V drive vs. I/O

Not bashing the choice of either, but just an inquisitive post. I am curious what it is about V drives that produce a superior wake to an I/O. I have a 23 foot Cobalt with 1400 pounds of ballast in a boat that weighs almost 4000 pounds. It produces what I think is a good wake that gets me plenty of hang time. The engine and drive are in the rear just like a V drive. So how does a V drive that is lighter all over produce a bigger wake? Is it the fact that most inboards are relatively flat at the stern vs an I/O having a deeper V all the way back? I am just curious is all.

I wouldn't say that the V hull hinders the wake, many of the inboards run a V shaped hull. I am not going to argue that a inboard wake is better that an I/O wake, as many will. However, the inboard wins in my opinion due to the speed and wake consistency. Now I say this on behalf of the few inboards I have drove vs the few I/O's. I have alway fought with the I/O throttle as to where in my boat it is easy to set a speed. Also the trim puts wake consistency out for the I/O. Very seldom will you have the trim in the same spot as last trip and you will be facing a slightly different wake every outting.

My Sanger is only 4° difference in the deadrise than your Cobalt, although some are much shallower. It's not the V as much as how smoothly the water exits the boat that makes an inboard a better wake boat. The wake from a Cobalt is usually pretty nice so I'm not trying to say anything negative about your boat or another I/O. The size of the wake is only related to the water displaced. It's the shape that matters when people buy a wake specific boat.
Your hull is designed to run fast and efficient at high speed, and that is helped by running a sterndrive. Your hull and mine, but not all inboards, are designed so they handle rough water well. My hull is designed so have a clean flow off the stern and stability tracking. That means mine gives up speed because it never lifts out of the water the way yours does. At a slower cruising speed that also makes the hull more efficient so my fuel economy is better than yours at 25-30 mph. (Although the Cobalt site makes some claims contradictory to that, they are factually wrong)

Simple answer is that in inboard's wake is not bigger given similar specs. It's just a better shape.

There is also less running gear in the water and no thru-prop exhaust churning things up, so the wake behind an inboard will always be firmer and easier to keep clean.

Take a look at the roostertails the two types of boats leave behind. An I/O leaves a flattened and washed out table of a roostertail, while the V drive or DD leaves a sharp mohawk looking rooster tail. The result is a much cleaner and much firmer wake. Granted that the exhaust disolved in teh water behind an I/O leave teh wake a bit mushy, I really feel that the majority of the cleanness comes from the hull design, most notably the flattened out lack of V in the rear. Now Im not sure what MB boats do to counter this since they have a pretty serious V at the stern.

After owning I/O's for 20 years, and an inboard for 10, I would say it's not so much the size of the wake, it's more of the cleanliness, shape, and consistency of of it. My sons were doing inverts and spins behind the I/O without a tower, so no argument there from me.
Here are a few reasons I prefer the inboard for towing :
Easier to maintain a steady speed (I do not have, nor want PP)
Much less space needed to turn around and pick up a fallen rider.
Safer around people in the water (although I always shut don the engine anyway when switching riders)
Much more maneuverable, and more fun to drive in general, wives and teens seem to have a much easier time driving and pulling people.
Much less and easier maintenance without the stern-drive.

I could go on, and I'm not bashing sterndrives.

(Message edited by rio_sanger on June 11, 2009)

Wakeboard boats were designed to sit in the water and displace it (i.e. - throw a wake), an I/O was designed to get up on top of the water so that it doesn't have to push as much. That's why wakeboard/ski boats only go ~40-45 and an I/O of comparable length and HP will probably go deep into the 50's.

Then how would you explain why tournament ski boats, which are designed to throw as little wake as possible, have a similar top speed as a wakeboard boat?

It has much more to do with the pitch of the prop. Pull boats are propped for low end grunt. Runabouts are designed for a combination of things, including top speed.

Inboards hold and stay on plane at wakeboard speeds better than an I/O also.

Yeah, my three-event brother’s 1988 ski nautique 20'01 dd never pulled a wakeboarder until after it was sold in 1998, and now that model’s a classic wakeboard boat. With semi-displacement hulls, tracking fins, and minimized underwater gear, wakeboard boats drive true anywhere from idle to 35-ish mph (faster still if wind-catching bimini and tower are taken down). No wallowing at that awkward, want-to-climb onto plane speed of i/o’s at wakeboard speeds. No chine rattling on turns. Stop on a dime when throttle pulled back to 10:30.

Still, there is always that vintage video of Scott Byerly in Massachusetts killing it behind an outboard-driven barefoot boat. So, anybody can make do with what they got.

(Message edited by John211 on June 11, 2009)

"Easier to maintain a steady speed (I do not have, nor want PP)"

X2, the only thing PP could do for my current boat is work the wheel and I don't think that feature is included yet.

"Wakeboard boats were designed to sit in the water and displace it (i.e. - throw a wake), an I/O was designed to get up on top of the water so that it doesn't have to push as much. That's why wakeboard/ski boats only go ~40-45 and an I/O of comparable length and HP will probably go deep into the 50's."

I am not bashing you, just correcting you. You sound as if you are under the impression that wakeboats plow, they do not. They ride on the water the same as any other boat and this is were you learn to appreciate the technology that goes into the hull to produce the wakes we have today. It really adds up to the fact that there is no substitute for ballast.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ouc1Fw0NKQ

I never said that they were designed to plow, I said they were designed to sit in the water and displace it. Plow to me would be the front end pushing all of the water. So is it not true that a wakeboard boat has more hull in the water??? If you weren't trying to get as much of the hull in the water as possible, what would the point of ballast be? The only way you are going to make a bigger wake is by putting more hull in the water.

How many v-drive wakeboard boats get up on plane and out of the water like an I/O and throw a big wake?

(Message edited by TimmyB on June 12, 2009)

Every one of these boats get on a plane. You have to be on a plane to even form a wake for boarding. The amount of ballast being ran is the only thing that will makes a wake hull sit deeper, so your statement is only true for a boat that has its ballast filled. The answer to you question is a lot. Slalom boats are designed to have the least amount of hull in the water. Many of the hulls used for slalom skiing are now wake hulls.

That is absolutely not true about the planing. Tige's are a non-planing hull for sure, not sure on the other makes.

Ballast is not the only thing that is different between the hulls and I'm sure the mfr's would die if they read that after spending tons of cash on research and development to make their hull put out the best wake. Look at the profile of a an X-Star/Malibu/Nautique/Tige/Supra VS a Bayliner/Crowline/Cobalt/Rinker etc and you will see the difference.

Timmy gets an F in hull design theory.

Sailboats and canoes are considered non-planing (displacement) hulls. Displacement hulls are more efficient at lower speeds, and planing hulls are more efficient at higher speeds.

Inboards do get on plane, they just keep more of the hull in the water when they do. Much like leaving the trim all the way down on a sterndrive all the way up to full throttle. An argument could be made that they are semi-planing hulls, but that's a gray area and they are definitely not displacement hulls.

Man you are getting ahead of yourself. I never said that the hulls were not different in design. However, I am correct when I say many of the great wake hulls came from slalom boats. I am glad that Tige has you fooled on what they call a non-planing design. It must be a real gas efficient boat.

I want a manufacturer to install a Pod drive on a wake hull. The draft would be much deeper than a regular inboard but it would be faster and even more manoeuverable than one of our boats are now. The package weighs about 1800# so it's a bit heavy but we all add weight some of the time don't we. Designed right you should even be able to adjust the trim.

On planing hulls. If the boat rises out of the water as it goes faster it is a planing hull. If the boat does not rise it is a displacement hull. That simple.
A regular sailboat will normally sink into the water as it goes faster but not Laser type sailboat. They too might be considered a semi-planing hull.

One thing I don't think anyone said yet is the direction of prop thrust. On an I/O it's horizontal trimmed all the way down, most people don't ride with them that way though. An inboard's prop thrust is actually pointed significantly down and thus are easier to weight for a good wake.

Yeah, my "theory" of wakeboard boats sitting deeper into the water to make a bigger wake, that's just crazy! Who would ever think that a wakeboard boat makes a bigger wake because it sits deeper in the water than an I/O. Guess I will take out my ballast bags now....

I like the pod drive idea, they look really cool and offer unbelievable maneuverability.

I see what you guys are saying. Its not that inboards make a bigger wake, they just make better wakes shapewise.

I just upgraded from an 18 ft. Chaparral to Malibu v-drive wakesetter. For me it has been night and day. Bigger wake, better handling.

Dang ya'll like to argue!

An outboard and an I/O are dramatically different in that when they get on plane, they are riding not just on their hulls, but also on the cavitation plate on the lower unit/outdrive. So, not only is less pressure on the hull (as some is distributed to the cavitation plate), but it also allows for outboard/outdrive trim. Trimming the outboard/outdrive essentially lifts the bow of the boat even further out of the water.

The point being, that outboards and outdrives are really all about getting the hull OUT of the water. Additionally, weight/pressure are shifted to the back of the boat. This is all done for efficiency - that is what those boats are about. The effective result of a more efficient design (which typically includes a deeper V hull design) is a smaller, washier wake. Not only that but, as these boats are trying to be efficient (as they are designed), they plane out out speeds around 20mph, making them more difficult to control for wakeboarding. On top of that, outboard/outdrives are NOT efficient at these slower speeds - the design just doesn't allow it.

Inboards (on the other hand) are like tractors - they are designed to pull, they have lots of torque (and are thus efficient at towing a rider and weight at slower speeds). The difference in props and tracking fins all help tremendously with this, but the result is that the pressure of the hull is distributed differently - it is spread out across the hull instead of moved to the back like on an outboard or I/O. This design keeps the hull (more so) IN the water, and displaces water evenly. That doesn't mean they don't plane, though. Inboard boats plane, and plane very quickly even though they don't have such noticeable indications of planing like an outboard or outdrive (like more dramatic bowrise) and even though they sit 'lower' in the water. Displacing the pressure across the entire hull is therefore beneficial for skiing (small, clean wake from even hull distribution) OR for wakeboarding (big, clean wake from even hull distribution when weighted). Hull design plays a big part, the torque from the different style prop plays a big part, but the difference in how the hulls distribute the pressure evenly while riding across the water is a key difference.

Oh, and taking the weight out of your boat has nothing to do with whether it planes or not...

Your all full of crap.

I am not arguing I am discussing. Brock that boat in your profile looks great!

Thanks craig,I think the difference is the wakeboat makes sacrifices for a better wake and the io is geared more for all around lake performance like top end and drivability.
Wakeboats are for wakeboarding and nothing else.

My experience with I/O's is that they are difficult to hold speed with. However, I've never been in or behind an I/O with Perfect Pass which I know is an option from many manufactures now.

You can wakeboard behind anything, but I'd rather ride behind a direct drive MC 190 with no ballast than any I/O I've ever been in.

With perfect pass the "holding speed" deal isn't an issue... We ride pretty much exclusively behind IO's (either my 232 Cobalt or Bob's 21 Monterey) and both have a sweet wake as far as I'm concerned. I've had some pretty good riders behind my boat and nobody has complained about my wake or said they couldn't get a trick because the wake wasn't up to par. For the area that we boat in an IO is the only way to go. The water can get pretty rough and my 232 does just fine in the rough stuff. The few v drives that I have been in around here will rattle your teeth out if the wind picks up. We are about 50/50 with riding and cruising, my OI does both fine. You can get a few sets in then cruise across the bay to the bar and back without needing to schedule an appointment with the chiropractor the next morning.

Centurion Avalanche's are amazing in rough water as well as 23 and 24 Malibu LSV's and every Tige I've been in were all great in rough water.

I can't comment on 22' boats and up, but from my experience I/Os ride way better than any 18'-21' inboard that I have rode in.

I hear that the PWT will be switching to SeaRay as the official towboat starting next year.

This thread is a nice comparison between apples and oranges.

I know they are apples and oranges, but a wake is a wake. My OP was trying to determine how a V drive that is weighted the same as my I/O can make a bigger wake. The answer is it doesnt, but it makes a better shaped wake that riders prefer.

V drive makes a harder wake. I/Os blow all the prop wash(air bubbles) into the wake making it mooshier.

I personally like oranges better.

I personally like oranges better.

What ARE the differences between apples and oranges?

^^^^^ Its kind of like comparing Vdrives to I/O's

I saw a study that rated watermelons as a much healthier fruit than apples or oranges. ...but does that mean we need to get 50' yachts now?

What does a grapple compare to in the boating world? Maybe a CSX!?