'97 snob fat sac positioning

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • natetnc
    • Jul 2009
    • 29



    '97 snob fat sac positioning

    looking to improve the wake on my 97 snob, wanted to know if anyone out there had played around with the placement of sacs to get the best wake. if there is a standard, like as much in the rear as possible, then let me know. i don't have any experience with this so any info will be helpful.

    -nate
  • DanielC
    1,000 Post Club Member
    • Nov 2005
    • 2669

    • West Linn OR

    • 1997 Ski Nautique

    #2
    RE:

    I have a 1997 Ski Nautique. Your engine, and helm are shifted about 8" aft, compared to my boat. Most of the time, I just use people for ballast.
    I have had a 550 pound sack aft of the engine cover, in front of the back seat. Way to much weight aft. If I was serious about wakeboarding, I would experiment with two side sacks.
    Because of the narrow beam of the Ski Nautique, a little weight is very effective in sinking the boat. It is also sensitive to side to weight distribution. Tell your passengers the side of the boat with the most whitewash on the wake, needs more weight. Be careful how you say this, some people of the female gender can get a little sensitive.
    Once you get into higher wakeboard speeds, the boat will start acting like a ski boat. The wake will flatten out, even with a lot of weight. It is a ski boat.
    I do not have a tower on my boat. I do have a "Ten Foot Pole" I feel that the high rope attachment is more important than weight. You have learn to progressive cut.
    Hope this helps.

    Comment

    • WakeSlayer
      1,000 Post Club Member
      • Sep 2005
      • 2069

      • Silver Creek, MN

      • 1968 Mustang

      #3
      Re: RE:

      Originally posted by DanielC
      Be careful how you say this, some people of the female gender can get a little sensitive.
      Ha. This is extremely good advice.
      the WakeSlayer
      1999 Super Air - Python Powered <-- For Sale
      1968 Correct Craft Mustang

      Comment

      • natetnc
        • Jul 2009
        • 29



        #4
        looking at a 6ft pole, is a 10ft much more effective? was thinking more of storage than anything, i want it to be easily stowed away when not in use.

        progressive cut?

        Comment

        • WakeSlayer
          1,000 Post Club Member
          • Sep 2005
          • 2069

          • Silver Creek, MN

          • 1968 Mustang

          #5
          Ten Foot Pole is a brand name. Progressive cut means exactly that. Get out wide and progressively cut harder and harder towards the wake.
          the WakeSlayer
          1999 Super Air - Python Powered <-- For Sale
          1968 Correct Craft Mustang

          Comment

          • laddski
            • Aug 2003
            • 110

            • Billings, MT


            #6
            We have a sport nautique which is similar, just a little bigger, and you should get a similar result. We remove the back seat, put a 750-800lb fat seat in the back. I then use an old single rider tube we have and put it in the bow for about 300-350lbs. This gives us an amazing wake and it was pretty cheap to pull together.

            Comment

            • natetnc
              • Jul 2009
              • 29



              #7
              not scared to be a newbie ........ i too have a sport nautique, just miss interpreted the acronym found in another thread. oh well, guess i will mess with them a little to find the best wake. will probably try the back first then move them to the sides. i bought two 400# sacs today. thanks for the suggestions.

              Comment

              • gotpwr
                • Aug 2004
                • 244

                • Louisville, KY

                • None

                #8
                Put all 800lbs in the back. You are trying to simulate a V-drive for the best wakeboarding wake. I usually run 950lbs in the back of my boat for wakeboarding.
                2000 Air Nautique Powered by FORD <-- Former Boat

                Comment

                Working...
                X