WakeWorld

WakeWorld (http://www.wakeworld.com/forum/index.php)
-   Archive through May 22, 2006 (http://www.wakeworld.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=329511)
-   -   2006 X-2 Wake- PICS (http://www.wakeworld.com/forum/showthread.php?t=319966)

rorowake 04-23-2006 7:54 PM

I have seen alot of people on here inquiring about the wake on the new X-2, but have yet to see any pics- so here is one for ya'. <BR> <BR>The wake is sick. Kind of a cross between the X Star and last year's X-2. Shorter transition- similar to last year's X-2, without the lip and wider- like the X Star. This wake has a great shape to it, so by adding more weight you will only build on that! One big thing to note... the new X-2 is not effected by weight the way last year's boat (having to have people move around constantly to get a clean wake) was. Plus so much room in that thing- felt like we were in an X Star all day!!! <BR> <BR>How'd we weight it? <BR> <BR>Back: <BR>Factory of course, plus 2- 400lb V Drive Sacs (one on each side of motor) + 80 Lbs. Lead on each side <BR>Bow: <BR>Factory plus- 200 lbs under each front seat (lr), 360 lbs in walkway <BR> <BR>5 people<img src="http://www.wakeworld.com/MB/Discus/messages/65919/319967.jpg" alt="Upload">

jmuthafnp 04-23-2006 8:05 PM

Looks sweet Ronnie. I am assuming you guys finally got the boat? Aaron and I went out yesterday and we constantly moving around people in my Ve trying to get a clean wake.

projectely4 04-23-2006 8:16 PM

Hey Ronnie just wondering what prop your running? <BR>thanks

walt 04-23-2006 9:12 PM

Here's another X-2 wake pic. <BR> <BR><img src="http://www.wakeworld.com/MB/Discus/messages/65919/319991.jpg" alt="Upload">

greatdane 04-23-2006 9:15 PM

How much total weight? Buit-in? Added-on?

walt 04-23-2006 9:19 PM

GD, <BR> <BR>I'm not sure how much was in the X-2 I posted but it was to much. It would hardly plane out.<img src="http://www.wakeworld.com/MB/Discus/clipart/sad.gif" border=0>

greatdane 04-23-2006 9:35 PM

Thats disappointing. <BR> <BR>Am I the only one thinking... great boat with a disappointing wake? <BR> <BR>So, how does the X2 compare to the XSTAR in wake production?

jarrod 04-23-2006 9:40 PM

We were towing a recent contest with an 06 X2. The riders were complaining about the wake, and it was slammed with a lot more weight than mentioned above. <BR> <BR>We ended up finishing the contest with my 05 X2. Some of California's biggest names said the 05 wake was "way better." Prior to the contest, some of the local competitors took it out and moved weight around for a while. It wouldn't produce. <BR> <BR>But...maybe they just didn't have the right formula.

anodyne 04-23-2006 9:44 PM

disappointing... Mastercraft has a fantastic little boat on their hands. If they could figure out a way to dial that wake...

jarrod 04-23-2006 9:48 PM

Dane, you're not the only one. <BR> <BR>The picture Walt posted is the contest wake.

dakid 04-23-2006 9:49 PM

gd, you're not alone. <BR> <BR>at the collegiate tourney last nov(?), a lot of riders were disappointed w/ the x-2 wake w/ additional 1500lbs of weight.

jcv 04-23-2006 10:31 PM

i guess this is a good example of why not to pre-order a boat in its debut year. <BR> <BR>man, the boat looks so sweet, i hope some configuration can be figured out with time. although, it needs to be said that few people have actually ridden the wake, so it could be rock hard and boot you straight up for all we know. anyone have any pictures with a rider in the trough for size reference? <BR> <BR>(Message edited by JcV on April 23, 2006)

norcalmalibu 04-23-2006 10:54 PM

WOW if that is the contest wake, that is very dissapointing.

fox 04-24-2006 7:02 AM

I rode one this past Saturday. My "intermediate" opinion is that it is pretty good for my needs with very little ballast. We had a few pounds of ballast in the tanks and four people in the boat. Wake was roughly knee high to a 6 footer. It should be said though, that we are coming from a direct drive background. We were riding at about 70'-75' and 22mph for reference. <BR> <BR>The wake was wider than I am used to, but it was easy to cross. Short cut and there was lots of pop. We were landing flats too easy and moved out a little length. Whoever said you don't need to move people around was right. Seating position had little to do with wake performance. One thing I noted, was that the boat "tilted" a bit more than I expected with hard edging. Tracking fins would help this alot. It never pulled the boat off course though. Next time out I will bring my camera.

projectely4 04-24-2006 7:39 AM

the right formula for this boat is definately 50/50 front to back. over the weekend i had stock ballast plus 390 in each rear compartment a integrated bow sac which was probably around 500 lbs and 200 lbs in lead in the bow walkway. <BR>the wake was wide with a nice transition slightly longer than the X1 with a nice lip at the top it wasn't the biggest wake i have ridden but i was very pleased with the size and shape after i got the right formula for weight placement and i am coming from a 04 x-star wake. <BR>i will try to get some pics but it was pretty much identical to the pic ronnie posted. <BR> <BR>

projectely4 04-24-2006 7:48 AM

also i was riding at 23.7 on a 75 foot rope as well as 23.3 on a 70 foot rope. <BR>the wake was very similar at both lengths but at 75 it was slightly firmer with a little less lip <BR>i want to try 80 feet but so far i think 75 feet is the perfect length for shape and size.

rorowake 04-24-2006 8:28 AM

Disappointing? Far from it. I will say that it did take awhile to finally get the results out of the wake that we were hoping for, but after finding the right weight placement it was awesome. I have ridden the old X-2 hull for the past 4 years and LOVED it, however this wake is more consistent (not having to worry about it rolling over when somebody moves in the boat) and not as steep. Everybody is so concerned with the SIZE of the wake- and not as concerned with what really is important in a wake and that is hardness, transition, the trough (or "bad spot" as we refer to it), &amp; how clean the wake is. You can build a "tall" wake behind almost any boat (weight the back and slow the boat down), but if you push through it everytime you hit it, who cares! Nonetheless, I am pumped on the new wake!

guido 04-24-2006 8:51 AM

Man, I'd love to get a ride behind your boat Ronnie. I'm with Jarrod. It was pretty dis-appointing. Definitely didn't have any of the kick that the X1/X2 wake had. That and the wake got really wide further back. I hate riding any shorter than 80' and that seemed to be a lot of work behind the new boat. Not only that, but with the same MCX motor that makes short work of moving my '05 X2 the new boat wouldn't get off plane without moving people around. Anyway, glad some people are happy with it. I'm just saying I'm not in any hurry to trade my boat in for one.

jarrod 04-24-2006 8:59 AM

"it needs to be said that few people have actually ridden the wake, so it could be rock hard and boot you straight up for all we know." <BR> <BR>Jeff, did you read my post? The picture above is the contest wake with nearly 3000 pounds driving it.

aden_g 04-24-2006 9:01 AM

It's good to hear that they made an effort to make the wake wider... I often shortened my rope up to 10 feet when going from the 05 X-2 to an 05 22V. And hopefully with more reviews we will hear better, because it sounded like an awesome boat I was looking forward to seeing and riding behind!

jcv 04-24-2006 9:15 AM

J-Rod, I know and what you said about the Spring Ride contest does paint a pretty bleak picture. But, as disappointed as the quality riders were with it, it's still a small test sampling. My point is it's a little early to completely denounce it based on one bad outing and a picture or two. After you get a chance to ride it yourself, if you still think it sucks so be it. Believe me, I'm on your side. As soon as I found out MC was planning to use the Maristar-style deeper "V" on a "hardcore" wakeboarding boat, I was pretty weary. I'm just trying to look at the glass half-full until more people--and hopefully myself--get a chance to actually ride it. <BR> <BR>And, like Ronnie said, size isn't everything. If it was, we'd all learn to ride at 18mph. <BR> <BR>(Message edited by JcV on April 24, 2006)

projectely4 04-24-2006 9:16 AM

i would definatelly agree with Ronnie about the wake. weight placement is very crucial in this boat. it took we 2 weekends to find the best setup. both weekends i was running the same amont of weight but there waqs a big differernce in the wakes characteristics. the first weekend the added weight felt like it did nothing and the wake was almost the same with the stock weight only. <BR> <BR>Ronnie just wondering what prop your using and also what is the lenght of your rope? <BR>thanks billy

aden_g 04-24-2006 9:20 AM

"My point is it's a little early to completely denounce it based on a picture or two. After you get a chance to ride it yourself, if you still think it sucks so be it." <BR> <BR>Agreed, it sounds like these people are being a little too pessimistic based on these 2 pictures.

malibuboarder75 04-24-2006 9:41 AM

Someone tell me what is wrong with the wakes posted above. They look pretty good to me, especially Walt's pic. That wake looks huge. Is it the fact that it took too much weight to get that wake, or just that people didn't like the feel for the wake?

dakid 04-24-2006 9:43 AM

leo, i guess you and i have two completely different definitions of "huge" wakes. <BR> <BR>i, too, based my opinion on experience behind the boat.

jcv 04-24-2006 9:53 AM

it's unfair to judge a wake's size from a picture without a reference point. i wouldn't be suprised at all if that's knee-level. i dig the shape as well, especially two or three feet from the wash

jarrod 04-24-2006 10:11 AM

"Agreed, it sounds like these people are being a little too pessimistic based on these 2 pictures." <BR> <BR>actually...based on the 15 riders that tested it. <BR> <BR>I'm not counting it out. Just sharing the expressions of many others.

rorowake 04-24-2006 10:11 AM

Billy- Just running the stock prop- 13.7 X 17. I agree, the wake is really wide (compared to the old X-2 hull). I have been riding it at 75'. I rode the 05 X2 at 80-85'. <BR> <BR>I would hardly call this wake "huge", but with that being said- look at the X Star wake. It is not "huge" in comparison to other wakes in the business either. But it is "meatier" than any other wake and that's what gives you the boot and soft landings on a longer transition. I'm all about a wake that makes wakeboarding easier. The new X-2 wake is definitely a wake that you will need to get used to and I dont think you can make that judgement after riding it once- especially if the only time that you have ridden it was in a contest. The wake is deceiving- you have to wait longer than you think. I found myself leaving early on everything for the first few sets. Go out and ride this wake a few more times- I will bet your opinions change. If not, have fun- whatever you're riding behind! Summer is finally HERE! <BR> <BR>Evan- anytime... you know how conveniently located we are here in NE <IMG SRC="http://www.wakeworld.com/MB/Discus/clipart/happy.gif" ALT=":-)" BORDER=0>

jcv 04-24-2006 10:26 AM

this reminds me of three years ago when the x-star came out. people would take one set behind it and come back saying how much it sucks; that is was just big but had no lip and no pop. then, everyone got used to it, waited a little longer for the boot, and started flying. i'd like to meet the rider who can feel comfortable behind a completely new wake after one or two contest runs.

greatdane 04-24-2006 10:28 AM

I am very disappointed. In pictures, the new X2 looked like my next boat. But, based on this early wake feedback, it is likely scratched off my list. <BR> <BR>If the wake sucks with 3000 lbs then something is very very wrong. <BR> <BR><b>I would prefer it if boat makers would make new boats that make wakes easier than their predecessors.</b> <BR> <BR>BTW, I don't think tracking fins help much with boat roll. The boat roll issue is from the deeper V. With a deeper V, the rider can roll the boat more from the leverage of the tower.

mobv 04-24-2006 10:32 AM

I disagree with a deeper v allowing more roll. My Centurion Avalanche has the deepest V of any V-drive. It has much less roll than my previous flat bottom boat. It is a combination of factors, hull shape, fins, tower height and position on the boat, etc.

fbroen 04-24-2006 10:36 AM

I as well was not impressed by the new x2 wake and will stick with my current X2 (03). We put 1700 on top of ballast in the new X2, but it didn't seems to grow that much and did not seem to get steeper for an up instead of out boot, which is my preference. Not po-poing the wake at all which was real clean and transition good and all that, justs lacks the steepness that is MY preference. To all their own.

scottyb 04-24-2006 10:38 AM

It still makes me wonder, because I am sure that most of those contest riders have ridden an x-star and know that you may have to wait longer for the pop on the x-2 as well.

fbroen 04-24-2006 10:50 AM

I also have a real hard time figuring out why a lot of the new boats are designed to need MORE weight rather than less. Sure the wider beams don't help. But seems to me that the boat that produces the most wake bang for the less weight is the SAN, but the overly sensitive weighting side to side is a bit annoying. I always would have liked a SAN/205v blend. I think this would have put out a great wake that would not require 3k pounds to be good, while at the same time a bit less finicky. Incredibly to me though, new models seems to move in the opposite direction... <BR> <BR>(Message edited by fbroen on April 24, 2006)

jjared 04-24-2006 10:54 AM

I had an 02 X-Star and an 05 X-2 and love the wake behind that hull. I am not a big fan of the X-Star wake either. After seeing the interior of the new X-2 last year I was pretty excited to get a set in behind the boat. Last week I finally got the chance and I think the wake is very similar to the my old boats. A little more transition but not much. I only had an extra 200lbs on each side and two people in the boat but that's how I usually rode behind my old boats. The wake was great IMHO. So many people weight their boats wrong. Like any new boat you need to find the correct amount and placement of the extra weight.

jcv 04-24-2006 11:13 AM

"I also have a real hard time figuring out why a lot of the new boats are designed to need MORE weight rather than less." <BR> <BR>because boat companies make A LOT more money from families and successful businessman than they do from serious wakeboarders. families want the bigger boats with more room and are okay with making sacrifices in the wake to weight department if it means there's room for lake parties on board. hate to break it to you, but wakeboarders are pretty far down the list of priorities when designers envision a new "wakeboarding" boat. how many wealthy profesional-level wakeboarders do you know?

guido 04-24-2006 11:24 AM

BTW, one of the riders that didn't like the wake owns an X-star, so he is definitely used to that style wake. I won't say the X-star wake is bad, but it definitely isn't my preference either. It has more to do with the amount of weight it takes than anything else. It's a huge boat it shouldn't need to rely on ballast to make a giant wake. I was super excited by the new X2 when it came out. I thought it would for sure be my next boat. Now I am more skeptical. I haven't ruled it out and it'll be interesting to see if they make changes to the hull after this year. <BR> <BR>I'm really the most disappointed in the fact that companies aren't making an effort to build boats that make a big wake without a ton of ballast. I don't like the trend toward needing more and more weight. It's also kinda lame that the factory ballast is only 600lbs. What gives? <BR> <BR>In terms of making the wake wider.... I'm not a fan of that either unless the wake is giant. I love the Malibu LSV wake and it's really wide, but also really big. Anytime a wake is wide and I have to shorten my rope I'm not stoked. I hate the feel of a short rope (really anything less than 80'). I like the extra time edging into the wake and the extra speed that I can develop. <BR> <BR>Anyway, it definitely isn't ruled out. I just want to see better results before I'll be stoked. BTW, I'm so picky about wakes after the X1/X2 hull that I hardly like riding behind boats that I don't know. I just kinda feel like a set behind a small wake is a waste of time. I don't know when I became so jaded, but somewhere along the line I did....

guido 04-24-2006 11:28 AM

Again, I just wanted to re-itterate that I'm super picky about wakes. I don't want people to think I am saying this boat is junk. This boat will for sure work great for the average rider, especially someone riding slower with less weight and on a shorter rope. When I am commenting I'm talking about boats that are loaded to maximum capacity. Just the way we seem to like them. It's also easy when you are talking about the wake to get to focused on that. There are a ton of people that will love the space and the smooth ride of the new boat. It's a great boat with an ok wake.

dakid 04-24-2006 11:28 AM

when i rode behind the new x2 at the collegiate tourney, i wasn't impressed at all. the size was lacking, it wasn't solid, nor was it clean. <BR> <BR>with that said, i'm willing to give it another shot. it could've just been weighted wrong. who knows?

greatdane 04-24-2006 11:32 AM

FB, I rode for years with the same crew alternating between my buddies 1995 CC Sport (same hull as the SAN) and my 2000 BU VLX. Both boats were sacked to create good healthy wakes. Yet, of course the VLX wake was much more rampy and much less steep. <BR> <BR>After driving these two boats for years, I can tell you with NO UNCERTAINTY that my buddies CC tracks much better than my BU. Compared to the CC, my BU gets rolled over and yanked off course like crazy. This was the case week after week with the same riders on the same water (delta/vic). <BR> <BR>It is also true that the CC appears more sensitive to boat balance. I think that this is because the wake is taller and made from less mass. A more efficient wake is a more sensitive wake. To me its hardly an issue. I don't want a wide boat sacked with another 1500 lbs to improve butt placement.

jarrod 04-24-2006 11:40 AM

I see wake sensitivity as a pattern with smaller boats, period. <BR> <BR>My Wakesetter LSV took more weight. But, weight or no weight, the wake wouldn't change much when people moved, and no matter how hard you pulled, you couldn't make the other side wash out. <BR> <BR>It seems like the smaller the boat, The more sensitive the wake is. <BR> <BR>

ripr 04-24-2006 12:15 PM

I really like the look of the new X-2. I can't comment on the wake as I've never actually ridden it. Even after three years though, I'm not a fan of the wake on the new X-Star. I've ridden it pro-weighted, no ballast, stock ballast, and it's just not for me. Not saying it's not for someone else. From the looks of the new X-2 wake, the wake looks similarily shaped IMO. I like a kick at the top of the wake. <BR> <BR>That being said, when I 'judge' a new boat, I always look at how the wake is out of the box with factory weight. I just can't see spending over $40-$50K and then have to add 2-3K in weight to get a great wake. Just my $1.02.

jon4pres 04-24-2006 12:27 PM

NAW, Do you really think that advice was worth $1.02.<img src="http://www.wakeworld.com/MB/Discus/clipart/wink.gif" border=0> <BR> <BR>It makes sence in my little head that the lighter the boat the more it would be effected by weight movement. But I am not claiming that to be worth any more than .02 cents.<img src="http://www.wakeworld.com/MB/Discus/clipart/happy.gif" border=0>

fox 04-24-2006 1:03 PM

I think it is interesting the comments about a wake boat where you shouldn't have to add a ton of weight. Maybe I am mistaken, but I thought the CIE guys rode in a boat with like 3000# of weight. Wouldn't that be 2000# more than factory? Could you explain what you mean? Maybe it's just a style (style, shape, firmness) that you don't prefer? <BR> <BR>I think it will take a little time for people to figure out the weight issue. Sounds like Ronny is on the way. I remember the X-star getting a lot of negative press when it came out too, but there are a lot of believers today. I would second the comment about needing a few rides to get the hang of it. After two sessions...my first two of the year I might add, I need a little more time with it. I had a very easy time popping and getting height, and even distance. I look forward to a few more rides to get the hang. I will take some video next time out.

jarrod 04-24-2006 1:16 PM

That's True Eric. But we don't need that much to make the wake good. The newer, bigger boats seem to take a lot more weight as a minimum. <BR> <BR>

fox 04-24-2006 1:21 PM

I see J-Rod....makes more sense when you put it that way. As a comparison though, what is the difference in beam between your 05 and an 06? Obviously there are other hull displacement differences, but beam is a start right. <BR> <BR>Seems as though hulls aren't being built to sink well as much as to increase interior space and "shape" the wake. Wasn't the idea behind the Xstar hull to make a big hull on top of a small one to put more in the water and increas space above the water?

guido 04-24-2006 3:42 PM

Eric, exactly what Jarrod said. I can stand riding behind an X1 with 4-5 people and stock ballast. Set up like that the new X2 doesn't have much of a wake at all. It doesn't help that its a bigger boat with a smaller factory ballast. <BR> <BR>And yes, we do ballast the heck out of our boats, but they still perform flawlessly. The X1 with 2800lbs still gets right on plane and up to speed. For some reason the new X2 wouldn't do it. When we transferred weight to the front to get it to plane better the wake steepness and size would suffer. <BR> <BR>I guess we just expect more from a boat than they are willing to deliver. If you want to end this debate just ride behind a stock VLX with the 4 tank system and wedge. IMO it's the only "bone stock" boat that gets the job done right now. Strangely enough, it's a wakeboat that actually makes a wake.

rorowake 04-24-2006 5:22 PM

Here's a pic I found with a rider for reference. <BR> <BR>The boat performed flawlessly with the 2600 lbs plus 5 people. No struggle at all. <BR> <BR><img src="http://www.wakeworld.com/MB/Discus/messages/65919/320218.jpg" alt="Upload">

greatdane 04-24-2006 5:29 PM

Unfortunately, the boat just turned so the wake is out of balance -- steep on the inside and ramp on the outside.

jcv 04-24-2006 5:32 PM

doesn't turning usually flatten out the inside wake? like when you cut into the middle for a double up there's practically no wake left?

bill 04-24-2006 5:56 PM

i think the wake in the first pic looks pretty nice shaply and clean..riding it would be the real test to give a real oppinion but it does look big and clean in the pick first posted... <BR> <BR>

projectely4 04-24-2006 7:19 PM

personally i think the turning is the worst excuse for that picture. <BR> <BR>first the boat has clearly been going straight for a little bit. <BR> <BR>second there is no white wash on either lip of the wake <BR>

dakid 04-24-2006 7:23 PM

worst excuse? no. <BR> <BR>clearly going straight for a little bit? yes...key words, "a little bit" which means wake is gonna suck after a turn going straight "a little bit." <BR> <BR>no white wash? of course not...it's now going straight.

jcv 04-24-2006 7:25 PM

i'm confused. are we arguing the wake sucks or that it's legit now? cuz i think it looks pretty damn good, especially for 4-6 feet of water

driving 04-24-2006 7:26 PM

You people make my head hurt!

greatdane 04-24-2006 7:35 PM

Turn or no turn, thats not what I hoped for from the new X2 with "2600 lbs plus 5 people". <BR> <BR>Next: the 21' epic!

jarrod 04-24-2006 8:52 PM

Here's the other thing I noticed... <BR> <BR>Look at this 05 x2 wake and compare the amount of wake that is still clean at 85 feet back. <BR> <BR>The 06 wake seems to roll much sooner. <BR> <BR><img src="http://www.wakeworld.com/MB/Discus/messages/65919/320320.jpg" alt="Upload">

dakid 04-24-2006 9:22 PM

assuming the latest x2 pic is an accurate pic of an x2 wake, am i wrong to assume that the rider would hit the wake where it's pointed in the pic? <BR> <BR><img src="http://www.wakeworld.com/MB/Discus/messages/65919/320329.jpg" alt="Upload">

jarrod 04-24-2006 9:42 PM

...and?

dakid 04-24-2006 9:48 PM

i guess the point i'm trying to make is to william. if you compare both sides of the wake where i pointed, you'd see that it's rampier on the side of the rider and steep on the opposite. it's this way 'cause it seems like the boat just came out of the turn, which means it's not really accurate as to its potential. <BR> <BR>i'm not discounting ronnie's claim that the wake is sick. i'm sure it's great! i just wish the people down here in socal figure out the right weight configuration so i can start to enjoy it! <img src="http://www.wakeworld.com/MB/Discus/clipart/wink.gif" border=0>

andrew_moreton 04-24-2006 10:15 PM

"You people make my head hurt!" -Travis Moye <BR> <BR>Love the quote Travis! How are things going down at the camp? I'm going to try to make it down this summer. <BR> <BR>And several of the guys in Dallas who work for Texas Mastercraft and have their choice of boats are using the X2 just for what it's worth.

jarrod 04-24-2006 10:41 PM

In my experience, wakes are rarely ever identical on both sides.

dakid 04-24-2006 10:43 PM

mine neither, but it's more evident in that pic that the boat just came out of a turn.

greatdane 04-24-2006 10:59 PM

Photos of wakes are only so useful. I would bet that a decent wake can be built. Still, it disappoints me that they X1 is still MC's best wake machine. No offense to the X1, I just wonder why MC keeps coming out with new boats with inferior wake production capabilities.

driving 04-25-2006 4:23 AM

I can't even begin to read all of these post, but you have to realize that everything said on here is objective. For instance..."the X1 is still MC's best wake machine". I think the X1 is a great boat, but IMO the X-Star blows it away. Just like a lot of people love the SAN, and I would rather not ride that ride behind one. It doesn't mean it's not a great boat, it just means I don't like it. I love olives, and my wife hates them...does that mean that olives suck, and that we should stop producing them? Or should the world try to make a different olive for my wife? <BR> <BR>I had an X2 at the camp for day with not nearly as much weight as Ronnie and people loved it. I think the size is a little deceiving. A wake looks a lot different when it's longer. And, we had people riding 80-85 with no problem. If you look at the pic with the rider the wake is knee high. The transition is just longer, so you can't stand right beside it like you would an X1 or a SAN. <BR> <BR>And, I don't care who you are, you can't get a good feel for a wake at a contest. Contest runs are a blur at best, and you are trying to tell me about the wake. Of course it's going to be weird if you haven't ridden behind one. If for no other reason, it's in your head that you haven't ridden behind one. <BR> <BR>Like every other post about boats or wakes this thing could just blabble on forever, and no one/everyone would be right, depending who you ask. <BR> <BR>And, Andrew, the camp is going great. We're having a lot of fun as usual. Let me know when you want to head down.

newmy79 04-25-2006 5:16 AM

hands down, travis made the most logical post yet on this topic! (one that is beaten to death) <BR> <BR>it's all about preference and opinion......<img src="http://www.wakeworld.com/MB/Discus/clipart/lame.gif" border=0>

jarrod 04-25-2006 9:01 AM

I thought Travis would avoid defending the boat just because we all know he is sponsored by MC. <img src="http://www.wakeworld.com/MB/Discus/clipart/proud.gif" border=0> <BR> <BR>I agree with your post Travis. It totally depends on the rider. But when two people say itís good, and dozens say itís not, we tend to draw conclusions. <BR> <BR>And we had it all weekend. So it wasn't just a high pressure set. <BR> <BR> <BR>

aden_g 04-25-2006 9:11 AM

Travis, what camp do you run/speak of? Do you have a link or can you email me some information? <BR> <BR>And good post, you win :p

jarrod 04-25-2006 9:34 AM

Aden, <BR> <BR>Check his profile. <BR> <BR>

dakid 04-25-2006 9:49 AM

<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!><font size=1><b>quote:</b></font><p>And, I don't care who you are, you can't get a good feel for a wake at a contest. <!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote> <BR> <BR>even those that got to ride it after the comp?

allen 04-25-2006 10:05 AM

Or the ones that rode it before for ohhh... I don't know about 2 hours. <BR> O-ya and the day before. <BR> <BR> Sounds pretty rushed to me <img src="http://www.wakeworld.com/MB/Discus/clipart/rofl.gif" border=0> <BR> <BR>The boat is killer, the wake just doesn't compare to the wake behind the X2/X1, X-star, or a SAN. <BR> <BR> <BR> <BR>

wake4fun 04-25-2006 10:07 AM

I think the people on this site don't understand that they are the minority in the wake world. The majority of the boats are sold to families that don't weight their boats...heck they don't even know what a fat sack is. Those families are also the ones paying the money for the boats and equipment, not expecting the hook up bro deals. So hopefully manufacturers will never stop building for the little guys who just want a good time out on the water with their family and friends.

rorowake 04-25-2006 10:09 AM

Joe- I think it has been noted that you don't like the wake- yet you say you aren't discounting my opinion of the wake. Let it go dude. After seeing you post over the past few years I know that's what you do. Cool. You are entitled to your opinion, yes, but give a dead horse a break, man. Stop analyzing pictures, comments, etc. with a fine tooth comb. This post was made originally to share some info with the masses that has not been shared before. And based on the emails I've received I think the majority is glad I did! <BR> <BR>The above quote that you mention says exactly what it means- "you can't get a good feel for a wake at a contest" that's it. I'm going to ride now.

fbroen 04-25-2006 10:14 AM

I am not sure that the family boat argument is all that valid. There are plenty of manufacturers out there for that, and at much cheaper prices...

jarrod 04-25-2006 10:15 AM

Joe has made some comments I disagree with, but I don't see any on this thread. <BR> <BR>In my opinion, people knew there was some disappointment with this boat, and out of respect they/we kept it under wrap for months. When you started this thread, I for one couldn't keep it to myself any longer. I think others finally saw the opportunity to speak up also. <BR> <BR>I'm sure you feel teamed up on and understandably so. Sorry for that.

rorowake 04-25-2006 10:15 AM

"The boat is killer, the wake just doesn't compare to the wake behind the X2/X1, X-star, or a SAN." <BR> <BR>This was never claimed, either. However, I do know the difference between a good wake and a bad wake, and I promise you- when dialed in correctly you will be stoked on the wake as well!

dakid 04-25-2006 10:25 AM

wow. i guess of all the posters, only my posts stood out. <BR> <BR>sorry you took it personally, ronnie. this thread, i thought, was a good thread that made for a good debate. no personal attacks were lashed out (up until about 15 minutes ago) at anyone and everyone made some good posts, whether for or against the boat, which in turn made for a good debate. i thought that was what this discussion board was for. <BR> <BR>no disrespect was intended.

greatdane 04-25-2006 10:30 AM

So, I guess my dream for a 20' vdrive closed bow super efficient wake production machine will never happen since wake boats are "family social barges that happen to produce wakes".

jarrod 04-25-2006 10:56 AM

Closed bow, Dane? <BR>

greatdane 04-25-2006 11:15 AM

Ya. Cab forward so the bow is so small it doesn't matter. Plus, the passenger bench becomes big enough for two. And, the windsheild and dash are solid. A friend had a 195 prostar that created a really nice wake if you could get enough weight in the front. <BR> <BR>Here's a picture of the 195 wake (with zee). <BR> <BR><img src="http://www.wakeworld.com/MB/Discus/messages/65919/320440.jpg" alt="1"> <BR> <BR><img src="http://www.wakeworld.com/MB/Discus/messages/65919/320441.jpg" alt="2"> <BR> <BR>(Message edited by greatdane on April 25, 2006)


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 3:42 PM.