Articles
   
       
Pics/Video
       
Wake 101
   
       
       
Shop
Search
 
 
 
 
 
Home   Articles   Pics/Video   Gear   Wake 101   Events   Community   Forums   Classifieds   Contests   Shop   Search
WakeWorld Home
Email Password
Go Back   WakeWorld > >> Wakeboarding Discussion Archives > Archive through August 20, 2005

Share 
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old    jayazz            07-21-2005, 7:55 AM Reply   
simple question, why are inboard engines so much better than outboards?
Old     (wakedoctor)      Join Date: Dec 2004       07-21-2005, 8:27 AM Reply   
Twice the horse power, less noise (unless its a 4-stroke), better wake (they are heavy), and they run better because the motor sits the right way not turned on its side.
Old     (whitlock87)      Join Date: Feb 2005       07-21-2005, 8:27 AM Reply   
Power
my understanding is that and outboard and a I/O have a lot more power loss through ther gears then a DD or VD has
Old     (wakedoctor)      Join Date: Dec 2004       07-21-2005, 8:30 AM Reply   
Oh yeah, alot safer too because the prop is under the boat. I like my toes and don't want to loose one climbing up the side of an outboard the accidently got turned on.
Old    jayazz            07-21-2005, 8:55 AM Reply   
for power, a 3.0 mercruiser gives 140 hp what size inboard do you guys use?

and a 2 stroke has far more torque than a four stroke, looking back at my Karting and motorbiking gays
Old    wakemark            07-21-2005, 9:03 AM Reply   
There are many reasons, here is a partial listing:

1) The "driving force" of an inboard boat is positioned underneath the boat, typically 6 inches to a foot in front of the transom thus helping the boat track more consistantly when the rider/skier pulls on the rope to cut away or towards the wake. Having the propulsion set behind the transom such as an outboard or an I/O configuration allows for less stability when the rider or skier "cuts" causing the nose of the boat to be redirected (remeber, the rope is a "lever" and the longer the lever, the more force is applied. 175 lb. rider 75 feet behind the fulcrum point = a bunch of force being exerted)

2) With outboard and I/O configurations the exhaust is typically routed through the inner hub of the propeller. This causes a "whitewash" effect at the lip of the wake, right where the rider needs the most pop or support while loading the line. With inboard boats the exhaust is routed through the transom and while at speed, these exhaust ports are out of the water and have no effect at all on the wake or water distribution from the aft portion of the boat.

3) Dovetailing with both of these ideas is the fact that the last thing effecting the water that is "pushed around" by a boat on an outboard is the propeller. This causes a generally "soft" feel to the water that comprises the wake due to extreme turbulence of a spinning propeller. With an inboard configuration, the turbulence of the propeller is somewhat negated by the fact that the last thing the water "touches" before leaving the boat is the nice clean edge of the boat where the transom and rear of the hull meet. A great deal of hull design focuses on this aspect, and most of the major manufacturers have their own unique designs that help manipulate the wake in order for maximum performance.

4) Torque, torque torque! While the smaller engine sizes of an outboard motor make impressive horsepower figures using high rpm's and high compression ratios, there is no substitute for displacement when it comes to producing torque. The good old American V8 engine configuration is irreplaceable for this formula and is the industry standard in water sports tow boats. These engines would be too heavy and too bulky to mount aft of the transom. Torque is what counters all of the forces that are applied as the rider pulls hard in to the wake. A torquey engine requires less throttle input to maintain a constant speed. More torque = less rider "hissy-fits" about speed.

This is a mere sample of the reasons why inboard boats are better for towable water sports. I hope these answers help and I welcome any corrections or adjustments from anyone in regards to these theories.
Old    trout            07-21-2005, 9:05 AM Reply   
I wouldnt call them better overall. they are better for wakeboarding and water sports. Now where I live, they would not be considered better - im in salt water and rough water, sandbars, being able to trim up and raise the outdrive is needed, etc.

they are awesome but not 'better' for all water conditions.
Old    wakemark            07-21-2005, 9:09 AM Reply   
Wow, I wrote a freakin term paper....sorry 'bout that.....I am really slow here at work and I wanted to stretch my brain.
Old     (whitlock87)      Join Date: Feb 2005       07-21-2005, 9:12 AM Reply   
M y 5.7 puts out 340 hp
Also a lot of the lakes in my area don’t allow 2 stroke (No jet skis)


(Message edited by whitlock87 on July 21, 2005)
Old    jayazz            07-21-2005, 9:15 AM Reply   
well thankyou for that excellant summary, i am going to go right outside, rip my donk out of my suburban and shoe horn it into my maxum

happy boarding
Old     (thirdgear)      Join Date: Jul 2005       07-21-2005, 9:16 AM Reply   
No need to apologize m_johnson. I ride behind an I/O and found your analysis interesting/informative/accurate. Thanks!
Old    jayazz            07-21-2005, 9:19 AM Reply   
i would give it 10/10 i read it all the way through
Old    wakemark            07-21-2005, 9:28 AM Reply   
Thanks Jay and Austin.

Austin, Go longhorns! I have a friend in Austin that manufactures binding lube. It is called Toe Jam and it is all natural and adds nothing but vegetable products to your waterways. Not only is it eco-friendly, it washes off immediately so you don't slip around. Check it out if you can.
Old     (jdaviso1)      Join Date: Jul 2004       07-21-2005, 10:11 AM Reply   
Great explanation m johnson! My boat is powered by a 200HP Mercury V-6 (two stroke). In addition to m johnson's post, I would add that two-strokes do not like to run at low RPMs. My two-stoke is not happy idling around a lake trying to get someone out of the water. (It is happy running wide-open at 60+ MPH ).

~J.
Old     (fhu667)      Join Date: Oct 2004       07-21-2005, 11:02 AM Reply   
wakemark- Great explanation. Didn't know that Toe Jam was manufactured in Austin. Looks like I have a new binding lube.
Old    wakecastle            07-21-2005, 11:35 AM Reply   
Great post m, I ride behind an outboard as well and I found your explanation answered some of my questions. However, I'm in the same situation as trout. I ride in salt and have sandbars and reefs everywhere (Hawaii). I would prefer a more wakeboard specific boat, but for this environment my 2-stroke outboard rocks. With the trim up and some ballast it makes a very respectable wake. Like you said though, it is different on the lip of the wake. Good observation!
Old    trout            07-21-2005, 12:19 PM Reply   
yeah, rough salty conditions kinda niche the real wakeboat idea. we'll just have to make due with what we got, my i/o serves me well for now.

I love my 5.7L 345hp...of course it powers my truck though, would be nice in a boat.
Old     (joeshmoe)      Join Date: Jan 2003       07-21-2005, 11:25 PM Reply   
anyone greese the u-bolt fittings on a I/o ?
i love my inboard and probably would never go back
Old    260searay            07-22-2005, 2:57 AM Reply   
I have a 454 with 340 but its slow because the boat is 26' and weighs 4,500lbs.
Old     (kolibri)      Join Date: Sep 2002       07-22-2005, 3:33 AM Reply   
I run a 16' bowrider (800pounds only) with a Yamaha F80. (four stroke outboarder) pro riders tell me my wake is enough for most of the triks... It always depends upon so many factors how the boat-rider-wake system looks, it's impossible to generalize. one thing is for shure, a good rider can do many triks behind any kind of boat... :-))
Old     (whitlock87)      Join Date: Feb 2005       07-22-2005, 5:21 AM Reply   
There is one thing that has not been brought up yet.
With my 20’ 340hp V-drive I can get Large ballast people out of the water.
A buddy of mine has a bayliner I/O I think it has around 200hp. There is no way I can get up behind his boat. But with my ERA147 board and my little boat, my wife can get me out of the water in about 3’
Les dragging time real help with us healthy people.
Old     (kolibri)      Join Date: Sep 2002       07-22-2005, 6:17 AM Reply   
we mesured 500 pounds of tow force during starts on my 16-footer with 80 HP I/O... It isn't question of power, it's question of engine torgue and prop size...
Old     (whitlock87)      Join Date: Feb 2005       07-22-2005, 7:11 AM Reply   
358lbs torque with a acme 537 prop
13.5 X 16 four blade and i have a wot of 48mph
Old    jayazz            07-22-2005, 11:17 AM Reply   
I have just invested in a propulse prop, it is a four blade adjustable system, between 16' and 20', it also has replaceble blades, i have read good reviews, but the proof is in the testing, when i recieve and test, i will give my own opinion, i have a 17" maxum with a 2 sroke yam 140,
Old    wakecastle            07-22-2005, 12:25 PM Reply   
Jay,
I have nearly the same setup. I've been using the propulse prop for a year now. You will NOT be disappointed. It's awesome. There isn't a rider I can't pull up and I can load the boat down! It saves me on gas too, I hit plane a lot faster. I have an 18 ft SS with a 115 yammy 2 stroke, 600 lbs. of ballast and the same prop you have.
Old    jayazz            07-22-2005, 1:03 PM Reply   
awsome, thats just what i wanted to hear, what sort of ballast are you using, and is that with people on board?

I usually have four on board with one in tow, I have not been using any ballast, I was going to try sandbags befor investing in water sacs, what is your wake like?
Old    wakecastle            07-22-2005, 1:19 PM Reply   
I need to take a picture of it, however it is respectable. When I had my 3 blade, I couldn't weight the boat down and it took forever to get on plane (17 pitch), now I have a 350lb. fat sac in the ski locker, and a 350 under the back seats. I usually have between 3 and 6 people on the boat. When I have six, I only partially fill the rear bag. I weigh 190 lbs. and with that many people on the boat, it still yanks me right up.

The other nice thing about that prop is that the blades are totally replaceable (about $20 each) and are designed to shatter if you hit something. The hub will remain in tact and prevent you from damaging your drive shaft. I have proven this twice now....I live in Hawaii and have reefs and sandbars everywhere.

So, I suggest you purchase a couple of extra blades to keep on the boat, just in case you hit something. This way you can get yourself home. I nailed a reef trying to pull a buddy out of trouble, it shattered all four blades. I was foolish enough not to have spares on board and had to get towed in. If you have spares, it takes about 5 minutes to put them on and you can motor home on two blades without worrying about imbalancing your drive shaft.

I'll take a picture of the wake this weekend and send it to you. I'm sure you'll be happy with the new prop...congrats.
Old     (ryan_shima1)      Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Layton, Utah       07-23-2005, 11:23 AM Reply   
Trout,
Why would you say an I/O is better in salt water? Is it more of the sandbar conditions (ability to trim up) or are you referring to the salt water itself?

I've run wakeboard tournament boats in salt water for years without problems. Yes, you need to soap wash everything afterwards and fresh water flush the motor but you have to do that on any type of boat. Not trying to cause an argument, just trying to understand where you're coming from.

The only thing else with salt water is you need to add more ballast to the boat to get the same size wake you would in fresh water because the water is more bouyant. Because salt water is faster too, I tend to ride about 1mph slower then I would on fresh water and the landings are definitely harder on salt.

I mainly ride on indboards but have gotten a tow behind an I/O every now and then. If it's weighted right for the engine power, the wakes are usually decent for riding IMO.

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 8:52 PM.

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

 

© 2019 eWake, Inc.    
Advertise    |    Contact    |    Terms of Use    |    Privacy Policy    |    Report Abuse    |    Conduct    |    About Us