Articles
   
       
       
Pics/Video
   
       
       
Shop
Search
 
 
 
 
 
Home   Articles   Pics/Video   Gear   Wake 101   Events   Community   Forums   Classifieds   Contests   Shop   Search
WAKE WORLD HOME
Email Password
Go Back   WakeWorld > >> Boats, Accessories & Tow Vehicles Archive > Archive through June 10, 2005

Share 
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old    Boardingitup.com (wakeboard19)      Join Date: Apr 2005       05-14-2005, 4:25 PM Reply   
We have been lookin at older ski boats. Like mastercrafts malibus and centurions. We just found a newer regal I/O that we like the price and it had a lot of room.
What is the wake comparison. Could we get just as big of a wake or better since the older boats are built for skiing.
Old    ManFox (h20jnky)      Join Date: Mar 2003       05-14-2005, 4:53 PM Reply   
there is no comparison...

go with direct drive or v-drive. much cleaner table and wake composition will stay more consistent when adding weight.

stern drives are not designed with wakeboarders in mind. you can find plenty of older inboards down on the money that will blow the doors off a "regal" wake. save yourself the headache of having to upgrade in a year and start with the right boat, the first time...
Old    Tallredrider (talltigeguy)      Join Date: Sep 2003       05-14-2005, 5:38 PM Reply   
Kyle,

I might disagree about the wake on some I/O's. One of the largest and cleanest wakes I have ever seen came from a 26 foot Regal. Certainly it wasn't designed with wakeboarding in mind, but the wake was awesome.

Inboards are still better, IMO. It is sometimes very difficult to maintain the same speed in an I/O. Nothing is more frustrating than approaching the wake and feeling the rope tension change. You can't safely surf behind an I/O. Trying to anticipate your needs is your best bet and then TEST DRIVE.
Old    powerstroke            05-14-2005, 7:14 PM Reply   
i second the holding speed on an i/o. my dad had one(cobalt)when we were kids. kneeboarding close to the same speed as wakeboarding the boat either wanted to start to plane or go back down in the water. yes huge wake from it. but my older ski boat performs much better for wakeboarding. buy your boat for what you want to do most. i will tell you an i/o bigger boat much better in rougher water probably more room but not good for wakeboarding. ski boat shi..y in rough water less room great for anything you wanna do behind it. if you are serious about wbing or think you will become buy an inboard dd !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Old    Sam Aikele (atropine)      Join Date: Aug 2004       05-14-2005, 7:32 PM Reply   
I bought my first boat in the summer of 2003. 1994 Bayliner 20' I/O with a Mercruiser 350. I loved it. It was practically still new, and had lots of interior space. Very family friendly. It was also very reliable. Handled rough water very well, and with 1000lbs of ballast had a pretty decent wake. After about a year, I had the chance to ride behind a few DD boats and I immediately fell in love with the wake shape of these boats. I know every boat is different, but there are some general differences in wake shape between I/O's and DD's. So In September of 2004, I sold my Bayliner and bought a 1991 Malibu Sunsetter 20' open-bow with the same engine, Mercruiser 350 (for the same price as I sold the Bayliner). I have put about 45 hours on it since September and I have loved it. I wouldn't go back. I have to put about 1800 lbs in it to get a very nice wake, and at 2200-2300 lbs it is even that much better. The wake is more firm, and the shape is just better. Again, this has been a very reliable boat thus far (but I haven't owned it very long). There are 2 major drawbacks to the Malibu. 1) It does not like rough water! I have to keep it under about 25-30mph when the waves kick up, or it just feels like I am getting beat up. I had my Bayliner out on Lake Powell in big chop, and was able to run 30-40 mph in comfort. My brother in law's Centurion DD had to stay under 25 mph. 2) The floor space and storage are much more limited. My wife preferred the Bayliner for these reasons. But overall, the difference in the wake is all worth it. Until I can afford a V-drive, this will keep me very happy. I know several people who started with an I/O and sold for a DD or V-drive. I can't remember meeting anyone who went the other way.
Old    Boardingitup.com (wakeboard19)      Join Date: Apr 2005       05-14-2005, 7:47 PM Reply   
Thanks everyone. The boat has a 4.3 liter in it. I think around 185 horse. I just started wakeboarding last summer. Will this be enough horse for us.
Old    Mikeski (mikeski)      Join Date: Aug 2003       05-14-2005, 8:37 PM Reply   
Old ski boat
Old    Show (bigshow)      Join Date: Feb 2005       05-14-2005, 9:06 PM Reply   
I grew up on a 16 ft outboard Ė but back then wakeboarding didnít exist. I owned an old 16 ft outboard for a year, and then traded it in for a 20.5 ft 4.3L I/O. I had the I/O for 12 years but this year I traded in the I/O for a Centurion V-drive.

The 4.3L I/O had as much top-end as the v-drive even though the v-drive is a 350, the I/O made a decent wake, and had plenty of power with a full crew, but no ballast. My old I/O had more storage than my new boat.

The wake is definitely better on my Centurion than on my old I/O. Thereís big difference is speed control. On the I/O speed control was a constant job. I actually wore out my throttle control.

If you plan to wakeboard or ski a lot then an inboard would definitely be a better choice. Iím hooked on wakeboarding so an inboard was right for me.
Old    Boardingitup.com (wakeboard19)      Join Date: Apr 2005       05-15-2005, 9:26 AM Reply   
Would a 4 blade prop help pull you up a lot on in I/O.
Old    Show (bigshow)      Join Date: Feb 2005       05-15-2005, 12:26 PM Reply   
Four blades should help but I never needed it. I did have trouble pulling a 6'6" 300+ out on my slalom ski though.
Old    craig (skier86)      Join Date: Jan 2004       05-15-2005, 12:35 PM Reply   
I just went up on a buddies' newer bayliner, it had 1200 lbs of ballast and a 5.0 engine. The boat took forever to get on plane, and the wake was a nice size, but I didn;t like the shape. My skiboat unweighted IMO throws a better (cleaner) wake. I still like the bayliner, but I would go with a skiboat.
Old    Bob (bob)      Join Date: Feb 2001       05-16-2005, 6:25 AM Reply   
First off: Ryan H your stastement made me laugh "stern drives are not designed with wakeboarders in mind. you can find plenty of older inboards down on the money that will blow the doors off a "regal" wake"......Ryan older ski boats werent designed for wakeboarding either, they were made solely for skiing. It just happens that they throw a "decent" wake when weighted down significantly. Why does everyone go towards newer v drives with heavy ballast systems?
Next: Edward "Thereís big difference is speed control. On the I/O speed control was a constant job. I actually wore out my throttle control." Thats why i have perfect pass on my I/O and most likely you do on your comp D/V drive as well as most everyone else that has one on this site.
Properly setup an I/O will do as well as an older ski boat if not better. I ride behind a buddies 2003 ssv regularly and if he doesnt fill his ballast my wake is actually better then his. If he fills his(stock bags) he is a bit better then mine (600 lb in ski locker-stock boat weight is 3400lb dry). You have to have the right prop also and that is why wakeboard boats cant go as fast as older ski boats they are propped for more weight and not top speed, just add the appropriate prop on the I/O (ive got a 19" merc high 5) and wallah all the difference in the world. Now you may say all this money could have been spent on a newer d or v but when you ride around a large bay all the time and we dont plan on going pro we need to get where we are going with out getting a headache.
Disadvantages for I/O, wider wake requiring way more aggresive cut to clear depending on rope length, cost associated with outdrive maintenance (u-joints, gimbal, etc).
Other nice thing about an I/O is you can sit in almost as shallow water as possible and not worry about rudder and prop bouncing off the bottom. Hell ive been in water so shallow (boat just sitting of course) i was more worried about my paddle wheel then the outdrive.


FLAME ON
Old    ManFox (h20jnky)      Join Date: Mar 2003       05-16-2005, 8:06 AM Reply   
whoa bob! having a bad day mate? btw, who is ryan h? anyhow, before you are too quick to judge, let me respond to your little outburst... i clearly state that a direct drive or v-drive will have a far better wake than any stern drive, talk until your blue in the face on that one, because it will never win my vote. i don't care how shallow of water you can go in (i don't beach my boat) and how washy your wake is. i have driven enough stern drives to know that trying to hold speed, sluggish holeshot and washy wakes are not my cup of tea. secondly, if you can identify any stern drive make that is specifically suited for wakeboarding that has tracking fins and built in ballast systems, (not just a tower and a fat sac) then i will certainly stand corrected... older "multi-event tournament" boats were designed with wake composition, skier/rider pull, limited spray and all tow capabilities in mind and "IMO" provide the best wake in which to build from when it comes to any kind of decent riding... the thing is, kyle asked for our opinions and he got them, from you as well... no harm, no foul--- to each his own!

(Message edited by h20jnky on May 16, 2005)
Old    Paul (psudy)      Join Date: Dec 2003       05-16-2005, 8:19 AM Reply   
I think the key to this conversation is that the DD/VDs have a firmer wake than most I/Os(at least all the ones I have ridden behind).
Old    tribal            05-16-2005, 8:46 AM Reply   
Sorry Ryan but I'll have to agree with Bob.I've dropped my prop pitch to a 19 and when i find the right speed I can drive "Hand's off" with no speed adjustment.My wake is also far from washed out and it's pretty big.Here's a pic of my I/O wake.
Old    Diggs (pdxWAKE) (tyler97217)      Join Date: Aug 2004       05-16-2005, 9:23 AM Reply   
hmmm what point is that proving??? maybe that it is not washy..... That wake barely covers your ankles... Anyway I am kidding... Don't want to flame on this one... There are a ton... i mean a ton of posts on this subject. Whatever works best for you... drive them and ask lots of people. Most people on this site are obviously inboard owners and fans. I have had both. I had a 20' I/O and it worked fine for awhile. Wake was not too bad, but my main complaint was hole shot and the biggest is it is really difficult to hold a nice consistent speed and hold a nice consistent wake. Some times you charge the wake and it was great.... the next time it was not.... just not real consistent. Hey either boat is excellent, just determine what you want to use it for most. You will love just having a boat
Old    ManFox (h20jnky)      Join Date: Mar 2003       05-16-2005, 9:32 AM Reply   
again, to each his own. kyle asked for opinions on wake comparisons... no boat bashing here, just objective points of view from completely different platforms. i am only speaking from the experience i have had with numerous stern drives; four winns, cobalt and glastron. no need for users on this forum get so worked up over defending their stern drives? just be happy that we all have boats and can enjoy WAKEBOARDING... that is what is all about---- right?...

btw, sean nice pic but why are you so close to the back of the boat? way back behind you at 70' where i ride, looks a little washy to me? j/k love whistler mate, wish i had your job...
Old    tod            05-16-2005, 9:42 AM Reply   
sorry Sean, but that wake sucks................
Old    ManFox (h20jnky)      Join Date: Mar 2003       05-16-2005, 9:55 AM Reply   
as long as we are on wake pics, here is one i found of "gramps" SAN, when he has her loaded up...


Old    Bob (bob)      Join Date: Feb 2001       05-16-2005, 11:34 AM Reply   
Ok so let me find an offshore fishing boat that weighs what gramps boat weighed for that picture, as i recall it was not alot but more like over the top, and ill post it. Oh sorry Ryan my bust on your name. Ryan you stated I/O's werent designed for wakeboarding but then you go on to recommend inboards that also werent designed for wakeboarding?? Anyone here care to charge at that wake like they normally ride, i doubt it so what good is it? Looks like it would be fun for wake surfing...oh yea thats another thing an I/O is bad at. Diggs i think you need a vision test cause what im seeing is knee high in Seans pic but then again maybe he is a midget??
Gramps post up how much fuel you used that day when your boat was weighted like the pic above.
Its all about set-up as most people have not properly set-up an i/o with the same items that make a v drive so good. Ill bet there are only a handful of people with everything that makes an i/o work good at wakeboarding, the rest just say it just sucs cause it has poor holeshot (V8 with 4/5 blade lower pitch prop) or the speed was inconsistent (hell yes my boat was hard to hold speed till i got my perfect pass installed). Honestly who that has posted against an I/O has riden behind one just with perfect pass, let alone, bags, right prop, tower...
Old    ManFox (h20jnky)      Join Date: Mar 2003       05-16-2005, 11:49 AM Reply   
just for the record, gramps agreed in his original post, of this pic, that the boat was overweighted on purpose that morning and that they do not usually ride the wake at that size... still kicks arse though!!!

and no bob, i haven't ridden behind a stern drive with pp. i don't have to, my v-drive has it...

no need to take this thread personal. i don't remember the title being "slam bob for owning a monterey" you did however, cordially ask us to "flame on". consider your request granted.

once again, to each his own...
Old    Diggs (pdxWAKE) (tyler97217)      Join Date: Aug 2004       05-16-2005, 1:35 PM Reply   
I will try to hold it all in and bite my lip.... beautiful wake bob....
Yeah this wasn't aimed at you...
Bottom line is we are all going to defend our $$$$$$ purchases.... Kind of like our buddy Ryan - X Star guy.....
Old    tribal            05-16-2005, 7:08 PM Reply   
Just for the record I'm 6'3" and 65' back.My boat is unweighted in that shot because I'm wakeskating.And yeah, the wake looks a little higher than ankle to me.
I know we could argue about this forever my point just is you can get a great wake from an I/O.I can catch more than enough air for any trick my skill level and age will let me do.And the boat is more versatile for a lot more things.
You don't need to have an inboard to go wakeboarding
Old    www.midwestwakeboarder.com (gmarkham1)      Join Date: Sep 2003       05-16-2005, 7:53 PM Reply   
here is my I/O wake
2000 bayliner 1850 capri with 4.3l merc, 3 blade 19 pitch prop, monster tower, perfect pass, and automatic ballast.... but i guess I was just wasting my time...


Inboards are nice, but so are I/Os, I would never trade my boat for an old ski nautique 2001, i have ridden behind one and in one, and I do not see why everyone is soo hyped up on them!

just my opinion!

Old    Midwestwakeboarder.com (mjmurphy53711)      Join Date: Mar 2004       05-16-2005, 8:14 PM Reply   
gordons i/o is still one of the best, most consistent wakes i have ridden.....and he can back up the fact that i almost consistently will choose to ride behind his boat instead of a buddies old ski boat purely because his wake is dialed in, perfected....and the quality of the pull with the perfect pass....by the way thats me in the pic! and im buying an old centurion tomorrow lol
Old    www.midwestwakeboarder.com (gmarkham1)      Join Date: Sep 2003       05-16-2005, 8:19 PM Reply   
funny i thought it was the ice cold beer!
Old    Midwestwakeboarder.com (mjmurphy53711)      Join Date: Mar 2004       05-16-2005, 8:20 PM Reply   
that never hurts either......
Old    Salmon Tacos (salmon_tacos)      Join Date: Jan 2003       05-16-2005, 9:04 PM Reply   
This reminds me of the Red Green show I saw last night (first time I'd ever watched that show). He was saying something about men's favorite places being beds and boats. So he duct taped a bunch of air mattresses to a bed to make a bed boat. When he put the outboard on, he made a note of how the air matresses went around the back of the outboard, putting the outboard in the middle of the boat "like an inboard...high class," he said. LOL.

Anyway, back to the topic:

Here's a picture of my old I/O wake with 1400 lbs. of ballast:


It looks pretty good but I can tell you that if I put the same amount of weight in my 2001, the wake will launch me better, even though the gross weight of the boat/ballast is much lighter. It's really a mystery to me.

I can also attest to the speed holding advantage of inboards. With an 18-pitch 4-blade, my I/O did pretty well but it was still a little touchy. Hole shot was awesome but the speed was still prone to move around. My theory is that the flow through an inboard prop is more consistent than the flow through an I/O prop. An inboard has a narrow shaft and the water flows efficiently past it. It is also right next to the hull which may regulate the flow to some extent. There is not much room for variation in flow so with a certain throttle position, you're bound to settle on a steady speed. An I/O prop, on the other hand, leaves a big space behind it, opening the door to all kinds of variations in turbulence and aeration. This configuration is obviously good for top-end but I think it can be a little inconsistent. Of course, PerfectPass makes this issue irrelevant.

OK, back to the original topic:

Kyle, you can't know anything about the wake unless you just demo the boat, especially when dealing with a non-inboard. Since there aren't that many inboard manufacturers, all of the models have been thoroughly tested by wakeboarders and you can find a lot of information on them. With (literally?) hundreds of I/O manufacturers, there are just too many variations. You just can't find good information on the wakes so you have to go out there and see for yourself.
Old    Stephen Higgins (srh00z)      Join Date: Jun 2003       05-16-2005, 11:18 PM Reply   
I have owned both, and prefer my older ski boat, but we had a lot of fun with the I/O. A four blade prop helped alot with speed maintenance, but having the tow point in the center of the boat from the pylon or tower in my opinion helps alot more with holding your speed as the rider is not pulling the boat as much. There are tradeoffs with my DD Malibu, it has an old hull shape and is practically flat near the stern which equals a harsh ride, the I/O I have rides much better in choppy water conditions. Good luck in your choice.
Old    Stephen Higgins (srh00z)      Join Date: Jun 2003       05-16-2005, 11:21 PM Reply   
I should add that you should consider the beam of the boat when comparing wakes. Many I/Os have a wide beam and the wake is much wider than an older hull ski boat which tend to have narrow beams in comparison. We ride much farther back behind the Malibu than the I/O.
Old    Midwestwakeboarder.com (mjmurphy53711)      Join Date: Mar 2004       05-17-2005, 5:03 AM Reply   
im not sure i agree with that stephen.....i ride 70ft behind inboards (75 behind the xstar) and 70 behind gordons 19 ft. io with a 6ft beam.....and at 70 ft behind my dads 24ft io with an 8 ft beam......very different wakes, but dropping the downside of all of them none the less
Old    Bob (bob)      Join Date: Feb 2001       05-17-2005, 8:11 AM Reply   
I dont know Ryan it seems more people now seem to agree that an I/O can produce a good pull. You admit you have no experience behind an I/O that is as equally prepared as your V but go ahead and trash them "you can find plenty of older inboards down on the money that will blow the doors off a regal wake. save yourself the headache of having to upgrade in a year and start with the right boat, the first time"?? Im just glad i dont have to try to convince myself that i made a bad choice and should have spent an extra 10k or worse bought that mobius i was looking at in 2001 that rode harsh and could not produce the wake i have. Oh thats another thing for sure in favor of D and V is the resale value. See i still do point out the disadvantages. :-)
Oh another thing im not taking it personal im just trying to get this guy some information other than "oh dont but an I/O they suc". Ive been posting on here for a while now and have always said to have a decent wake behind an I/O you MUST add certain things that you also MUST add to an older D drive so the point is you could buy a newer I/O for the same price as an older D spend the same on upgrades to make it a wakeboard boat and have a boat that handles rough water better then most V drives. Disclaimer here is that i would not recommend buying an untested I/O hull for wakeboarding just like if you were looking for an older D you would do some research to find a better shape hull.
Old    ManFox (h20jnky)      Join Date: Mar 2003       05-17-2005, 8:55 AM Reply   
touche' bob...

i applaud your efforts with attempting to convert me and you definitely need to get out of the sim and start selling these things, you are relentless and would probably make a killing...

nevertheless, i will state it again, to each his own. and kyle, bob is right: demo demo, demo... find what best suites you!
Old    tod            05-17-2005, 2:18 PM Reply   
If you are serious about boarding go with an inboard. If you just want to put-around and throw a few inverts here and there go with the I/O. I have ridden behind all configurations of boats and an I/O (or any other type of boat) will never compare to an inboard no matter what you do to it. Yes, it will get the job done but for serious boarding they suck........ They were not designed to be tow boats and the wake was never a consideration when they were being built. Most ski/wake boats are designed around the desired wake, not cup holders and pedestal seats..................
Old    woody (bwood)      Join Date: Jul 2003       05-17-2005, 2:42 PM Reply   
Amen brother
Old    Bob (bob)      Join Date: Feb 2001       05-19-2005, 6:01 AM Reply   
Well then i hope you two wont be recommending any older inboards as they definitely werent "designed around the desired wake" , they were desgned around making NO wake??
Hey Woody do you actually ride on the delaware? When i was up there quite a few years back the water wasnt looking all that great near Bucks county (just outside Philly, i guess its now in Philly?). Is it cleaned up some?
Old    tod            05-19-2005, 6:44 AM Reply   
So bob, you must think the X-2 throws a horrible wake?? It's hull was originaly designed in the early 90s to be a flat ski wake or "making no wake." They later found out with a little weight it throws a great wake..........now considered by many to be one of the best ever.

With the proper setup any inboard old or new will always throw a better wake than an I/O............
Old    Greg Davis (vortech347)      Join Date: Aug 2000       05-20-2005, 12:57 PM Reply   
Man I can't believe I am posting in this thread. But here goes.

The reason all those old inboards throw such big clean wakes at boarding speeds is because they were designed to do so. Ever hear of trick skiing? Trick skiers like rampy, clean wakes for doing their tricks which include inverts. They weren't designing those boats for wakeboarding but they were designing them for wakeboarding's ancestor.
Old    Rio Morales (riothepimp)      Join Date: Mar 2003       05-20-2005, 6:34 PM Reply   
old ski boat with wait, the only way.

the Boss
Old    Boardingitup.com (wakeboard19)      Join Date: Apr 2005       05-21-2005, 8:44 AM Reply   
We test drove the regal and the 1990 mastercraft. The regals wake was much bigger. We would have to put a lot of wieght in the mastercraft but then we would have no room to move around at all. The mastercrafts side walls are too short. the more weight we put in the closer it would be to the water (scary).
Old    Midwestwakeboarder.com (mjmurphy53711)      Join Date: Mar 2004       05-22-2005, 8:25 AM Reply   
kyle thats fine, just keep in mind that the mc will have a much firmer wake....it takes a lot of tweaking to get an i/o not to be soft. either boat will need close to 2000 pounds. both can likely make a great wake.....until your throwing more techy stuff you will be fine either way. the consensus does ring true though....if you want the boat for just riding, go with the mc for sure. if you want a leisure boat, go with the regal and add some weight. it really is that simple.
Old    tribal            05-22-2005, 8:49 AM Reply   
So Mike how is it an inboard will produce a firmer wake?I didn't know a different drive train could change the composition of the water
Old    Nacho (denverd1)      Join Date: May 2004       05-22-2005, 12:33 PM Reply   
not pulling 1100 pounds of metal through the water may produce a firmer ride, though. None of you have never surfed, obviously.
Old    Deepcove (deepcove)      Join Date: Mar 2004       05-22-2005, 1:06 PM Reply   
The outdrive makes a huge difference in the composition of the water.
Old    elliott dye (habcaw_creek)      Join Date: Mar 2005       05-22-2005, 1:43 PM Reply   
i think everyone on this post is spoiled. i'v looked at the wake pic post that i started and everyones only getting 4-5 feet of air. i go behind my outboard and get 6-7 feet of air on average. my point is get better.no offense.
Old    ManFox (h20jnky)      Join Date: Mar 2003       05-22-2005, 1:56 PM Reply   
that's hilarious elliot!

i guess all i can say to a 14 year old is watch out for puberty... because once it hits and you put on a few pounds and grow two more inches, the 6-7' you're getting now will equate to the 4-5' the rest of us are getting...

get it while you can brother!

(Message edited by h20jnky on May 22, 2005)
Old    tribal            05-22-2005, 2:03 PM Reply   
Nacho,1100lbs?Last I checked my outdrive weighed no more than 100lbs.And I'm sure I've surfed a hell of a lot more in my life than you but that still doesn't tell me how it makes the water "harder".If you knew anything about surfing you would know the wake is all about water displacement from the hull,not the prop.
Old    tod            05-23-2005, 7:55 AM Reply   
I didn't think we were talking about surfing. The pics above sure do not look like surfing wakes. I have no idea what kind of surfing wake an I/O throws so I cannot comment. But I do know an I/O outdrive weighs much more than 100lbs. They didn't put those two hydraulic rams back there for nothing!!
Old    Nacho (denverd1)      Join Date: May 2004       05-23-2005, 8:26 AM Reply   
Sorry sean, let me clarify: You can lose limbs surfing behind your boat, but not behind mine. thats great that you've surfed "a hell of a lot more than me" Whatever that means...

Secondly, how ever much the damn thing weighs, I think the odds of producing a firmer wake are better if we don't have this awful hunk of steel w/ a prop on it (with exhuast coming out of the middle) ripping through the most important part of the wake = the hull displacement and the pressure it creates.

"you don't need an inboard to go wakeboarding" I couldn't agree more. so chill out just have fun!!
Old    tribal            05-23-2005, 9:24 AM Reply   
I thought we were talking about real surfing here and water dynamics, not wakesurfing.I surfed for many years before I ever wakeboarded and have a very good understanding on how waves in the ocean work.Salt water is harder than fresh [more bouyancy].But drive train affecting water hardness?I could see if it caused aeration and foaming of the wake but this isn't the case.
Sorry if I sound like a bitch but I've heard this comment about the wake being harder behind an inboard forever so I'm just looking for someone to clarify with some real facts, not hearsay, why this is true.
Old    tribal            05-23-2005, 9:27 AM Reply   
Oh and Chris I must be pretty strong then because I can lift my outdrive all on my lonesome no prob.I pull it on and off every year for maintenance.
Old    tod            05-23-2005, 10:27 AM Reply   
I forgot the 4.3L outdrives do weigh less..........
Old    tribal            05-23-2005, 11:55 AM Reply   
Actually it's a 5.0L.I guess they put those hydraulic rams back there because it's a little hard to trim the 100lb outdrive up with a rope while driving.
Old    Leo Lasecki (malibuboarder75)      Join Date: Jan 2004       05-23-2005, 8:15 PM Reply   
Nacho- true, you can land a ton of tricks behind any boat. I landed my first bs and fs hs 360 behind a boat with no ballast
Old    Midwestwakeboarder.com (mjmurphy53711)      Join Date: Mar 2004       05-24-2005, 7:31 AM Reply   
sean ride an i/o, then ride an inboard...they are firmer whatever physics may be involved. That said, everyone go ride and let this post die till the next one!

Reply
Share 

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 3:46 PM.

Home   Articles   Pics/Video   Gear   Wake 101   Events   Community   Forums   Classifieds   Contests   Shop   Search
Wake World Home

 

© 2012 eWake, Inc.    
Advertise    |    Contact    |    Terms of Use    |    Privacy Policy    |    Report Abuse    |    Conduct    |    About Us