RE: have you noticed thread

Well I have to chime in on this one....

it seems as if many of you want improved hulls, with less bling, and an affordable boat...

This is basically Tige's philosophy. Tige has dedicated it's R&D to improve wake without the use of ballast. Although ballast is still offered as an option, performance shows that it is not required. I strongly feel that the future of wakeboarding wont include putting 1500-2500lbs of ballast into your boat. The future of this industry will be disgning better hulls that rely on their shape to dteremine wake.

I will try to make this less of a sales pitch, but forgive me if i get carried away...

Just think, if you could get rid of ballast and still have an incredible wake wouldnt you want it? Seriously, who likes losing storage space, burning more gas due to the added weight in the boat, losing performance, having to wait for the tanks to fill, having to replace impellers in the ballast pumps, having to fix broken ballast guages, etc etc etc.

I know from experience that ballast tanks can be very frustrating. I can only assume that in a couple of years, maybe a little more that we will no longer be filling our boats up with water to increase our wake size.

i disagree. even if, somehow, a boat could be made to throw out an unweighted wake bigger and better-shaped than any slammed wake we have now, people will still add ballast to it. there's no such thing as big enough

If you’re displacing water to make a wake you’re going to burn gas, try convince me otherwise. How’s that going to work for wakesurfing, where you need unbalanced left to right ballast?

I think there's a Tige’ dealership in Ohio, maybe Dayton, I rarely see one on the water. I don’t get many (any) chances to ride other boats, I’d love to ride behind one sometime, but my interval between new boats has been 13 years so I wouldn’t want to get anyone’s hopes up. More power to Tige’ if they can compete without ballast. Doesn’t epic make a similar hull claim, in addition to ridiculous ballast?

Each company tries to identify some technology edge in there hull design. I spent a little time at the February boat show on a CC Team 226, nice boat. They have some kind of plate under the boat that modifies the wake, but I didn’t look at the plate. The salesman told me that the early hull designs for slalom skiing had a design feature to round the wake, which is bad for wake boarding. The newer hull has a plate to take this roundness out of the picture. My apologies if I haven’t described this feature adequately, feel free to correct me here.

Assume every manufacture will say their hull is special; here are the other wake enhancers that I know of:
Mastercraft –
Malibu – wedge
Tige’ –
Centurion – wake plate, and switch blade
Supra – wake plate
CC – plate thing, sorry I don’t know what it’s called
MB – massive ballast
Epic – really massive ballast
Sanger –
Calabria -

Tige uses the TAPS system...basically a shaper. Tige's are heavier than average boats of the same length because of the wood stringers, so ballast is not a big deal. On the ballast topic....I feel like there will always be a weight or ballast option out there. Why? There are too many people coming into the sport new....once you get a larger, more diverse crowd, the more preferences you'll have. No matter what boat companies do to shape hulls....there will always be two people who like that boat....ONE that wants to go higher W2W that PB on a double up.....and another guy that want a leaner ramp that will put him so far out in the flats, he may actually pass the boat.

Technically, the wakeplate is more than just a wake shaper. In the Tige, the boat is designed for the back to sit lower in the water which is good for wakeboarding, but really bad for skiing. So if you adjust taps, it pushes the back up at speed to flatten the wake. Supra does something similar, but I think their hull still has the "hook" which is designed to lift the boat up anyway. Couple that with a wakeplate ans the supra should throw a nice crossover wake. Nautique used the "hydrogate" which does something similar to Tige. It effectively removes and adds the hook to the hull to either lift or let the hull ride lower.

I spent a lot of time on the Tige at the show, it is a very nice boat. Not all blinged out like an X2 for example...but also significantly less expensive. When I am ready, Tige will be on the short list.

good thing about ballast is you can add the weight and not tow the weight, but with tige you have to tow a 1,000 more pounds i would say it gets ya in gas mileage on the road.

I wonder then, why does Tige Team rider Keith Lyman continually burn his trannys from putting so much weight in his Tige? I guess they don't need any additional weight... Any Tige I've ever been in has needed weight to make a sick wake. A friend has a 22i and it needs at least 2k to make the shape and thickness acceptable (Taps around 4). Taps is not the end all tool, it helps but in no way does it replace ballast. It may be suffecient for the family and beginner/intermediate riders, but start doing spins & inverts and a stock Tige WILL NOT CUT IT!!

Good shameless plug though, kudos.

You guys are right, there is a tendency to push the weight thing on all boats. Travis Moye's X-star was running pretty close to 3000# last year, and Gerry Nunn's LSV had pretty close to 5000#...Keith was there riding that particular week.

Personally I don't tow my boat so the extra 1000# in weight is an asset. Most people here who tow do it with diesel trucks or really large vehicles where the fuel economy is a non-issue anyway. Can't believe there is a tired argument like the boat weighs too much...just think that is less bags to fill and more time riding, right?!?!?

displacing more water requires more gas. whether it's by sinking the entire hull with ballast or changing the running angle by pushing the back end down with TAPS, the extra displacement that you NEED to build a wake will increase your fuel bill. i think tige owners have just as big of frowns as the rest of us at the pump.

joe, does the extra 1000 lbs. tige builds their boats with help wake size any? from a physics and hydrodynamics standpoint, the ONLY thing that creates bigger wake is water displacement and, even with the added hull weight, tige's don't sit any deeper at neutral. therefore, i don't think you can really count the excess weight as ballast--although it does really help the overall feel and solidness of the boat, especially in chop.

i saw kickin' it with tino santori the other night on oln tv, and the all black 24v he has is so sweet. but, like stephan said, he had it sacked out big time, just like the rest of us. TAPS helps displace a little more water, but i think more experienced tige owners on this site will agree, ballast goes a long way



(Message edited by JcV on February 28, 2006)

Here is the simple physics: To displace water to form a wake requires motion and displacement equal to the weight of the water to make the desired distrubance. It takes weight. Tige, Epic, etc all must use weight. You also can use a foil that produces lift/drag. That simply increases the hp requirements.

You have to have downforce and speed to produce a wake. That relationship will never go away - regardless of what technology is claimed. You either use weight, lift, or both. Before anyone flames me, lift is on the bottom of the foil and the pressure zone is on the top - inverted from an airplane wing in normal flight.

The argument about waiting to fill bags. This would apply to manual bags. but to automatic? by the time i have the boat in the water and then wait for the driver to park and then get out of the no wake zone my bags are full. it only takes a minute or so. Well thats in the mighty malibu.

I have a Tige.
I can tell you that with the taps at 1 (Nose down) I get around 4.5 GPH
With the taps at 7 (Wakeboarding Mode) I need to use a lot more throttle to stay at the same speeds as with Taps at 1.

I have a 02 Tige 23V. Its a great boat. I love the TAPS, but I also run at least 1500lbs in sacs. Whats good about the TAPS is I can load the sh*t out of it and ride with TAPS at 5 or 6(it has the best shape at that at 5 or 6 with weight)then when my GF rides (she likes a small wake) I can put TAPS at 1 and the wake is about a foot smaller! so that is a big plus for me. For a beginner/intermediate rider that is not goin to add sacs to a boat, Its great. My wake is way bigger with no extra weight and TAPS at 6, than my buddies X30 with stock ballast and most boats I have riden with Stock Ballast.

Like Eric said about towin, I pull it with a chiped PSD F350 I could pull a house off its foundation and not even know its behind me, so the extra tow weight is no big thing.

Is everyone in agrreement that TAPS is a trim tab and when engaged at the (1) setting it is fully deployed downwards and lifting the hull out of the water the most making the wake mellower. When TAPS is on the (7) Wakeboard setting it is fully raised and not affecting the wake at all letting the boat sit deeper and push up a larger wake maximizing the abillity of the hull.

The "wake plate" is simply a trim tab that is affixed and only adjustable with a wrench. If you have a "wake plate" and you primarily wakeboard it serves no purpose if your goal is producing as large a wake as the boats hull will allow.

Why do sales people insist that these systems are wake enhancing devices, when in reality they can only make the wake smaller?

It is a trim tap, but the Tige hull has cut outs that let the @$$ end of the boat set deeper in the water.

wakeplates only SHAPE the wake

foils however can ADD to the height of the wake, by "pulling" down on the rear of the boat simulating ballast.

it doesnt take that long for me to fill up ballast. it takes like 2-3 minutes to fill up 3 sacks 2200 lbs total

Hey just a few things that i want to add here. Tige stopped using wood 3 years ago- since then our boats have been 100% composite. Also we are not 1000lbs heavier than the average boat. We are right on with the others in weight, here is an example:

MAstercraft X-30 22.5 ft weighs 4100lb
Tige 22ve 22 ft weighs 3982lb
Nautique 220 22ft weighs 4070lbs


I guess my point wasnt to start a thread on Tige, but to see what peoples thoughts were on ballast. i personally do not like messing with it. Seems as if the masses on wakeworld like ballast. I was also responding to the first thread that boat design needs to be improved...

big wakes = lbs

I don't think physics would allow for a huge wake without massive displacement of water. And massive displacement of water involves sinking the boat effectively. Sure you could build a boat that weighed 6,000 pounds, but that would surely be a hindrance with respect to towing.

A better comparison:
Epic 22’9” and 4,300 lbs
Tige’ 22 V 21’8” and 3,945 lbs
CC Air Nautique 226 22’ and 3,860 lbs
Malibu VLX 21’6” and 3,600 lbs
Calabra Pro V 21’ and 3,500 lbs
Mastercraft X15 21’8” and 3,425 lbs
Moomba LSV 21’ 6” and 3,300 lbs
Supra 22 SSV 21’8” and 3,050 lbs
Centurion Lightning C4 21’6” and 2,900 lbs

Seems like the Tige’ is about the heaviest per linear foot, but I don’t know if that’s good, bad, or just doesn’t mater.

It's little trouble to use the stock ballast on my boat. The exception is switching between regular and goofy surf setups. I'm working on adding to the stock ballast. One change will make the switch from regular to goofy and back faster.

I've never ridden behind a boat with a negative hydrofoil, but it seems like it should do about the same thing as ballast but without taking up all of your storage space.

Joe, what is you’re relationship with Tige’? Just curious.

The masses on WW like ballast because the masses on WW are real riders. We want big wakes and you do not get a big wake without ballast.

I went out on a 22v last year with a wake plate and no ballast, the wake was a joke until we threw some fat sacs in it.

Bigshow, I am the relatively new West Coast Sales Manager for Tige. I used to sell centurion, supreme, and sanger boats for the last five years in sacramento. Before that i worked at a tower shop installing towers, stereo systems, etc.

oops

(Message edited by joe1975 on February 28, 2006)

Joe, sounds like a cool job, bet you’re having fun.

The one thing I would say is that if legislation prohibits ballast systems then a hull shape would be the only game in town. It’s a very touchy subject for the Parks and Rec guys here, I cringe when they bring the subject up.

(Message edited by Bigshow on March 01, 2006)