Zipwake - Thoughts?

[bvaughn]

I saw an ad on Facebook for a product called Zipwake - http://www.zipwake.com

I had never seen this product before, and it is obvious that they are marketing it for mostly offshore rigs, but the concept seems similar to the wake shapers that are popular in the wakeboard/surf market.

I'm no technical expert, but would something like this work on a wake boat? Anyone want to buy a set for me, and I'll be the guinea pig? I wonder if you can "fine tune" the wake with the controller in manual mode.

Take a look and let's get a discussion going. The price isn't outrageous compared to some of the aftermarket systems marketed to the wakeboard/surf crowd.

[IDBoating]

I wonder if they have heard of Lenco's AutoGlide system. Lenco has patented it, and we studied their patent carefully while patenting AutoWake. No problems with AutoWake vs. AutoGlide, but this ZipWake sounds a LOT closer.

I believe Lenco's patent is US only, so it's possible the Swedes can sell their system elsewhere in the world. But I bet they'll have a legal problem if they try to import it to the US. The attorneys are already circling overhead....

[bvaughn]

So trim tabs vs. "interceptors" would cause a patent dispute? Also, one system uses actuators (if that's the right term), and the other system does not - or maybe it does, and I'm just too dumb to recognize them. It seems to me that Zipwake is a tweak on the idea of Lenco's system - maybe an improvement.

I wish I could decipher if the system would allow for manual manipulation of the boat's roll & yaw to create a better surf wake in an evenly weighted boat.

[IDBoating]

If Malibu thinks their SurfGate patents cover Mastercraft's Gen2 system (which they do, since there's a pending lawsuit on exactly that question), then it's no stretch at all to "believe" that one auto-leveling system infringes on another. I didn't say it was logical, legal, or even morally correct... just that some lawyer, somewhere, probably believes he can make a case out of it.

For the record: I think Malibu deserved their SurfGate patents for their concept of side-mounted, vertically hinged trim tabs. That was a true innovation. But I think they have grossly overstepped the scope of their claims with their (now settled) suit against Nautique, and especially for their pending suit against Mastercraft. Patents play an important role in the business world and nonsense like that gives patents a bad name.

[lalijaca]

After watching the videos on their webpage, I cannot fathom how dropping a vertical plate down so that it is perpendicular to the direction of flow not only creates lift on the underside of the hull but is also fuel saving compared to a trim tab that alters the direction of flow.
Am I missing something there?
Good luck to them if it works, but I cannot see the advantage.

[BJM]

I think it is the opposite of tige's convex hull approach. The convex crests a suction to "pull" the back of the boat down. The tab creates a "hook" in the hull. Bass boats and some aluminum flat bottoms have a hook to get them on plane quicker.

[NICKYPOO]

The vertical blade only protrudes like 1 1/2-2". It's tiny. A trim tab is any where from 8-12". There is way more area of deflection than there is of interception with the blades. I love the idea. I'd go smaller and more effective over bigger and less effective any day.

I'd love to try a set on my boat. Just can't justify it. Yet.

[Ruger761]

Took be a bit to remember but Volvo has been making that style tab for a while now.

http://www.volvopenta.com/SiteCollec...System_eng.pdf

[IDBoating]

Took be a bit to remember but Volvo has been making that style tab for a while now.

And they're both from Sweden. Wonder if a former Volvo Engineer or two decided to split off and form their own company?

[Ruger761]

I bet your right. Wonder which one works better