Carbon TSC1 vs Ski Nautique 200

[aguylikeshark]

Wake off: The FM Carbon TSC1 vs the best in the business the SN 200.

 

[Boody]

The 200 is amazing, especially at shortline. But this boat may give it a run for it's money. I hear the 15 and 22 bump is gone. Wonder how shortline is and drivability. Will be pretty hard to beat the 200 overall.

[Chef23]

So how did it ski?

[Boody]

Chef, I have only skied behind the SN200. I've talked to a few who have skied behind the TSC1, but it is also still in development, sounds like it will be done soon.

[thager]

TSC 1 is Total Surface control on CC Ski Nautiques up to 2001? I don't think he's talking about the Centurian Carbon Slalom boat.

[Boody]

Ahh, disregard, carbon threw me off.

[Chef23]

Threw me off also.

[Andre]

So,did someone used the TSC 1 mold to make a carbon fiber boat?

[Horton]

No. Paul just likes to confuse everyone.

[Than_Bogan]

Ok, I'll bite:  What the heck is this boat we're talking about?

[thager]

I think it's a 99 SN 196. Paul put a carbon swim platform on it and claims the slalom wake was much improved. Bunch of hoohey if you ask me!!

[tru-jack]

thager, agreed. but don't forget he also repalced the rear floor board with a carbon one and almost saved 20lbs... less than a .25 tank of gas or a small post ski cooler in total weight difference.

[Horton]

What does a tank of fuel weigh?

I know when a boat is on fumes I always change my settings, bindings and fin. I also change my skiing from a semi-neo-mid-old school to a half-reverse new school.

 No wait... no I do not feel any difference.

Add a tower or BIG folks up front, the rooster at 28 can grow a bit with some boats.

[Than_Bogan]

7 lbs per gallon (EDITED!  This is wrong -- actually 6 lbs per gallon) is an adequate density figure for approximating the weight of gasoline, so that's around 200 lbs difference from full to empty on a modern 30-ish gallon tank.

That said, the placement of the weight could be very important?  There might be a reason the fuel is right where it is?

Btw, if the weight of the platform makes so much difference (and I remain on the skeptical list on that one), did you try just removing it?  I think I'd want the result of that experiment before I'd design any further experiments around the platform.

[thager]

Don't forget the water in the bilge!!

[tru-jack]

agreed, my lxi has a 41 gallon tank, and I can't tell if it's full or not, but toss in my ex-pro linebacker father in law and you kinda notice, It's about 300 extra lbs in the seat beside my already non svelt 200lb ski partners and we have some serious crew weight, even still not much of a difference. My problem exists entirely between my ears... couldn't stop laughing during pullout from one of our boat crew referring to his wife as the "handbrake"...for me at least giggling like a school girl is much more distracting than a few extra lbs...

[thager]

All the above mentioned weight items while not improving the wake will help tone down ZO!

[Roger]

Thanimal, gasoline weight:

2.69 to 2.91 kg (5.93 to 6.42 lbs), depending on temperature, type and blend (e.g. with methanol, water, benzene etc.)

Most people I've heard discuss it (from my auto racing days) just said 6lbs/gal.

 

I agree that on my 2002 SN, and now my 2009 SN and my ski partners 2000 SN, I can't tell the difference between full and empty tanks as a skier.

 

[Roger]

thager, I believe the more weight at the boat end, the better for ZO. I believe this is why the 200 feels softer to most skiers than the 196 did, more mass takes longer to speed up/slow down and tends to keep it's speed better as the skier pulls. A lighter boat that the skier can really effect with the pull would be applying more throttle to compensate, not less (IMO). One of my ski partners is Harold Hintringer who runs regularly into 41 at 55k. He uses C1 behind his 2009 SN, but uses C2 behind the 200 to get the same "zing."

 

[Than_Bogan]

6 lbs per gallon, huh?  I stand corrected!

I guess I've had that filed wrong in my head for about the last 30 years!

[eleeski]

Weight at the rear of the boat will raise the bow and cause the boat to push more. The wakes will grow larger. I weight the back of the boat to make the trick wakes bigger - it is a real effect.

The MC fuel tank is ~15 gal. Difference between full and empty is about 90 pounds. I add at least that much for tricks. My old Marlin skier was a horrible slalom wake with full 40 gallon tanks and one of the best when empty. Weight at the back of the boat is most critical for the feel of the wakes.

The 200 has an interesting hull design. Several unique features soften the wake and the pull. The size and weight of the boat plus the added drag from the hydrogate leave little excess horsepower and give a soft slalom pull. Perhaps weight in the front of this boat will make the wake worse - I don't have enough 200 time to know. The trick wake is very small, flat and soft. Adding weight to the rear of the 200 makes the trick wake bigger.

Weight in the front of my MC makes the slalom wake better. Throwing the extra spectator in the bow seats is standard proceedure.

It is possible that weight in the front of the boat might make the propwash come out of the water more. At deep shortline the propwash might be more critical than the wake size. Of course, if the boat is a lot lighter the propwash won't need to push as much water so it might be softer even if it is more pronounced.

Shark's project is cool and valid.

Eric

[Jody_Seal]

Back in the day when I was in the R&D dept at CC I did quite a lot of ski testing with and with out the floor board,platform and in some instances without the whole top of the boat. Anyway I do find it a little hard to swallow that loosing around 25-30 pounds total in the rear of a 196 or 99 ski nautique has any noticable effect on the slalom wake. now remove 200 pounds yea! that will have an effect. I played around with a 97 that had the fuel tank in front of the motor ( well it was a 5 gal outboard tank under the deck with a few lead weights for extra representation of fuel) now this boat had no 22 off bump and did have an impact on overall wake size as it was noticably smaller. 

I am trying to Get Nautiques to offer a teak platform for the 200, I know it will add about 10 pounds but wood is sure easier on the ski bottoms then Gel coat. 

[DW]

There are two components to the story or thread here, one is simply total weight and the other is location.  Reducing total weight certainly helps, and lets make the assumption for this that it is evenly done across the length of the boat or perhaps done at the engine (ie:  LS v. LT engines were the LS has lots of aluminum and less weight).  Pull a fair amount out and it is noticable, I have done that on my particular boat.  Location, that is actually a simple teeter totter example, take some out of the back and the teeter totter raises the tail, reverse and the nose comes up, pivoting around the center of gravity, approximately near the pylon/engine.  Most effective areas to best take advantage of this effect is at the very ends of the boat, so the platform or the running light at the front.  That is also why fuel can be a noticible change considering there can be 180# (30 gals) of fuel on board one of these boats, since it is weight and at one end.    That is one of the reasons behind where the Infinity fuel tank was located (midship), keeping a constant balance.

Eric also brings up a good point about pitching the boat making the propwash change, much like the jets on a sauna where angling them changes the water characteristics on or near the surface if aimed reasonably close.

[eleeski]

I believe that Coast Guard rules prefer fuel in the rear of the boat. Small gas tanks solve the balance issues.

Brick replaced his big gas tank with a 5 gallon outboard tank. It worked quite well and was easy to refuel - clip in a new tank! 

Eric

[ForrestGump]

A valid comparison is a Malibu RLXI with a wedge and without. That's about 80-100 lbs hanging off the transom. With the wedge stowed up, the wake is huge and very hard. Unbolt it and the size and hardness diminish.

[tru-jack]

shaneh, I have a wedge on my boat but it's currently not on the boat as we lost a pin.  I have replaced but haven't got around to re-installing, but it's closer to 10-15 lbs not 80-100.  I'm guessing by memory on the 10-15 but its not that heavy as my 2 year old can easily pick it up.  I don't notice the difference with it on or off either.  It's much lighter than the difference from .25 to full tank of fuel as I recall the tank is about 40us gallons.  I don't even notice the fuel difference though.

[aguylikeshark]

Wakes are so low they're spooking me. Kinda like this thread.

 

 

name="allowFullScreen" value="true">

[MattP]

do you have any before and after video of you skiing behind the boat to put in a side-by-side for us to see?

[east tx skier]

Okay, so carbon fiber swim platform and glove box cover.  I think I read something about carbon fiber floorboard.  Back seat is gone.  Probably running low on the gas.  Anything else I'm missing.  I messed with weight in the bow and didn't love the results on my 98.  Wake and tracking seemed as good as before or a negligible difference at the longer line lengths.  Handled like a pig at idle and sluggish out of the hole (this is with 45 lbs in the nose).  I should probably take the back seat out more often, but it's so easy to hide things under it.

[Chef23]

Wouldn't you rather practice behind something with wakes that are a little bigger. That way you don't get surprised when you go to a tournament.

[east tx skier]

Kind of hard with a 98 Ski. http://www.ballofspray.com/vanillaforum/js/tinymce/jscripts/tiny_mce/plugins/emotions/images/smiley-laughing.gif

[Horton]

Home spun carbon work is fun. The statement that it significantly changes your boat’s performance is absolutely ridiculous.

[skibug]

It looked like the boat was a little heavy to the driver side in that video so I am not sure if we got the true view of the wake profile......just saying

[aguylikeshark]

working late, running a second shift these days. anyway new parts, in addition to what was mentioned earlier or shown, ALL interior removable panels redone in Intuition EVA or Carbon Fiber. Deleted: storage separation panel, those long side pads, audio, heater+hoses, boat bumpers. Slalom buoys integrated into gunnels now serve as bumpers and course spares (see video). Compact battery(smallest one i could find), light-weight paddle, all unecessary item are OUT. It all adds up. Fuel load is visual i don't use the gauge and have a fast ez fill siphon we designed for quick fuel ups.

 

I was looking at the motor box what a honking heavy thing that is. Will weigh that tomorrow. For now the Mbox is located 3" (full) forward. Look at how high the boat sits in the water, how high the grid is. The first chine now clears the surface at the back.

 

I have friend with a 2000 SNOB the grid is at the surface. Don't like skiing his boat.

 

The difference is huge on our lake, way more time in the course all agreed/noted by 4 skiers now.

 

Chris Rathy - world class/rated tournament driver, driven all years of SN is coming to check it out this week. Chris' son Aaron was the #1 3 eventer in the world, used to be sponsored by SN now he boards for MB www.aaronrathy.com He'll give it a good assessment. Cheers.

[skidawg]

The statement that it significantly changes your boat's performance simply opens the door to sell a pretty useless product.

[aguylikeshark]

in 1998 CC degsined a new motor box is that much lighter? Put the 1997 hulking motor box on a scale today 70 lbs. Probably build a composite one in the less-than-20 lbs region. Also did a top speed run today, first time in years. I got to 5090 and 47 mph with the roof up. Also need a new prop my blades are bit bent at the ends.

[aguylikeshark]

i know it's another dig but.... I wake up early and work fast. Plus a full stocked shop with materials, tools and expert staff a hundred feet from the dock helps a lot!

[eleeski]

Shark is on a good track. Removing non essential weight is critical and will surely improve a boat's performance. If an aftermarket cowl, swim step or floorboard is available to make your boat better I don't see a downside. Removing a couple hundred pounds from your boat will help your buoy count - way more than a fin movement that only a fancy caliper can see.

Keep up the good work and it's fun when you share the results with us. Thanks.

Eric

[Than_Bogan]

Removing a couple hundred pounds from your boat will help your buoy count - way more than a fin movement that only a fancy caliper can see.

While I am always in favor of people experimenting with things and reporting their results, I disagree with the above statement.  In fact, my buoy count is the same behind every boat.  From -28 to -38 (the entire range of my typical round), it's hard to find any remotely serious boat that has any sort of wake issue.  Fin movement has a much more obvious impact on my skiing.  Like any experiment, sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't, but I had one work earlier this year that completely changed how I was doing (for the better).

[behindpropellers]

Shark-

 

Surprised you didn't take out the 5 lbs. of fittings that hold the rear seatback on??

 

Your wake is getting close to my 176 wake http://www.ballofspray.com/vanillaforum/js/tinymce/jscripts/tiny_mce/plugins/emotions/images/smiley-wink.gif

 

[KG]

How much weight would you drop with aluminium heads? A fuel cell in the bow could also change weight distribution.

[eleeski]

Aluminum heads might not save any weight. A fresh water cooling system will be required for aluminum engine parts. The weight of the fresh water cooling system is probably more than you will lose in the engine. However, there are real advantages to fresh water cooling so I'm not saying don't use aluminum. It just might not be lighter.

Isn't someone building carbonfiber connecting rods? That might save weight and increase power!

Eric

[DW]

Aluminum cylinder heads are 50# lighter per pair, aluminum exhaust manifolds are 90# lighter per pair and an aluminum intake is 25# lighter.  Add those up along with options on the engine water pump (removed) and misc. brackets and you can slice off around 200# pretty quick.  It makes a noticable difference at least in my case.  I am sitting at 250# in mass reduction at present.  I don't run a closed cooling system in a midwestern fresh water lake and have not had any problems, salt or brackish water would be a different challenge.  I have 4 zinc plugs in the system to act as the sacrificial metal and have accumulated over 700 hours on most of the parts in question all still in great shape.  The additional 100 hp is a fun result as well which included some other mods as well so I can easily surprise that annoying jet ski that thought they were going to escape, plus it makes for a great footing boat.

There are cf con rods, or the traditional carillo titanium rods are about as good as it gets.  A more traditional approach would be to go through and cut weight out of the pistons and rods then balance the crank to suit and leave a pile of shavings on the floor.  Lots of effort for not a lot of return in this case since acceleration at that level is not really a huge concern.  There are aluminum blocks available as replacement items and of course the LS series of engines is all aluminum and much lighter.

[aguylikeshark]

Thanks Eric for keeping the discussion on target. I looked around for the parts DW mentioned but could not find any sites - could you please post some links to sources? Exh manifolds i would consider. Heads - probably not. Pix of your modded boat would be cool too. 250 lbs is a LOT. With the CF motor box i am getting up in that territory. However I must say this SN is starting to feel a lot like my old Sea Doo GTX. The back end sits quite high and am wondering if handling issues will crop up.

 

I've had my boat since new 10 years 1200 hours. It's better than ever - using less fuel, faster, quicker, handles way better, no bow rise. I'm lovin ' it. Also the lack of wake has made the course longer and seriously we are able to focus on technique, instead of getting beat up by the wake so the skiing is much more enjoyable. Also did a video of the wake with the Carbon Fiber Motor Box,copyrighted sound track (lols):

[eleeski]

I'd guess the freshwater cooling is only 30 pounds wet. So I guess some weight savings are possible. Cool! Note that Lake Tahoe might be the only water in California without enough salt to try using lake water with dissimilar metals. I'm not even supposed to use our tap water for my Datsun roadster coolant!

Even more interesting is the 100hp gain. Perhaps an aluminum V6 could give enough power to pull jump well. An aluminum V6 would really save some weight. Plus the size might open up a smaller boat some. Maybe Stan's little Ford Ranger could actually tow a lighter boat (why did we get the trailer with his boat?). Kirk's little 79 American Skier has a sweet little slalom wake - imagine that boat running really light...

Eric

[jordanskis]

 

That wake is beginning to resemble the wake on my '93 Prostar....less the spray mine makes at short line.

[DW]

Cylinder Heads:  GM Fast Burn 385 units.  Exhaust Manifolds:  Stainless Marine Small Block Aluminum Manifolds (they have actual primary tubes).  Intake Manifold:  Edelbrock Performer RPM.  Rest of exhaust home made to match the 4" elbow exit, H pipe added, slip in stainless baffles from CP Performance, 4" stainless tips.  Alternate sources for exhaust manifolds are Hardin or IMCO.  Bassett makes a real set of stainless tube marine headers.  Numerous suppliers make aftermarket performance GM manifolds.  If a Ford, the GT40 route is the performance route to take.

Power upgrade:  Fast burn 385 heads (swirl, port flow, bigger valves), 10:1 compression ratio, ZZ4 camshaft, 1.6 rockers, timing remapped, blueprinted carb, 4" exhaust w/ H pipe, cold air induction, 160 stat.  Will pull 5600 rpm in cool weather at 54-55 mph and idles great, biggest diff is the accel from 2-4500 rpm and all on regular fuel, 1:1 trans ratio w/ 13x12 Acme prop (I reworked and added cup).

Small engine power, I would go either super or turbo charged since you would be fighting lack of torque on most of those units.  The old Sanger, if think it was called Twister, was supercharged and could pull 70 mph but that was a small block Chevy also.  That would have been a heck of a jump boat.

[eleeski]

Cool setup! On regular?! How is the fuel burn?

Instead of turbo/supercharging would a two speed transmission work? Where could I find one?

Eric

[DW]

Great, no detonation or pre ignition.  The aluminum dissipates heat rapidly, so that helps, then the fact that you have the entire lake as your radiator offers plenty of cool inlet water, so it is never over 80-85 degrees on the inlet side.  Good head gaskets to ensure good water flow around the upper cylinder walls and heads.  Also, it really did not cost much either.

That is another option, I would think the guts of a school bus two speed secondary would work.  Many race cars also have a drop gear, you could adapt a 2 speed sprint car box (other than it would be noisy).  Here is a out of the box idea, I have not looked at the internals, but perhaps a diffent ratio "reverse" on the boat box but cut the other way would offer multiple speed options.

[eleeski]

What am I thinking?! I have too many projects already. But maybe I could fit a milling machine somewhere...

Eric