier. With my 196's I would only try 38/39 with a very few number of drivers. That expanded quite a bit with the 200.
5. Spray is less than half the 196.

As far as saddle bags and such... it's all a matter of personal use and not one boat will fit all. I happen to use them to keep the boat uncluttered. I don't want my $1500 ski sitting on the dock or in the sun laying beside the motor box. I don't need a ton of space to walk around the boat. It is plenty to walk around now. So, it's all personal opinion. FYI, I can fit just as many skis under the bow of my 200 as I could in my 196s. My '11 has a big sub and amp under there and I can still easily fit 2 skis without touching.

Yes, it is slower with the stock prop, but I don't think it was designed as a barefoot boat. Put a larger prop on it and bang, you're back to higher speeds. Maybe they should offer the option of different props...

I'm going to walk away for a while. I don't see how you can judge this boat if you have not skied or driven it. For the past 10 years, I bet I spend 15-20 hours per WEEK in these boats. The guys that are complaining the most haven't spent ANY time with it. I don't disagree with everything ya'll are saying but calling it a compromise when it is the best 3 event boat that has ever been produced is crazy. Like Shane said, theories are great, but in reality this is boat is pretty amazing. It's like calling Halle Berry a compromise b/c she has big toes or something ;-)

CAN'SKI, sorry your thread got trashed. Congrats on the new boat! Start a new thread in the 'show us your boat' section!

[TRBenj]

Dave, are you saying that you think the 200 was made bigger and heavier in order to improve the slalom wake? I could be wrong, but it seems obvious to me that the increase in size came about in order to increase interior room- most importantly the open bow and side storage. I do understand the relationship between weight and surface area and how it would relate to the wake. Im assuming that CC did such an admirable job to make a better wake despite the size rather than because of it.

Exactly how could it be better?

Like I said, Im not going to dispute the skiability or driveability of the boat. Not having experienced the boat on the water myself, I will concede those points to the 200.

To make it better to me, you could shrink it by 1-2' in length and 6" or so in width. Shave off 500 lbs. Move the dash forward again. That would give me back my top end speed with little, if any, sacrifice in interior space. I slalom and barefoot so top speed is important to me. If its lighter and smaller it will be a little easier to tow and store to boot.

it's all a matter of personal use and not one boat will fit all.

Exactly. You'll note that I stated earlier that I completely understand how the 200 is the natural evoltution of the Ski Nautique. Its just not for me.

[ClemsonDave]

I am saying I believe there is a sweet spot when it comes to weight and size. A jet ski (which is small and light) would make a terrible ski boat. A 230 (which is big and heavy) would make a terrible ski boat. I also believe that a narrow/light boat will not track nor ski very well. No mass to hold it straight.

The 200 is 6" longer, 4' wider and apx 200lbs heavier than a 196. Immaterial if you ask me. It just looks bigger because it is better designed. So they made all aspects of 3 event better AND they made it more 'sell-able' (if that is a word). In theory, you would think that a lighter smaller boat would automatically make a better ski boat. In reality, the 200 is a little bigger and a little heavier so the theory goes out the window.

I agree that they did the open bow to sell more. It has worked, at least for my promo boats. However, they would never compromise on what their famous for, the best ski boat on the market. To me it is the best of all worlds.

To make it better to me, you could shrink it by 1-2' in length and 6" or so in width. Shave off 500 lbs. Move the dash forward again. That would give me back my top end speed with little, if any, sacrifice in interior space. I slalom and barefoot so top speed is important to me. If its lighter and smaller it will be a little easier to tow and store to boot.

There is a new boat out there that fits that description. The wake is small, but it is so light it feels 'cheap' to me. It also does not track (drive) well at all. My opinion is that it is too light and outside of the sweet spot. Maybe they will figure those issues out, but the one I saw was a step backwards from a 196.

Do you think your tow vehicle will notice the 200lb difference? That's really not much. I can still pull it with my golf cart!

Again, toss on a larger prop and you will have the speed you need for footin'. I get enough concussions skiing, I've retired from footing. ;-)

[CAN'TSKI]

Hey Ken! We will be up this weekend. Yeah, maybe this boat will get me up.
No worries ClemsonDave! I enjoy the debate.

[TRBenj]

Again, toss on a larger prop and you will have the speed you need for footin'. I get enough concussions skiing, I've retired from footing. ;-)

Dave, Ive tested enough props to know that there is no magic solution to adding top speed. Running a larger prop is not going to give more top end unless the stock prop is horribly mismatched to the hull and powertrain, which I do not believe is the case. There may be a little to be gained (1-2mph at best), but there may not be.

I do agree that there is a certain sweet spot between weight and running surface area that needs to be maintained in order to keep the wake small... but constantly growing the boat isnt something Im crazy about, as it comes with performance penalties. Also, while the open bow and side storage will certainly appeal to a broader audience, it doesnt add any value for the way I, and the people I ski with, would use it. As I see it, the useable floor space decreased in the 200, despite the added size and weight- and it got slower to boot. Yes, it skis better than the 196- and Im glad CC hasnt taken a step backwards in that regard. Its just a little disappointing to see them go down the same path as MC did with the 197- trading speed and performance due to a larger running surface in order in order to keep the wake small while accomodating more passengers. Somehow CC was able to resist that trend with the 196. Again, I understand why the 200 was designed the way it was, and I know Im probably in the minority with my gripes- but Im not alone either.

[jjackkrash]

Halle Barry

Dave, you had me until you said the 200 looked like Halle Barry. Now I'm back in the 196 camp.

[MattieK27]

Dave, Ive tested enough props to know that there is no magic solution to adding top speed. Running a larger prop is not going to give more top end unless the stock prop is horribly mismatched to the hull and powertrain, which I do not believe is the case. There may be a little to be gained (1-2mph at best), but there may not be.

I do agree that there is a certain sweet spot between weight and running surface area that needs to be maintained in order to keep the wake small... but constantly growing the boat isnt something Im crazy about, as it comes with performance penalties. Also, while the open bow and side storage will certainly appeal to a broader audience, it doesnt add any value for the way I, and the people I ski with, would use it. As I see it, the useable floor space decreased in the 200, despite the added size and weight- and it got slower to boot. Yes, it skis better than the 196- and Im glad CC hasnt taken a step backwards in that regard. Its just a little disappointing to see them go down the same path as MC did with the 197- trading speed and performance due to a larger running surface in order in order to keep the wake small while accomodating more passengers. Somehow CC was able to resist that trend with the 196. Again, I understand why the 200 was designed the way it was, and I know Im probably in the minority with my gripes- but Im not alone either.

Going back to my point, maybe increasing the size and having an open bow allowed a higher sales forecast, which allowed for more development dollars to be spent; the result being a boat with a superior wake for both slalom and tricking.

Want to debate this? You argue tooth and and nail that the 196 concept (smaller, true closed bow design) is better and that the 200 is a compromise, but did you buy a 196?

[swc5150]

Again, does anyone know how many 196's were sold in '09 and 200's in 2010?

[ClemsonDave]

Hey Shane or Jody, if you are reading this, I know both of you put a different prop on the 200 and the RPM lowered by 300-500. Did you test top speed? The factory prop was not chosen for top speed. It was chosen because testers thought it skied/tricked/jumped the best.

Scott, I've asked about sales numbers, but I'm betting that is not public knowledge. I do know that they sold out of '10s very early in the year. Of course, that doesn't equate to numbers, layoff, etc.

[cotton]

Finally someone in this thread nailed it!

What if, by making the 200 a larger boat with an open bow design, Correct Craft was able to project a higher sales volume.

Thank you MattieK27! I was starting to get a headache reading this thread. Don't get me wrong, I thank GOD for the engineers and analytical types! Y'all make this world turn. But for goodness sakes, don't ever quit your day job and try to run a business.

Open bow ski boats sell better!!! It's that simple; it's just business.

[MattieK27]

[QUOTE=cotton;154302]

What if, by making the 200 a larger boat with an open bow design, Correct Craft was able to project a higher sales volume. QUOTE]


Thank you MattieK27! I was starting to get a headache reading this thread. Don't get me wrong, I thank GOD for the engineers and analytical types! Y'all make this world turn. But for goodness sakes, don't ever quit your day job and try to run a business.

Open bow ski boats sell better!!! It's not personal; its just business.

Sadly, I am a mechanical engineer lol. I have worked with a few boat companies in the past though.