OMG!!!!!

Check out the pic
http://www.wake.com.au/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&t=8634

anyone see a pic?

Hey Ed, I think you have to register, confirm and then log in to see any images. IMHO, the referenced picture is not really worth all the effort, unless you want to support wake.com.au, OR goofy footers around the world.

Sorry guys forgot about needing to register
heres the pic you can make your own calls on whether it's worth it. I did think some of the other pics on here had a small wakesurf wake by comparison to this

that's pretty impressive for a 210. i've seen stuff like that behind enzos and 'bus, especially the new 247, but never behind a ski antique.

(Message edited by madchild1 on January 09, 2006)

I say Goofy Footers Unite!

Yup, that photo is worth it!
Thanks.

Ed G
Clermont, Fl

where they test the boats!

Surfdad,
Like I said you have a huge goofy foot bias. Can't we all just get along.
Dennis

Dennis, Dennis, Dennis! My Tige throws the best "wrong side" wake you've ridden!

Jeff,
You are the man when it comes to makin wake for surfing. You put every other wake i've seen to shame. I just can't really remember what it feels like. When are you going to go back to the liquid water instead of solid water?

Hey Dennis, you haven't checked the weather lately...I think all that snow is turning INTO water!!!!

I am not particularly impressed by this pic for a number of reasons. The goofy foot isn't the deal, contrary to what my good friend Dennis believes.

First and foremost, I believe the individual in the bow is riding in an unsafe manner. I don't believe that the driver could make a course change or shut the boat down in time to avert the guy's death, should he fall overboard. Those who know me, know I abhor that sort of activity associated with our sport.

Further, my experience with a 21 foot boat is that when you create a wave that tall, you give up the pocket length. My guess is that the wave in this picture probably has a usable pocket of less than 12 feet. Also if you look at the transition, it's incredibly steep...part of the trade off for a TALLER wake. I could be wrong, but for the most part, UBER tall waves give up pocket length.

You'll notice the "trick" being performed in this picture is...uuum, standing up? No reflection on the rider, he could very well be superlative. I don't believe a wave of this shape lends itself well to riding hard or performing higher level tricks.

The folks at Inland Surfer have a very nice picture of their Enzo...the pocket is about 23 feet long. That allows you to pump up into the lip and catch air...surface spins can exceed 3's and there is more running length for things like a big spin.

This picture of James had a pocket length approaching 30 feet.



IMO, the BEST wave has a pocket length of 22 plus feet usable (no curling, no swimdecks), is in the area of 3 plus feet high, doesn't require a boat speed of more than 10.5 mph and has a transition that is as wide as the wave is high (not too steep).

Length matters

Not wanting to hijack, but speaking of safety...

Jeff, I was given a wakesurf rope for christmas. This rope has no handles, just thick braiding at the end to hold on to. Is this rope designed to be used on a pylon located where your is? Mine is right next to the driver and puts the rider pretty close to the swim platform. I'd say about five feet behind the deck.

Jeff how much weight are running on that side of the boat and what is the trim tab position

Jeff, you seem to be in the know on this stuff. I just tried wakesurfing for the first time last month when I was invited to ride with the Butinskys. It was great fun so I recently gave it a try with my 92' Ski Nautique (yer std slalom boat). I had about 1800# in it and was able to ride without the rope for about 30 secs on my neighbors surf board (bout a 6 footer). With a bit more practice I could probably go for a long time.

However your talk about pocket length makes me wonder if I can set up my boat to increase the length. I'm as close to the boat as the guy in the first picture. That 6' surf board is about to ride onto the swim platform.

Hey Ed,

I run my rope off the tower, not so much for safety, but us old folks find it easier from that position. I was amazed at the difference between the pylon and tower locations. I'm with you on the rope length...too much and it feels like you can get it wrapped around yourself and too little and it puts the rider up on the swim deck.

For the life of me I can't remember where we were, but it was a competition and they did something smart, they added a length of rope to the handle and then TIED the rope off so that length was "just right". Although I think it's less of a risk with the handleless rope like you have, if it's adequate in length.

Do you like that rope, Ed?

Hey Scotty,

I had the folks at Fly High make me up a custom sac for my 23V. Theoretically it holds 1300 pounds, completely hidden, then we add another 250 on the bench seat either with a fat buddy or passengers.

I mess with the TAPS setting throughout the day as we burn gas. When the tank is full at the beginning of theday, TAPS is usually set around 3 to 4, then as we use the gas up, I end up adjusting TAPS to close to 6. I also dropped the pitch on the prop last year, which interestingly enough, did affect the shape and size of the wake a bit.

I try and keep an eye on the curl at the back of the pocket, when I can see it "creeping back" I bump TAPS up a bit.

Hey John,

Thanks for the props. In my experience with my Tige and the various boats I've ridden behind, I do believe there are some universal truths.

The FASTER you go with your boat, the longer the pocket will be, at the expense of height. Conversly, slower boat speed equates to shorter pocket and more height.

Also, more weight on the side being surfed will increase the height of the wave and often times will (not always) shorten the usable pocket.

One of the best wakes I have surfed behind was on a 24V Tige. The boat was loaded to capacity with people and they just shifted a few folks to clean the wake up on one side or the other. The wake on BOTH sides of the boat was clean and pretty much the same (within a few inches). The point being that the MAJORITY of the weight was distributed over most of the entire boat, not just the one side.

John, how much do you weigh? I built a board for my good friend Dennis, he's about 250 pounds. That board was 6'2" and like you say, it was right on the transom. I started watching him and really he didn't need that much length. Literally a foot was never in the water (unless he buried the nose ) So we shaped him one that is 5'2" long, but close to 3" thick. It would be helpful to know your weight and the thickness of that 6 foot shortboard.

nice wake in the first picture but i see 3 tickets waiting to happen.

I had my weight distributed because I was also wakeboarding. I'll have to play with putting it in different places and play with the speed.

I weight about 160 (although gaining fast because of winter and gummybears). I'm planning to get a wakesurf board. The Coex caught my eye. I was only using the neighbors surfboard because that's all we had. Burying the nose was a problem with us too.

Just wait kids......the 247 is on order......

Jeff, yes I do like that rope. Took some getting used to the proper grip so the boat didn't pull the rope out of your hands.

I gotta get you some pix of my wake. I need help.

I have been wanting to tie off an old rope for a long time and remove the handle.
What is the length I should be at?
I was going to triple it then tie it in thirds for some substance.

the rope I have is 16 feet long.

Yeah, I think that is about what I am running also...+/- around 20 feet. Hey Ed, what sort of "help" did you need with your wake? Maybe you could start a new thread...although there isn't much activity in this forum either way.

Hey John,

If I may, I would recommend demo'ing the Coex before plunking down any hard-earned $'s. I know that there are a few folks that rave about that board here on WW, but I wasn't that impressed. It seemed to me to be a poor cross between a skim style board and a surf style board. The soft or round rails didn't really bite well and the single fin gave it little drive. As a skimstyle board, it was pretty thick and I think could have used harder, sharper rails to toss tricks. It felt like it was a convoluted design...sort of trying to appeal to both styles, but...not well. Just my 2 cents worth.

I need help in getting the right shape and height wake for surfing.

Given that I'm doing everything by trial and error, I still haven't gotten the right wake to let go of the rope for more than a second or two.

Last weekend I had the best ride riding directly in the middle and way up top...until my board took off and ended up on the swim platform!

I just need someone to take a look at what I call my best wake and give me suggestions.

Last time out I put both 600 lb bags in-line and along the side of the boat on the drivers side.

e

what kind of boat ed????

Justin meet Ed, Ed, Justin. I think you two might have something in common.

LOL!

Man, I didn't think that photo was gonna get around so much! Last week a Skiers Choice guy saw the photo on the "sucky Supra thread" and wrote me to see if I minded if they printed the photo in their Moomba Maniacs newsletter.

I always liked the logo and thought it would make a cool tattoo. I turned 50 at the same time I was involved in the planning of the 1st Moomba Owners Jamboree and figured - what the heck...a wakeboarding kangaroo tattoo for my mid life crisis.

Justin, I have a 2003 Moomba Outback (base model).
No factory ballast at all. Very smooth wake for slalom skiing, non existant wake for surfing.

Hey Ed, That midlife crisis is just too much fun to pass up! On to the task at hand. You ride with the wrong foot forward...errrr, I mean goofy footed If I am NOT mistaken the outback is a direct drive, instead of a V-drive.

You should have adequate freeboard to weight that puppy...the problem is possibly available space on the starboard side.

As a general rule of thumb: when you load up the boat for surfing you want to have as a goal, getting the rubrail in the starboard rear corner as close to the water as possible, when not moving. IMO, this USUALLY gives the best balance in wave size and shape.

When you go out, how close do you get the rubrail, on that side, to the water? Is there available space either in the starboard locker or on the floor behind the driver to add additional ballast to your current configuration?

I believe that my rub rail is about 5-6 inches above the water. The fuel filler tube and vent is on the starboard side and that makes me a little nervouse about weighting that side down too much.

Not much room between driver and storage locker. My two bags (each 51" long) will not fit end to end.

I don't want to add weight onto the plastic fuel tank which is under the "gull wing" storage area.

Can one surf goofy footed on the port side? That may solve some of my problems and allow me to get the rub rail closer to the water level.

Yes! Another convert! Surfing on the port side for you is possible, it's referred to as backside. As you can imagine, in the ocean a wave can break right or left and so ocean surfers learn to surf both frontside and backside (or go home ). It will take a little bit to get oriented to surfing backside. If you look at the Inland Surfer intro DVD, you can see Mark Sher suring backside and doing a 360, also.

You might try and load the boat up on the port side and then let us know what you think.

I know that the gas tank vent is a common problem for some folks, even if it's father forward there is some risk of water entering the tank.

I've been bugged by it enough to consider relocating the vent. Then I started to think what ELSE could I do instead. I know that an old trick is to put a loop in the vent hose running from the tank to the thru-hull, but that still allows water to get in. I found the following diagram and anti-surge valves "somewhere" online, but can't remember where now.

With the loop and two anti-surge valves I think you can pretty much eliminate all water entering the tank.

Anti-Surge Valves (depicted in diagram):

http://www.boatersworld.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/ProductDisplay?storeId=10051&catalogId=10051&langI d=-1&productId=715128&bct=t249085%3Bc300838%3Bc3433 70

let me get this straight. For me, surfing backside would be surfing on the port side with the right foot forward?

I'm willing to do try that! I'm so one sided I can't even get up on a slalom ski with my left foot forward.

Nice illustration!

e

Yep, you've got it Ed. Still riding goofy footed, but your BUTT is towards the wave. Personally, I've found the transition easiest when I make a mental "note" of where the nose of my board is relation to the transom and then try and place it there on the other side of the boat. All of your visual cues will be off because you are facing away from the wave.

Also, if you ride on the starboard side of the boat with your toes closer to the rail than your heels, you'll need to "reverse" that on the port side. That is to say, place your heels a bit closer to the rail and wave on the port side.

Just a little fiddling and you'll get down.

Hey Rich (rson) or anyone with a 'bu 247 on order. Went to the boat show yesterday, there is a warning label on the starboard side rear storage comparment that reads something to the effect of: "Not intended for ballast, do not store more than 75 pounds inside". WTH? False floor or just a manufacturer being protective? Plan to blow that warning off or is the wake adequate with factory ballast?

Dennis and I saw a ton of boats with false floors, apparently made of 3/8" plywood , above a hard tank. You should have seen the salesman's face when Dennis asked: "Can you put 1300 pounds of ballast on that?"

Dennis noticed that the X-Star had the most potential for adding a LOT of aftermarket ballast for a surf wave. The entire port side from the rear compartment forward to the storage behind the observers seat is open. Plus that boat has a ton of freeboard. Anyone loaded an X-Star with ballast for surfing? Got pic's you can post?

Last years LSV and VLX had the same label....it is to prevent people from filling sacs w/o filling the MLS first. Trust me we had more than 1300 pounds on it no problem.