The new STAR... 5 days and counting

Originally Posted by cwb4me

Tige does have a new boat ,the Z3.I'm sure you'll hear plenty about it if you can read and comprehend.I didn't bring my Tige into this thread.I explained the convex V hull design,which they have had for years.As far as Football goes i don't see how a boat is relevant.

If the convex v hull theory was true, you wouldnt be able to skip a stone on the lake...it would sink on the first bounce. fluid dynamics applies in water just as it does in air, so the initial thought would be that a convex create a low pressure zone below the hull forcing it down, similar to how the shape of a wing creates a low pressure zone above.

that is all fine and dandy until you start mixing mediums. the density of the water relative to the density of the air above it is ALWAYS going to force the hull to the path of least resistance, which is up and out of the water. additionally, the angle of the prop and propshaft on all wakeboats forces the boat out of the water...they push up, not parallel.

furthermore, every wakeboat has a convex at its entry point along the keel. when at rest, that entry point is in the water. if the convex v theory worked, as soon as you started applying forward momentum, the bow would suck down due to the "low pressure zone" created by its convex.

hijack over. lets talk about the star.....

Originally Posted by tn_rider

I feel like if I met you in person and we were talking about a football game you would somehow find a way to bring your blue tige into it.

Classic.

I have been thinking about this since the “one minute…” video came out, something is seriously wrong with that video and the “stock ballast at %50 and a 750 bag in the walkway” explanation of the wake set up; I am perplexed…

From MC themselves and their pro’s, they have been working on this boat/hull/wake for approx 3 years. Some of the riders claim to have “hours of actual riding time” behind this boat. I take them at their word. However, the ONE and ONLY video that MC officially releases of the wake and the pros riding it shows the first rider hitting a wall of wash. Yes his tantrum is big and so is the wake, but both sides are terribly washed. Its either a speed issue (most likely) or a weight issue. Either way WHY, if this boat has had so much R&D, are they putting out this video of a terrible wake? Yes, the next few riders have nice clean big wakes, but the first wake seen, the first impression, is poor. I don’t get why MC would do that. Second, if I take them (MC) at their word, that they have spent years and rider hours working on the hull/boat, then why is the “optimum wake” for this boat; 2 people, stock ballast %50, and one 750 on the walk thru? If these are the best of the best pros and MC is the best of the best towboats, then how could they put out their new flagship with a terrible ballast design? You mean to tell me that stock ballast of 1500 lbs, is SO POORLY designed that you cannot fill it all the way, instead you have to remove half of the water, put it in a big bag, then place that bag in the middle of the boat, blocking the use of the walk thru so nobody can get by, blocking the use of the folding seat back in the bow, to have a great wake? Why then do they offer additional ballast with a plug n play system? Why would you want another #1000 apparently placed incorrectly in your boat? And why, ef the best of the best pro’s only had 2 people and #1500 of ballast, and the wake in the video was the result of that, then why would the rest of us need an additional 1750 lbs of ballast (750 of stock and 1000 pnp)?

I don’t buy it…

That boat was EITHER ballast full, additional sacks in the rear lockers and bow lockers, plus the 750 in the walkway and MC is lying to everyone, - OR - MC sucks at wakeboat design, hull design, ballast design, and cannot properly r & d any of it.

I know what I believe.

MC sucks at wakeboat design, hull design, ballast design, and cannot properly r & d any of it.

Best WakeWorld sentence ever. Without question.

Originally Posted by tdc_worm

If the convex v hull theory was true, you wouldnt be able to skip a stone on the lake...it would sink on the first bounce. fluid dynamics applies in water just as it does in air, so the initial thought would be that a convex create a low pressure zone below the hull forcing it down, similar to how the shape of a wing creates a low pressure zone above.

that is all fine and dandy until you start mixing mediums. the density of the water relative to the density of the air above it is ALWAYS going to force the hull to the path of least resistance, which is up and out of the water. additionally, the angle of the prop and propshaft on all wakeboats forces the boat out of the water...they push up, not parallel.

furthermore, every wakeboat has a convex at its entry point along the keel. when at rest, that entry point is in the water. if the convex v theory worked, as soon as you started applying forward momentum, the bow would suck down due to the "low pressure zone" created by its convex.

hijack over. lets talk about the star.....

Ill come out front and i say it, i own a tige RZR, and i ride frequently an x-25 which wake i enjoy

riding in a tige it becomes evident the way the system works, x-25 with trim tabs and it doesnt have close the same effect because the mc hull seems to plow a wake out with the bow, where as the tige more on the stern.

the tige hull literally rides on the stern with the taps up, and the wake becomes very lippy as the stern settles into the water and does gain SOME size as the plate is backed off but not much, if it didnt work it wouldnt be still be used for tige maybe its not perfect, but no hull ever is, thats why there is constant r+d and a new xstar... so just leave it at that and get back to fighting about the star instead of knocking another brand for their technologies because someone asked a question and got a somewhat practical answer. Another practical answer would be mention of malibus wedge system to suck the stern into the water for wakeboarding...

so relax and get back to the star

Originally Posted by simplej

so just leave it at that and get back to fighting about the star instead of knocking another brand for their technologies because someone asked a question and got a somewhat practical answer. Another practical answer would be mention of malibus wedge system to suck the stern into the water for wakeboarding...

so relax and get back to the star

thanks, dad, for telling me where to leave my comments. if you cant look past simple physics to see that it is marketing then that is not my problem. no current v drive wakeboat has a hook at the transom. tige happens to have patented the name convex v as it applies to removing the hook that is common on inboard 3 event boats.

did i bash tige? maybe it appeared that way, but my attempt was to keep us all from being sheeple and grazing on all the marketing hype and believing what the media tells us. i am not an apologist for any boat...my last two boats have been CCs w/ the hydro-gate, which i think is a total gimmick. search my user name on PN to see me bashing all of the CC marketing and shortcomings. i think all boats suck.

as for your tige, i am glad you enjoy it. i never said they dont perform, and i likely have more hours and injuries behind 22v's, 22ve's, and RZ2s that most tige enthusiasts on this forum.

now gimme x star marketing koolaid so i can try to convice people that the pickfefork creates thte wake hahaha...

Originally Posted by tdc_worm

thanks, dad, for telling me where to leave my comments. if you cant look past simple physics to see that it is marketing then that is not my problem. no current v drive wakeboat has a hook at the transom. tige happens to have patented the name convex v as it applies to removing the hook that is common on inboard 3 event boats.

did i bash tige? maybe it appeared that way, but my attempt was to keep us all from being sheeple and grazing on all the marketing hype and believing what the media tells us. i am not an apologist for any boat...my last two boats have been CCs w/ the hydro-gate, which i think is a total gimmick. search my user name on PN to see me bashing all of the CC marketing and shortcomings. i think all boats suck.

as for your tige, i am glad you enjoy it. i never said they dont perform, and i likely have more hours and injuries behind 22v's, 22ve's, and RZ2s that most tige enthusiasts on this forum.

now gimme x star marketing koolaid so i can try to convice people that the pickfefork creates thte wake hahaha...

My mistake son, i thought you had also posted telling robert T to take his babble elsewhere

i agree it is marketing, but adjusting your taps plate does make changes in the wake, it is just a hyped up way to make adjustments to your wake via a hull with a rocker int the back and a trim tab

yes youre right all boats DO suck, you cant get everything you want in one, and they all have their own personalities. and all have different technologies and developments, they all suck and are too expensive, and this massively priced, massively waked xstar will do nothing for the indusrty unless youre a pro, they arent revolutionizing the industry theyre resetting the price point.

speaking of wake how does the star make a wake? no trim plate indicated, im surprised considering i would thing it would help the boat get on plane with ass loads of weight

Originally Posted by tdc_worm

If the convex v hull theory was true, you wouldnt be able to skip a stone on the lake...it would sink on the first bounce. fluid dynamics applies in water just as it does in air, so the initial thought would be that a convex create a low pressure zone below the hull forcing it down, similar to how the shape of a wing creates a low pressure zone above.

that is all fine and dandy until you start mixing mediums. the density of the water relative to the density of the air above it is ALWAYS going to force the hull to the path of least resistance, which is up and out of the water. additionally, the angle of the prop and propshaft on all wakeboats forces the boat out of the water...they push up, not parallel.

furthermore, every wakeboat has a convex at its entry point along the keel. when at rest, that entry point is in the water. if the convex v theory worked, as soon as you started applying forward momentum, the bow would suck down due to the "low pressure zone" created by its convex.

hijack over. lets talk about the star.....

WOW! Your a genius.Comparing a rock that is solid and sinks if you set it on the water, to a boat with a specific shape that floats at rest.I would explain it to you,but you wouldn't be able to comprehend it.TDC must stand for Theory Doesn't Compute!

Originally Posted by simplej

My mistake son, i thought you had also posted telling robert T to take his babble elsewhere

i agree it is marketing, but adjusting your taps plate does make changes in the wake, it is just a hyped up way to make adjustments to your wake via a hull with a rocker int the back and a trim tab

yes youre right all boats DO suck, you cant get everything you want in one, and they all have their own personalities. and all have different technologies and developments, they all suck and are too expensive, and this massively priced, massively waked xstar will do nothing for the indusrty unless youre a pro, they arent revolutionizing the industry theyre resetting the price point.

speaking of wake how does the star make a wake? no trim plate indicated, im surprised considering i would thing it would help the boat get on plane with ass loads of weight

haha. agree dad. every wake plate or trim tab short of the wedge and switchblade serve to force the hull out of the water when employed. and, no, i have never addressed Rob T, other than the convex v comments in this thread...i try not to insult people and definitely would never tell anyone they spent their hard earned money wrong on something they are proud of. i do detest group think, pop culture, and blindly believing what marketers what you to. trust no one.

Originally Posted by cwb4me

WOW! Your a genius.Comparing a rock that is solid and sinks if you set it on the water, to a boat with a specific shape that floats at rest.I would explain it to you,but you wouldn't be able to comprehend it.TDC must stand for Theory Doesn't Compute!

your boat is a solid and would sink if it werent for archimedes principle. at any rate, i never questioned your intelligence. i am sure you are far more intelligent than most of us (well, at least me), and as such, i would expect you to impart your knowledge so that we may all grow and learn. if you insist to go down either road, why dont we stop cluttering this thread and dedicate in which you educate all and insult me?

i say again "back to your regularly scheduled death star programming" threadjack over.

I understand your thoughts, but adding sacs without filling stock ballast has advantages of allowing you to better position the ballast and achieve your preferred wake shape.

I actually do not use the built in rear ballast tanks in my X-star but prefer sacs in the rear locker (which provides weight farther back than the built in tanks) and a sac in the walkthrough as well as sacs under the front seat. Gives me a better shaped wake with less overall weight than just sacs on top of the full stock ballast. Other folks clearly like a full stock ballast plus sacs in their X-star. Its all personal preference.

Considering that within a given hull, speed, total ballast (water displacement) and angle of the hull (weight distribution front to back) alters wake shape, size, and firmness, I can believe that the riders were playing around with ballast location using a sac and for the speed they were riding, liked that particularly combination.

I do think that ballast location is a compromise though as certain areas in a hull are easier to place built in ballast. I wish my X-star had much more center and forward tanks than it came with.

Originally Posted by johnny_defacto

I have been thinking about this since the “one minute…” video came out, something is seriously wrong with that video and the “stock ballast at %50 and a 750 bag in the walkway” explanation of the wake set up; I am perplexed…

From MC themselves and their pro’s, they have been working on this boat/hull/wake for approx 3 years. Some of the riders claim to have “hours of actual riding time” behind this boat. I take them at their word. However, the ONE and ONLY video that MC officially releases of the wake and the pros riding it shows the first rider hitting a wall of wash. Yes his tantrum is big and so is the wake, but both sides are terribly washed. Its either a speed issue (most likely) or a weight issue. Either way WHY, if this boat has had so much R&D, are they putting out this video of a terrible wake? Yes, the next few riders have nice clean big wakes, but the first wake seen, the first impression, is poor. I don’t get why MC would do that. Second, if I take them (MC) at their word, that they have spent years and rider hours working on the hull/boat, then why is the “optimum wake” for this boat; 2 people, stock ballast %50, and one 750 on the walk thru? If these are the best of the best pros and MC is the best of the best towboats, then how could they put out their new flagship with a terrible ballast design? You mean to tell me that stock ballast of 1500 lbs, is SO POORLY designed that you cannot fill it all the way, instead you have to remove half of the water, put it in a big bag, then place that bag in the middle of the boat, blocking the use of the walk thru so nobody can get by, blocking the use of the folding seat back in the bow, to have a great wake? Why then do they offer additional ballast with a plug n play system? Why would you want another #1000 apparently placed incorrectly in your boat? And why, ef the best of the best pro’s only had 2 people and #1500 of ballast, and the wake in the video was the result of that, then why would the rest of us need an additional 1750 lbs of ballast (750 of stock and 1000 pnp)?

I don’t buy it…

That boat was EITHER ballast full, additional sacks in the rear lockers and bow lockers, plus the 750 in the walkway and MC is lying to everyone, - OR - MC sucks at wakeboat design, hull design, ballast design, and cannot properly r & d any of it.

I know what I believe.

not wanting to jump in the fire here but I did gasp when I saw the washy wake and the sack in the walkway and thought "how could they release this video" ?

Originally Posted by surffresh

not wanting to jump in the fire here but I did gasp when I saw the washy wake and the sack in the walkway and thought "how could they release this video" ?

This may be a long shot but maybe they had not installed internal tanks in the death star and the used fat sacs to determine the best weight distribution and placement for the tanks in the rider development process. Just a wild guess...

That makes the most sense, and seems most logical. I still find it hard to believe they couldn't have put a better video together for a release of this magnitude that would show the wake without sacs crowding the bow. In all fairness I think that was a year year ago so possibly didn't have hard tanks yet... I guess we'll have to wait and see. In the meantime all the infighting we have going on in this thread should hold us over til the next video comes out.

I'm waiting for "the professor" cwb4me to come back and drop some knowledge bombs on us out of that cranium of his.

Robert T has ruined Tige for me. Now Lets talk about the star and how much better it is than your boat.

Originally Posted by tn_rider

I'm waiting for "the professor" cwb4me to come back and drop some knowledge bombs on us out of that cranium of his.

I would love to share some of my knowledge.Unfortunately you wouldn't be very receptive with your closed minded know it all attitude.As you get older you truely become wiser, as i and many others have found out as we aged.Your parents change from idiots to really smart people.You will change from knowing everything,to willing to learn new things.Only time will help your illness GRASSHOPPER!

Originally Posted by BigTEX

Robert T has ruined Tige for me. Now Lets talk about the star and how much better it is than your boat.

When you become happy and confident with yourself, you won't have to associate yourself with your perceived sucesses.

Originally Posted by bobenglish

I understand your thoughts, but adding sacs without filling stock ballast has advantages of allowing you to better position the ballast and achieve your preferred wake shape.

I actually do not use the built in rear ballast tanks in my X-star but prefer sacs in the rear locker (which provides weight farther back than the built in tanks) and a sac in the walkthrough as well as sacs under the front seat. Gives me a better shaped wake with less overall weight than just sacs on top of the full stock ballast. Other folks clearly like a full stock ballast plus sacs in their X-star. Its all personal preference.

Considering that within a given hull, speed, total ballast (water displacement) and angle of the hull (weight distribution front to back) alters wake shape, size, and firmness, I can believe that the riders were playing around with ballast location using a sac and for the speed they were riding, liked that particularly combination.

I do think that ballast location is a compromise though as certain areas in a hull are easier to place built in ballast. I wish my X-star had much more center and forward tanks than it came with.

They can solve a lot of those types of issues and placements during the development process. Which, if that video is during that period, maybe they did. But then there is the logical question, why release THAT video, and not shoot some actual footage that doesn't look like someone shot it on their iphone or gopro. I'd lean more towards they added weight to make the wake bigger, and didn't mean/realize the sack was even in the footage, or didn't realize it would matter. Which brings my other thought, how many people that notice the sac, or even watch the video, are actually going to buy the boat? Anyone buying this boat new either isn't going to see that video, or straight doesn't care, they've got a new Xstar.

When you become happy and confident with yourself, you won't have to associate yourself with your perceived sucesses.

He went from "the professor" to confucius in 2.5 Haha

it still has fat hips

toke toke

I can't wait for actual rider pictures of the new wake to surface, not the MC issued pictures, that's the one unbiased way to tell what the wake looks like, stock, slammed, and unweighted

So someone needs to go drop $140K to get one stat so we all can see the wake!!

Originally Posted by Paul

I can't wait for actual rider pictures of the new wake to surface, not the MC issued pictures, that's the one unbiased way to tell what the wake looks like, stock, slammed, and unweighted

So someone needs to go drop $140K to get one stat so we all can see the wake!!

I'm sure your local Mastercraft dealer will let you demo one.They will probable even let you bring your camera.

Most people don't understand how a double convex hull also feels great on your lower back when incorported into a tramp stamp. I hear that the displacement factor vortex trajectory of the wake draft capacator on the Tige' can correct lumbar degenerative disc conditions, athelete's foot, and gengervitis.

Originally Posted by chattwake

Most people don't understand how a double convex hull also feels great on your lower back when incorported into a tramp stamp. I hear that the displacement factor vortex trajectory of the wake draft capacator on the Tige' can correct lumbar degenerative disc conditions, athelete's foot, and gengervitis.

Now Chatt stop ringing your Cowbell and stick to the subject of Mastercraft X-STAR.These guys don't have much patience you know.

Robert, I think the problem is that, every time I read a thread about something non-Tige related, and then I see one of your random posts about Tige, or your Tige, or someone else's Tige, or a new Tige, or a Tige hull design, or how a Tige looks like another boat from the front, I feel like the guy standing next to the camerman in this .gif.

Originally Posted by chattwake

Robert, I think the problem is that, every time I read a thread about something non-Tige related, and then I see one of your random posts about Tige, or your Tige, or someone else's Tige, or a new Tige, or a Tige hull design, or how a Tige looks like another boat from the front, I feel like the guy standing next to the camerman in this .gif.

interesting

Originally Posted by jeff_mn

interesting

I couldn't agree more JEFF.At least i can admit i have a cowbell ringing problem.That's the first step to recovery.

LOL I can hear it now...camera man "sure is an awsome game!"..Tige freak "speaking of awsome, have you seen my blue tige!? I have a couple..hundred pics of it on my phone. Check it out! Here is one of the right side of the bow, and the middle of the bow, and now the left." Camera man replies "man that thing is sick!" Tige freak says "if you want to see more of it you can go online and see it right here, and here, and here, and here, and here, and here, an..." Camera man takes the phone and smashes it without saying another word. Turns, and walks away.

Jeff,

Well, I'll chime in about a brand that I own and enjoy in a thread relevant to that brand or boat, but I certainly don't pepper about 10% of every random thread started on this board with unrelated stuff about one particular brand. Hahaha.

Hell, it's not that big of a deal. I just think it's funny that it keeps happining.

Can you guys take this offline and we continue bashing the new Xstar?

Originally Posted by chattwake

Jeff,

Well, I'll chime in about a brand that I own and enjoy in a thread relevant to that brand or boat, but I certainly don't pepper about 10% of every random thread started on this board with unrelated stuff about one particular brand. Hahaha.

Hell, it's not that big of a deal. I just think it's funny that it keeps happining.

yeah ya do

Agree to disagree.

- Back to the topic at hand!

I heard that MC was supposed to be releasing some new super prop for the XStar that is, purportedly, going to make the monster engine in this boat somewhat fuel efficient. Anyone hear about this?

Originally Posted by chattwake

Agree to disagree.

- Back to the topic at hand!

I heard that MC was supposed to be releasing some new super prop for the XStar that is, purportedly, going to make the monster engine in this boat somewhat fuel efficient. Anyone hear about this?

I didnt hear that, but I did hear that this boat was essentially ready to go for the last few years but they kept having to redo elements of the hull to improve the wake. Mastercraft would have a design they felt was production ready, and the riders would shoot it down.

There may be more to that "wash" in the pictures than meets the eye, especially if its one of the early design variations. Unfortunately we will never know the full development story, just what MC wants to glorify in viral videos. (Any good company would do this, I am not bashing)

probably needs it, an x-25 with factory weight and MCX 350 cid with factory prop drinks gas so fast, damn near a quarter tank per hour of riding, if this hull is anything like that one and all the extra size and weight the gas bill is going to get big quick

I think the x star looks good! Guess all I can do is look cause ill never see one or ride behind one.

Originally Posted by chattwake

Agree to disagree.

- Back to the topic at hand!

I heard that MC was supposed to be releasing some new super prop for the XStar that is, purportedly, going to make the monster engine in this boat somewhat fuel efficient. Anyone hear about this?

I thought the super prop was the OJ 5-blade. It was developed by Travis and Zane so it would make sense.

My X-25 with MCX with stock ballast and stock prop gets a little better than 5 gph. Not so bad.

Originally Posted by eaglejackson

My X-25 with MCX with stock ballast and stock prop gets a little better than 5 gph. Not so bad.

for one hour of riding with stock ballast at 22-23 mph we burn just short 1/4 tank, well call it a 5th a tank so or so about 11 gph... did you re prop or something

Originally Posted by simplej

for one hour of riding with stock ballast at 22-23 mph we burn just short 1/4 tank, well call it a 5th a tank so or so about 11 gph... did you re prop or something

No that's computed through "OWNERS GOGGLES".They are very accurate.

Originally Posted by simplej

for one hour of riding with stock ballast at 22-23 mph we burn just short 1/4 tank, well call it a 5th a tank so or so about 11 gph... did you re prop or something

I have the MCX with stock prop and normally ride with stock ballast, though I do have PnP. I have kept a spreadsheet since I bought the boat and have about 70 hours on it. Whenever I put in gas, I record the hours and how much gas it took. (Yes, I'm a nerd in real life.) Dividing the sum of gas by the difference in hours from current to beginning gives me 4.8 gph.

I've found that the gas gauge is wildly inaccurate, and reads much less that the amount of gas needed to fill the tank to overflow. For example, after an hour of riding, it may say 70% or 75% full, but will only take 5 gals or so to fill.

Now, when I fill the PnP bags, gph gets worse pretty dramatically. The MCX takes a while to get up to wakeboarding speed and full plane with the PnP filled. The stock ballast is fine for my level of wakeboarding, but if I used the PnP regularly, I'd wish I had a bigger engine, or perhaps re-prop and see if that made enough of a difference.

YMMV.

I had the same issue with PnP and the 5.7 engine (Ilmor in my case) on the X-25. Look into the ACME 1285 or the OJ 5-blade prop and you'll be much happier with your boat when there's a lot of weight. I posted a thread over on TeamTalk with in-depth comparison between stock and those two props.

Shawn, did you get the OJ 5 blade? I'll check out Teamtalk for your thread. Thanks.

Originally Posted by eaglejackson

I have the MCX with stock prop and normally ride with stock ballast, though I do have PnP. I have kept a spreadsheet since I bought the boat and have about 70 hours on it. Whenever I put in gas, I record the hours and how much gas it took. (Yes, I'm a nerd in real life.) Dividing the sum of gas by the difference in hours from current to beginning gives me 4.8 gph.

I've found that the gas gauge is wildly inaccurate, and reads much less that the amount of gas needed to fill the tank to overflow. For example, after an hour of riding, it may say 70% or 75% full, but will only take 5 gals or so to fill.

Now, when I fill the PnP bags, gph gets worse pretty dramatically. The MCX takes a while to get up to wakeboarding speed and full plane with the PnP filled. The stock ballast is fine for my level of wakeboarding, but if I used the PnP regularly, I'd wish I had a bigger engine, or perhaps re-prop and see if that made enough of a difference.

YMMV.

is that 75% idling and 25% riding?

in one hour of riding, 3 people, 3 15-20 minute sets each and a ride back to the dock which is short because the lake is a tiny 400 acres is about +20% off the gas gauge

Zane looks a little nervous here...

Originally Posted by simplej

in one hour of riding, 3 people, 3 15-20 minute sets each and a ride back to the dock which is short because the lake is a tiny 400 acres is about +20% off the gas gauge

Please set me straight but I thought I read that it has a 90 gallon tank, that's about 18 gallons per hour

Originally Posted by surffresh

Please set me straight but I thought I read that it has a 90 gallon tank, that's about 18 gallons per hour

we were discussing the x-25

Originally Posted by dlamont

Zane looks a little nervous here...

no doubt. he's probably thinking of how his skill level is not up the task of hucking off of that unorthodox wake...its sure to catapult NW MC's sales by striking fear in the hearts of riders of all capabilities....

Originally Posted by chattwake

Jeff,

Well, I'll chime in about a brand that I own and enjoy in a thread relevant to that brand or boat, but I certainly don't pepper about 10% of every random thread started on this board with unrelated stuff about one particular brand. Hahaha.

Hell, it's not that big of a deal. I just think it's funny that it keeps happining.

Yeah its neverending isn't it LOL.

Originally Posted by tdc_worm

no doubt. he's probably thinking of how his skill level is not up the task of hucking off of that unorthodox wake...its sure to catapult NW MC's sales by striking fear in the hearts of riders of all capabilities....

great point. and you wonder why there's thread on concussions and wearing helmets, because amateurs are going to be hitting those types of wakes.

I found out where MC got the design influence. Who would have thought Glastron was that far ahead of its time?

LOL great find

Looks like they pulled it out of the mold too early and it sagged a bit! Thats pretty funny.

Hey, it's even kindof a picklefork!

bingo, that is awesome

Anyone know if they have produced enough of these to see one at the boat shows this winter or are they not far enough along to be in the production phases yet?

From what we have been told, the boat will most likely not be around for dealers during boat shows. However they should have a couple making rounds throughout the US to look at. As of right now the boat isn't even 100% completed.

It's a prototype in Pumpkin orange just in time for Halloween!