WakeWorld

WakeWorld (http://www.wakeworld.com/forum/index.php)
-   Boats, Accessories & Tow Vehicles (http://www.wakeworld.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=3183)
-   -   Best stock wake for surfing / wake boarding? (http://www.wakeworld.com/forum/showthread.php?t=796896)

smartin 02-09-2013 1:12 PM

Best stock wake for surfing / wake boarding?
 
Looking for not only a boat that does well in rough water which has already been addressed in a previous tread but also a ok stock wake that I can ride with the family who does not surf or use extra ballast when wake boarding? When I ride with friends for a few hours I don't mind taking the time to add the extra weight. When I ride with the wife and kids it would be nice to only have to use the stock ballast and maybe some lead in the noise. A boat somewhere in the 22-23 foot range.?

simplej 02-09-2013 1:24 PM

Well, an x25 is probably one of the best wakeboard wakes stock but forget surfing stock. That puts you into an MB twb which has Aton of stock ballast and good rough water ride OR a tige rz2/ z 3 which easily surf stock and have 2300lbs stock ballast for your boarding and surfing pleasure. I would start with those three the x25 will be best stock wake. MBs are well loved, and the tige wakes don't LOOK as pretty but it's a pretty mean wake as well.

volzalum 02-09-2013 1:27 PM

Looks like you are describing a boat with either the Malibu Surf Gate or the Nautique Surf System. Their boats are marketed at folks that want to wakeboard and then surf both sides without changing the ballast arrangement. I own and love a Centurion myself, but don't mind waiting on the ballast to swap sides.

shawndoggy 02-09-2013 1:38 PM

twb 23' wake (half fulll factory ballast and four adults):

http://www.wakeworld.com/uploads_use..._4658_zoom.jpg

twb 23' surf wake with just factory ballast and four adults:

http://i824.photobucket.com/albums/z...y/c377435b.jpg

http://i824.photobucket.com/albums/z...y/c0caf604.jpg

https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphot...02279060_n.jpg

runin90lx 02-09-2013 2:30 PM

If you don't want to add bags but have enough ballast to surf and board. The MB 23twb is the best bet. Even with the wife and kids it only takes 60 seconds to fill or empty the 2300 lbs no stock ballast

wakedaveup 02-09-2013 2:41 PM

Scott if you're looking at buying a new boat and spending thousands of dollars, go to your local dealers and demo a few boats. Most would consider my opinion biased and maybe it is, but a G23 has 2800lbs of stock ballast and overall you hear nothing but good things about the boat. The stock surf wake is great and the new NSS just makes it that much better. It may not be your potential price range, but if it is, go drive one for yourself and by all means go drive the others as well. Load up surf ballast in each boat and wake ballast and see which boat satisfies you the most. There are a lot of great boats out there but not many have the stock ballast capabilities that the G23 has. Once you narrow it down to a few boats, go down to the dealer and drive each one. That's your best bet. Good luck!

cwb4me 02-09-2013 3:16 PM

Do you have a budget? There will be a big difference in price between a MB 23twb and Nautiques G23.

volzalum 02-09-2013 3:21 PM

Yes, probably 2 for 1, but the quality and features may be worth the premium ...

WakeDirt 02-09-2013 3:43 PM

Id rather have 2 MBs than a G

Fixable 02-09-2013 3:46 PM

It is hard to beat the stock wakeboard wake on an X25. No ballast needed for a great wakeboard wake.....not even the stock tanks.

ixfe 02-09-2013 4:39 PM

I have to agree with those who are saying:
  • Malibu 23 LSV w/ Surf Gate - Best option if you don't want to worry about leaning the boat over and letting people sit where they want. I'm counting plug-n-play bags in the locker as "stock ballast."
  • MB 23 TWB - Best option if you just want to hit a switch and fill stock ballast in 1 minute, but still requires the ballast and people on the surf side.

Either will be awesome. Just depends on your preferred setup, and your price point too. ;)

Here's a pic and video of the Malibu 23 LSV Surf Gate (PnP 750's in lockers):

http://i124.photobucket.com/albums/p...E/Capture2.jpg

simplej 02-09-2013 5:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fixable (Post 1805797)
.....not even the stock tanks.

Easy there killer...

How is the flat bottomed lsv ride compared to an mb/tige v hull? The g23 does okay just because of its weight alone

smartin 02-09-2013 5:08 PM

Robert, as far as a budget goes I'm shooting for 80k out the door tops. So that would only get me into a MB new and all the others used. Of course the G23 out of the question! Sorry I should have mentioned my budget. Also used I would not get all the new gadgets that just came out on the new boats. Almost pull the trigger on a 2012 tige they were advertising at the seattle boat show but wife hated the color. They only had a picture of it.

simplej 02-09-2013 5:10 PM

You should be able to get into an rz2/z3 for under/at 80k out the door easy

runin90lx 02-09-2013 6:20 PM

You should be able to get into a brand new MB 23 for less than 70k. Fully loaded!

shawndoggy 02-09-2013 6:54 PM

Yeah seriously for $80k if you went MB 23' twb I think you'd be able to get the LSA and a 50 mph gas destroying hydrocarbon exploding monster with a carbon footprint that could be seen from space.

Lets be real.... All these boats really are is a fiberglass bathtub with a tower, perfect pass, ballast and a giant motor. Anything over and above that is usually "bling". The real test should be first how much you like it with the handle in YOUR hand, second how well your driver likes it with the wheel in HER hand, and third how well you like it with the wheel in your hand.

cwb4me 02-10-2013 5:47 AM

Just be patient and do your homework.As mentioned above Demo,demo and more demo.In the end your making the payments and judging the wakes for for liking.Good Luck!

chattwake 02-10-2013 5:55 AM

You should be able to get an lsv for 80k, depending on motor options. Just demo a bunch and see what you think. What local dealers do you have?

schmo 02-10-2013 6:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fixable (Post 1805797)
It is hard to beat the stock wakeboard wake on an X25. No ballast needed for a great wakeboard wake.....not even the stock tanks.

I guess a great wake is relative. If you are saying the x25 has a great wake without any ballast including empty stock tanks, your definition of great is probably different than many.

The x25 does have a great stock wake when stock ballast is full however I have yet to see a boat with a great wake with empty ballast.

Truekaotik 02-10-2013 6:43 AM

CENTURION Enzo or Avalanche.... Best fit and Finnish compared to Tigé or MB... See for yourself ;)

cwb4me 02-10-2013 7:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Truekaotik (Post 1805884)
CENTURION Enzo or Avalanche.... Best fit and Finnish compared to Tigé or MB... See for yourself ;)

Stirred,not shaken.;)

Fixable 02-10-2013 8:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by schmo (Post 1805883)
I guess a great wake is relative. If you are saying the x25 has a great wake without any ballast including empty stock tanks, your definition of great is probably different than many.

The x25 does have a great stock wake when stock ballast is full however I have yet to see a boat with a great wake with empty ballast.

Being as the stock tanks are very small (only @ 750lbs), it makes VERY little difference. The shape does not change at all, and the difference in height is hardly noticeable.

I have owned an X25 for three years. I know the difference between its wake with stock ballast and with no ballast. It is a negligable difference.

simplej 02-10-2013 10:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cwb4me (Post 1805886)
Stirred,not shaken.;)

Why even entertain that comment Robert?

Un ballasted? after 350 hours behind them or at the wheel 2010, 2011, and 2012 ranging from 0 ballast (the ballast wouldn't fill on the 2010) to 3500 lbs of ballast . The stock 805lbs makes a huge difference in the wakes hardness( i think its harder than the g23, which is a close second) and size. 805 lbs makes a huge difference. That's your opinion that's fine.... But don't try to sell the wake as being great with no ballast, and either way the boat is not surf able In stock condition so scratch it off the OPs list unless he's willing to plumb in ballast.

Which brings us back to our original post, Mb 23, rz2/z3, and lsv. Which is where I would start.
The lsv has size and switching surf waves going for it but looses on rough water ride and stock surfability. The mb loses out on bling and PERHAPS some fit and finish to the other two but I can't comment on one, I havent dug through one just heard second hand, and the tige looses out on sensitive wakeboard wakes. Every boat is going to have negatives you just have to weigh them out. From my understanding the tige/Malibu will be similarly priced, though its different in every area. Here boat show specials on malibus put them at 92k out the door and 75k on tiges equally loaded, advertised pricing NOT Msrp. Though people will tell you it varies based on your area. Take your time, get a good deal, test drive if possible.

Thex25 would be a good boat for all the above but you'd have to be willing to shell out extra cash over budget, plumb In extra ballast (for surfing), and live with the 1.5 feet shorter boat.

edgeski1 02-11-2013 8:44 AM

23 WB has such a great stock wake and wave. It looks great without overly done, built like a brick S*ithouse and everything just WORKS.

you_da_man 02-11-2013 9:53 AM

While I love the MB 23 and F21 (have friends withe each), the 23 cannot make a clean wakeboard wake under 22mph. Keep that in mind if the wife and kids want to wakeboard. The MB 23 surf wake is really good and rough water ride is very good as well.

shawndoggy 02-11-2013 10:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by you_da_man (Post 1806039)
While I love the MB 23 and F21 (have friends withe each), the 23 cannot make a clean wakeboard wake under 22mph. Keep that in mind if the wife and kids want to wakeboard. The MB 23 surf wake is really good and rough water ride is very good as well.

Mine will get cleaned up at about 20.5... NOBODY MOVE because it's very weight sensitive side to side at that speed.

But that's really neither here nor there if what you want is a wake clean on both sides at 17. These boats just can't do that. That seems to be the domain of the flatter hulls.

My wife and kids were used to riding at 18 or so behind our malibu. They now ride at 21. "problem" solved. Here's an example of the wake at 21 (note that even a 95' kid can pull the boat over hard enough to make it wash on the "other" side of the wake):

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/7eD5yK81a5A" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

02-11-2013 10:33 AM

Sounds like you're describing a Moomba Mojo.

simplej 02-11-2013 10:37 AM

Our tige has the same kind of problem, and the v hull is pretty similar looking from the stern to an MB, but plus an added variable of taps. Our wake is clean at about 18.5 and up without ballast, but that's probably due to its only being 20 feet. The advantage to the v hulled boats, despite sensitivity is how quickly the wake pumps up. 2-3k goes really far. But like I said, weight sensitively for sure.

polarbill 02-11-2013 10:55 AM

I have a question. With boats like the MB, tige, centurionm, etc that have deeper V hulls and have a tough time keeping the wake clean is the pull of the boarder enough to rock the boat over and clean up the wake? If so that the rider is almost always going to be hitting a clean wake, aren't they? If the rider isn't good enough to pull the boat over at all I am assuming they aren't really edging and aren't at a level where having a clean wake even matters.

If someone is riding at 18 mph they must be on a rope at 60' or less aren't they? Is the wake still washed at 60' and under 20 mph? Is a little wash at the top of the wake even a problem if someone is only able to ride at 18 mph? I would think that anybody riding where an actual clean wake matters should be riding faster anyways, shouldn't they?

I am not trying to make excuses for the MB or any other wake that washes out at low speeds just trying to figure out why it really matters. Isn't the shape of the wake more important that the cleanliness to begineers? I could see beginners intimidated to hit a huge steep wake and would prefer as more rampy wake.

simplej 02-11-2013 11:39 AM

Brett, I think that wake shape concerns down to a low speed are kind of foolish myself, everyone I tow At sub 20 mph isn't even going for wake jumps. And I usually tow the, at a full length so they can find edge control without going out of the wakes and finding themselves In trouble but people like to whine about wake cleanliness. Some people prioritize that for whatever reason,ill tell you straight up I can't get a clean wake under 18.5/19 no matter my taps position, granted its a much smaller boat. Moving weight around and playing the plate gives you different shapes as well. Tige taps gives you a lot of adjustability. I can go from a Ramp at taps 1/2 to 210 nautique-esque lip when weighted at taps 5 and up( you cant go past 5 weighted). But like I said because of taps and a v hull you get extreme sensitivity front to back, side to side, and this sensitivity is amplified the more weight you add. But yes, you pull the boat over and lips up for you regardless as long as its weight properly. And like I said, the boat takes less weight to build up a big wake IMO (x25 with 3000 is close to xtar with 4500 granted both boats are sort of hybrid hulls the 25 has more V). so there are advantages as well, easy surf, easy to build a wake, hard to dial due to sensitivity, not clean at super low speeds. I can't speak for an MB but I'm assuming its a similar situation.

22vdrive 02-11-2013 11:49 AM

In my experience mbs wake is easy to dial. Just open one of the gates till both wakes look the same. I've never tried towing at sub 20mph.

Sent from my EVO using Tapatalk 2

Truekaotik 02-11-2013 12:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cwb4me (Post 1805886)
Stirred,not shaken.;)

You lost me?? What's wrong with the worlds championship wakesurf towboat, that it shouldn't be mentioned in this thread?? It produces the best wave in the industry before and currently...

boardjnky4 02-11-2013 1:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by polarbill (Post 1806050)
I have a question. With boats like the MB, tige, centurionm, etc that have deeper V hulls and have a tough time keeping the wake clean is the pull of the boarder enough to rock the boat over and clean up the wake? If so that the rider is almost always going to be hitting a clean wake, aren't they? If the rider isn't good enough to pull the boat over at all I am assuming they aren't really edging and aren't at a level where having a clean wake even matters.

If someone is riding at 18 mph they must be on a rope at 60' or less aren't they? Is the wake still washed at 60' and under 20 mph? Is a little wash at the top of the wake even a problem if someone is only able to ride at 18 mph? I would think that anybody riding where an actual clean wake matters should be riding faster anyways, shouldn't they?

I am not trying to make excuses for the MB or any other wake that washes out at low speeds just trying to figure out why it really matters. Isn't the shape of the wake more important that the cleanliness to begineers? I could see beginners intimidated to hit a huge steep wake and would prefer as more rampy wake.

You're absolutely right. This forum is obsessed with perfectly clean lips, though.

johnny_defacto 02-11-2013 2:23 PM

I agree that the TWB 23, LSV 23 are both great choices. Also throw in there the EPIC 23V, Malibu 22mxz and nautique SAN 230.

Not sure on Epics surf wave, but it comes with 4000 lbs of stock ballast and I hear the wake can get huge with less than that.
MB and nautique are deep V's so they will get bigger wakes with less weight than the malibu's. Deep v's ride better in chop, have steep wakes, have wakeboarding wakes that can be finicky, and do not turn quite as tight/nice as flatter hulls... in general.
The malibu's have surf gate and that is awesome... their stock ballast with wedge is great for most of us. You may be able to get either malibu for $80, definately have to go with the smaller motor 350, but since you are just surfing and stock ballast, it will be fine.
SAN 230 with NSS may be doable for around 80 since the G23 is the new flagship. Not sure how nice the 230 stock wake is, but the NSS will make the surf wake easy to dial in.

Having small children and taking a lot of beginners out makes having a nice clean wake at slow speeds almost a necessity. Learning to ride wake to wake with washy lips that grab your board is no fun at all. If you do not have a wife, friends, or kids, then the slow speed/ clean wake issue is mute, but to me, it was very important when we chose our boat.

ixfe 02-11-2013 2:57 PM

For the record, I haven't say a peep about low speed wake in this thread. I only brought it up in the other thread was becuase the OP had asked about it specifically. However, now that it's come up again, I want to address what polarbill and simplej have posted. about folks who "whine" about this topic.

First of all, don't assume that your specific usage model is the same as everybody elses (btw... I know I've been guilty of this too). For example, just becuase one guy does't think low speed wake should matter (e.g. maybe his crew is all grown ups) doesn't mean it's unimportant to others (e.g. folks with small kids just learning the sport).

Another thing I see a lot is people speculating w/out any "on-the-water" experience in a given boat (yep... I know I do that too). Brett, I want you to go pull a 10 year old, then come back and tell us how you feel on the subject.

Let me try to tell you why low speed wake is important to me and my family (and I suspect other families with young riders). This is real life, on-the-water experience with MB's and Malibus. Since I haven't tested other boats at low speeds, I won't bother to speculate on them.

My Crew: My kids are 13, 11, 9, and 7. My wife is 29 and will be forever. :p All four kids can wakeboard. They also like to kneeboard. Both activities involve going up and over the wake over and over again (even if they are not jumping).

Physics: My kids are all still under 100 lbs. Kids this light do not require the same speed that an adult does to keep them on top of the water. So pulling them at 22.5 mph would be like pulling me at 27 mph. For kids I'm a believer in scaling the entire experience down consistent with their size (e.g. smaller boards, shorter line, lower speed). As they grow, of course the scale of the experience grows with them.

Confidence: For kids, it's all about progression. And progresson requires confidence. A clean wake at their speed builds confidence and encourages them that it's okay to ride up and over it. A washed out wake does not inspire confidence. To kids it looks like a recipe for a fall. It's not entirely about jumping; young kids ride over a lot more wakes than they jump over. In our case, my 13 year old is just starting to jump. There again, the clean wake inspires confidence. The wahsed out wake is a distraction, at best.

How Many Seasons?: Even if my 13yr old was clearing the wake and riding over 20 mph (crossing my fingers for this season), I'd still have my 11, 9, and 7 year olds to consider... this equates to many more years of wanting clean wakes at 18mph. Even my wife only likes to ride at 20mph. Does she deserve a clean wake?

Bottom line... It would be selfish of me to only consider my own needs when buying a boat. Why do my kids and wife need a clean wake? The same reason I like a clean wake! It's just a better experience. YMMV.

Here is the 18mph wake behind a VLX (no ballast, no wedge)... the rest of the family is on board. You can even see a tiny bit of wash creep in as the kids move around. :banghead: If I had put the wedge down, it would not have done that (wedge makes boat less sensitive side-to-side)

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/xWHetkrE2ck" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

shawndoggy 02-11-2013 3:22 PM

And therein lies the rub...

Rough water ride or low speed wake. Choose 1. The OP asked about the wakes on rough water boats.

If its rough enough to want a boat that does better in chop, I'd venture a guess that little kids aren't wakeboarding in those conditions anyway.

Different horses for different courses.

simplej 02-11-2013 3:27 PM

fair enough point ixfe everyone i pull is over 18 which is a different dynamic, except for the 12 year old i pull... and hes doing w2w mexican rolls 7 feet up so maybe my views are very skewed...
each of us teach differently too. so that may also play a role

and shawn doggy has a point...

Fixable 02-11-2013 3:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shawndoggy (Post 1806118)
And therein lies the rub...

Rough water ride or low speed wake. Choose 1. The OP asked about the wakes on rough water boats.

If its rough enough to want a boat that does better in chop, I'd venture a guess that little kids aren't wakeboarding in those conditions anyway.

Different horses for different courses.


What about something like a 247LSV? They ride pretty good without the deep v, simply because it is so long....

I have no experience with the low speed wake on a 247 though.

simplej 02-11-2013 3:38 PM

its not 22-23 feet, thats the problem haha

ixfe 02-11-2013 3:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shawndoggy (Post 1806118)
And therein lies the rub...

Rough water ride or low speed wake. Choose 1. The OP asked about the wakes on rough water boats.

If its rough enough to want a boat that does better in chop, I'd venture a guess that little kids aren't wakeboarding in those conditions anyway.

Different horses for different courses.

Yes, for rough water the MB is better. No argument there.

ixfe 02-11-2013 3:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by simplej (Post 1806122)
fair enough point ixfe everyone i pull is over 18 which is a different dynamic, except for the 12 year old i pull... and hes doing w2w mexican rolls 7 feet up so maybe my views are very skewed...
each of us teach differently too. so that may also play a role

and shawn doggy has a point...

LOL, simplej... you use the word "teach" as if I have a clue. In our case, we're all learning together.

polarbill 02-11-2013 3:57 PM

IXFE, thanks for the response. That makes sense to me. I wasn't trying to say it didn't matter, just wondering what others that do pull lots of kids think.

I also agree with what shawn said. It is tough to have a boat that both rides good in rough water and has a clean wake at slower speeds. I guess you ccan't have your cake and eat it to?

As for the 247 it might ride good in rough water compared to smaller boats but then again I would bet money a 24' deeper V boat like an MB, Centurion or Tige would all ride better in rough water than the 247 assuming they are all built well.

Fixable 02-11-2013 4:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by simplej (Post 1806128)
its not 22-23 feet, thats the problem haha

Son of a.....

I missed that requirement.

Truekaotik 02-11-2013 4:31 PM

LOL the funny thing is, Scott Martin hasn't replied for 2 days and you yahoos are going back and forth without or caring about the OP's or any sensible input... What's become of WW... Lol

Carry on....

simplej 02-11-2013 4:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Truekaotik (Post 1806140)
LOL the funny thing is, Scott Martin hasn't replied for 2 days and you yahoos are going back and forth without or caring about the OP's or any sensible input... What's become of WW... Lol

Carry on....

we're discussing the advantages/disadvantages of two different styles of hulls. ive learned a good bit from this thread myself such as why people are concerned about a clean wake at low speed, valuable because i only ride behind v hulled or modified v hull boats and miss a complete half of the story...when smartin comes back hell have both halves of the story to add to his pros and cons list for boat shopping.
ixfe and i havent even gotten on each other nerves in this thread!

so where isnt there anything sensible?

ixfe 02-11-2013 4:51 PM

Agree, Simple... we are all getting along, and it feels nice. WW can be hard to stomach sometimes, but this thread feels different (albeit a little off topic).

Side note for Brett... you know what other boat surprised me with a very clean wake all the way down to 17mph...? The SA450. Amazing, huh? I wouldn't have guessed that.

polarbill 02-11-2013 5:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ixfe (Post 1806144)
Agree, Simple... we are all getting along, and it feels nice. WW can be hard to stomach sometimes, but this thread feels different (albeit a little off topic).

Side note for Brett... you know what other boat surprised me with a very clean wake all the way down to 17mph...? The SA450. Amazing, huh? I wouldn't have guessed that.

I could see that. My I didnt' pay attention to the hull but wouldn't be surprised if Supra went more towards a Malibu style hull for the SA. I would be really surprised if Skiers Choice didn't go to a similar style hull in all there boats. From posts on here pretty much all the Skier's Choice hulls seem to make somewhat finicky although good wakeboard wakes and I am not sure they are ever in the conversation when it comes to good surf wakes. Maybe they are getting away from the variant hull style they have had where the bow half of the boat has a really deep V and the transom half is pretty flat with an abrupt change between the 2.


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 1:46 PM.