Wkeboard Ballast
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=22516
Printed Date: January-15-2025 at 11:15am
Topic: Wkeboard Ballast
Posted By: jcow0714
Subject: Wkeboard Ballast
Date Posted: July-09-2011 at 10:36pm
|
I have an 82 SN 2001 and im new to the wakeboarding scene and have a couple questions for you guys.First im curious about your ballast setup. How much weight do you use and where do you locate it for the best wake? im looking to buy fatsacs soon but need to know the best setup for the money.
and my second question is about tricks. Does having an extended pylon instead of a tower limit my ability to get the air needed for tricks? currently i am using zero ballast and can easy go wake to wake, but im not getting the huge pop im looking for. Im guessing ballast would change the wave to give me the pop needed to be able to do more elaborate tricks? |
Replies:
Posted By: bhectus
Date Posted: July-10-2011 at 12:30am
|
In my old '83 I had 3 sacs total. 1 big one (600lbs) in the back and 2 side-sacs, one on each side of the engine. That will boost your wake up nice. Also, having a tower versus a skylon won't make any difference in how high you can get. ------------- '02 Ski Nautique 196 w/ 5.7 Apex bowtie - Sold '87 Barefoot - sold '97 Super Sport Nautique - originally custom built for Walt Meloon '97 Ski Nautique '83 SN 2001 |
Posted By: TRIP
Date Posted: July-11-2011 at 1:09am
|
I have 2 540's. Depending on what I'm looking for and how many people are in the boat I use either one in the back (between engine and backseat) or both on either side of the engine. ------------- http://www.flyzone-cr.com" rel="nofollow - FlyZone Costa Rica Wakeboarding http://www.correctcraftfan.com/diaries/details.asp?ID=8406&sort=&pagenum=1" rel="nofollow - 1997 Super Sport |
Posted By: IAughtNaut
Date Posted: August-11-2011 at 7:42pm
|
A big wake isn't what gives you pop and elevation, its technique. Work on your form with your wake down and when you weigh it down later for a bigger wake you'll feel like you're jumping into the sky. You don't need a big wake for big tricks. ------------- bring the ruckus http://www.correctcraftfan.com/diaries/details.asp?ID=5347" rel="nofollow - 2000 Pro Air |
Posted By: bhectus
Date Posted: August-11-2011 at 8:21pm
Agreed, but I disagree with your second statement that you don't need a big wake for big tricks. There's nothing big happening behind a 2001 hull with a stock wake. ------------- '02 Ski Nautique 196 w/ 5.7 Apex bowtie - Sold '87 Barefoot - sold '97 Super Sport Nautique - originally custom built for Walt Meloon '97 Ski Nautique '83 SN 2001 |
IAughtNaut wrote:Posted By: MI-nick
Date Posted: August-12-2011 at 12:23pm
work on your technique first. slow down (21/22 MPH) and shorten the rope a bit (65' or even 60'). with good technique, basic inverts and 360's are easily done w/o ballast...of course not as fun as with a big wake. for reference, I usually have 400lbs lead + 300lb sac in the back, 100lbs leat + drive/spotter up front. ------------- As far as I can tell, I'm not quite sure... |
Posted By: pieapple
Date Posted: August-25-2011 at 5:32am
|
1 big one (600lbs) in the back and 2 side-sacs, one on each side of the engine
|
Posted By: kapla
Date Posted: August-25-2011 at 1:38pm
SPAMMER..but at least is good advice on the weight info!!! LOL ------------- <a href="">1992 ski nautique |
Posted By: IAughtNaut
Date Posted: August-25-2011 at 2:15pm
Apologies for the slight threadjack...you say slow down to 21 or 22, what speed do you usually ride? I try to stay around 18 or 19, as anything above 20 makes my board skim on me. Plus I like the shape of the wake better. I too take about 15' or even 20' off. Whenever I teach new people, I usually put them between 16 and 17 and gradually work up to those last couple mph. What speed is your comfort zone? Please don't misconstrue this as an admonition or criticism in any way, just curious for perspective. ------------- bring the ruckus http://www.correctcraftfan.com/diaries/details.asp?ID=5347" rel="nofollow - 2000 Pro Air |
Posted By: Jllogan
Date Posted: August-25-2011 at 2:59pm
I think there are more factors to account for to answer the speed question. Like size of rider and size of board. For example I started on a 135cm board (215 lb. rider) and I had to go about 23 to keep the board from riding too low in the water. I just bought a 144cm and can run about 2 mph slower and I still ride higher than I did before. Personally I like the speed at around 21-22 and the wake size and shape at 10-15 off. I am still experimenting though. I think the slighlty longer rope helps the wake develop better at that speed. So there are alot of variables. Thats also no ballast in a 2001 hull with 4 people in the boat. ------------- http://correctcraftfan.com/diaries/details.asp?ID=5792&sort=&pagenum=1" rel="nofollow - 1986 Ski Nautique 2001 |
Posted By: MI-nick
Date Posted: August-25-2011 at 3:38pm
usually 23MPH and 70'. "slow down" should have been "try 21/22". ideal speed depends on weight and rope length...shorter rope = slower speed...more weight = a little faster...board size depends on your own weight and if your board is too short it will require you to go faster... ------------- As far as I can tell, I'm not quite sure... |
Posted By: IAughtNaut
Date Posted: August-25-2011 at 4:50pm
|
That must be why I'm more comfortable at a little bit slower speeds, I'm 5'10 170# and ride a 138. Again, usually about 55-60' of rope...I can tell when the boats too fast (especially with the ballast full) because the front of my board gets caught in the rooster tail.
Ok, threadjack over. Thanks guys. ------------- bring the ruckus http://www.correctcraftfan.com/diaries/details.asp?ID=5347" rel="nofollow - 2000 Pro Air |
Posted By: soupbone
Date Posted: August-27-2011 at 12:08am
|
I like 65' of rope and 23mph. I'm 225-230lbs and either on a 145 or 146cm board.
I like to cut pretty hard so at my wieght and riding style 23mph works well for "me". |
Posted By: jessepeng
Date Posted: September-05-2011 at 8:22am
|
I am New Here,My name is Jesse and this is my first entry here. Since I am new to forum community and I feel I am in midst of my own learning curve. I feel sometimes, that I have to learn a lot, hope you guys have patient on me.Thank you for sharing the post.
http://www.coachonlineoutletstorereview.com - Coach outlet good http://www.coachhandbagsreviews.net - Coach Handbags good http://www.buyfashiononline.net - coach factory outlet good |
Posted By: 76tique
Date Posted: September-17-2011 at 3:10pm
|
Surprised at how much weight some of you guys are running in the back. On our boat ('84 2001), the main complaint is that the wake is too steep. We usually ride with 3-4 people on the boat, and a 350lb sac on either side of the motorbox. It seems like the more weight in the back, the steeper the transition gets. We usually ride at 21-22mph and 65' of line. I just picked up another 300lb sac and am going to try running that up in front of the observer's seat. My understanding is, weight in the back = steeper wake. Weight up front = smoother transition. Of course, you have to watch the submarining with weight up front! ------------- He who dies with the most toys, wins http://www.correctcraftfan.com/diaries/details.asp?ID=5648&sort=&pagenum=2" rel="nofollow - 1984 SN2001 - sold 1976 Ski Tique - Sold |
Posted By: wakeboardin2k4
Date Posted: September-17-2011 at 5:12pm
|
We were running 1500lbs ballast, 2 amps, 2 batteries, 2 subwoofers and 6 people in the boat at 24-25mph and 80 feet of rope! The wake was amazing
Had a 500lb fat sac on each side of the motor and one in the back. These pictures are with full ballast and 2 people in the boat. And i disagree about not needing extra weight. I can do 360s with ballast and I can't do them without it. Probably because i suck tho 
------------- "I'm planning to bring my girl that rides on a trailer with me and leave my girl that complains about camping at home" |