Articles
   
       
       
Pics/Video
   
       
       
Shop
Search
 
 
 
 
 
Home   Articles   Pics/Video   Gear   Wake 101   Events   Community   Forums   Classifieds   Contests   Shop   Search
WAKE WORLD HOME
Email Password
Go Back   WakeWorld > >> Boats, Accessories & Tow Vehicles Archive > Archive through February 21, 2008

Share 
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old    Wil Deahl (flatcher)      Join Date: Feb 2008       02-01-2008, 8:38 PM Reply   
Has anyone heard of the current X-2 being used for any tournaments/competions? I considering getting it but (upgrading for previous X-2) but wondering if I should go ahead with the X-Star. My kids are 6 and 8 my concern is the X-Star will be too much for them. They are fine behind our 2005 X-2.
Old    The Truth (boomshot)      Join Date: Jan 2008       02-01-2008, 10:48 PM Reply   
The X2 is an expensive boat for its size that needs a ****-ton of weight to really get tournament ready. But - dirty little secret - the X-Star is the same way. Thats the reason for those huge forward compartments in front of the bulkhead. That area isn't for your groceries, or even for boards as advertised. Its for hundreds of gallons of water ballast. Ask your local, honest, MasterCraft pro.

It is a well built boat as are all MasterCraft boats. It is just not really what I'd call a tournament-appropo boat. The X15, X-Star, X45, and X-1 are. You should look at the X1. Thats just a fantastic boat on so many levels - far exceeding the X2 despite the fact that the X2 does well for them because it looks like the X-Star but doesn't cost 94,000. Its a paltry 60k! :-(

Not to be a snot... But I am a tournament rider and if I saw someone roll in with the current iteration of the X2 as one of the boats in the rotation, I'd be sad. I'd ask to please not ride behind it. You almost never get to pick and choose like that so I would have to deal.

Why is your requirement that it be a tournament boat? Are you getting on a program?

(Message edited by boomshot on February 01, 2008)
Old    Terry H. (x45er)      Join Date: Nov 2007       02-01-2008, 10:53 PM Reply   
Are you concerned about the wake size? Don't fill the tanks and put the wake plate down. Mine ride behind an x-45. My kids are ages 8 and 9
Old    The Truth (boomshot)      Join Date: Jan 2008       02-01-2008, 10:58 PM Reply   
Oh wait. 2005 X2 is the X1 now. Stupid-assenine MC naming convention that needs a whiteboard and 20 PPT slides to fully understand.

God just keep that thing! 2005 X2 (which is a prostar 205v) to the current boat they call the x2 is a step down in my opinion. And I only deliver the truth.

(Message edited by boomshot on February 01, 2008)
Old    Chris Waters (gdillyfunk69)      Join Date: Nov 2003       02-01-2008, 11:11 PM Reply   
truth are you kidding me.....

I own an x-star and ride behind a nautique every other day, plus I use to own a moomba.

The X-star takes the least amount of weight out of the bunch, to get a awesome wake. I don't know what x-star youve ridden behind, but sounds like someone has some ownership goggles.

I understand people hating because of the price tag (you), but don't make up stuff just to bash mc.
Old    The Truth (boomshot)      Join Date: Jan 2008       02-01-2008, 11:17 PM Reply   
MasterCraft is absolutely one of my favorite boat mfgs. No owner goggles. I think the X2 is oddly marketed. And I must respectfully disagree that the current iteration of the Xstar requires minimal ballast. Why do you think everyone's off buying the huge PWT weighting kit for that boat?

XStar is a great boat. X2 is another story.

No hating regardless. Really.
Old    Wil Deahl (flatcher)      Join Date: Feb 2008       02-01-2008, 11:44 PM Reply   
Thanks for the input so far! I am on a shallow 3-5 ft. deep river that is narrow and often 3 boats are side by side moving with a 125 foot wide river. So boat size and draft is an issue. I like the larger cockpit in the current X-2 as well as the X-Star. I've spent time at the dealer and they are telling me I will want more than stock ballasts on either boat. (Previously I had no idea the X-star was getting another 1800 lbs and more of additional ballasts.) We like to have several people on the boat and I was hoping to find a boat with a great wake, shallow draft and larger capacity for people.
Old    Chris Waters (gdillyfunk69)      Join Date: Nov 2003       02-02-2008, 12:15 AM Reply   
Ok I understand, you jsut kind of came of that way to me.

The reason I know the X-star can perform without much weight is this: A pro rider from St. Pete named Jeff Solie can hit TS 720's off the x-star with no ballast what so ever. That is without stock ballast as well. Also, most riders that come out with me can hit a large portion of thier tricks with or without ballast. They might not be as high or as stylish, but they can do them. To me, that shows Mastercraft got the shape of the wake just right.

Now on to the addition of pro tour ballast. NUMBER 1: WHO DOESN"T WANT THE BIGGEST WAKE POSSIBLE??? and NUMBER 2: WHO DOESN"T WANT THE SAME WAKE THE PROS RIDE BEHIND??

yes, the extra ballast does add GREAT SIZE to the wake, but to me, the shape is their all along.


P.S. one reason I know all this is because when I first got my X-Star, I went 3 months WITHOUT working ballast pumps. We would rely souly on people and one or two smaller fat sacs. I am very happy with my boat
Old    Tyler McCurdy (tyboarder03)      Join Date: Nov 2003       02-02-2008, 12:23 AM Reply   
Chris- Pros not Jeff Solie have been doing tricks beyond 720 behind boats with no ballast for years. What do you think they started with? Direct Drive ski boats. Watch Retrospect. I'd say most if not all pros could do most of their tricks behind an unweighted Xstar VLX XLV 21V etc... Not a big thing to boast there.
Old    Chris Waters (gdillyfunk69)      Join Date: Nov 2003       02-02-2008, 12:31 AM Reply   
very true. I think the point I was trying make was that ballast doesn't make the boat. The shape of the wake is what everyone likes when they come riding with me. It is what I like when I am behind it.

For my style of riding.... the shape of the X-star wake is second to none. Then add some size on top of that and your in heaven!!
Old    Dave W (njskier)      Join Date: Jul 2005       02-02-2008, 5:52 AM Reply   
Wil, the problem you have is only 3-5 feet of water depth. You will not get a maximum size wake from any boat in that water.

Why not consider a good 2006 X-star instead of a 2008 X-2? Should be around the same money, and your kids can ride behind the boat they'll see in more comps than an X-2. X-stars are all the same hull from 2003-2008. Like said before, they can ride with no ballast to get use to it, then add ballast as they progress.
Old    E.J. (deuce)      Join Date: Mar 2002       02-02-2008, 8:15 AM Reply   
The X-Star wake will not be too much for your kids.

3-5' river would make me chit my pants.... You actually can pull someone, start to finish in 3' of water.....I cringe just trying that, it trips me out....

I could never get my mind around standing up and getting on the swim platform…..




Hi-jack on-
As far as your first post Chris, it is difficult to respond rationally to your comparing a model of MC(X-Star) to brand of boats(Moomba and Nautique) and what weight is needed to build what many would consider "solid." It is the equivalent of saying my Ford Mustang is faster than your Dodge or Chevy. You then say the shape of the wake is what you like, which is very subjective....

No pissing contest or ownership goggles here, just an observation to a post that you accused someone of just making stuff up to bash.
Hi-jack off
Old    Wil Deahl (flatcher)      Join Date: Feb 2008       02-02-2008, 11:44 AM Reply   
I'm prepared to get the 08 X-Star if that is a do-able wake for my kids and it's not too big a boat for my river.
The 3-5' isn't a constant but cross that shallow of water a few times during a single pull. There are often times it is 12-18' deep as well.
So if money were no object (and it is, but I'm willing and able to pay the difference here) what is the best option? Thanks for all the input so far, more is welcome.
Old    benj_t            02-02-2008, 11:54 AM Reply   
yep i rode behind the X-2 at INT nationals.
Old    Bart Urban (bartush)      Join Date: Jan 2007       02-02-2008, 1:42 PM Reply   
X-2 wake is a little wide for my taste... i rode behind an x-15 and in my opinion its wake is shaped nicely... although my favorite wake to ride behind is an X-Star. Your kids could definetely ride behind it, just pull the line in a little bit and dont fill any sacks.
Old    Caleb Rountree (dlwsrider)      Join Date: Apr 2007       02-02-2008, 2:01 PM Reply   
The X-1 would probably be best if your in a lake that deep. Bennetts Is on a 3-4 foot deep lake, and they use an X-1.

But definantly look into the Supra 21V.

Awesome performer in shallow water, or any water; especially for the price.
Old    Wil Deahl (flatcher)      Join Date: Feb 2008       02-02-2008, 4:11 PM Reply   
I see a post that the X-2 was used at the INT (thanks benjayyyyyy). Is anyone using an X-Star in shallower water on a narrow channel? If you are do you regret having too big a boat?
Old    Caleb Rountree (dlwsrider)      Join Date: Apr 2007       02-02-2008, 5:22 PM Reply   
They used the X-2 Largely because the X star is not meant for that shallow of depths. They were looking for smaller boats this year.
Old    travis moye (driving)      Join Date: Jan 2003       02-02-2008, 5:32 PM Reply   
Will,

I haven't read past the first couple of posts, but you and your kids will be happy with the X-Star. It will be great for them with no weight in it and you will be happy with the stock ballast despite what people say. We get people at the camp all the time and start them out with no weight in the boat at all and they are happy with it. Adding weight just makes it better. As far as an X-Star handling the river, I will put my boat up against ANYTHING weighted or unweighted. I can turn a little button hook turn with the boat fully weighted, and they drain our lakes in the summer for hurricane season and I have to run across a lot of spots that are 3 feet or less with no issues. Feel free to contact me directly if you have any questions.
Old    Greg Bodor (gti2lo)      Join Date: Nov 2005       02-02-2008, 6:02 PM Reply   
First time I rode behind an X-star was at the boarding school... No wieght and I was impressed.. the shape of the wake is so forgiving and is easy to "get pop" as it doesn't buck you.

Come to think of it.. I am now an owner....
Old    Karl De Looff (boarditup)      Join Date: Jan 2004       02-02-2008, 6:52 PM Reply   
I've been behind both boats - in all conditions (empty, full, and extra). The X-Star has the best wake when fully weighted. For the kids - they can handle the unweighted X-Star. I will say that for other sports they kids may like (kneeboarding, skiing, etc.) the X-2 has a lot to offer with smaller unweighed wakes. With the 1,600 lbs Fly High ballast system and a couple cooperative observers, the wake is tournament worthy. Being smaller, the hull is more responsive to weight shifts than the larger hull. I did the math and the X-Star requires 12' for the wake to get to the maximum height. Extra depth will improve the shape. The X-2 only requires 8-9 feet for max height and 15' will give you a good shape at stock ballast.

While neither boat is perfect, they both have a lot to offer the family and will provide years of enjoyment.

I have an X-2 on order for this year.
Old     (1boarder_kevin)      Join Date: Mar 2007       02-02-2008, 7:12 PM Reply   
In my opinion, I like the X2 wake better than the X1. I sold my X1 for that reason and bought a X2. I know I am in the minority on this, but I never liked the kick it had. As far as weighting boats, I run around 2500 lbs in both. I will say that if my garage would hold an X star and the cost were closer I would have an X star.
Old    Darren Yearsley (ralph)      Join Date: Apr 2002       02-02-2008, 8:57 PM Reply   
How do you make those calculations Karl?
Old    882001 (882001)      Join Date: Nov 2003       02-02-2008, 10:37 PM Reply   
well i guess it is a matter of preference. i think the new x-2 wake pales in comparison to the x-star/x2/x1/xtapa. the new x2 isnt even in the same ballpark, the wake sucks
Old    Chase Andrew (wakeboardnut)      Join Date: Jul 2006       02-02-2008, 10:46 PM Reply   
correct me if im wrong, but ive heard as a sales pitch several times how the x2 has a great ski wake as well,

now isnt that the last thing you want to hear if you are looking for that great wake??
Old    Lionel (lionel)      Join Date: Nov 2005       02-03-2008, 9:13 AM Reply   
Chase, not following your logic, I have an old X2 and it has a great ski wake!

(Message edited by lionel on February 03, 2008)
Old    Karl De Looff (boarditup)      Join Date: Jan 2004       02-03-2008, 10:52 AM Reply   
I used an old ACOE program that models surge in a confined channel. Not perfect, but matched with actual observations in the local gravel pit, it is fairly close. (I was a USCG officer in charge of Port Operations and we had times where the tankers would create a large swell that would cover the road with water. The program allowed us to predict this event.)

The X-2 has a vented hull that begins to vent at about 25-27 mph. At wakeboarding speeds, it has little or no effect. At skiing speeds, it frees up the hull to be more efficient and displace less water and have less water friction - it goes faster with less power. That is why stepped hulls are popular on high-speed power boats and seaplane pontoons.

I have skied behind the X-1 (205V) and it does fine above 32 mph and shorter than 22-off. The 22-off bump is pretty solid and at slower speeds the wake is beefy and solid - tough for kid slalom skiers.

All of this is very subjective. Even the computer models are only approximations since we are using it for other than the intended purpose. The best way is to demo and figure out what works best for you. The INT with the multiple boat sponsors allows you to get behind a lot of boats to evaulate how you like the wake.

My solution is to have two boats - an X-Star and a PS 197. That will take a few years to get the cash for that fleet. In the mean time, the X-2 will get the job done for both.
Old    Wil Deahl (flatcher)      Join Date: Feb 2008       02-03-2008, 1:07 PM Reply   
Karl,
That's a lot of useful info. Thanks! I've heard the X-star is up for a new hull in 2009. Maybe I wait one more year to see what the new option is but it won't be time tested. Decisions, Decisions. Not complaining though. I'm fell fortunate to be able to even own a boat that the family enjoys!

Reply
Share 

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 11:02 AM.

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

 

© 2012 eWake, Inc.    
Advertise    |    Contact    |    Terms of Use    |    Privacy Policy    |    Report Abuse    |    Conduct    |    About Us