More weight = narrower wake?

[bergermaister]

Was just reading in a diff post about more weight making the wake narrower. Didn't want to hijack so I'm asking here as I haven't really experimented enough and summer is a few months away so I won't be able to...

Is this true? I know more speed will narrow it up but I'm not crazy about the idea of hitting the water any harder.

I need to build back some confidence after last year's nasty wipeouts and hospital time. A narrower wake sounds a lot more friendly to me than feeling like I have to go balls out to make it across.

[ryan_8099]

I don't know anything about a narrower wake, but what about wakeboarding at a distance closer to the boat? That is what I do, it is easier to w2w that way, plus I'm not landing on top of the 2nd wake everytime. I wakeboard at 23.6 and although it was a bit hard to get used to and I found myself riding much better than I did at 19.6.

[bzubke1]

In my experience if you keep line length and speed the same the width of the wake will stay the same.

[tnbrooks01]

I have not heard of adding weight changing the width of the wake. Aside from speed and line length I think the width is set based on hull design and shape.

The LSV has small stair steps in the bottom of the hull but the hull doesn't narrow towards the back. IMO produces one of the widest wakes. The SAN 210 and 230 have large stair steps in the bottom of the hull and the sweeping cutouts that narrows towards the back of the boat, creating the narrowest wake IMO. The X-star has the large steps in the bottom of the hull but the hull doesn't narrow at all so you get the ski jump wake that they are known for.

[deepcove]

In my experience hull shape is responsible for wake width regardless of weight. I agree with tnbrooks the 210 has a narrow wake vs. a LSV which has a wake on the wider end of the spectrum. Actually I would say the 210 has a narrow V shaped wake which allows longer line riding. The LSV has a wake that is wide to begin with and widens very quickly with increased line length.

If you aren't keen on the width of you wake you should shorten your line length and progress from there.

[bergermaister]

Makes sense - wider hull = wider tip of the arrow. More ballast = more height. I'll have to play with a shorter line and see what feels good.

[tnbrooks01]

Makes sense - wider hull = wider tip of the arrow. More ballast = more height. I'll have to play with a shorter line and see what feels good.

We have a lease on private wakeboarding lake near our house. The lake is approx. 1800' by 300' with the deepest path right down the middle of 12' avg.

One thing I found while experimenting with extra sacs last week. More weight wont always = bigger wake if the water is not deep enough to support it. I ran the same setup that I had previously run on a big lake with depths of +40'. The wake was perfect. I used the same setup at the private lake and regardless of wake plate position the wake would not peak at all. Basically looked like to big round speedbumps on each side, not good for wakeboarding at all. I emptied the extra sacs and just ran stock GIII and the wake peaked back up again.

[kaneboats]

You'll find that with a surf wake too. You get in under 10 feet of water and you can just see it flatten out and lose it's push.

[bergermaister]

Well crap - one of my favorite, protected channels on the river ranges from 7-15 ft deep depending on where you are, by typically on the shallower end. I do recall last summer fighting with a crummy surf wave early on but figured it was my setup, rookie driver, running upstream, etc.

Favorite spot #2 ranges from 20-40ft deep and had a great surf wave and wake out there last summer, running up and down stream - just adjusting speed accordingly. Suppose I need to be paying a bit more attention to the depth.