Ballast weight on 93 Ski Nautique?
Printed From: CorrectCraftFan.com
Category: General Correct Craft Discussion
Forum Name: Ski, Ride and Foot Talk
Forum Discription: Share photos, techniques, discuss equipment, etc.
URL: http://www.CorrectCraftFan.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=17503
Printed Date: September-27-2024 at 10:05am
Topic: Ballast weight on 93 Ski Nautique?
Posted By: pgilly
Subject: Ballast weight on 93 Ski Nautique?
Date Posted: May-11-2010 at 8:29pm
|
I am a newbie here, and to the boating world. I just got my first boat, a 93 ski nautique, for wakeboarding. The capacity plate is missing, and I can't find what the maximum "allowable" weight for this boat is.
Also, does anyone have any suggestions for ballast weight on this boat for a good rampy wake? If so, please "dumb" it down for me (i.e. how much weight, where to put it, etc.) Thanks so much ------------- 1993 Ski Nautique |
Replies:
Posted By: kapla
Date Posted: May-12-2010 at 1:10am
|
I have 92 so its almost the same..capacity plate is 1100lb gear and persons total max pasanger 6.
ballast I put around +2000lb to get a nice wake... ------------- <a href="">1992 ski nautique |
Posted By: SN206
Date Posted: May-12-2010 at 1:13am
|
Patrick, I'm not sure what the capacity is, look in the refrence section and maybe you can find it. I also think a lot of states require you have that plate on there, I'd try to replace it. ------------- ...those who have fallen and those who will. |
Posted By: emccallum
Date Posted: May-12-2010 at 12:21pm
| Are you planning to get an extension pylon or tower? If so, that will help and get the rope out of the way of the ballast you invite to ride along in the back seat! Big gals may start to look better to you! |
Posted By: pgilly
Date Posted: May-12-2010 at 2:13pm
|
There is a Monster tower already on the boat. Kapla, are you talking 2000 lbs, persons and all? The boat came with a 250 lbs. fat sack, so if I have 6 people (including me), that should be around 1270 lbs, give or take (140/female + 200/male + 250 fat sack), so I should get another bigger fat sack? ------------- 1993 Ski Nautique |
Posted By: bkhallpass
Date Posted: May-12-2010 at 2:50pm
|
2000Lbs is quite a bit of weight in that boat. Kapla is a pretty good boarder. Has competed, etc.
If you put too much weight, or all the weight, in the back of the boat, the wake will get tall, but it will also be narrow. The wake will be steep and abrupt. You said you want a more rampy wake. Most people say a weight ratio of 40% forward and 60% rear is good. For a direct drive boat like yours, a sac on each side of the motorbox is a good place to start. Anywhere from 400 to 750 lbs. You can experiment, and don't have to fill them all the way. You can also experiment with them farther astern, or farther bowside until you find what you like. Don't go more forward than the motor box with these sacks. If that doesn't suit your need, then I would add a sack in the rear seat area. Later you may find you want to add a bit of weight under the bow. The more weight you add, the more difficult the boat will handle. The boat will sit deeper in the water, and be more prone to water over the bow or stern. The more weight, the more dangerous. You are new to boating. I would add only what you need and what you can handle, and work your way up from there as your wakeboarding and boat driving skills improve. BKH ------------- Livin' the Dream |
Posted By: kapla
Date Posted: May-12-2010 at 3:05pm
|
Today I rechecked capacity plate and its how I stated in the first post...1100lb person and gear...
Prior to my rebuilt I use to put 3x 600 sacs, one on each side of the motorbox, one in the back between the motorbox and back seat, also had around 200ld in round dumbells..and the soaked foam...then people that never exceeded 4..If we were more I would partially inflate some fatsacs...I got a nice wake with that setup. Engine could was not to the limit but quite close though.... Now that the hull is some Lb lighter, and the dumbells are not back in the boat, I feel the 1800lb in sacs is not enough... what I feel difference is those extra 70hp I added, I give half throtle and it jumps out of the hole like nothing... About handling yes with all this weigth boat is more prone to nose dives, and taking water via the rampy style euro stern. this setup is ok for me, but I can also ride and do all my inverts w/o any ballast. So depending your skill is how much weigth you will need. When I bought the boat ten years ago, I only put one 600lb sac in the stern felt wake was huge.. (I came from riding behind a Chris i/o and or and o/b) so it was a big change... Then on the quest for more air started to add more and more.. Now I got the bug for barefooting so all the hassle of filling the bags is nearly gone for me..LOL ------------- <a href="">1992 ski nautique |
Posted By: mdvalant
Date Posted: May-13-2010 at 4:21pm
|
I'm probably abot the same level as you are and we have a 90 Ski that I put 600lbs of fat in the back and it's about perfect for me....you go too big and you get too scared coming into a massive wake. We also take the back seat out of ours for show skiing all summer long so I just throw the 600lb fat sac there and call it good. Works well for me. I do trantrums, scarecrows, backrolls, some ralleys if I get really ballsy.... ------------- http://www.correctcraftfan.com/diaries/details.asp?ID=5009 - '90 Ski (sold) http://www.correctcraftfan.com/diaries/details.asp?ID=5479 - '00 Sport Mississippi River - Bellevue, IA |
Posted By: 82wake2001
Date Posted: July-05-2010 at 1:02pm
|
I have seen many ski boats swamp coming off plan...make sure you power down before sweeping over the wake you just made to pick up a downed skier/boarder.... ------------- Joe 1982 ski nautique 2001 "Lady of the Wake" |
Posted By: pgilly
Date Posted: July-15-2010 at 2:29am
|
I'm think I'm going to go with twin 540lbs bags on each side of the engine, probably won't have them all the way full, I also have 2 50lbs. sand bags in the bow. ------------- 1993 Ski Nautique |
Posted By: Wcherashore
Date Posted: July-27-2010 at 5:43pm
I'm in ba next weekend visiting my sister. Any chance you're heading out Sunday? |
kapla wrote:Posted By: GottaSki
Date Posted: July-27-2010 at 5:58pm
|
BTW pgilly what is your skill level wakeboarding, just curious. ------------- "There is nothing, absolutely nothing, half so much worthwhile as messing around with boats...simply messing." River Rat to Mole |
Posted By: kapla
Date Posted: July-27-2010 at 6:19pm
Well well..I´m here..but Of course I need a name... ------------- <a href="">1992 ski nautique |
Posted By: thatdude596
Date Posted: July-27-2010 at 10:40pm
| i have a 94 and i put 2 side sacs next to the engine box, each weighing 450 and run a large fat sac in the rear behind the motor box. the one rear sac weighs 750. put out a nice steep wake, just a pita to turn the boat. if your just starting out the boats wake is plenty. |
Posted By: kapla
Date Posted: August-29-2010 at 11:59am
found this ones of my boat with some ballast....
1992 without wet foam.... ------------- <a href="">1992 ski nautique |
Posted By: tnplicky
Date Posted: August-29-2010 at 4:15pm
|
I am not anti-wake boarding by any stretch. I enjoy messing around on a board after I am too exhausted to ski anymore myself, but does anyone else find it totally ironic that engineers and boat designers at CC, MC and others spent years refining hulls and optimizing weight distribution to minimize wakes as much as possible for the "perfect pass" - and now folks are loading these same boats down with hundreds to thousands of pounds of ballast to get bigger wakes?
I find it interesting how the use of some of these boats have changed over the last decade or more. I am not trying to slight anyone here, just an observation. Good luck with your ballast options. |
Posted By: Chopper
Date Posted: August-30-2010 at 3:53am
Hey Seb, Those pics remind me of the good old days in our 1998.! Those bags look slightly larger than what we used. We generally had 2 favorite setups. Simialar to Seb, we used to run 250kg (550lb) sacs each side of the engine, and one down the back. We also had a long thin sac that on occasion we would run accross the boat in front to the driver seat / observer seat. Most of the time however we ran 2 x 550lb sacs behind the motor - no back seat. wake was not too dissimilar, but left more room on the boat floor to move around, and used less gas draggin it around the lake. The joys of walking over sacs.! PS Seb, if you let the air out of those bags, you can fit more water in  ------------- http://www.correctcraftfan.com/diaries/details.asp?ID=1540&sort=&pagenum=2&yrstart=1996&yrend=2000 - 98 Ski |
Posted By: kapla
Date Posted: August-30-2010 at 2:46pm
|
andy
this are 600lb bags..and yes air is out..so they are fully loaded with water... ------------- <a href="">1992 ski nautique |
Posted By: MI-nick
Date Posted: August-30-2010 at 3:44pm
|
sebastian,
do you have 1.23:1 trans?? what prop are you running?? i have a '93 with 1.23:1 and I run similar weight...looking for better hole shot...end hijack... ------------- As far as I can tell, I'm not quite sure... |
Posted By: kapla
Date Posted: August-30-2010 at 3:53pm
1.123 and 1/2 
i´m running a 3 blade acme CNC 1442 and with this set up, my upgraded engine (around 310hp) and dry foam I have tons of hole shot... prior to rebuilt I used this same setup + soaked foam + some dumbells and the 240hp base engine same 1442 prop and It did perform quite decent.... with the stock 14x16 it would drag a little more to get on plane but it still could manage it well... one more sack and yes it killed it... ------------- <a href="">1992 ski nautique |
Posted By: MI-nick
Date Posted: August-30-2010 at 6:22pm
|
i have the stock 14 X 16 and it does take a bit to get on plane...considering an upgrade for next summer...i'll check out the 1442...thanks!! ------------- As far as I can tell, I'm not quite sure... |