2005 Outback Slalom Wake

[Laz]

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]

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]

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]

Deerfield best plan yet, go straight to 28 off and enjoy the flat water.

[markcr]

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/...ght=jkski+hook

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

http://tige.com/performance/Convex_V

[maxpower220]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.