Power Slot "Type" of Mod

[JohnDoe]

Wakegirl, I don't have time to go back over everything point by point but here is a quick rebuttal. The Rlx beat the 196 to 36, with a smaller motor and no slot (the nautique had the Zr6). So, all the past discussion about how great a reduction is because it provides better holeshot is wrong. It didn't here and failed to move a significantly lighter boat much faster than the bu. But, I conceded that the nautique hull is a slow one.

I have 2 boats. One, I have discovered, thanks to this thread, has a reduction and the other does not. The non-reduced boat goes 5ph faster than the reducted boat (which is hitting the limiter) and is a true inboard, which according to the logic shared by many here, should be slower because it's pushing more hull in the water. I undertstand that malibu has to use the reduction in Vdrives, it makes perfect sense, but if the math logic is correct, it should not be a handicap at WOT. But it is.

In the end, I don't care what MC uses. They're too slow for me and many others for a variety of reasons, and in my opinion, the slot is a bologna selling point.

[edwin]

So, all the past discussion about how great a reduction is because it provides better holeshot is wrong.  It didn't here and failed to move a significantly lighter boat much faster than the bu.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Sorry to note, but the RLX is 120lbs lighter than the CC196....RLX weighs in at 2450 per Malibu website, CC196 is 2570lbs per CC site.

Also, with regards to top speed, here's a few numbers from past WSM testing:

Per the WSM test in 05, the CC 196 w/ gear reduction ran 48.7mph on top end.

Per the WSM test in 05, the RLX (no gear reduction) ran 47.2mph on top end.

Per the WSM test in 03, the MC PS190 Anniv edition with gear reduction ran top end of 48.6mph.

Per the WSM test in o3, the RLX (no gear reduction) ran top end of 48.1mph.

Don't discount the gear reduction just yet...

Edited May 12, 2005 by edwin

[WakeGirl]

Another thing that needs to be brought into account is an apples to apples comparison - the same boat with the same motor, accessories tested with redux & without. That would be the clincher. My point on the 196 is that wakbrdgod kept harping on the redux taking away from a boat's performance - the performance of the 196 is contrary to that supposition.

[JohnDoe]

You're right that it's not lighter. I did not do my homework and check. I based my statement on Tracie's post that the 196 was a smaller and lighter boat. My apologies. I made a logic jump by stating that it was significantly lighter which was wrong.

Ok, my point is that the SN was slower accelerating than the monsoon and slower top end than the hammer. So, whatever it is you're looking for, the 'bu will do it better in either acceleration or top end. Thus, while the reduction might not hinder performance that much, it's certianly not the cat's meow either.

[Lakenut]

Why the fus about top speed anyway? We all own high performance ski boats. Not go fast boats. And whats the big deal about a few MPH at top end? A barefooter, no make that a very serious footer, would be concerned with top speeds of 43 or so. They rest of us don't need it and rarely use it. Heck, my Slxi runs 47 mph and has only seen that speed a handful of times.

Malibu spends a lot of time doing R&D and they set their boats up to perform the best that they can. If they felt that a redux tranny was they way to go don't you think that they would at least offer it as an option? And as far as acceleration, when was the last time you were wanting more power to pull you up? I weigh around 200lbs and it doesn't take full throtle to get me up with both feet in.

[JohnDoe]

The fuss is that the slow top end is a prohibiting factor to many barefooters purchase. First, 43 might not be close enough to a solid one foot, and 2, a top end of 43 severely limits your ability to pull multiple footers.

[Lakenut]

My point is still why the fus? All Malibu' top out over 45 and most closer to 50 than 45. Still with plenty of umph to get the biggest rear ends out of the water.

[Rip6@36]

The question I have is, is it possible to buy a Power Slot type of modification for the Malibus?  I was pulled by a 1988 MC ProStar last summer.  I have never in my skiing life been yanked out of the water that fast.

Any leads would be appreciated.

Joe

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I think the original post explains....

Slider was looking to add a power slot option to his 1:1 (or just improve the hole shot). I agree 43 WOT dry is a borderline speed for anything beyond straight up basic footing. But the original question made no reference to footing. Slider was impressed with the low end of the power slot which he may be able to achieve with a change in prop versus changing gear ratios.

My experience is that the older MC Prostars with the slot are slower. But I think the idea was to generate a better pull through the course without consideration for WOT speed necessarily.

With newer engine technology, gear ratios are tailored for the target watersport. I don't think the engineers really care about top end unless they are designing a boat specifically designed for footing.