Surf Ballast Upgrade

[Surfdad]

I'm going to bite the bullet and upgrade my ballast system. Currently I have a custom Fat Sac on the port side with a single positive displacement reversible pump. We've been spending so much time riding the "darkside" that it's a PITA to stuff a single sac up in the small opening in front of the locker and then another in the locker, using a Tsunami that I toss over the side. My port side bag is "permanently" connected to the pump, so I can't pump from port to starboard. I have just ordered a custom sac from Flyhigh. It's in sort of an L shape like their Enzo sac. Overall length is 70", width is 24" and the height at the back is 24". The "step" if you will, fits in the rear locker and has a length of 44", the remainder of the length going forward is only 12" high. So the finger that extends up forward under the rear seat is 26" long by 12" high, by 24 inches wide.

I'm still working on the pump system, I know at the least, it will have 2 pumps one each for the port and starboard, but I'm thinking of a third pump that will allow me to transfer between the two sac's. Partly I want to reduce the wear and tear on the pumps - I think effectively I cut the usage in half of one of the pumps and with less battery drain.

Anyway...I wonder if this will be the way folks will go in the future? Have the ability to surf both sides and want HUGE surf sac's on both sides?

[xpjim1]

After this weekend that is the way I am going. I am going to order another custom surf sac for the starboard side to replace just the v drive sac. This will match the port side and will hold about 1100#. The port side sac fills and drains in about 8-9 minutes. Turns out my daughter and her friends are all goofy foot. Thought i could get away with what i had but they all want more. (teenagers!!)

[Surfdad]

I read your thread on your ballast system install. May I ask why you went with the mulitiple Tsunami's instead of a reversible? I really think that as folks get more involved, we'll see use of the large surf sacs on both sides.

[G-MONEY]

JUST THINK YOU CAN FILL BOTH SIDES AND HAVE 2200+LBS FOR WAKEBOARDING!!!!

[xpjim1]

Basically it was a cost and fill time issue. I was very close to getting the 3 pump make-a-wake system. But even with that i would still need the hoses and fittings. There were plenty of people with rival systems, and diy directions, pumps are cheap to replace and I figured it was easier to duplicate. The reversibles have the advantage of the same fill and drain line which was very appealing.
The fill times I did calculations and for the large sacs I was using the time to fill was 8-9 minutes for the tsunamis and over 16 for the ballast puppy. I do not think you could go wrong either way.

[Surfdad]

G-money - the theoretical weight of my starboard sac will be 1,186 pounds and I know the port side had a theoretical weight that was close to 1,800 - so 3,000 pounds, but it'll only be useful in the port side

Yeah, I hear you xpjim1, my current system is the OLD make-a-wake single pump. So it has the higher output Jabsco industrial pump. That pump has just about the same flow rate as the Tsunami. The reversibles, I think I remember, have a longer motor life, but the impellers went out quicker than the hard plastic impeller in the Tsunami...being replaceable for like $20 and only needing a single pump rather than 2 was why I chose the reversible. I think in this system I want to have the two "main" pumps be the higher flow industrial Jabsco pump and the transfer pump possibly a small ballast puppy.

The cheapest I have been able to find the Tsunami's was 129, in my configuration that would run me about $775 and I think that I can get the make-a-wake system for $665 - we'll see.

[xpjim1]

The tsunami's are $30 dollars each. I spent $180 total for 6 of them at WAKESIDE. Do not buy the over the side tsunami but just the barebones with the pump and the outlet elbow

[xpjim1]

http://www.wakeside.com/page/w/PROD/...h_ballast_pump

I can see why you stay clear of the Tsunamis at 129 apiece

Do a review on wakeside product and they will give you a $25 dollar gift certificate

[Surfdad]

$30 bucks?! I paid 130 for the one I have?! It's a little different that the one pictured here - where is the "why do things that only happen to stupid people happen to me" smilie!

[Greg Mallek]

Hey Surfdad -E-O;
make sure you post some pics of that custom sac. I like that idea, rather than the "Sofa" that tkes up all my floor space.

[dogbert]

Anybody ever think about a swim platform mounted ballast system? It would be under the swim platform and could be filled on either side. The advantage would be that when the boat's at rest, it wouldn't sit a lot lower in the water, but when you were surfing or wakeboarding, you'd have the extra weight pretty far back.

Thoughts?

[Surfdad]

Surfdad - E -O that's too funny.

This is the general shape of the sac:

http://www.fatsac.com/FlyHigh/FlyHighSacs.html#13

Mine will only have two ports on the top. One towards the back and one towards the front. When I fill my ballast up, the air gets trapped in that front of the highest part of the sac, so I place a vent there. xpjim1 has one at the bottom in the back for his drain pump.

[Surfdad]

Dogbert, I swear there used to be such a system available, it was a hard tank that mounted underneath the swim platform. I think at the time it was manually operated, you jumped in and opened a fitting and the water filled the tank. Then to drain you opened it and drove around...similar to the Calabria ballast without the waste gate.

[da.bell]

Anybody ever think about a swim platform mounted ballast system? It would be under the swim platform and could be filled on either side. The advantage would be that when the boat's at rest, it wouldn't sit a lot lower in the water, but when you were surfing or wakeboarding, you'd have the extra weight pretty far back.

Thoughts?

I am not sure I like that idea. We had so much weight in the back at one time that the platform was destroying the wake. We had to adjust the taps to offset this but eventually got it to work while Taps was at 4. Now, we were not properly ballast either but this could be a problem if making the platform part of the ballast system like you are saying.

[dogbert]

I am not sure I like that idea. We had so much weight in the back at one time that the platform was destroying the wake. We had to adjust the taps to offset this but eventually got it to work while Taps was at 4. Now, we were not properly ballast either but this could be a problem if making the platform part of the ballast system like you are saying.

I guess I should have clarified...you'd still need ballast near the bow to counteract, but you wouldn't need a whole lot back there for a decent surf wake. Wakeboarding would require less, comparatively speaking.