Bow weight discussion

[chpthril]

The "One single bow sac V's Dual sac" has been a hot topic for about a year now. But I still haven't seen or heard enough to put this debate to bed.

While out Sunday morning giving Glassmaker's 22ve ballast its first sea trial, I took some pics of the port surf wake. TAPS was 4-5, speed was 10.5. Boat had a pair of custom surf sacs in the rear and a pair of individually plumbed 400# v-drive sac in the bow. Given more time, I probably could have tinkered with the TAPS and speed with each new ballast configuration, but I think its was just as effective to leave the speed and TAPS the same just to get an idea of how the wake changes.

I have my observations, but I want to hear what you guys see in the pics.

1200 in port rear sac only


Rear with port side bow sac filled


Port rear and both bow sacs filled

[Wickedcummins]

With my V hull The wave had more push and felt way better with both sides of the bow filled. I ran 750 bow and 1600 starboard and thing was massive and run to ride. Taps was at 7 and speed 10.8

[duffymahoney]

How did the v-drive sacs fit? Seems like they wouldn't fit well at all. I was thinking dual tube sacs might work best. I personally like the long wave pictured with the bow sacs full.

[Wickedcummins]

[chpthril]

How did the v-drive sacs fit? Seems like they wouldn't fit well at all. I was thinking dual tube sacs might work best. I personally like the long wave pictured with the bow sacs full.

They fit well and filled to at least 300 each my my guestimation.

Size wise, the tube sacs are ideal, but the ports are in a not so ideal location for plumbing them in. Either way, the volume of the lockers will ultimately determine the amount they fill to.

Theres a couple pics in Glassmaker's ballast thread.

[NICKYPOO]

Well, obviously the the bow weight is almost nessesary. With both bow sacs full, the lip has started forming. With just the surf side full, the lip is almost nonexistent.

If I had to choose one of those wakes to ride, I would choose wake #2. What this means to me is that if I were setting up a 22ve for myself, I would fill front and rear, surf side only.

Some people like that lip on wake #3. I don't.

[Timmy!]

This would be easier to see if you had taken the pics from the same location.

I don't feel like the bow weight adds anything to my wave so I never run it. If it gave me some incredible amount of push or a huge difference in pocket length, I would be all over it but that's just not the case in my experience. Your mileage may vary.

[Duncan]

Well, obviously the the bow weight is almost nessesary. With both bow sacs full, the lip has started forming. With just the surf side full, the lip is almost nonexistent.

If I had to choose one of those wakes to ride, I would choose wake #2. What this means to me is that if I were setting up a 22ve for myself, I would fill front and rear, surf side only.

Some people like that lip on wake #3. I don't.

Agreed re preference for #2. Clear improvement in pocket over #1.

As to #2 vs #3, it looks like #3 lost a bit of wave height but may be a touch longer pocket? Hard to tell.

To really test the effect of surf-side bow weight vs both side bow weight, perhaps keep total bow weight fixed (0/400 vs 200/200) rather than 0/400 vs 400/400.

[Wakeman22]

I like the look of #2. However looks can be deceiving as it is hard to tell about the push generated from a pic. I would love to have a long pocket on my setup but without push it would not matter.

[Wakeman22]

Thanks for the pics and review chp.

[NICKYPOO]

Wait a minute. What is going on with the platform? With the increased list, is it putting it further into the water, thereby eliminating the platform issue?

[adamsjstt]

They fit well and filled to at least 300 each my my guestimation.

Size wise, the tube sacs are ideal, but the ports are in a not so ideal location for plumbing them in. Either way, the volume of the lockers will ultimately determine the amount they fill to.

Theres a couple pics in Glassmaker's ballast thread.

What is your guestimation of a single u shape bow sac in the bow of a rz2? If you used 2 400lb bags in a rz2 do you think you will be able to get more bow weight than with the u shape sac?

[chpthril]

What is your guestimation of a single u shape bow sac in the bow of a rz2? If you used 2 400lb bags in a rz2 do you think you will be able to get more bow weight than with the u shape sac?

In the bow of an RZ, I feel the W711 Integrated sac will fill to nearly full. Id say 600+ easy. Same for the W701 sac. I think they will fill nearly full, probably 350+ per sac.

[duffymahoney]

I still plan on seeing whats under the floor in the bow. When I plumped my bow ballast hoses, it seemed like that area was just empty in my boat. Maybe I will get dual customs made for my bow also, with vents at the correct spot so they don't trap air.

[Duncan]

In the bow of an RZ, I feel the W711 Integrated sac will fill to nearly full. Id say 600+ easy. Same for the W701 sac. I think they will fill nearly full, probably 350+ per sac.

We plumbed a pair of W701s in the bow of our RZ2. If you let the bag rest further back (e.g., near rear of port bow compartment), it might fill to 350. If pulled farther up, the slope of the hull limits the fill a bit more (300?).

I would do that mod again in a heartbeat.

.