PDA

View Full Version : 2005 Outback Slalom Wake



markcr
04-25-2010, 04:54 PM
I've been getting my boat dialed in and thought I'd shoot some pictures of the slalom wake. The boat is set up without a tower, 1/2 tank of gas, rear seat in, OJ 4-blade 13 X 13 prop, driver plus skier and observer on board. Pics are at 30, 32 and 34 mph.

5147
5149
5150
5151
5152

The other mod I did was insert a couple of small stainless steel washers along the rear wake plate mount. The affect of this is canting the plate downward a degree or two. I think this helps lighten the rear of the boat just a bit without affecting the handling.

Sled491
04-26-2010, 11:26 PM
Notice how the flare changes. I think this is what you need to experience on the ski to see what the feel is like. By the way how did the can't idea work out, did you notice any difference?

DOCDRS
04-26-2010, 11:39 PM
Ok , i see 5 pics but you only have 3 speeds ,were you pwi? the middle one looks the cleanest, but is it rampy or soft ?

Sled491
04-26-2010, 11:49 PM
I assumed that the last two were with the extra wedge in the plate. Mark jump in here and help with the suspense :)

jmvotto
04-27-2010, 09:54 AM
each are labeled

1. 30 mph
2. 32 mph
3. 32 mph with cant
4 34 mph
5. 34 mph with cant

markcr
04-27-2010, 10:32 AM
Hey guys. All pics are with the cant in the plate. I had two pictures at each speed taken from two different directions. In one direction the sun was reflecting so much on the wake that it made it look like it was really foamy so I took a second shot going in the other direction. Since I could only upload 5 pictures, I put up one at 30, two and 32 and two at 34. I'm hoping to get out and ski this weekend or next and I'll report on the firmness of the ramp. I was just really happy to get the overall shape of the wake down to what you see in the pics. Before canting the plate down, with my 3-bladed prop, the boat threw out a fairly significant wake for slalom skiing. I think I was expecting something a little smaller from the Moomba marketing materials I've read. I put on the 4-bladed OJ prop and canted the plate down a bit and now the wake looks more like I expected it to. When I get time I'll tinker with various degrees of cant on the plate to see how affects the shape.

Sled491
04-27-2010, 10:57 AM
So on the canting, did you find any negative side effect, also I'm not sure how long you've had this boat, but did you ever run it or ski it in its stock form?

markcr
04-27-2010, 11:55 AM
Hi sled. Yes, we ran it several times in stock form specifically to look at the slalom wake. My wife and I are both avid slalom skiers. Back in 1997 we bought a Ski Nautique right off the showroom floor. When our daughter was born we had to sell the boat. Now she's 7 and we've decided to start skiing again. However, this time around we wanted a more family friendly ride and the closed bow Ski Nautique just wasn't in the picture (practicality wise and price). I've heard a lot of good things about the Outback so we bought one. The first time out, my wife and I were glued to the wake to see what it looked like. I have to say we were not that impressed. So, I started looking into ways to improve it. I think my wake now is a significant improvement over stock. I haven't skied behind the boat yet. Water is still really cold and I've had a slew of issues I've had to deal with - typical used boat maintenance stuff. It always amazes me what sellers consider "excellent condition". The added cant on the wake plate has not created any unusual side effects to the handling. That was a big concern of mine. What I should have done was to take pictures in stages: 3-blade prop, no cant; 3-blade prop, with cant; 4-blade prop, no cant; 4-blade prop, with cant. That would give a much better idea of the affects of the various mods. I'd rather ski, though. LOL!

Sled491
04-27-2010, 03:34 PM
OK cool. In case you haven't checked out my profile I am an avid skier myself. I ski just about every day through the summer. I have an 07 Outback and in my group are 3 MC's. To be honest while my wake is not the smallest it's not the biggest, and my boat is definatly the biggest. What I have found is that the wake is soft and has no hard lip on the approach. This is something to consider while looking at the wake. You may not be able to see it but you will definatly feel it.

On the shim, are you worried about extra stress or the fact that the plate will no longer supported wholly by the transom? I just worry, not that I think it will.

markcr
04-27-2010, 08:02 PM
Hi sled. Glad to hear you're also an avid skier. We're a dying breed! Yes, I am concerned about the added stress on the wake plate/hull. Haven't got a solution yet but I'm thinking about it. Since it's fairly easy to remove the washers, my next test will be an actual ski trial in which I'll ski the course a few times at 32 mph with the plate canted. Then ski the next day with the plate back to normal. I want to make sure I'm not actually firming the table at the same time I'm flattening it. You know what I'm talking about. You can have a tiny wake but if it is as dense as a sidewalk curb, you're in for trouble. If the cant in the plate turns out to have a positive improvement on both size and softness of the wake, then I'll move forward on figuring out the stress issue - maybe take it to a sheet metal shop and have the specific amount of angle applied via a sheet metal break. That would leave the mounting hole section flush with the bottom of the transom and the remainder canted down.

Laz
04-27-2010, 08:58 PM
I went on my first ski of the season behind my 2007 Outback. Two weeks ago I was in Florida and skied behind a Malibu LXi and a Nautique 196. All three boats had a driver, one passenger and a skier.

I skied at 32 and 34mph and at 15 and 22' off. This is the worst rope length for the wake. I really can't tell any difference between the Malibu and the Outback. I found the Nautique wake to be the harshest.

Each boat has subtle differences. Some are better for short line and others for 22' off. The number of people and equipment in the boat is very important. Most ski schools have the bare minimum on their boat. We often have extra people and too much junk on the boat.

At the end of the day, these wakes are 99% identical. There is much more variability to my skiing technique than there is to the wake. When I first got my boat, I was obsessed with the wake. Now, after skiing behind quite a range of ski boats, I realize that the Outback is by far the best money for the wake and light years better than our old I/O.

My $0.02.

Laz

Sled491
04-27-2010, 10:39 PM
Laz, I agree with you. I ski behind many boats, most of them MC besides mine. Even amongst the MC's the wake is very different between the various models. Bottom line is if you ski a lot and behind a tournament boat it will be good. Some are soft, some are hard, some have a gradual ramp, some a steep ramp, but good technique will allow you to ski them all well.

I will also agree with the 22 off comment. It is the worst place to ski behind almost any tournament boat.

deerfield
04-27-2010, 11:08 PM
I will also agree with the 22 off comment. It is the worst place to ski behind almost any tournament boat.

Been watching this thread with interest. Guess I'll remove the 6' loop and drop to 28 off to get ahead of the Bermuda Triangle.

Sled491
04-28-2010, 08:59 AM
Deerfield best plan yet, go straight to 28 off and enjoy the flat water.

markcr
04-28-2010, 07:28 PM
Yeah, I would have to agree with all the comments regarding the various sizes and densities of wakes among the tournament boats. There is no replacement for good technique behind the boat. I'm certainly not advocating that anyone else modify their boats or be concerned with their wake. For me, I love studying hull design, physics and anything mechanical. I'm a licensed A&P mechanic and I'm always tinkering. A new Outback fixed cavitation (wake) plate is $43.00 plus shipping from any Moomba dealer and so I ordered one so that I can play around with different amounts of lift. For those of you who are interested in this kind of stuff, my research stems from a few interesting links that you might also enjoy reading.

http://www.mastercraft.com/teamtalk/showthread.php?t=13838&highlight=jkski+hook

(2002 and on)
http://www.mastercraft.com/teamtalk/showthread.php?t=29236&page=2

http://tige.com/performance/Convex_V

maxpower220
04-28-2010, 08:28 PM
Also, be aware that your Outback is a foot longer and a little wider (at the beam and overall wideth) than a PS 197/190. A larger hole in the water will make a larger wake. A better wake comparo is PS 205/209 and a CC 206. Ski behind those boats and you will see how the Outback compares. BTW, the Outback is about the same as a PS 205, it is way better than a 209, and slightly larger than a CC206 (but the 206 is 'harder').

Sled491
04-28-2010, 09:10 PM
Good points Max. Every one keeps trying to compare the 190/197 and other sub 20 ft ski boats to the Outback, but the Outback is 20' 6" about 10 " longer than these boats and is 4 inches wider, plus the added bonus of an open bow so it weighs a bit more.

What I did find interesting about those links is the constant design changes to try to make a better tow boat. How long has the Outback hull in its current form been around? I would love to see some R&D on the SC side into this hull to for once truely be the industry leader. Granted it's a small market, but why not be the king of it?

maxpower220
04-28-2010, 11:07 PM
What I did find interesting about those links is the constant design changes to try to make a better tow boat. How long has the Outback hull in its current form been around? I would love to see some R&D on the SC side into this hull to for once truely be the industry leader. Granted it's a small market, but why not be the king of it?

Yes, I don't believe the hull has been changed, ever. People complain about the higher prices of MC/Bu/CC, but they are spending money to make a better ski wake for everyone.

This isn't trash talk, as I own an Outback. If I had a better skill level, I would probably have a MC.

markcr
04-29-2010, 12:03 AM
Actually, I disagree with you max. I'm not comparing the Moomba Outback wake with the Mastercraft Prostar 197 wake in any way. I'm using the data from Mastercraft's R&D department that led them to alter their original EVO hull and ad a hook which lightened the rear end of the boat, in turn creating a smaller, softer wake. Mastercraft found a better alternative to their existing hull design and I'm using that same engineering mentality to improve upon the stock Moomba Outback hull design. There are patent reasons why every manufacturer can't simply copy the other guy's design. But as boat owners, we're free to implement and/or experiment with what ever we want on our hulls.

markcr
04-29-2010, 12:17 AM
Oh, and one other thing. I don't take anyone's replies as trash talk. I know this is all constructive discussion. But I just wanted to explain that in my research I fully understand the difference between comparing apples and oranges and making an apple a caramel apple. Ok, enough of the silly analogies. LOL! I appreciate the input guys. It is in my opinion that the Outback has a fantastic hull that has some unlocked potential regarding the slalom wake. My testing may prove fruitless. But, it also might pan out into an improvement on the stock setup. When my new plate gets here, I'll take it down to the shop and start experimenting with various angles to see how they affect the wake. My first experiment was to add shim washers to the stock plate but when it was pointed out that it reduces the contact with the hull at the mounting point, I decided that bending the angle into the plate is a much stronger alternative.

Sled491
04-29-2010, 12:52 AM
Hey just a quick question, does MC still have that hook or was it just for a couple years?

maxpower220
04-29-2010, 08:24 PM
Hey just a quick question, does MC still have that hook or was it just for a couple years?

Yes, they all have it now (on the 190/197).


The R&D have made many "improvements" that only lead to other issues. The CC TSC 1/2/3 hull are an evolution of using lifting strakes, no lifting strakes, and then adding a hydrogate. The new CC 200 puts out a very small wake, but it also has some tracking, turning issues. My point is, the Outback hull has not changed in over a decade, in that same time MC has made 4 different ski hulls, CC has made 4 and Bu has made 4. That is a lot of tooling costs, which lead to higher prices at the dealer. Obviously, the material costs of any similar sized boat is the same.