No tracking fins on X2

Why doesnt the X2 have tracking fins?

Doesn't need them......?????

(Message edited by lionel on April 03, 2006)

yeah it doesn't really need them. the thing i have noticed is all maristar boats or x-series boat that use a maristar hull have no fins.

will the tracking be just as good?

the only time you will notice a slight pull on the boat is if someone was edging as hard as they could out in the flats. otherwise the tracking and handleing on the boat is awesome

My BU has two tracking fins. A SAN has three, I think.

Based on much experience, a rider can pull my BU over much more easily than a rider can pull a SAN over. The SAN tracks so much better than my BU. Its a real nice thing too for the driver -- the driver of a SAN has to do a lot less correcting of the boat to head down a straight line.

The new X2 has a deeper "V" hull design so that the tracking fins were not needed. This is the same on all MariStar based boats.

Perhaps this is why (some) people complain about the X2 handling like a pig?

i know the older X2 felt like a pig alittle but the new one drives and handles like a direct drive ski boat.

The old one did have fins.... I'm gonna flog me an X2 this weekend and see how that baby does.

regarding:
The new X2 has a deeper "V" hull design so that the tracking fins were not needed. This is the same on all MariStar based boats.

In my experience, deeper "V" hulls track fine until they are pulled by a boarder. In my experience, deeper "V" hulls are easier for the boarder to rotate in the water since it is more like a circle in the water.

This is why I have noticed runabout boats twist in the water easily while the flat-bottom boats tends to stay flat. Flat bottom boats are harder for the person in tow to influence.

(Message edited by greatdane on April 05, 2006)

Hey Evan is Tony still bringing a boat out this weekend?

no tracking fins = no handling

case closed.

Larzon then why dont cigarette boats have tracking fins yet they still handle awesome.

I have a X-2, 2005 model and it is the best handling v-or direct drive I have ever owned.

GD most of the maristar series still pretty much has a flat bottom. They do have a deeper V however and have a spline/bump that runs all the way down the middle to the back of the boat. This is why the Maristar doesn't have tracking fins. I haven't taken a really close look at the new X-2 so I'm not sure if the bottom is like the rest of the Maristar boats. They're not shaped like the old "weeble wobble" toys.

Larzon seems to think that because he can power turn his boat and it washes out, that means his boat handles great. Quite the opposite acutally, if your boat washes out in a turn that means it handles like crap. Why did Malibu put the "gorrila fins" on their boats? Because the old VLX and other boats used to wash out in every hard turn, now they don't do that as easily.

Name one offshore or racing type boat that has tracking fins? I can't and they'll out handle any V-drive you can name.

I'm not talking about belly turns.
I'm talking about straight line pull, if you have a strong/heavy guy with some pull, if you don't have fins, it will sway more then if you do. leading to more inconsistent wake.

And for short tight turns in emergency situations the fins will bite harder than without
Plus the boat won't feel as lofty

Mark, if you have a 2005, you have tracking fins

Larzon have you tried the new X2 out forself and experienced the sway from rider pull?
Just curious

I had a chance to ride/drive an 06 X2. I was very impressed with straight line tracking, overall handling and that a rider could not tilt the boat much at all even when cutting out hard. Don't know it makes a difference, but the boat was loaded with an extra 1800lbs of ballast. I had no idea there were no tracking fins and damn if I could tell the difference.

no, I guess I have not tried the X2 yet, somethig that will happen within the next month. Maybe there is something spectacular that Mastercraft has done with this hull that Maristar's don't have. Because I've been in countless numbers of x-10's and x-30's and noticed a sizeable difference in tracking and handling, compared to the old gen x-2
I suppose I'll back off until i try it...

(Message edited by xsmini on April 08, 2006)

As for the argument with the comparison between a wakeboard boat and a cigarette boat, you can't compare these two. The propulsion systems are totally different which changes the needs for tracking and control. The cigarette boat has a bigger tracking fin than any wakeboard boat. The outdrive acts as it's tracking fin. The hull doesn't steer the boat, the outdrive does. And before you all jump in and say that the rudder is a tracking fin, it's not. Where the propulsion is located is what determines what kind of tracking mechanics the boat needs. The outdrive is one huge tracking fin. Here's the jist on it: Wakeboard boat: Propulsion from the hull with tracking fin in front of the prop but always in alignment, both fixed to the hull. Cigarette boat: Propulsion from the back of the outdrive, outdrive housing directly in front of the prop and always in alignment, both are fixed together. Take the surface area and length of an outdrive and compare that to the surface area and length of the tracking fins combined and the outdrive is larger. Add to that that alot of cigarette boats have TWO outdrives and it really increases in tracking.

Ok, boat mechanics 101 is concluded for the day. Now go out and hit the water!

This is an interesting subject. But, I would like to note one thing. I would have never known that my BU tracks straight MUCH WORSE than my friend's CC if were not for the fact that I alternated driving both boats week after week with the same riders.

The same riders behind my BU would ROLL the boat much more than they would behind the CC. This makes for a more stressful day for the driver -- constantly having to correct the boat like you are driving a car with sloppy steering. It also hinders the wake a bit since the wake shrinks and the shape changes as the boat rolls.

I don't know why the boats were so different, all I know is that they were very different. My BU has two large fins, the CC has three smaller fins. But, I suspect that the hull shape was more important. I don't think the fins are as important to ROLL. I think ROLL is more about the shape of the HULL -- e.g. a 4'x8' sheet of plywood is hard to roll in water while a 4' round log is easy to roll in the water. At wakeboard speeds, I don't see the fins as being that much of a ROLL impediment.

I would also like to note that -- yes, I am criticizing my own boat -- no ownership goggles on here.

On to the X2...

I have always wondered about this issue with regard to the XSTAR and the X2 because their HULLs go wide to narrow. As a result, I would think that their hulls may ROLL in the water more easily.

this:

|...........|
|___________|

vs this:


|_........._|
..|_______|..

Since I have never driven/ridden the new XSTAR or the new X2, I can't comment. But, the real proof would be in driving these boats week after week with the same riders and water conditions.

GD, more weight = less roll,.

Sac that thing out.

Actually, you are right and wrong. Both boats (CC/BU) are sacked out. In fact, my BU has more weight in it since it takes more to build the same wake. Still, the roll of both boats is noticeably different. The tower is a big lever arm and it doesn't take that much roll to effect the boat a lot.

(Message edited by greatdane on April 08, 2006)

I own an 02 VLX and I had a chance to demo an 06 X2 in Feb. Comparing the two, my VLX leans over much more. I was really impressed with the X2's ability to stay upright while the rider was pulling hard. My guess is the swept back tower design has something to do with it...

Last year i spent 200 hours on our 2005 x-2, pulling to 90% the same riders.

Now we have the 2006 x-2 and i can say for sure that the now x-2 rolls much more than the old one if the rider cuts very aggressive. (always compared with just factory ballast)

That was one of the first things i noticed when i drove the new x-2. You have to work more. Maybe that gets better if you load the new x-2 over standard.

On the other hand, the new x-2 has a 100% better handling and is much more agile.

But: If i see all + and - of both boats i would definitly say that the new x-2 is the better boat. the shape of the wake is nearly perfect - good ramp with a nice lip

Have to go on the water now...

I've driven and had a couple of the old X-2's and I'd have to say it's the best handling V-drive I've driven. It does bounce a bit when there's no weight in the boat so if you have a 300 pound sack in the front I didn't think there was a better handling V-drive on the market.

I haven't been in the new X-2, just checked it out at the boat show and it did look short and fat. Handling was one of my concerns with the boat for sure. It's interesting that some of you have said it's a better handling boat than the old X-2. The boat is only 20 feet long which you have to take into account I suppose. A well made 20 foot boat is going to out handle the best 23 foot boat just because of the size difference alone. I'd be interested to see how the new X-2 handles compared to a new 20 foot Calabria or the 20 foot SSV?