Wake 101
Home   Articles   Pics/Video   Gear   Wake 101   Events   Community   Forums   Classifieds   Contests   Shop   Search
WakeWorld Home
Email Password
Go Back   WakeWorld > >> Boats, Accessories & Tow Vehicles Archive > Archive through March 15, 2006

Thread Tools Display Modes
Old     (dudeman)      Join Date: Mar 2005       02-25-2006, 6:10 PM Reply   
Wake boats have come so far but it seems to be all about the bling. More development needs to be put into the development of the wake and not just pumping up the creature comforts. Don't get me wrong, the boats are awesome, but for the increase in cost, does it directly correlate to the increase in the size and the quality of the wake? Personally I suck, but I hope that someday I'll get better, but I find a hard time justifying $60-$70,000 for a boat that looks like it throws the same wake as something that costs half that. My .02.
Old     (jcv)      Join Date: Oct 2005       02-25-2006, 7:18 PM Reply   
i'm with you. as great as the classic hulls are (super sport, sunsport, 205v, wakesetter), i find it hard to believe that the manufacturers couldn't make boats with even better wakes if they devoted the same amount of time to wake testing as they do to pimping out the inside or expanding current hulls a foot or two. even with revamped boats, like the vlx, i firmly believe malibu's number one priority was to increase seating capacity, space, and creature comforts--wake was secondary at best and, had the wake not turned out to be, in most people's opinions, superior to the old vlx's, malibu still would have marketed it as their flagship. in a sense, they got lucky and killed two birds with one stone.

when i was boat shopping, the cc's and mc's i was looking at were all '03 or older. i just couldn't justify the $10-15k more for an '05 when the 205v and 210 hulls have been around so long. as long as a boat has enough comfortable seats, that's all the bling i need.

i think that's why so many people are excited about the epic boat. it's literally a boat built from the wake up as opposed to the "the bigger the better" and "just add more chrome to the older models and jack up the price" philosophies we've got now
Old    the_skeptic            02-26-2006, 6:43 AM Reply   
this is why I own a moomba
Old     (bstroop)      Join Date: Apr 2005       02-26-2006, 7:34 AM Reply   
Wakeboats have become the new high dollar family cruisers. Buying one of these isn't about going off on you're board it's about looking like you can. However, if $$ wasn't an issue I would get it without a second thought. As long as people are buying they'll keep "improving" the boats and adjusting the cost accordingly. I see more people rippin it up behind older inboards with basic creature comforts than most new 70G wakeboats. Not saying that people on here with $$ boats don't rip, it's just not all that common. IMO

Old     (dudeman)      Join Date: Mar 2005       02-26-2006, 7:39 AM Reply   
I hear you Brian. I'd do the same. I'd be all over a Malibu. It would probably keep my wife on the lake longer.
Old     (bigshow)      Join Date: Feb 2005       02-26-2006, 8:47 AM Reply   
Haven’t there been a lot of new features that have improved wakeboard boats or the wakeboarding experience in the recent past, which of these a fluff and which are essential wakeboard boat accessories? I don’t think it all has to be about the wake, but it should be about the basics every time you’re on the water. To be honest I like the SC Moomba/Supra approach, offering an affordable way to enter the inboard market, and it looks like the other manufactures are catching on with the Ride series, the X1, and the Air Warrior.

I looked at a $86,000 CC 226 Team Edition at the last local boat with a $70,000 show price. It’s an awesome boat, full of features, but unless I win the Lotto, or a long lost billionaire uncle dies leaving me his fortune I’d never consider spending that much on a boat. Most boats are descresionary purchases, my boat is the most expensive vehicle I have ever purchased. The high end boats aren’t for most of us they’re for the fortunate few. By the way $86,000 would about pay off my mortgage.

So what is fluff and what is essential for a true wakeboard boat, here’s my poll.
Emergence of the V-drive - Essential
Ballast systems - Essential
Ballast tanks - Essential
Wedge – Fluff (can allow for more storage)
Switch blade – Fluff (can allow for more storage)
Bennett trim tabs – Fluff (but I couldn’t get by without mine)
Fly high poles – Essential
Towers – Darn handy fluff
Perfect Pass – Essential
Engine upgrades – Fluff
Bling exhaust tips – Fluff
Swim platform - Essential
Board racks – Darn handy fluff
Tower mounted speakers -Fluff
Tower mounted lighting Fluff
Sub-woofers - Fluff
High power amplifiers - Fluff
Dual batteries - Fluff
Transom mounted stereo controls - Fluff
Bling cup holders, - Fluff
Flip-up booster drivers seat – Fluff
Stadium seating - Fluff
Heated drivers seat - Fluff
Built in ice chest – Fluff – still need an ice chest to fill the built in one
Heater – Fluff
Hot water shower - Fluff
Mooring cleats - Essential
Pylon – Essential for general water sports
Bling Pylon – Fluff
Graphics - Fluff
Old     (heem)      Join Date: Dec 2005       02-26-2006, 9:55 AM Reply   
I agree with bigshow that most of todays upgrades are fluff, however it does make the time on the water more fun and enjoyable. We are first time boat owners, ordering the boat last weekend. I'm also in my 40's and will never be able to do the majority of the wake tricks. I enjoy getting up, going back and forth till tired then let someone else have some fun. Having the greatest, most perfectly ramped wake is not as important to me as it might be to someone else. However, having some upgrades in the boat is worth it for my wife and I as well as our friends. I imagine that boat companies research their sales demographics and decide where and how their construction dollars are spent. Will a high dollar boat with the best wake ever but no upgrades inside sell better than a boat with a slightly less perfect wake but more fun inside?

I personally think boat pricing is completely out of control, but consumers keep buying and companies keep raising prices. At our local show I saw a MC 80 for over 100k. To be honest, there are much better looking boats at half that price. I'm not sure about the performance so I cant comment in that arena, but i'm guessing most people would rather have the extra 50k in their pocket than a few more hp under the hood. Plus when I say "hit it" I like my arms to stay attatched to my body.

Will boat companies revamp hull design to produce the ultimate wake, maybe, until then go have fun with what you have. Plus, unless you're not mortal you spend more time in the boat than riding behind it.
Old     (zacky)      Join Date: Apr 2003       02-26-2006, 10:18 AM Reply   
I would venture to say that the size and quality of the wake is about as good as it is going to get. I think between all of the boat manufacturers, they pretty much have all wake sizes and shapes covered. Unless you are talking about a hull that can handle 7,000lbs of ballast and create a chin-high wake (which will not happen) the hulls will not change drastically, and you are going to get more bling for $60,000.

(Message edited by zacky on February 26, 2006)
Old     (jcv)      Join Date: Oct 2005       02-26-2006, 10:21 AM Reply   
i agree boat companies should continue improving the interior and "fluff" options to appease families, the overwhelming majority of their market. like jim said, i spend far more time in the boat than i do behind it, so i definitely want something i can be comfortable and content in for an entire day on the lake. however, i don't think it should be an either-or proposition. spending $60k on a wake boat, you should expect to get the finest in amenities and creature comforts, but you should also expect the manufacturer used the newest and best computer technology to shape the hull and, after thoroughly testing prototypes on the water, you're getting the best wake possible from that particular boat. improvements should come in the way of the boat itself (reliability, durability, appearance, comfort) AND the hull (wake), not one or the other.
Old     (bstroop)      Join Date: Apr 2005       02-26-2006, 11:50 AM Reply   
Just to clear up my post. I am in no way opposed to advances in luxury and bling technology. I have friends with very plush boats, and I love them. I just cant see the justification behind the prices when compared with the advances......

Like I said if money wasn't an issue I'd own one for sure, but is $20G (may be extreme) in upgraded bells and whistles worth it for
Old     (bigshow)      Join Date: Feb 2005       02-26-2006, 12:28 PM Reply   
Randy, I think I'm in agreement. I bought my previous boat in 1993, a 20.5 ft I/O for about $13K. The one I bought last year is a much better wakeboard boat and has lots of fluff. Jim makes a good point; you spend more time in the boat than behind it. Board racks alone free up a tremendous amount of space for your crew.

I realize that all of these accessories, the fluff, add to boat prices. Springing $50K for a boat would be a stretch for me, so a $70K to $100K boat is far-far from reality.

I was talking to city officials about setting up a water sports event a few weeks ago. One issue the city brought up was wake size and wake enhancing boat modifications. The city is fielding wakeboard-boat wake-size complaints from fisherman, sculling crews, and property owners. Fishermen, fishing a few feet from the shore get propelled ashore by our wakes, scullers practically get swamped, and property owners are reporting higher or more frequent damage to docking. The city is considering banning wake enhancers, hope they don’t. I can’t imagine improving wake size much further than the current offerings, but then again there’s the emerging Epic boat line and Centurion is now offering the Switch Blade, there’s bound to be something else new in the future.

I think Moomba is the model for a good basic water sports machine, with I assume a quality wake (never ridden behind one), and basic equipment for everyone in the boat. As I said above other brands appear to be catching on to the model.
Old     (mbrown)      Join Date: May 2005       02-26-2006, 12:33 PM Reply   
Jeff, what makes you think Malibu "just got lucky".

Their new VLX hull is very different from the old hull in many more ways than just bigger (contrary to popular belief).
Old     (jcv)      Join Date: Oct 2005       02-26-2006, 2:08 PM Reply   
sorry, that did come out wrong. i just mean that, in my opinion (which means i could be entirely off-base), the thought process behind revamping the lsv in '04 was to get more people in their bigger, more expensive wake boat by getting it off the diamond hull. obviously, they spend ample time shaping and shaving the new v25 hull to optomize wake performance, but, had the wake not turned out to be world-class, malibu still would have marketed the lsv--and the vlx to follow a year later--as a flagship wake boat. i didn't mean to imply they ONLY meant to increase the size and luxury factor (thereby upping the price), but i do believe wake was secondary--although still very important--to the more tangible aspects of the new boats. i really didn't mean to bad-mouth malibu. heck, i own an '05 vlx and spent about $10k more than i ever thought i would on a wake boat because it was one of the few boats out there truly "world-class" in terms of size, comfort, performance, luxury, AND wake (my personal favorite for what it's worth). had malibu not developed the v25 hull, i would currently be the proud owner of an '03 x-2 or '02 SAN because, to the untrained eye (like mine), it seems like wake technology hasn't really evolved much over the years--save for a rare example here and there--and the classics are still leading the way

(Message edited by JcV on February 26, 2006)
Old     (heem)      Join Date: Dec 2005       02-26-2006, 2:33 PM Reply   
I think Ed and Oscar bring up really valid points regarding wake size and being considerate towards other people using the same waters. A bigger wake for boarders comes at a price for everyone else. I can only imagine that in some areas around the country this may lead to more regulations and rules regarding size of wake, loudness of stereo, etc.

Trying to balance quality of product, performance, upgrades, quality of wake, comfort and pricepoint went into the decision to purchase the boat we did.

I agree that Moomba/Supra have found a very successful way of of making and selling boats, and this business paradigm may be something that other builders may try to emulate in the future. Upgrades are great but can certainly put a boat out of reach in a hurry. Who knows, maybe in a couple of years we may see competition among the builders to see who can build a great boat at a great price, not the illusionary pricing games we see now.
Old     (jcv)      Join Date: Oct 2005       02-26-2006, 3:06 PM Reply   
don't get me started on stereos. i think if wakeboarders played their music a little quieter and were just generally more respectful to other lake-goers and lake residents, that all these shoreline deterioration and length restriction issues would magically diminish, if not disappear altogether. in other words, i think there is a direct correlation between us forcing them to tolerate our loud music and attitudes and whether or not they can tolerate our wakes. fisherman and home owners on lakes tend to have a lot more pull in local government than we do. the bigger manufacturers make the wake, the more ammo lake-front residents have to throw at delinquent wakeboarders in an angry letter to the mayor's office. if the term "wakeboarders" was less offensive to the general lake-going public, boat manufacturers would have a lot less to worry about when designing bigger, better wakes. just remember, if the rider can hear the hardcore rap coming out of the speakers, so can everyone in a two mile radius around the lake. maybe it's just on my lake...but i doubt it. just a thought
Old     (greatdane)      Join Date: Feb 2001       02-26-2006, 3:54 PM Reply   
The best wake hulls are ALL MID 90S hulls.

Pretty sad if you ask me.

SAN and SANGER 90s hulls (narrow 21 foot boats) deserve kudos too for producing great wakes with less ballast and less gasoline!
Old     (mbrown)      Join Date: May 2005       02-26-2006, 4:00 PM Reply   
It still seems like you're speculating a bit much in regards to the R&D priorities that guided design of the new hulls. I was not in the R&D meetings at Malibu when they were designing/discussing the goals of the new line of wake hulls, but I know someone who was.

Their priority was wake performance. After weeks of CAD work they sent their plans to a Washington based design firm to further enhance it's characteristics. This is also where they sculpted them into a mold. Then on to lake testing and rider input.

So from my experience and talking to designers at Malibu I came to another conclusion, wake performance was not a "secondary" consideration.

There is really too much at stake in this current wakeboat market to gamble on. If you come out with a boat that cost a lot to produce/sell and it has a mediocre wake you'll quickly acquire that poor reputation and it's associated poor sales figures.

Beside the seating capacity of these boats grew minimally compared to the wake improvement IMO.
Old     (jcv)      Join Date: Oct 2005       02-26-2006, 4:45 PM Reply   
well, that pretty much shuts me up thanks machew, it's always cool to get a little insight into what really goes on behind the scenes, especially when it involves a boat i own. however, i will say it seems, from an outsider's perspective at least, that not all boats from other companies (i'll leave it to everyone's personal bias to guess which boats i'm talking about) go through the same R&D process you described above, yet they are still marketed as top-notch wakeboarding machines. for every person that hates a certain wake, someone else will swear by it (often times the owner), so it's hard to call any wake unworthy of being a hardcore wake boat. i would love to know the dealer or boat show figures of boats sold without a test drive; i think it would suprise a lot of people. thus, conceivably, manufacturers really only have to focus on interior and aesthetics to get people in their boats. with the right marketing strategy, wake development doesn't play a huge role in units sold. get enough pros and magazines to endorse the wake, and the buyers will come. after all, how many of us can really tell a "good" wake from a "bad" wake? from my experience, most people judge a wake by how they ride behind it that day as trying to analyze thickness and lip isn't an easy task for anyone, much less the beginner-intermediate riders that make up 95% of the wakeboarding population. i know i've been guilty of that myself

(Message edited by JcV on February 26, 2006)
Old     (jcv)      Join Date: Oct 2005       02-26-2006, 5:02 PM Reply   
machew, one question. why did malibu wait one year after releasing the lsv to revamp the vlx? that's mostly how i formed my erroneous opinion. it appeared as though malibu developed the v25 hull specifically for the lsv and intended to keep the vlx on the sv23 hull as their flagship wake boat, but the v25 exceeded even their expectations and plans to redesign the new vlx went into effect only after the lsv had proven itself. wow, worst run-on sentence ever
Old     (stephan)      Join Date: Nov 2002       02-26-2006, 5:26 PM Reply   
Honestly I too feel they are overpriced like no other. However my only experience with the new X-Stars is their wake. I've never ridden in one only behind one in tournaments. Personally when loaded that thing is ridiculous. They indeed do spend a lot of $ on wake development. I mean check the new generation vs the older ones, there is a distinct difference in wake quality. The original poster is probably not good enough to discern the difference, if I was just learning I'd have a very hard time justifying the extra $crilla. Or you can get a Sanger V210 and have my second favorite wake ever!
Old     (mbrown)      Join Date: May 2005       02-26-2006, 5:28 PM Reply   
Jeff, I'm not trying to shut anyone up maybe just dispelling some rumours/myths. Boat testing is a long expensive process. They prioritized sale figures and they needed to enhance the LSV, the VLX was pretty much selling itself without the new hull, even today the v-ride still has strong figures. But, not everyone wants a 23 foot boat. However everyone (I mean Malibu people)wanted that wake.
The result 1 year later, a R&D CAD designed VLX wakehull that puts out a shape that is unique and loved by many riders.
A factory tour with the right people will explain most of this process and cut down on speculation. Plus it's just cool seeing boats built right in front of you!
Old     (dudeman)      Join Date: Mar 2005       02-26-2006, 5:48 PM Reply   
Machew, why do hull designs go to Washington? If they do, what's up with that? Pissed off fisherman from a wake and caring manufacturers that worry the fisherman are being inconveninced. I'd bet that's not even considered. Other boaters offended by load music that is disturbing their otherwise perfect world where everything else is golden? Guess I grew up in the wrong part of the country because I know of no such existence. Personally, I try to be respectful of others and would like others to do the same, but on the same note you know that isn't the case. Manufacturer's already taking hull design to the limit? What a joke. When I was taking computer programming 10 years ago, someone asked me why I was wasting my time because computers have already come as far as they could. Sorry, but are the powers that be claiming the same thing about the size of the wake? Like I said, I suck, but if I'm laying down a 12-15 year loan, I expect an to get wake as advertised that lays my a$$ to rest. If I can't handle it, that's my problem. It's like going thru McDonalds, throw the grease and the salt back on the fries, quick worrying about my health, give me what I'm paying for. I have creature comforts, it's called my living room. If I'm not on the board, I'm in the water. Never been one for being a spectator. Businesses know matter what business it is are in the business to make a profit. A 15-17 year old kid that kills it cares about the wake, not the parents. Unfortunately they aren't the ones bringing home the jack. Do you really think that you throw a boat out on the showroom floor or the boat show that you claim has the best wake in the business(which they all do)but is plain jane will generate cash flow. NO. Cause mom and dad throw down the dollars and they want to be comfortable which is cool too because they are the ones paying. My point when I posted this thread that this is another instance of some corporate misguided management trying to bleed the public dry and the inflated prices have no direct correlation to seeking the perfect wake. While I'm ranting and raving, what's up with the MC picklefork frontend? I'm 5'7 1/2" and I'd have to be a contorsonist to fit into that but you'd never know it by what they're charging.

Bitch session over. My apologies to all I've offended.
Old     (bigshow)      Join Date: Feb 2005       02-26-2006, 6:24 PM Reply   
BigHeavy, it really doesn’t matter how much better the wake on a high-end boat is, since most of us can not afford to bring one home. What matters for most is how good the wake is on the lesser models.

I’m fortunate to be on the water at all and I love every minute of it I can get. No I’m not destitute, I live right in middle America with good income, typical family of four, and the expenses to go with the family. Wakeboarding is sport that few can afford, but there are a few that can enjoy the best the sport has to offer, more power to you if you can afford the best.

I think the original intent of the post was along the lines – can’t the leading manufactures come up with a good hardcore wakeboarding boat that the masses can afford? Maybe Randy’s looking for the Henry Ford of wakeboarding boat building; is that Rick Tinker, Rick Lee, or will Brunswick jump in with a decent low cost inboard? The essentials that make a wakeboarding boat run costs up, I don’t know how much below $40K you could really go.

I think the X-star is an excellent concept, if you can afford it. I see the primary impact of the pickle fork is not wake enhancement but rather increased storage and comfort, without the negative effects of a 1970s tri-hull.
Old     (dudeman)      Join Date: Mar 2005       02-26-2006, 6:44 PM Reply   
Bigshow, I'm not looking for sub $40k with all the bells and whistles. I'm talking about when you look at the prices, you expect more. If you spend $250k on a Ferrari, are you expecting it to perform like a $60k Corvette with a better fit and finish which it doesn't have anyway. No, you're paying for what it's advertised as, The Ultimate Machine, the most bang for your buck. If I'm not on the board, I'll blow up a $20 inflatable with a drink holder and be plenty comfortable in the water and bank the $30-$40k.
Old     (mbrown)      Join Date: May 2005       02-26-2006, 7:15 PM Reply   
Malibu contracts with a design firm in WA. They send them plans to which enhancements are made. When the firm finishes design they send a prototype hull to Malibu which the factory makes a mold out of. Who the firm is and why they use that particular firm I don't know.
Hull design will continue to evolve so will the add-ons because boat making is a low margin business. You can gauge that from the outrageous charges for options and the reluctance of any dealer to sell you the stripped down version.

How many have fallen for the "well if you don't want the factory stereo just get the speakers installed because it's really tough to do it later."
Well it's not and it's all prewired in Bu's, but it's a high margin item, just like lights and extra gel coat. Bling makes more money. Trying to pay CA manufacturing wages cut deeply into the bottom line and need to be made up somewhere so BOB can have the sickest house boat on DonP.did I say that out loud?
Old     (garman)      Join Date: Feb 2005       02-26-2006, 7:21 PM Reply   
Good reading... I love this post!
Old     (jpk)      Join Date: Sep 2005       02-26-2006, 9:19 PM Reply   
The VLX was a bad example, because there's no debate about it's wake.

But maybe if you had mentioned the new X-2 as an example of a new, more expensive wakeboat with dubious improvements we would have something to talk about....
Old     (hal2814)      Join Date: Feb 2006       02-27-2006, 7:05 AM Reply   
I have to agree that I'm not too impressed by the bling. Comfort is one thing. A decked out sound system is something else entirely. If Epic lives up to its potential, I'll be very impressed. However, I see things on it like transom mounted speakers and I start to wonder if they won't also enter the bling wars.

I'd also much rather see the boat just give me a slot for a nice cooler instead of providing their built-in hotel ice bucket that seems to do more harm than good. And not to further gripe about it but they might want to put the cooler somewhere away from the big hot engine.

I like Ed's list of fluff vs. essential though I believe that PP falls somewhere between. It's not exactly fluff and for the money I wouldn't consider it essesntial. If I can drive a boarder in an I/O and hold decent speed, surely I can do the same for someone in a V-Drive or DD. If it's on the options list for any more than about $300, I'd just leave it off.

Now just to be clear on my opinions, I own an older I/O right now because I can't justify spending the money on a nice wake boat just yet and I'm less than impressed by the space available in most older ski boats with good WB wake. It's not a matter of affording one as much as it is a matter of value. Anyone can afford a $50K boat if they are working full time and make it a priority. Personally, I'd much rather retire a year or two earlier than be saddled with another payment (two vehicles and a house is enough).

I'm still looking for that no-frills but comfortable and somewhat inexpensive wakeboard boat. At least I know that if that boat doesn't ever come, the current generation of wake boats will get cheap enough to be worth the cost 10 years or so down the road.

I'm also very much not interested in fancy sound systems for 3 reasons:
1. Cost. Sound systems are generally much more expensive than the sum of their parts.
2. I've heard too many other people out on the lake blasting their sound systems and I find it very annoying. I'd rather not even accidentally contribute to that problem. I'm not some tree-hugging hippy but I prefer the sounds of nature over the sounds of a stereo system while I'm out there.
3. Even if I could get a decent sound system, I'd have no radio to listen to out on the part of the lake I frequent. The only thing I get is an AM sports staion. Baseball play-by-plays sound just as good off my single working 5" speaker as they would off of a tower setup.
Old     (bigshow)      Join Date: Feb 2005       02-27-2006, 9:13 AM Reply   
Unless you have a good secure place to store your boat my thought is that tower mounted speakers would be stolen and your amp would end up in the back of some kids Civic.

I'd use my stereo more if it had speed sensitive volume. It's a pain to turn down the stereo when you go back to pick up your rider. Almost every time we stop and talk (harass and ridicule) to the fallen rider.
Old     (jpk)      Join Date: Sep 2005       02-27-2006, 11:21 AM Reply   
Of course the stereos are a ripoff, the options are supposed to be high-margin items that the dealers and the boat manufacturers can use to increase their profits. They'd be foolish not to market anything that they can upsell customers on. It's no different than the leather seating option in a car or the granite countertop option in a hew home.
Old     (superairdawg)      Join Date: May 2003       02-27-2006, 11:40 AM Reply   
I'm kind of suprised no one's jumped into either speed-sensitive volume or a volume switch on top of the throttle, similar to aircraft trim. I'd be first in line to purchase!

I hit the Detroit boat show this past week and a couple of the watersports boat dealers told me they have a hard time selling anything but fully loaded, blinged-out boats. I can understand the concept of a price-point boat, but why sell them if there's no market?

Finally, boating is a so-called "luxury" item and is pretty much priced as such. I'm actually glad that the cost of entry is relatively steep so it keeps a lot of folks from joining in the fun and ruining my water. I guess I'm kind of shallow.
Old     (jcv)      Join Date: Oct 2005       02-27-2006, 11:58 AM Reply   
i don't think the arguement is for cheaper wake boats. i understand supply and demand and can't fault companies for trying to get all the money they can. the argument is, if we're paying $60-80k on a loaded wakeboarding boat, shouldn't we also get some kind of assurance that the manufacturer did all they could to maximize the wake possible from each hull? i don't know, maybe i'm wrong, but it seems a lot of the newer boats are just extensions (or reductions) of previous hulls, with only slight modifications. for people who have actually visited factories, how much time is spent on computer simulations of wake performance and on-water testing of prototype hulls? i just refuse to believe that, with technology where it is today, no one can best hull designs that are over a decade old
Old     (mbrown)      Join Date: May 2005       02-27-2006, 12:16 PM Reply   
Ed, it's coming soon keep a look out-patent pending.
Old     (bigshow)      Join Date: Feb 2005       02-27-2006, 1:29 PM Reply   
Jeff, what you need is an empirical method to evaluate not only the hull design, but the wake produced after the fact. I have a concept for making those measurements and I saw that the Waterski magazine boat review issue made a stab at measuring wakes, not the wake photos in the expert section. I'm a bit surprised that the article didn't draw more attention. If you make a change you need to measure it to see if it was in the right direction. Maybe that’s what they’re doing out in Washington.

Even after you have a good set of empirical data, you need to hear what the expert on the wake has to say. You’d like to have agreement between subjective and objective results.

So Machew, you’ve got away to thwart amp and speaker thieves, hope it involves GPS and guided missiles, no can't be we'd get in to much trouble for that.
Old     (depoint50ae)      Join Date: Jul 2005       02-27-2006, 2:02 PM Reply   
They should just do steering wheel mounted controls like they do on cars. Then it would be right there at your finger tips easy.

This is total fluff but I love the keyless starter on the Nautique. That is a great idea and one less thing to loose or forget.
Old     (mbrown)      Join Date: May 2005       02-27-2006, 2:33 PM Reply   
Wake quality for many people is measure in feel, not in meters. Wake pictures and formulas are worthless IMO. Many times I would ride a wake that looked huge and formed perfectly only to be disappointed by how easily I could blow through the top of the wake, not really giving any lift. That's where I agree, rider opinion should play heavily into hull design. Unfortunately rider testing is the most expensive part. If they don't like the boat then they have to build another. Not many companies have the sales volume to support rider testing and those that do sell pretty tricked out boats and run expensive advertising campaigns. Once again margins.

Theives suck, but they taste pretty good to Rottweilers.
Old     (bigshow)      Join Date: Feb 2005       02-27-2006, 2:56 PM Reply   
I don't mean the pictures, again not photographical pictures, but 3-D topographical wake maps. Take your riders and existing boats, map the topography of the wake and attach rider opinions to the wake. Then make a change, perhaps in total ballast, ballast distribution, no ballast, wedge setting, trim tab setting, and eventually hull design. I think you could identify wake topologies that no riders like, some riders like, and ones that most all riders like. Maybe experts like one topology and intermediates like another. Then knowing those topologies you could make objective changes to hull, ballast systems, or whatever with a better expectation of making an improvement. You definitely need rider input, you can’t leave it solely to engineering and science. I think you can add an objective tool to the design and refinement process.

I have a set of Keys somewhere on the bottom of Lake Cumberland near the General Burnside Marina, keyless could be nice.

(Message edited by Bigshow on February 27, 2006)
Old     (madchild1)      Join Date: Mar 2005       02-27-2006, 3:05 PM Reply   
for the first few years we went ot shasta, i saw literally TONS of incredible wakeboats. all over 55-60k, and behind them was, 80% of time, either a beginner or a guy that could barely ride. maybe i just caught them at the wrong time but there were too many for it to not be a fluke. it was kind of ironic. we were riding next to a [then] brand-new sante and we were going way bigger behind our old 22' outboard center console. it always bugged, i was like "can we trade boats for the day??" lol.
Old    stillstandin            02-27-2006, 3:19 PM Reply   
HAHAHAH, I just said the same thing to a buddy. I remeber being at Shasta...All the guys with the bling bling boats were beginers, or intermidiate riders at best. The best riders I saw, and have probably ever seen were all behind mid eighty's direct drives, with poles, and tons of sacks. I guess if you want to be that good, you need to work part time, have no bills, and just ride all the time.
Old     (jcv)      Join Date: Oct 2005       02-27-2006, 3:41 PM Reply   
i can't insult bad riders behind nice boats too much because i am one . even for my lack of skill, the '87 bass boat i did all of my early riding behind had to be upgraded. i wanted a boat that would last 20+ years, that i could progress quickly behind, and would have a great, world-class wake when i eventually am ready for it. unfortunately, that meant my options were pretty much limited to a newer v-drive. what does bug me, though, are people who buy an expensive boat thinking it will automatically make them a better rider, and then let everyone know what boat they own at every given opportunity. i personally could care less about my image. i'll be out on the lake rain or shine doing whatever it takes to improve--and having fun doing so--even if no one ever wants to watch me, or if no girls are ever impressed by my boat or by my riding. feel free to insult the people who buy boats for status and never use them; i can't even begin to count how many of those we have on my lake. i guess if you have the money...

this is mostly why i think it seems like boat companies don't focus on the wake as much as they should. a large portion of their customers buy boats without knowing much about wake intracacies, so it's a lot more important to focus on what can be seen (interior, looks, wake size) than something that can only be "felt" (wake shape, pop, and thickness) by a minority of riders

Old     (jcv)      Join Date: Oct 2005       02-27-2006, 3:48 PM Reply   
craig, not to generalize, but i'd say you're correct in assuming the very best wakeboarders aren't usually the lawyers, ceo's, and fat cats in our society . before someone gets offended, i realize there are some exceptions


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 9:15 PM.

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


© 2016 eWake, Inc.    
Advertise    |    Contact    |    Terms of Use    |    Privacy Policy    |    Report Abuse    |    Conduct    |    About Us