My Moomba Wake pics

im always in all the axis and moomba threads, but never have any pics to post so i thought id get these up to refer to.

2003 Moomba LSV
I have the stock ski locker 400 lbs sack full, and another external 400 lb sack sitting right on top of it on the floor.
ive got twin 750 sacks in the rear and they are both empty.
no one in the boat but 150 lb driver.
trim plate is 3/4 of the way up.
riding 65' line + 5' handle
we ride at 21.7-22.5 MPH

HS


TS


my amatuer ass getting booted







when we fill the rear 1500 lbs the wake gets rediculous. its huge, nice and lipy yet always clean. we never use it. we use the left sac for surfing, and never use the right. i dont have any pics of the wake with the rear sacks full.

again one thing i love is how easy it is to setup. the wake is clean down to 16-18mph for beginers, and still clean fully sunken and normal riding speed. i also love how little ballast the boat needs. no denying ive seen bigger wakes, but they usually are 3 times the amount of ballast too. lb for lb of ballast id put the my moomba against any world class flagship from the big 3.

anyway not wanting to do any chest beating for moomba, just always see these threads and never see any moomba example pics posted.
im paying this thing off this winter and plan to upgrade to a newer LSV or Axis. love them both.

Didn't know you guys dont fill the rear sacs when I rode with you. I'm use to getting a little more kick of the lip on my XLV but my XLV doesn't have a clean wake on both sides below 22mph. I guess with the deeper freeboard more planing speed is required thus the more wash a lower speeds. My wake is getting easier to dial in for me now though. I'd be curious to see how the newer Moomba LSV wake is at lower speeds. We need to make friends with the couple of new LSV Moombas we see on the lake and get a pull. Isn't the '03 LSV the same hull as the now Outback V?

If y'all ever wanna try out a new LSV we have an 08 and me and my brother are always down to ride. We usually ride on the brazos either at tin top or hamm creek, but wouldn't mind making a trip down south if we had somebody to show us around.

Must be tough to drive and frame pics nicely at the same time.

naa thats easy. now filming and driving is tough. we did both our "last ride" vids that way. you can see them both in the 2010 last ride thread. only had one close call. turned around and the boat was headed right for a rock cliff, only about two boat lengths away. yanked the wheel and saved it just in time. my heart was friggin racing!

Wake looks great. Hopefully you learned your lesson and have a spotter/photographer next time before you hurt someone else......

thanks. it was cold. we had the lake to ourselves. i dont think we saw another boat all afternoon and evening.
but point taken. need to have a freind come on board and help for safety sake. we just can never find anyone as dedicated as we are that we can count on. so we always just go alone.

Originally Posted by stang_killa_ss

thanks. it was cold. we had the lake to ourselves. i dont think we saw another boat all afternoon and evening.
but point taken. need to have a freind come on board and help for safety sake. we just can never find anyone as dedicated as we are that we can count on. so we always just go alone.

You know you guys can borrow me or Vanessa to video (as long as Audrey doesn't do her epic 90 min sets). I don't want to get the phone call..."hey, A.J., can you bring your boat and pull us off the rocks."

LOL #1, you know audrey will always do her epic sets hahahaha
"one more time" is her famous line....50 times in a row...

yeah i dont want to make that call either

Why no weight in the back at all?

doesnt need it. imo. i like a ballanced boat, both when driving and riding.(ie the front ballast and rear motor are equal weight) front weight makes the wake smooth and rampy, and makes driving and coming out of the hole so easy. im sure saves a bit of gas too.
if i want more lip i just bump the trim up more, or slow down the PP a hair. i could also slide the front external sack back a hair too i suppose.

ill have to try filling the rears 1/3 to 1/2 full and see if we like it any better, and if its worth the gas and time to on-plane trade off.

are you saying you haven't ever filled them or that you like it better without them filled?

Cory and Audrey rarely fill their rear ballast...seems weird but that's their preferred wake. Their boat does ride pretty nose high when planing and actually felt bow high when at speed the 3 times I've been a passenger/rider so I can see his concern on weighting the rear alot. Their boat is an 03 Moomba LSV which is today's Outback hull. While I'm used to my larger XLV wake, his boat is friendly on the knees on cased landings. I honestly think they could fill the rear more and slide the external sack from the middle of the boat to actually in the bow and/or add even more bow weight to compensate for the rear while maintaining a level ride.

thanks aj

yes jeff im actually saying both. weve only filled the rears like two times. and i like it better without the rears filled.
this is the pre 06 hull which is 20'-6" (the 06+ hull is 21'-6") which is why it takes so little weight to get a nice wake. its simple physics, less wet hull area will require less weight to "sink". thats why 23' boats require so much ballast.

this coming summer ill try filling the rears a bit. i want to try riding faster so ill need more weight to compensate. i seriously doubt ill ever fully fill the rears for all 1500lbs its just too much.

for the first year we rode with only 400(stock) in the front ski locker and the trim only 1/4 of the way up at 21.7. it was nice and more lippy and actually slightly bigger(taller) than the pics above. but i would say it was also softer, and less predictable pop with a more vertical boot.

Originally Posted by stang_killa_ss

thanks aj

yes jeff im actually saying both. weve only filled the rears like two times. and i like it better without the rears filled.
this is the pre 06 hull which is 20'-6" (the 06+ hull is 21'-6") which is why it takes so little weight to get a nice wake. its simple physics, less wet hull area will require less weight to "sink". thats why 23' boats require so much ballast.

this coming summer ill try filling the rears a bit. i want to try riding faster so ill need more weight to compensate. i seriously doubt ill ever fully fill the rears for all 1500lbs its just too much.

for the first year we rode with only 400(stock) in the front ski locker and the trim only 1/4 of the way up at 21.7. it was nice and more lippy and actually slightly bigger(taller) than the pics above. but i would say it was also softer, and less predictable pop with a more vertical boot.

I had the same hull/boat for 2.5 years and I slumped the **** out of it and loved it with more weight.. 2500+

You are right about one thing though - there is a "sweet spot" with that hull.. I think about 1000 lbs is nice but between 1000-2000 it doesnt' become very awesome and then when you slam it it gets huge and shaped nice.. Kind of weird - defies normal thoughts on weighting but I get it..

I liked it with 1k or with 2500+ <--- emphasis on plus

And yes, if you're going to fill the boat with ballast - you need to be riding between 23-24mph.. That was the sweet spot.. 3k lbs and 24mph..

I miss that boat. Moomba >*

Got any pics of it with all that weight I bet that thing was riding low.

Originally Posted by bzubke1

Got any pics of it with all that weight I bet that thing was riding low.

I'll dig around.. We slumped the **** out of it many a time.. It was so weird though - we'd like the wake with 750-1000 and then a few times we had a few buddies bring some more sacks and ride like 2000 lbs and it would suck but it would liven up at 2500+.. So odd..

I'll look for pics.