SANTE 210 2005 wake surfing too close to platform

[Dogma]

We have a SANTE 210 2005 and have recently tried wake surfing. We use stock ballast on surf side and in belly and load passengers to surf side. It seems that wake is REALLY close to boat and to get sweet spot the rider needs to almost touch platform with the board. That seems too close. Are we doing something wrong or is that consistent with others' experiences?

[ers906]

More weight in the front will extend the pocket. I run 750 in the surfside locker, 1000# of weight (lead and flyhigh ballast) on the surfside seat, 400 in the ski locker, and 650 in the bow. Usually one or two people in the bow and the rest of the group on the surfside

[WakeSlayer]

You need more weight and a better weight distribution. We were riding easily 15' back this evening and just hanging there when we wanted. Do a few searches on surf set ups, there are a ton of threads about it.
If you have a couple spare fatsacs, put one in the rear locker on the rider's side, and then put the second one the long way on the side seat. If you have no other weight put a passenger in the bow, and the other passengers on the sac on the seat. You have to adjust people and weight a little but your wake should be tall, long and smooth. If it is right up at the transom, you need quite a bit more weight forward to elongate it.
Your boat will naturally have a slightly to somewhat better wake on the starboard side due to the prop rotation. I run a varying 650 rear, 650-700 side, 300 bow, 400 belly.
Somewhere in the 2100-2300 range.

Happy surfin'

[WakeSlayer]

Eric, Nice pic of your gunnel.

Have you tried putting the extra couple people in the bow in the cockpit opposite the rider's side towards the front on the side seat? Or one there and one in the jump seat? I do this when I am really pushing the weight with extra people like you are, and find it improves the shape of the wake quite a bit

[ers906]

I dont have a jump seat but I may move people around if it improves the shape. I may also shift some of the lead over the ski locker. Do you have pictures of your wave? I think with some playing around I can get a pretty solid size wave with a long pocket.

[jimmyj]

05 san.

[Dogma]

Thanks for the advice. Sounds like, primarily, I need to put more weight in the bow.

[bkey79]

Maybe I shouldve posted up my surf questions here instead of wake world and wake outlaws!

Anyone have a pic of a great port side surf?

The boat:

1996 Super Sport Nautique (Same hull as 1998-2005 Super Air Nautique I think...)

Integrated ballast is:
- 1000lb front sack
- 750lb port side
- 750lb starboard side

Available extra ballast:
- (2) Fly high 450lb-ers
- (2) Launch Pad 440lb-ers
- (1) Launch Pad 350lb ski locker ballast
- (6) 50lb led bricks

Total ballast available is 4930lbs!!!! Not that I'd think about using all of that!

Well I've only got the boat out twice, been in the shop since I bought it...

The first weekend, the front ballast impeller went out, so I had 750# in port locker and 350# along the port side seat.. Not surfable..



Switched to 750# in starboard locker and 350# on starboard seat. Surfable, but my skills arent riding goofy..




This last weekend, my engine bay lift switch went out, and couldnt get to my throwable pump... So I had 750# port side locker and 1000# in the nose.. Outcome was surfable, but only on a 5'11" board, and not very fun...

[2Tuff]

Here is what I run in my 2000 SAN 210.

750 in surf side locker
1200 on seat of surf side
150 under each front seat in bow - 450 total
The perfect pass is set at 9.8

These pictures were taken with only driver and spotter in boat. The passenger was sitting on the respected surf side.

I am 6'4" and about 275, so I have a hard time riding farther back than in the picture. Most everyone else that goes with me can surf 15' back no problem.

[bkey79]

Hmmm... Looks really good. This biggest difference I have is in the nose. I have that playpen front with a triangle 1000lb sack. Should I just fill it up all the way or guess it half full?

[reeder]

Agreed, I had a 2003 and 2005 SANTE. If I ran ONLY the stock ballast for surfing (Port or Starboard) the sweet spot was very close to the platform.

We usually had a boat full of people so we shifted everyone and coolers to the appropriate side to help. As mentioned above, fat sacs would definatley enhance the surf wake in a big way and give you alot more flexibilty as far as the sweet spot. Also makes the sweet spot bigger and longer!

Happy weighting!

[bowvan]

If your having trouble with your port side surf wake, try driving from the observers seat (port side). If your not comfortable with the observers seat, at least use a jump seat or a cooler in the walk way. This almost always makes the difference between mush and perfection in my '04 SAN.

Having the driver sit up on the gunnel, just above the throttle does wonders for the starboard side too.

[WakeSlayer]

If your having trouble with your port side surf wake, try driving from the observers seat (port side). If your not comfortable with the observers seat, at least use a jump seat or a cooler in the walk way. This almost always makes the difference between mush and perfection in my '04 SAN.

Having the driver sit up on the gunnel, just above the throttle does wonders for the starboard side too.

I was going to suggest the observers seat driver move, as I always do this. I did not because of safety implications and legality, but...... since someone did, I will vouch for this making a positive difference for the port side. Note that I live on a small private lake, and I am the self-appointed sheriff, , I cannot get popped for it. This is probably illegal, like gunnel riding on most, if not all, lakes.

[ers906]

I agree with Wakeslayer as far as the legality of it, but as I see most surf boats running with well above the weight as certified by the USCG (usually by four digits), most law enforcement officials could have a field day if they so choose. Thankfully, most only tend to be a PITA if the boat in question is being driven by a jackass.

[WakeSlayer]

Just FYI, the CG weight rating is a manufacturing statement. It is not the legal load capacity limit, by any means. It is merely a suggestion...