Where are all of the 220's?

Is Correct Craft slow to pump them out from the factory? Are buyers looking at other options? Just curious what the deal is with the new "flagship" wakeboard boat for Correct Craft....

Also, somebody mentioned that the 210 will have an overhaul next year...any more info on that?

i saw a 220 on the lake i ride at last weekend.

personaly the interior is way to busy and the tower is way over sized

They probably aren't selling very well. Have you seen the monkey bar on those things?

I picked mine up two weeks ago. I see William rides on Lake Tarpon so that would have been me that he saw. William, was it on Lake Tarpon and was it a black 220? When I picked up mine, the dealer said they only made 75 and that I had the only one in the Tampa Bay area. I have no idea if those statements are true.

Hey Dex, post a pic....

Byrd,

I need to download some to my PC. I'll respond back when I do.

hey dex, are the ballast tanks below the floor? the one i looked at during the boat show looked like the rear compartments were skimping on storage because the tanks were still above the floor...

and as far as the interior is concerned, as soon as the get rid of all of the humps, lumps and bumps and make the cockpit normal, i will be in the market...

I hear the wake is kickin'. I'm ready for a pull behind one.

There is one in the classifieds section here on wakeworld.

I was told that the 210 would be phased out in about two years and totally replaced by the 220 and 211.

I would be VERY surprised if the 210 is phased out. With that said, I hope it happens in '07. No better way to assure re-sale on my 210 goes through the roof.

Here, here, I go in for my '06 on Monday.

that would be the biggest mistake CC ever made, the 210 is arguably the best wake boat out there. I am already dissapointed with the tapered windsheild and gaudy tower on the 06 210s why cant they go retro on them like the did the ski nautiques this year, 02-03 best san year.

i wouldn't really say it is the best wake boat out there. it certainly has one of the bigger wakes but i think the shape that it has could be modified to have a slightly longer transition without a huge trough before the wake. also the boat needs a makeover on the interior. it is very shallow and without alot of room imo.

and if it was the best wake boat then why are the nautique riders using the 226 like danny harf

I feel sorry for Correct Craft, their new boats are just fugly and they dont realize it!

My vote for best SAN years is 03 and 05.
The best would be to have the polished tower on the o5 put on an 03
Problem with the 02's were the digital gauges

I like the '00 and '04s

My favorite graphics are the swoosh N on the side, and I like the curved tower of 04 (think im the only one that likes that tower).

I do like the new tower, I didnt at first, but with the bimini up, I really like it.

THAT IS TRUE ABOUT THE NUMBER OF 220'S PRODUCED,HAS NOTHING TO DUE WITH THE CONSUMERS RESPONSE.THE WAKE IS STEEPER ON A PROPERLY SET UP 210.I PICKED MINE UP ABOUT A MONTH AGO AND IT'S UNDER MAJOR CONSTRUCTION.WILL DELIVER BY MEMORIAL DAY.

First of all RYAN, TAKE IT OFF CAPLOCKS. Secondly, it's interesting most of the negative comments come from m/c owners. (glass houses)

BTW, Ryan--You are the best stereo dude in the valley! I love my tunes now.---Thanks to you.

Are you happy with the in water response of the dd,should play real low.did you here the enzo at tom's?
thx,

Ryan, I'm really happy w/the DD sub and the enclosure--both in and out of the water. I haven't heard the Enzo yet. I went by there last week though.

Also--most people don't believe me when I tell them it's only a single 12' sub.

We tested the 220 a while ago and liked it a lot. The interior looks weird but if you are in it and riding half a day (like we did) you come to appreciate it. We had 7 people watching the riders all the time, in a comfortable position.
The wake is very good with stock ballast. We added about 1200lbs in ballast and strangely enough it did not seem to make THAT much of a difference.

Im not a MC owner, and I think that is one of the worst desgined, ugliest boat out there. I sat in one at the boat show, with seven other dudes. A Sanger V210 or a SANTE held them more comfortably. I remember talking with a couple of guys at the show, we all agreed, somebody over at CC will probably get fired over this boat. CC should have made a bigger SANTE...that would have sold like crazy, but they dropped the ball.

220 sitting on the water ready to be ridden....just have to get all this freakin' work done and the water needs to cooperate also.

Hey Craig, everyone is entitled to their personal opinion. But I will tell you that everyone who has purchased a 220 from us this year....LOVE'S THE BOAT! The way it drive's, the wake's, the way it work's in rough water, but mostly how comfortable it is for the passengers while it is being used. I've been the #1 CC dealer in the world for 13 out of the last 19 years. The 220 was never intended to replace the 210...it is only the second boat CC has made over 21 feet for the wakeboarding family who wants a bigger boat. Every 220 we have coming in April, May, June and July are pre-sold. Even being a big dealer for CC, we will only recieve 13 to sell this model year. (The new plant opening in June will help get more for next year). I sell both the 210 Sanger and of course the SANTE you refered to in your post...IMHO neither have near the space or comfort of the 220. They aren't suppose to...they are different boats. The 215 you own is the nicest Sanger built and our most popular selling Sanger. IMHO, it also is not as comfortable as the 220..unless you like sitting sidways or turining around to watch the rider. If you want to talk about ugly. The 215 looks good, but the graphic on the side is so bad... only one customer has had us leave it on the boat in the two years we have carried Sanger. But that is personal opinion again...I see you like it on your boat. There will be only about 100 220's built this year because the plant can't build enough. I have two in stock right now that aren't spoken for...but I don't expect them to last long....even thought they are as you put it, "one of the worst designed ugliest boats out there". Those guy's at the boat show....were you all drinking the same Kool-Aid?

the 220 is really really starting to grow on me. while it's nice to be able to lay out, how often are you doing that when you're watching wakeboarding?

Tim, if you have any pull, please encourage the discontinuing of the 210.....

Hey Tim, when the new plant is in full swing, will they again offer colored decks?? Is the original FC tower still available on the 210??

Hey EJ and Flux,
The 210 will live on as long as it continues to sell. (I only have 9 left for the rest of this year)! Although it is smaller than some other boats out there...some people want/need a smaller boat.

The new plant goes online in June and I'm sure it will allow CC to do many things better and different as the market dictates. I'm not sure about colored decks....We sold Cobalts for 5 years and had problems with any color on the deck chalking and requiring more care over the life of the boat. (We see it in alot of our inboard competitors's boats that come in for service also). When its a 110-115 at the river and you have color on your deck.....it could fry and egg!

We have had people damage their FCT when hitting something low hanging and can still get them if needed. But although some don't like the look of the new tower...many are now liking it better when they see it with an "over the top" bimini. You can walk under it (without ducking)and it has a nice look to it. But that's personal opinion again!

Tim...People who spend $70 G's on that boat better like it..they just dropped some serious coin. And in Nor Cal..you will see most V215's with the sticker on the side. I was also partial to the clean look, and dont like the flames. I never said my opionion was fact. But, Like I said. The only people Ive ever heard say good things about that horribly desinged boat are CC owners, and Salesman. The same seven guys(only one was with me. A guy asked us to get into it as a favor to prove a point to a friend who happened to like it, but changed his mind immidiatly) got into smaller boats immediatly after, and fit more comfortably. If somebody wants to buy that boat, good for them. But IMO (again only opinion) and the opinion of everybody else I know...It looks like 10 pounds of ••••••• a five pound bag. Kool Aid....whatever, thats just dumb. "CC is only going to build 100 220's because of because the plant cant build enough" uh huh..keep telling yourself that.

boy,what a hater!

The only problem with the 220 that you experienced was that it had 7 sausages in it.sounds like your boat might have the same problem.floating meat market.

HAHAHAH, Ya Ryan, thats it.

just chill out .your the only one bashing anybody else.

i really like the 220, mainly because i like nautiques so much, but i am not bias - would probably take a vlx over one. the wake is massive tho, rode one earlier this year and it was really heavily loaded with factory ballast plus #2500lbs of lead (ref attachment @22.5mph). it had the 6ltr motor and handled the weight no worries. and as for the 210, that is by far my favorite boat of all time.

Well, just traded in my 210 for a 220. We could have bought a new 210, but chose the 220. The biggest reason was the versitility of the interior. Rode behind it twice now, stock ballast only. Love the wake. It is bigger than what I remember. I rode behind a demo last fall. It has been 6 months since we last rode. I live in Michigan. I am waiting for my friends to drop their 210's in so we can get a good comparison. My friends normally have about 1500lbs in their 210.

Again about the interior and the looks... you have to spend a day in it 'riding'. Not socializing, partying... but riding and I'm sure you WILL appriciate the interior.
Looks are personal preference, but I can tell you that we did not even want to go look at one when we were looking to replace our boat because it was so ugly from pictures. But when we saw it in person and on the water, it is a complete different story. It IS a very nice boat.
One feature that many people think is very ugly is the high transom. Maybe... but it does have it's functionality. Load this boat up with an extra 1500lbs in the back and make a sudden stop... it will NOT get water over the back. I know if you make a stop in mine without 'blipping' the throttle, the passengers on the back seat are flooded.
I think you can sum it up as; "the 220 is a riders boat" and it deserves it's "Super Air" name.

I did not order the port side rear facing seat option...the one like the trash can but on the port side. I think it was to function as a cooler. There is still a cooler there just shorter...seat height. Anyway, when you take the back seat and put it in the middle, facing back, you can still walk around the seat on the port side. I like it that way. Of course you lose one rear facing seat.

tell me about the ballast tanks... are they above the floor still? what is the storage like in the rear compartments?

Colored decks are the stuff, not having them is rediculous, IMO.

Mine is scuffed, could fry an egg on it at the river like you said, but I would never trade it for anything.

Hey Craig, You sound bitter...

(The only people Ive ever heard say good things about that horribly desinged boat are CC owners, and Salesman)....it "designed" by the way, not desinged!

I drive an F-250 after looking at the Chevy, Dodge, Nissan and Toyota....but I don't find it necessary to slam those product's or imply those that spent the "70 G's on the boat" are less than smart...to make me feel better about my purchase.

If you believe your opinion is IYHO why say....( But IMO (again only opinion) and the opinion of everybody else I know...It looks like 10 pounds of ••••••• a five pound bag. Kool Aid....whatever, thats just dumb.

Do you need the support of others to form your own opinion? I agree with Ryan...chill out!

P.S. Your comment. "CC is only going to build 100 220's because of because the plant cant build enough" uh huh..keep telling yourself that.....

Less than half of the CC dealers in the nation even have one 220 in stock...your ignorance aside...CC would build more if they could....and next year with the new plant they will.

Even as a MC owner, I think the boat looks good, and I looked into buying one. What I do not like about it is tower and windshield. I think a little more thought could have been put into that. But over all it's a nice boat....

Im not bitter..if somebody likes it, then buy it. Its their money. I just stated my opinion. However "Less than half of the CC dealers in the nation even have one 220 in stock...your ignorance aside...CC would build more if they could....and next year with the new plant they will. "..I do happen to know that this boat, and all the negative response it got, caused quite the uproar at CC...

Craig - Don't take this the wrong way. But I've personally dealt with Tim. He's a straight up guy. Never heard him bash other mfgs or BS. I think he knows a bit about CCs and what's going on @ the factory more than 99% of us on this site. I would lean towards believing him if he says they built 100.

Spill the beans - "I do happen to know that this boat, and all the negative response it got, caused quite the uproar at CC..." I'd like to know and am sure Tim would like to know since he's apparently out of the loop.

Hey Craig, Please "spill the beans"! I'm on the dealer advisory board and you have information that I don't know? Who's your mole?

Sorry to give you grief...but the only uproar at CC about the 220 is how to build more of them.

I do agree it is a controversial boat that is better understood when you get it in the water. But you have to admit....it takes little imagination to put seats around the outside perimeter of a V-Drive. That is pretty much what all the other manufactures have done with their boats.

Example, I really like the looks of the Malibu 247. It looks big and roomy.... but have had several customers who demoed them say. "You don't feel secure when the boat is turning because there is nothing to bace yourself against....you have a long way to fly if your not paying attention" and "You must look sideways or turn around (when in the back seat) to watch the rider.

That dosen't make it "the worst designed..or horrible or bad or old design, etc"...just one they chose not to buy. It's great for people who want perceived room over secure changable seating. To them the 220 is too cramped and that is what choices are all about.

Really...you can send me a private email to tell me who your "inside mole is". <grin>

Why don't they just make the 210 bigger and not mess with anything else. I love my 03 210. I think it is the best year so far.Power hatches,black swim deck, good graphics,and best tower.Upgrade to spinning board racks,but incorporate flight clips.Please do this for 07 and I will buy one, an orange one that is!

I guess we will do three Tim's in a row. My real name is Tim, not Dex or Tarpongator. I did one year of "internet" research before buying my first wakebord boat. I then did 10 demos. Three Malibu's, three MC's, two Tige's, one Session, one CC. I am middle class so this was a huge decision/investment. I took my wife, sister, brother-in-law and mom on every demo. I took my brother-in-law specifically because he has owned many boats, non inboards. My sister and brother-law live next door to me so they would be using the "purchase" quite often. When the demos were done is was five to zero, in favor of the 220 vs. nine other boats. What was actually the biggest "risk decision" of my life, turned out to be the EASIEST decison. I guess my entire family chose the 10 pound of sh..t in the five pound bag after 10 demos.


P.S. I thought all the brands I test drove were "awesome".

Hey Tim,
We have put the spinning racks on some of the older 210's. The problem is if your bimini is not an "over the top type", it sometimes inter fears with its function. I'm flying to Florida next week for a meeting...I'll pass on your comments.

Dex/Tim congratulations on your new 220. Your a typical Nautique owner...you check them "all out" before parting with your hard earned money. Maybe your story will help some other's on this site understand better where the satisfaction/pride of owning a CC really comes from. Its not about being rich or a snob. It comes from comparing boats ON THE WATER to figure out what will be best for your family...and then buying it based on knowledge...not hype, marketing, image, cup holders, colors, etc.

There are lots of nice boats out there. But I find a common theme in many who buy the competitor's product. They do "some research," but the increased price of the Nautique initially caused them not to even demo it. We have had hundreds over our 20 years in business...who bought a different boat the first time..... come in 1 or 2 years later (a few the same season they bought their first boat) to trade for Nautique after going for a ride in a friends or someone they ran into with a Nautique. They all say about the same thing....I wish I would have gone for a ride in a Nautique the first time around! or I didn't know there was going to be such a difference!

That being said....All boats are nice and some may be better for some people than a Nautique. But the constant "put downs" from those who make Nautiques a punching bag because of their own preconceived ideas of the owners or the boats is something I can put up with and you can to.....You know what you have and its not important that everyone agrees with you.

Enjoy your 10 lbs.!

Hey Tim, just out of curiosity, how is the 220’s wake compared to the 211 and the 210? It seams like the majority of boat wakes (from all high-end wake boats anyways) are really rampy, whereas the 210’s wake is really steep. I know we have been talking about interiors and features and stuff, but I think that I can speak for A Lot of wakeboarders when I say, It All About The Wake! Anyways, just wondering how CC is interpreting the needs and desires of the wakeboard market.

Nautyboy brings up a good question regarding the wake and from some of the information I've gathered is the 220 initially had problems getting the wake just right on the boat and the boat had to go back for additional modifications to correct the problem. I would like to add an additional boat to compare wihin the CC line of wakes - how does the 220 compare to the 226 and 210. I'm looking to get back into a CC next year and I've been wondering if the 210 matches up to the 220 and 226 when it comes to the wake - can anyone compare/rate the wake of the above mentioned boats (people who have actually ridden behind all three boats)?

I own a 210 but had the chance this weekend to ride the 211, 210 and 220 in back to back sets. For a die hard wakeboarder the 211 shouldnt be considered, it has a great shaped rampy wake and makes a great v-drive crossover boat for ski and boarding. It did handle very well on the water though. I rode the 220 with 8 people and full balast, the wake was on par for size to our 210 with full ballast and 5 people, but lacked the steepness and kick of the 210. I would say the wake is more like a 06 VLX or x star. huge and rampy.The 220 like the 210 is very weight sensative and needs to be loaded evenly on both sides. The 220 wake is perfect for the new school of riders who arent after a steep wake. But my money is still on the 210

(Message edited by pjdave on May 01, 2006)

I own a 210, and was fortunate enough to be able to test out one of the 220 prototypes last year. I love my 210, and due to size limitations on my home lake, will probably stick with it for a few more years, but that 220 was very impressive in terms of wake size and shape, handling/drivability, passenger comfort, and attention to detail. I rode it with only stock ballast + 5 passengers, it was pretty darn nice. I'm convinced that if I put as much weight in a 220 as I do my 210, that I would get the same results: a freaking huge, clean wake with a decent ramp & a big kick off the top.

(Message edited by socalwakepunk on May 01, 2006)

I can join in on this one. I too got to ride behind 2 out of the first 9 220's made. I have owend 210 (Super's) for years now and have logged many hours behind the 226 and 211. Here are my thoughts.

211, great cross over boat for a V drive. Wake will not be everything a hard core wakeboarder will want.

226 Bigger, fatter and longer ramp wake than a 210, not quite the lip or buck off the top as a 210 either. Still Murray and other pro's have chose this one over the 210, so that should count for something.

210 My favorite wake producing vehicle. Short ramp and a nice buck off the top that launches you up more than out. I normally ride this boat at 80' and 23 mph (or so I think, I'm not driving).

With that said, the 220 is somewhere between the 226 and 210. The wake is bigger than a 210 (stock vs. stock), ramp is longer, and not quite the buck off the top as the 210 but more than the 226. As big as this boat I finally settled in at 85' and 24mph and I think before too long I'll probably like 90'.

By the way, I'm picking up my 220 as soon as I can get to the dealership to pick it up.

Hey Nautyboy, Some of your questions were answered by airpete, pidave and socalwakepunk...but I'll add my 2 cents.

The 211 was designed as a crossover boat for those coming from a Direct Drive to a V-Drive and they still want to ski. It is our #1 selling boat because is the only V-Drive sanctioned to pull class C slalom tournaments and still be a good wakeboard boat. It does something few V-Drives can do...produce a well defined clean wake as low as 16-17 mph for the little kids or women or beginners who can't go 21 mph+ most V-drives need to go to make a clean wake. When loaded it won't be a 210, but like pidave said "it has a great shaped rampy wake and makes a great v-drive crossover boat for ski and boarding". You can load it down and it gets bigger...at least it was big enough for Shawn Watson to use it as his boat last year. The hydro-gate is what makes it good for the beginner to the advanced rider because it changes the SHAPE....not the SIZE of the wake.

The 226 is used by Danny Harf and Shawn Murry last year....I think Danny is using a 220 this year. It has a very similar wake to a VLX or X-Star...more Rampy than Vert. They load them up and it gets very big and still retains that clean Nautique type wake with good kick at the top. What people don't know about the 226 is when you empty the tanks and put a family in the boat....it also has a clean wake all the way down to 16-17 mph...again very good for beginner to smaller riders, as well as those who want to go big.

The 210 (byerly's boat of choice)is known for its steep vert type wake. Wake skaters like the fact that it kicks you up and helps keep the board on the bottom of your feet. Advanced riders like the extra boot off the top...which is actually caused by a depression before you get to the wake (many don't know that the depression is what gives the 210 its up ward kick compared to other V-drives out there). Although this is good for more advanced riders...it can be intimidating to beginners. The 210 like most other v-drives likes to go 21 mph+ for a clean wake.

Here is where the 220 comes in. Ride with it empty and the "hydro-gate down" and jr. or little lady has a clean well shaped wake at 17 mph. Load it full of ballast "with the hydro-gate up" and you have a 210 type wake that is steep and vert...with no depression before the wake like the 210. Keep it loaded and "put the hydo gate down" and it is big and rampy...more like the Malibu or MC wake.

These observations are from comments of CC sponsored riders, my rideshop guys, customer's and my own riding behind all of them (although 180's, 360's and grabs is all I can do).

In summary: The 211 and 226 are crossover boats of different sizes. The 210 is more for the advanced rider as is the 220, but it also (because of the hydro-gate) works well for the family. Because of its unique seating and wake flexability with the hydro-gate...we are selling as well to families as we are to the guy who is looking only at the wake.

Tim Sherwin, thanks for the great explanation and breakdown. I really wanted a 210, but my wife is just starting out and I really don’t want to pull her at 21+. You know the old Chinese Proverb – Happy Wifey, Happy Lifey!

I have an ’05 211TE now, and I think I have been starting to take if for granted. There is a lot of mediocre reviews out there on the wake quality of the 211, but heck, if it’s good enough for Watson, it’s good enough for me! Any idea on how Watson weights it???

Tim,

Can you tell me about the rear ballast? Is it above the floor, below it, or somewhere in between? How much of the rear storage is taken up with ballast tanks?

Thanks

The 220 has rear wedge tanks, the rear lockers have a s much room as a 210 but have smaller openeings. The 220 has alot of storage which extends to the rear conpartment (unlike the 210) under the side seating. The strorage under the clam shell is also huge much like that of a 05/06 vlx

Oh and the belly tank is also a u shape like the 211 leaving the centre locker open for more gear or fat sacks. In my opinion i would run an extra sack in the front locker, two under the side seats extending back to the rear lockers and 4 or bars of lead up under the nose cushions.

that's a bummer about the hard tanks...seems like they would have found a way to put them beneath the floor like everyone else (except skiers choice)...

Hey worm,
The 220 does not have wedge tanks in the rear. They are hard/flat tanks that have 20 inches of room on top of them for additional ballast/storage. The opening through the top is slightly shorter in length then the 210...but there is plenty of room for stuff.

Many think having ballast under the floor is better than hard tanks... (except for increased storage, I have a different opinion. Pick up your wife or girl friend underwater and then walk out on to shore. Notice how heavy she gets when you get above the water? The same thing happens with ballast below the waterline of your boat...it is neutral boyant and will not push the boat down in the water like the same weight will above the water line.

I also don't like the idea of having the area normally filled with foam in a Nautique...being filled with water. In most of those boats the water is in a raw fiberglass tunnel that makes the bottom of the hull, side of hull, stringer and floor. They should at least put a hard tank there so water intrusion is lessened as the boat gets older (IMHO).

Some customer's add bags on top of the rear tanks (or in the u shaped ski locker hard tank up front)and even plumb them in to get additional weight in the boat.

Nautyboy, I will try to find out how Watson weights his boat and let you know.

Tim, thanks for all the CC info. I liked your description of the product line and the different models are positioned for different market segments.

However, I think you just opened up an interesting physics discussion that has been covered before. Weight position inside the boat is not significant, unless you are causing a topheavy situation. Weight is weight and adds to the gravitational force on the hull, thus displacing more water.

I did like your example about lifting a lady underwater. If you lift your girlfriend in chest deep water, then take her on the shore, and your wife is standing there..., now that's HEAVY!

Ya Tim, Rich is right. Your girlfriend weighs less to you when she is in the water because she is floating. 100 kgs of water weighs 100 kgs no matter where it is at (with in about 30 feet of the earth's surface +/-) water does not float in like water.

F=MA.

Tim, You are a class act. Excellent and tasteful responses! It's no wonder why you have done so well for yourself! I'm looking forward to the info. about Watson

Tim, Eh Brah is correct. I've been watching this thread for the last week, and you've done an amazing job of representing Nautique. A dealer that sells his own product rather than rip apart another's...imagine that. If you were in my area, I'd probably be in a 210. Instead, I have the cliche bad dealer: "Tige's are the KIA's of the water"; "Malibus are a disaster waiting to happen"; "Look how many Mastercrafts we have in line for repair. What does that tell you?"; etc., etc.. I'm sure you convinced more than a few people to take a closer look at the 220.

Oh, ya, forgot to mention I just signed on a 210, so no Correct Craft hater here. Check my profile picture!!

(Message edited by bocephus on May 02, 2006)

GREAT BOAT Bocephus.... In fact, I like 'um so much...bought one myself...

as for the buoyancy regarding where the hard tanks are placed, it is only a consideration when the boat is at rest and only has a negative or downward vector of acceleration from gravity. as soon as you apply a forward acceleration or velocity (resulting from the propulsion of the engine, you have added another vector of force, and the density of the water and its location become irrelevant. see F = M*A above.

additionally, as i understand it, the spot where hard ballast tanks would go under the floor are filled with foam in Nautiques. foam, being less dense than water, would negate your arguement and actually cause the boat to ride higher in the water because of its buoyancy. not bagging nautiques here...

if you were to take a 300 lb, neutrally buoyant fat sack, attactch it to the back of your boat and start pulling, it would eventually rise to the top of the water and create a wake just the same as if the bag material itself were moderately buoyant...

again, i am not bagging tim (agreed on the professionalism of his posts) or nautiques here, just addressing ballast loacation vs. wake... i do appreciate the information (truth) on the ballast tanks...

(Message edited by tdc_worm on May 02, 2006)

Not true TDC_Worm. In your 300 LB example you would still have the weight of the bag pushing down displacing the water around. The the Fy force pushing up on the back is a result of F(sub mu) or the force of water pushing back. The water will always push back due to the cohesive molecular bond of water. Water, lead, feathers, or anything else weighs what they weigh regardless of water line. Don't make me get out my statics and dynamics books again.

So if I fill my ballast with chocolate syrup will my boat fly? What about with marshmellows?

bocephus-i think i was saying the same thing, which makes the bag neutrally buoyant at rest, even though it does displace water at rest. i understand that a pound of feathers does not weigh less than a pound of gold. but if the bag was to rest just at or below the surface (which it likely would because the plastic/rubbery sacks are less dense than the water they displace), the bag would ultimately come on plane as the boat accelerated it forward. it would do this because as the bag is moved forward, it would require less force to move the bag up (displacing the air and thin layer of water above it) then it would to displace water in the forward and down vectors to keep the bag submerged. correct me if i am wrong and feel free to break out your statics and dynamics book as much as it can educate us all...and i am not sure what your boat will do if you fill it up with marshmellows, but i know that it will not fly if you fill it up with marshmAllows...dont make me get out my dictionary again...



(Message edited by tdc_worm on May 02, 2006)

tdc_worm... "foam, being less dense than water, would negate your arguement and actually cause the boat to ride higher in the water because of its buoyancy".
Do you mean the boat will ride a bit higher in the water because there is foam in the hull ?

Good job worm! They don't issue us a dictionary in engineering school, only books with numbers in them. Nice post brotha!

Hey guys...you are scaring me! I know this is off topic and this is way over my head. If the sealed compartment under the floor were filled with air instead of foam...it would float the boat the same....right? If the compartment were to be breached by water the boat sinks. The reason CC puts foam in there is so that water cannot get into the compartment. Also if you have ever beaten on a drum...you know why some other boats generate more noise than a CC. The foam absorbs noise as well as provides floatation.

Try going for a ride a ride across choppy water in a boat with hollow chambers in the floor. The vibration and noise are greatly enhanced.

I know my analogy has a girl with "some fat" on her (causing her to float some). But fill a gallon jug with water and it is neutral buoyant until above water also. I never did well in physics...velocity cancels that out? Okay...I still don't like water mixed in the construction of my boat...unless it is in its own...sealed tank.

One other thing. I have seen a Nautique, with its ballast tanks full of water..... still floating when swamped. I assume the water in the tanks are neutral buoyant when swamped and do not contribute to the amount of weight it would take to still sink the boat... right? It would float better if the tanks were full of air...right? Teach us guys who didn't sleep in physics!

bo, that is a shame--i went to an engineering school (west point) that did! and for what its worth i was just tossing your statics and dynamics comment back at ya... anyways, not trying to pick a fight, which i think you perceived... so i imagine that "Good job worm!" was facetious. if it was, is there any validity to my rationale?

tim- good point on the hollow construction and noise... never considered it before, but it makes sense. i will have to listen for it in my calabria pro V. next time i run it, i will listen with the 700 lb in hull ballast empty and then full to see the difference...

eddy- i was just making a comment that location of the ballast (on the x axis) in the boat should not make a difference in how high the boat rides when moving. it probably didnt come out right. feel free to correct me if i am wrong...

No worm, I meant good post! weight is weight no matter where it is. most boats that we use for wakeboarding don't float because they are less dense or lighter than water, they float because they displace water.

I went to ASU, where they are still trying to decide if Newton's laws are laws.

I agree, a sealed tank is the way to go!

The more I think about this, I'm not sure, it just depends on whether the ballast floats or not. If you had a 100 lbs of styrofoam it would still float. But if you put the 100 lbs of styrofoam in a boat the hull will displace more water. Put it this way, if you are in the boat the water weighs what it weighs and sinks the boat displacing water. For this to stop I think you would have to put the fat sac outside the boat or in a boat that no longer displaces water.

If you put enough water on a log raft it will sink the raft until the water gets moved off the raft. I think the differance is that most boats float because they displace water, not because they are bouyant, like a steel ship floats.

Anyway, what about those nautiques?

Tim, did you also get a special priced SE 210 to sell, like the western dealers did (I don't know where you are located)? If so how much was/is it?

the answer to our question is explained in archimede's principle: a body immersed in a fluid is buoyed up by a force equal to the weight of the displaced fluid.

essentially a boat will displace water until it reaches a depth where weight of the volume of the water displaced is equal to the weight of the effective volume of the boat. because you have to add the air inside the hull to the effective volume of the boat, the average combined density (fiberglass + engine + carpet + air + fuel etc.) of the boat becomes less than the water, making it float. the more objects you add to the boat that are desner then air around it, the deeper in the water the boat will sit because you are increasing to total density of the boat. anyhow, i digress...back to boats...

i agree... back to the nautiques! i am more than satisfied with my calabria (it is the boat that i hate the least for the time being) and if i do decide to get a new boat in the next year, it will be a CC...

Getting back to the ballast tanks. the rear tanks in the 220 i rode behind had tanks that angle upward towards the top of the locker. granted they finish a good foot from the top but are no means flat. I have the same boat this weekend so will take some pics for you.

Getting back to the ballast tanks. the rear tanks in the 220 i rode behind had tanks that angle upward towards the top of the locker. granted they finish a good foot from the top but are no means flat. I have the same boat this weekend so will take some pics for you.

Thanks for all the great information regarding the various wakes for the 210, 220, and 226 - will have to demo / ride behind each one before making a cash contribution to CC for a new boat.

(Message edited by airpete on May 03, 2006)

ok got some pics from the weekend. I was wrong the rear tanks are flat, but they do angle up from the floor towards the rear to about seat height.

Anyway, a few shots are, the tanks, the rear locker compared to the board size and a rear pic of the 220 and 210

After now getting a few more sets in behind the 220 i am loving the wake. not quite the steep 210 spin to win type wake that im used too, but great to cut hard and go big into the flats. We found after adding weight to the bow it really changed and was more what a 210 owner would like. We rode with 5 people in the seating area and around 90kls (sorry no good on my pound conversions) up in the bow area.