MasterCraft Ski boat: OK for WAKEboarding?
Mark
condition, excellent price). I understand it was a fantastic *ski*
boat in its day (tiny wake at slalom speeds), but I want it for
wakeboarding.
Does this boat make a decent wake at slower speeds? With or w/o extra
weight in the back? Can it do an adequate job, or is it hopelessly
always a "ski" boat?
I have a beat-up 1980 Nautique which makes a fine wake, but the cost
to get it running again is only slightly less than this newer
MasterCraft.
Wondering if I should make the switch, and if anyone can recommend the
best ballast system or other wake-adjustment technology for it...
Many thanks,
mj
Bill
the Prostars. The wakes are typically bigger & harder. Obviously, you
can weight the Prostar & it'll kick out a bit of a wake, but the
gunnels being so low will make it prone to take on water from your own
or other boats wakes. My brother had an 88 a few years ago & it went
thru more stereos due to water over the bow. You really had to be on
the ball all the time.
--
Bill
jjoh...@cs.ucf.edu (Mark) wrote in message news:<c88fa005.04080...@posting.google.com>...
Rod McInnis
"Mark" <jjoh...@cs.ucf.edu> wrote in message
news:c88fa005.04080...@posting.google.com...
> Does this boat make a decent wake at slower speeds? With or w/o extra
> weight in the back? Can it do an adequate job, or is it hopelessly
> always a "ski" boat?
Okay, to start with you get into the area of "religion" when you start
talking about which boat wakes with respect to wakeboarding. You will find
people that will tell you that you absolutely have to have the top of the
line, $60,0000 boat in order to wakeboard! But then you will find guys that
fabricated a tower on their Bayliner and are doing just fine.
What you really need is some sort of tower or pole and a ballast system.
There are a number of poles that will fit over the center pole on many ski
boats so check to see if one will fit this boat you are considering. For a
ballast system the "fat sack" is your best bet.
No matter what you do the wake from a boat that was designed to minimize its
wake will never compare to the wake of a boat that was built to create large
wakes. Actually, there is size and shape of the wake to consider.
If you are a beginner wakeboarder then it is likely that you wouldn't even
be able to handle the massive wakes that some of the top riders prefer.
If you really want to wakeboard and don't want the boat to be your limiting
factor then I would recommend buying a boat made for wakeboarding. If you
like to ski and occasionally want to wakeboard then I would get a boat you
know you will like for skiing (wakeboard boats suck as a ski boat.....)
Rod
George Mills
You might check out used Malibu's or Tiga's as neither requires ballast.
Malibu is more agressive but the Tiga is the most easiest to use.
V-drives also tend to be better as a wake board machine.
Granted this may be more money than your looking at.
The boat is generally a fixed cost. Go fuel injected if you can.
"Mark" <jjoh...@cs.ucf.edu> wrote in message
news:c88fa005.04080...@posting.google.com...
John Sindell
> You might check out used Malibu's or Tiga's as neither requires ballast.
> Malibu is more agressive but the Tiga is the most easiest to use.
Are you suggesting that the wake plate on a Tige makes up for the lack
of ballast?
> The boat is generally a fixed cost. Go fuel injected if you can.
Oh, nevermind, you're just a troll.
JJG
(I owned an '87 prostar for 11 years, same hull).
First, the boat was fantastic in its day for wake, but it is NOTHING
compared to today's wakes on true ski boats. I looked back to that wake
compared to my current BU Response LX, and it is a monster.
The hull is respectable for wakeboarding, if you add a Fly-High (or similar
pole) and ballast. We used to do 500 lbs in the rear, another 300 or so
under the bow. Not sure what one person said about the low sides and water
over the bow, but the MC has MUCH higher sides than my response, and also my
MC was closed bow (which I am pretty sure they all were that year), as
opposed to the response LX, which is very low sided in the front. I had 2
fairly light teenagers in the bow yesterday, and was constantly taking water
over the front (not used to passengers in the front, we are die hard skiers
normally).
My opinion (and I am not trying to start any wars here) is that particular
MC hull weighted correctly, throws a better wake than my BU Response LX with
a wedge and ballast (about 300 pds in the bow). I am sure that if I was
more into boarding and wanted to really weight down the BU, I could probably
get a bigger wake. But this boat is designed for NO WAKE. So was the MC,
but the hull technology is 16 years old. Now if you want to talk about
spending some bucks and getting a "real" wakeboard boat, then some of the
Wakeboard specific BUs are incredible.
"Mark" <jjoh...@cs.ucf.edu> wrote in message
news:c88fa005.04080...@posting.google.com...
George Mills
A 21ft V-Drive with taps will produce a hell of wake with a few passengers.
Sounds like your the troll.
I'm very happy with my taps and I'm sure others are also.
Most of the wake board boats on my lake are Tiga's. Closely followed by
Malibu's.
"John Sindell" <joh...@gehennom.net> wrote in message
news:ceradq$5mr$1...@news-int.gatech.edu...
John Sindell
> Not everyone needs a 4ft wake.
> A 21ft V-Drive with taps will produce a hell of wake with a few passengers.
I would consider those passengers ballast. I've boarded behind a Tige
(21-V) and I was pretty under-impressed with the wake. The wide beam
gives it potential, but it needed more weight, IMO.
> Sounds like your the troll.
I was referring to your statement that a boat is a fixed cost and your
statement about going fuel injected (which, while I agree with you on
the injection over carbs, I felt you were trolling).
> Most of the wake board boats on my lake are Tiga's. Closely followed by
> Malibu's.
Do you live in TX or something? I hardly ever see Tige's on Sammamish,
but I do see a lot of Calabrias (which I never saw before moving here).