Anyone checked out the Malibu Surfgate

[tdc_worm]

There is no "hiding" it behind the transom unless it folds up out of the flow of water like the wedge (which it doesn't) it's in the flow of water when it's not in use, it has to affect the handling of the boat - there's no way it couldn't. And when it's deployed it's going to cause the stern to yaw which you'll have to counter with rudder input unless they designed some sort of auto-compensation into the steering.

you have to wonder why Malibu and the nautical engineers they employ didnt think of that why they allowed it to come to market without vetting it. clearly there is a lack in their comprehension of fluid dynamics. and how did anyone ever design a boat in the first place that didnt have a natural yaw when under way. if you are sensing a hint of sarcasm, that is because i am laying it on pretty thick.

whats my point? i suspect Malibu employs nautical engineers that have a greater understanding of fluid dynamics and how it applies to wakeboats than anyone on this board.
i also suspect that in their testing, they achieved their primary goal of getting the boat to roll on axis, with the secondary interference of the the non-deployed tabs being negligible. anecdotaly, when i am behind my 230 or any other boat, i can see the water coming off the bottom of the boat and around the sides below the platform. it converges probably a full 5 feet or more behind the platform where the wake begins to form. everything in front of that convergence is dead space having no water above the hull bottom line. i bet if the Malibu engineers would have seen significant interference, they would have designed them to fold in enough to mitigate said interference.
finally, yaw is an inherent characteristic of a boat with a single prop. it is mitigated by either a) adding a second prop with an opposite rotation or b) installing an adjustable tab on the steering mechanism that creates a pressure gradient that counters the prop's rotation.

at the end of the day, the only way to create a bigger wake is to create more hull displacement which is governed by archimeds principle. the two variables that we have control over are wetted surface and negative force on the negative x axis (in terms of ballast and hull weight or drag hardware). fluid dynamics is always going to move the hull to the path of least resistance when underway, which is on top of the water. i suspect that every boat builder has sophisticated software that allows them to model a hull concept. they then build a replica to scale and actually tank test it to test the real world application. if you are looking for something revolutionary in a wake hull from anyone, i wouldnt hold my breath. they may be able to change the shape of the wake, but making it bigger is going require more weight. to that end, hull design, in my opinion, is at its pinnacle or (A game to use your term) from all of the boat builders.

[MikeC]

you have to wonder why Malibu and the nautical engineers they employ didnt think of that why they allowed it to come to market without vetting it. clearly there is a lack in their comprehension of fluid dynamics. and how did anyone ever design a boat in the first place that didnt have a natural yaw when under way. if you are sensing a hint of sarcasm, that is because i am laying it on pretty thick.

whats my point? i suspect Malibu employs nautical engineers that have a greater understanding of fluid dynamics and how it applies to wakeboats than anyone on this board.
i also suspect that in their testing, they achieved their primary goal of getting the boat to roll on axis, with the secondary interference of the the non-deployed tabs being negligible. anecdotaly, when i am behind my 230 or any other boat, i can see the water coming off the bottom of the boat and around the sides below the platform. it converges probably a full 5 feet or more behind the platform where the wake begins to form. everything in front of that convergence is dead space having no water above the hull bottom line. i bet if the Malibu engineers would have seen significant interference, they would have designed them to fold in enough to mitigate said interference.
finally, yaw is an inherent characteristic of a boat with a single prop. it is mitigated by either a) adding a second prop with an opposite rotation or b) installing an adjustable tab on the steering mechanism that creates a pressure gradient that counters the prop's rotation.

at the end of the day, the only way to create a bigger wake is to create more hull displacement which is governed by archimeds principle. the two variables that we have control over are wetted surface and negative force on the negative x axis (in terms of ballast and hull weight or drag hardware). fluid dynamics is always going to move the hull to the path of least resistance when underway, which is on top of the water. i suspect that every boat builder has sophisticated software that allows them to model a hull concept. they then build a replica to scale and actually tank test it to test the real world application. if you are looking for something revolutionary in a wake hull from anyone, i wouldnt hold my breath. they may be able to change the shape of the wake, but making it bigger is going require more weight. to that end, hull design, in my opinion, is at its pinnacle or (A game to use your term) from all of the boat builders.

I don't disagree with anything you say, and I appreciate all the effort you went to. My questions were merely concerned with the forces of the yaw, how the yaw was handled, and the forces on the tabs during a turn, particularly a high speed turn. I never stated or implied that the Malibu engineers didn't do a thorough job of vetting the design, I was simply wondering how they achieved the result and what affect they had.

The mention of the A game wasn't mine - I was replying to a previous post {start at the first post and read down} that said that this is on par with the design of the G23. I stand by my statement that this is not on par with the design of a completely new boat. I even went so far as to say that it is a novel concept, and a worthwhile idea, but still not on the same level as a new boat.

[lucky7t]

My two cents..

That looks like too much stuff attached to the back of the boat. And......

It's not a Nautique

[TRIP]

I think I'm reading some posts here written with Correct-Craft goggles on. If this was a CC-find the reactions would have been very different. "It's not the same as designing a new hull"; no, it's not, but does it have to be? I'd rather have someone inventing something that you can add on for a couple grand that gives the result you want, than them having to start from scratch, design a new hull/boat that costs 120K. I'd wish Nautique had made some flappy thing that I could add on my '85 2001 and get me the wake of the G23!

[OKWAKEBDR]

I think I'm reading some posts here written with Correct-Craft goggles on. If this was a CC-find the reactions would have been very different. "It's not the same as designing a new hull"; no, it's not, but does it have to be? I'd rather have someone inventing something that you can add on for a couple grand that gives the result you want, than them having to start from scratch, design a new hull/boat that costs 120K. I'd wish Nautique had made some flappy thing that I could add on my '85 2001 and get me the wake of the G23!

You are absolutely right! This thing is REALLY cool. However, the Malibu MXZ fully optioned out with the SurfGate is running $90k+, so it's not exactly a price-point boat.

[TRIP]

Of course, and that's absolutely not what I'm saying. Just love the simplicity of the surfgate!

[Chexi]

Seems like a pretty easy concept to test out with a piece of plywood or even a paddle.

[scottb7]

It does look like one could - in theory - just mount tabs sidewise. I had these on my larson and they worked great for hole shot and generally improved handling quite a bit. If I had the balls it would be cheapest way to test out. Although granted it would nto be automatic. It would just be cheap way to test theory. Then there are few makes of helm adjustable tabs.

http://www.nauticusinc.com/smart_tabsSX.htm

[LR3w8kbrdr]

Heres some pics I came across over on WW...2013 23 LSV - Power wedge deployed, 750 sac in each rear corner, 400 in bow 11.5mph.

[Fab]

Here you go...Must say that's quite interesting !!!

[vanislwake]

Bah, it's a Malibu still won't surf for crap!its clear as day in the videos the goofy wake is WAY better!! Just like they always have been.......I'm goofy and Malibu still suck.....

[Lvnspeed]

It does look like one could - in theory - just mount tabs sidewise. I had these on my larson and they worked great for hole shot and generally improved handling quite a bit. If I had the balls it would be cheapest way to test out. Although granted it would nto be automatic. It would just be cheap way to test theory. Then there are few makes of helm adjustable tabs.

http://www.nauticusinc.com/smart_tabsSX.htm

I wonder what it would be like????

[High altitude]

I am starting to build my surfgate for my 99 SN this weekend. I don't think it will be ready for another month or so but I will post pics and video as I go along. (especially, the on-the-water analysis of the wave) I fully agree that this is not a game changer like the hull design of the G23, but it could be a game changer for a crossover like the 200 Sport or the Wakesetter VTX. I already have a nice surf wave but I don't like slamming one side. If I can keep the rear 750 (or go to a 1000) but keep the sides clear... I have a perfect setup to make my 99 SN a true crossover. Also, the ability to to go goofy or regular at a moments notice would please my family as we have 2 goofy and 3 regular riders.
Nothing against the fine members of PN but sometimes I think that if it doesn't say Correct Craft in front of it, it gets dismissed as a bad idea on this forum. I have seen surfgates being "home-built" on almost every other boat site but not here. Hopefully, this will get the idea rolling. The more smart people involved..the better the outcome. -Marc

[jjsaustin]

I just bought a 2006 226 and was wondering about surfgate as well.

I think the question is with how critical it is to match the gate to the hull. Most of the DIY gates have been basically rectangular about 9" tall and 20-22" long. Attached is a pic of my hull which is stepped. I'm not sure how effective it would be with a plain rectangular gate.

May take some experimentation....

[wakemeup3460]

Here is a link to what the boys over at Centurion Crew are doing with a homemade surf gate.

http://www.centurioncrew.com/index.p...my-enzo-sv230/