Doesn anyone know of a Nauti 2001 converted to a vdrive? It could be done, just wondering if it ever has been done.

I've tried to find some info on how hard it would be to do the conversion. Especially if you were redoing the floor and stringers it seems like it could be feasible and a very fun project.

I know this topic has been discussed before. For a faster responce try the search feature. I am for sure someone will chime in before long though. <BR> <BR>If this is something that you are thinking about doing, I would look around for an old excel before I started cutting on a D-drive. Just my 2 cents.

aren't barefoot nautiques the same hull but vdrive?

Barefoot nautiques are basically the same boat with a deeper v hull (and a 454 standard <img src="http://www.wakeworld.com/MB/Discus/clipart/biggrin.gif" border=0>)

91' Barefoot nauti <BR><img src="http://www.wakeworld.com/MB/Discus/messages/65921/543283.jpg" alt="Upload">

The Nautique Excel and V-Drive Barefoot Nautique are basically the same boat. Some of the Excels were open bow. Hard to find... excellent if you can find. Very curious boats, as they were a glimpse into what we all know now is the stock-standard form factor for most popular wake boats. <BR> <BR>80's era Barefoot Nautique and Ski Nautiques are quite similar, but as mentioned the BF had a deeper V. <BR> <BR>CorrectCraftFan.com's reference section will answer all of these questions. <BR> <BR>But there is no point in converting a Ski Nautique 2001 into a V-drive... Neat science project for someone, someday. Maybe when I am retired I'll do it. <BR> <BR>(Message edited by juniorhawk on February 08, 2008)

Hmm... I stand corrected. I didn't know CC ever made a V-Drive barefoot.

Yes, it's called a SAN...

Mikeski (mikeski)... <BR> <BR>No. Totally different hulls. But the Excel/BF **inspired** it and the same designer was responsible for both. The hull of the Excel and the Super Sport was designed, somewhat surprisingly, in 1994. Not too far from when the Excel was designed (1990, for a 1991 release). <BR> <BR>A nice evolution there. Solid boats the whole way through. Not really a stinker among them if you think about it. The only stinking is by proxy, because some people have convinced themselves that the 1990+ Ski Nautique is a good platform for wakeboarding. It isn't. 1990 marked the year that its wake became as small as that of the competition (Prostar190), finally. MasterCraft had them beat for years on this - which as an aside is why there isn't such a thing as a good Prostar 190, for wakeboarding purposes but there is such a thing as a good Ski Nautique for wakeboarding purposes. The 2001. <BR> <BR>The Ski Nautique since 1990 has been a phenomenal ski boat, and a terrible wakeboard boat. A lot of people make that mistake actually - thinking that since the 1982-1989 Ski Nautique is such a good choice for wakeboarding, and the 1989-forever Sport Nautique is too - so that must mean the same goes for 90's era Ski Nautiques. I've said it a million times, but it doesn't. Great boat, lovely. But a bad choice for wakeboarders because the hull was finally designed for what it was supposed to do. <BR> <BR>(Message edited by juniorhawk on February 08, 2008)

Yes and No. Erik, some of your information is close... <BR> <BR>The vital elements that made the 2001 so successful for wakesports were captured in the SAN hull, but totally different from the Barefoot/Excel hull. I have been a Nautique guy since the early 70's and have owned 15 Nautiques last time I counted. We owned a 2001 for over 10 years. The angle of the V from the bow to the transom, the propwash diverting V above the driveline. the steps in the rear corners are all elements of the 2001 that were incorporated into the 2006 and earlier SAN hull (as explained to me from a Maloon at the introduction of the first SAN). <BR> <BR>The barefoot was a totally different hull with steps designed to lift the hull higher out of the water creating smaller wakes and more speed as needed for barefooting. It does work pretty well for boarding because it's V is carried all the way to the transom unlike most other Nautiques. <BR> <BR>In 1997 Nautique introduced the TSC (total surface control) slalom hull designed to produce very little wake. Since 1997 the Nautique slalom boats are difficult to turn into wakeboard boats. The 2001 was produced through 1989 is the famous hull for boarding, the "90's" era boats are 1990-1996 can make decent wakes for boarding with about 1000lbs added midship. <BR> <BR>If you would like to understand more about Nautiques and the evolution of the hulls much more information is available on: correctcraftfan.com

You want to rethink that thought on telling Erik something? <a href="http://www.erikjernberg.com/" target="_blank">http://www.erikjernberg.com/</a>

Well I am glad I am at least close! <img src="http://www.wakeworld.com/MB/Discus/clipart/rofl.gif" border=0> <BR> <BR>I'm quite familiar with what you're speaking of and I am not disagreeing with you. Agreed - the 2001 and Super Sport share a lot in common. After selling one of our 2001's and buying the 01' SAN, the first time we took the SAN out I looked back and was amazed at how similar the wake appeared right off the bat (and unweighted). That's old news though - at this point everyone knows how close they are characteristically. But your points apply as much, if not more (definitely more, as far as I know) with the Sport Nautique as it was kind of a midpoint between the 2001 and the SAN. If you drew a family tree, the 2001 would not be connected to the 1990 Ski Nautique with a solid line, rather there would be a gray line between the 2001 and the Sport. Your statement about the vital elements, rear corner steps and so on are seen in it. Correct? This is always interesting to debate. <BR> <BR>And your point about the hull design of the BFN lifting the boat higher at high speeds is dead on. I've always heard that. This is why I've always wanted to get behind a direct drive, weighted BFN, so that I can give an educated opinion on how close the wake is to the low-slung 2001. According to you, if I am to read between the lines - there is quite a difference potentially. <BR> <BR>Maybe where we're missing each others' points are the differences between the 1991+ Excel/Barefoot Nautique and the Dominique/Barefoot Nautique of the 80's. Maybe there are a lot of changes, but maybe they just elongated it and reconfigured it to be a v-drive. CCFan research needed <IMG SRC="http://www.wakeworld.com/MB/Discus/clipart/happy.gif" ALT=":-)" BORDER=0> <BR> <BR>Anyway, I've probably seen you over there at CCfan. I post as The2001.com on Keith's great site. <BR> <BR>Regards, <BR>Erik <BR> <BR>PS. <b>Dave</b> - any reason you linked to my personal site? Just wondering. Not like it's hidden or anything. } <BR> <BR>(Message edited by juniorhawk on February 08, 2008)

A 2001 VDRIVE sounds like a nice prototype for a new boat company! It would be a hit at $40K with gas sipping tendencies and a great wake!

Just come back from a session with our little beauty. They are such a cool boat. We have a pair of 750 pound tanks in the rear of ours, with a bit of lead in the front the wake is great. The D-drive layout works great with the tanks in place, maybe even better than a v-drive with this sized platform. <BR><img src="http://www.wakeworld.com/MB/Discus/messages/65921/543429.jpg" alt="Upload"> <BR><img src="http://www.wakeworld.com/MB/Discus/messages/65921/543430.jpg" alt="Upload"> <BR><img src="http://www.wakeworld.com/MB/Discus/messages/65921/543431.jpg" alt="Upload">

Thats incredible! <BR> <BR>The seats could use a bit more comfort. Otherwise its great.

Erik, besides the 82-89 2001 Ski Nautiques, the 1990-1996 Ski Nautique hull is a pretty solid wakeboarding boat too, with a 3 blade prop the wake gets you up in the air, with a 4 blade is mellows and you can add as much weight as you want and it keeps getting bigger! <BR><img src="http://www.wakeworld.com/MB/Discus/messages/65921/543438.jpg" alt="Upload">

Luciano the 1990+ Ski Nautique is simply too dialed in as a slalom hull to be a sensible option for someone looking to get a good boat with which to get into the sport. That is to say - if someone was looking for recommendations on what to buy - and what is a good boat if the plans are to use it as a wake boat. Not 50/50 ski/wake use - as in that case it could make sense. We're talking about use for <u>wakeboarding</u>. The 1990+ Ski Nautique is a good boat, but not for exclusive wakeboarding use. As a pretty die-hard Correct Craft person, it is the only Correct Craft model I find myself regularly recommending that people NOT buy. <BR> <BR>If it is what you have, and what you need to make work for your purposes, yes it can be weighted just like anything else. Assuming you're using that photo as evidence that the 1990+ Ski Nautique actually is a good option for wakeboarding, I'd guess there's a considerable amount of weight and/or people in that boat, judging by the height of the rooster tail and the wake characteristics in general. 2000lbs total? <BR> <BR>If you happen to have a Ski Nautique in that year range, then like with almost any other boat debate on here, an owner can and will defend it till the cows come home. But it is by no means a recommended platform to serve as a wake boat - it really isn't. Your point that it is, is an occasional misconception I see from time to time though. People sometimes have a similar misconception about the Prostar 190 due to how good the Prostar 205 is. <BR> <BR>(Message edited by juniorhawk on February 09, 2008)

How does the prop affect the wake shape?

so a sport nautique (early/ mid 90's) is a good wakeboarding boat?? compared to the 2001 which is better??? <BR> <BR>Just curious not trying to start anything..

Yes the Sport Nautique from 1989-? is an excellent wakeboard boat - particularly as an entry point boat. It is one of the best and most versatile boats they've ever made. <BR> <BR>Assuming money is not a factor the Sport is the better boat.

thanks

I own a sport and love the wake behind it. It is very steep and narrow but I love it none the less. Storage is the only issue that I have ever come across with the boat.

Ok I'll just come out and say it - I actually think the Sport Nautique is THE most versatile boat they've ever made. <BR> <BR>How about them apples! <BR> <BR>(Message edited by juniorhawk on February 09, 2008)

that's apretty sweet setup on that 2001, you got anymore pics Darren?

Erik, the boat in that picture belonged to a friend, it had a 3 blade prop in that pic and +/- 1700 pounds total, 600 rear, 250 on each side of the engine and other 500 in front. <BR> <BR>It is true indeed that without weight this boat produced almost no wake to ride with, however I dont see much people riding without added ballast, specifically with DDs. Just check the amount of weight people add on their "wake specific" boats, how much weight do you need on a "wake specific" direct drive to have a wake this big? <BR> <BR>Leo: the prop thing has been a debate, everyone has their own opinions, here goes mine: A 4 blade prop gives the boat extra lift because of the extra blade, therefore the boat rides with the stern higher, or leveled and the wake smoothens. Perhaps it's not a generality, but this really happened when switching from the 3 blade to the 4 blade on this particular boat (1995 SN) <BR> <BR>I've also heard similar comments about the ACME 208 4 blade prop vs the stock 3 blade for older Nautiques. Some guys even switching from the newers ACME 3 blades 540 or 542 to the 4 blade 208 because they preferred the wake with the 4 blade. <BR> <BR>Propeller rake shape and the amount of cup affects hull performance also.

Top pic is what your lookin at for a ski wake at 36 mph with an 86 SN 2001 and the bottom pics are what you can expect from the wakeboard wake with 1000lbs <BR><img src="http://www.wakeworld.com/MB/Discus/messages/65921/543556.jpg" alt="Upload"> <BR><img src="http://www.wakeworld.com/MB/Discus/messages/65921/543557.jpg" alt="Upload">

Thanks Scott, there is a ton of photos here: <a href="http://www.the2001.com/index.php?name=PNphpBB2&amp;file=viewtopic&amp;t=8 61&amp;start=0" target="_blank">http://www.the2001.com/index.php?name=PNphpBB2&amp;file=viewtopic&amp;t=8 61&amp;start=0</a> <BR> <BR>We have drop in seats for the pop ups and a new base and seat for behind the dog house coming.

The salt weapon looks rad man, how'd that Lotto ticket go? Are you a millionaire yet?

What do you mean yet? Ha ha.

Love the SN, have a 93 myself. I've only ridden behind one 2001 and I would say the wakes are similar. The difference is that I can pack 2300 lbs into my sport along with gear for 4-5 people and still be comfortable. I don't know that it would be possible to get 2300 lbs in a 2001, let alone 4-5 people and gear. And the wake just gets better and better the more you add. So, you're giving up space, comfort and room for more sacs!! Which is kind of saying a lot, there isn't much room to move around in my Sport as it is. <BR> <BR>Both are great "entry level" boats.

95 supersport is our old guy and its awesome. wake is good as any SANTE

Mikeski (mikeski) I just realized where I was wrong. I said "The hull of the Excel and the Super Sport was designed, somewhat surprisingly, in 1994. Not too far from when the Excel was designed (1990, for a 1991 release)." <BR> <BR>Duh. Typo. Error. <BR> <BR>I meant... <BR> <BR>"The hull of the Super Sport was designed, somewhat surprisingly, in 1994. Not too far from when the Excel was designed (1990, for a 1991 release)." <BR> <BR>I didn't mean to say the Excel hull was designed 3 years into the future from when it was released <IMG SRC="http://www.wakeworld.com/MB/Discus/clipart/happy.gif" ALT=":-)" BORDER=0> I think those Correct Craft engineers are talented - but let's face it... not time-traveling good...