Wakesurfing - bow weight 210 SANTE

[HS]

Listen to bowhunter's advice. Definitely Try some upfront and see, because your project could be simplified with the first step. And there's no perfect first set up. When you have six on board or three in the bow, that second sac might not be needed. Humans are ballast too!

[Clibka]

Prairie, I just recently ran a train on my boat's ballast system with 750's in the rear lockers, and an integrated bow sac (650 #'s) under the front seats. All mis piggy backed and all with 1/4 inch tubing running through them to prevent airlock. What I can tell you is the wake is HUGE. it's giving my buddy's slammed 09' xstar a run for its money. The way I see it ... Either go my route, or pull hard tanks and go 1100's, it really is roughly the same amount of weight either way just depends on what else you want to accomplish (storage space, gauges, headaches) for surfing the other day I ran port side totally full bow and belly totally full hydro gate all the way back and around 10 mph. The guys here on the forum suggested running a bit quicker to clean the wake up. I can say it was a blast. Long and steep enough for me. I will admit the piggy back hasn't been a Cinderella story so there might come a point in the near future where 2 rear 750's and piggy back hardware are for SAAAALLEEE.

[Prairiedawg]

Thanks guys, I like the idea of the arrow sack, it's hidden for the most part, doesn't take up space under the seats etc. I will probably buy that setup and go from there. I like the idea of pulling the hard tanks and installing the 1100's to get more weight, but I am an instrumentation technologist, and I like to have more gadgetry, I wouldn't want to lose the level indication even though it only works with the stock ballast. Funny that someone hasn't come up with a cheap and easy load cell solution to weigh the sacks and get a very accurate mass of the water you have in the bags, sounds like a future project....

[iamcdn]

Thanks guys, I like the idea of the arrow sack, it's hidden for the most part, doesn't take up space under the seats etc. I will probably buy that setup and go from there. I like the idea of pulling the hard tanks and installing the 1100's to get more weight, but I am an instrumentation technologist, and I like to have more gadgetry, I wouldn't want to lose the level indication even though it only works with the stock ballast. Funny that someone hasn't come up with a cheap and easy load cell solution to weigh the sacks and get a very accurate mass of the water you have in the bags, sounds like a future project....

SWS is putting in 1100s for me and pulling the hard tanks. Haven't decided on the bow weight yet as I will have the NSS and I think that lengthens the wave quite a bit and hope not to need anything up front.

[HS]

Thanks guys, I like the idea of the arrow sack, it's hidden for the most part, doesn't take up space under the seats etc. I will probably buy that setup and go from there. I like the idea of pulling the hard tanks and installing the 1100's to get more weight, but I am an instrumentation technologist, and I like to have more gadgetry, I wouldn't want to lose the level indication even though it only works with the stock ballast. Funny that someone hasn't come up with a cheap and easy load cell solution to weigh the sacks and get a very accurate mass of the water you have in the bags, sounds like a future project....

Wate about a water meter downstream of the pump...you can then go based on cubic feet and covert to lbs.?

[Prairiedawg]

Yes volume would be easier, 1 litre equal 1 kilogram, I'll have to look into it.

[Clibka]

Thanks guys, I like the idea of the arrow sack, it's hidden for the most part, doesn't take up space under the seats etc. I will probably buy that setup and go from there. I like the idea of pulling the hard tanks and installing the 1100's to get more weight, but I am an instrumentation technologist, and I like to have more gadgetry, I wouldn't want to lose the level indication even though it only works with the stock ballast. Funny that someone hasn't come up with a cheap and easy load cell solution to weigh the sacks and get a very accurate mass of the water you have in the bags, sounds like a future project....

Just a heads up. My gauges don't work like you would imagine. If I empty my system the gauges will still read empty even if there is water left in the tanks/bags. This is because they run on time not constant readouts from sending units. This is off a linc 2.0.

[iamcdn]

I am trying to decide between bow or ski locker bag to piggy back on the factory belly. For those who have done it, any pros/cons to choose one over the other?

[Andrew14]

Iamcdn....I would definitely go with the ski locker bag....its such an easy install and the tube sac fits that space perfectly. If you're going to be wakeboarding with additional ballast in the rear, then you might want to look into the tube sac in the ski locker and then the integrated bow sac (if you would like all your ballast hidden). This set-up works really well for wakeboarding. I still have my Fly High Tube Sac (from the 2008 SANTE 210 I just sold) along with all the hoses / fittings already assembled for your boat. Let me know if you would like to buy it off of me....I'm not using it in my new 230.

Andrew
Charlotte, NC

[scottb7]

Andrew,

How did you do the ski locker install? Remove hose from existing belly and route to overflow on bag? And then run new hose from input on bag to belly?

This the one you used? http://www.wakemakers.com/fly-high-tube-sac.html

Scott 2008 210....

[iamcdn]

Thanks for the info and offer Andrew. I think if I go with ski locker I will go with the arrow bag though.

[Andrew14]

Iamcdn - no problem at all. Yeah, the arrow bag is nice too...just pricey. Can't go wrong either way though.

Scottb7 - yep, that's the bag I used (have for sale). I took the overflow hose from the belly (disconnected it from the port fitting that is on the driver's side / bow area of the boat....you have to take the dashboard "kick panel" off to reach it...and then kind of crawl up in there with a long reach to disconnect it...kind of a pain, but doable), then connected the factory belly overflow hose to the bottom/end port of the tube sac facing the rear of the boat. Then I took about a 2-'3 piece of new wakemakers hose off of the top of the new tube sac on the fitting closest to the rear of the boat, but on top of the bag. From that piece, I put a T-fitting on, then took two pieces of 3'-4' hose an ran them up and to either end of the Fly High Integrated sac so that the "legs" of the integrated sac start filling at the same time. From there, I took a piece of new hose and connected it to the front/top of the integrated sac, ran it alongside the starboard side of the integrate sac and then up to the original/factory port fitting that the factory belly tank use to overflow out of. It takes a little bit of time (took me probably 2 hours to do/figure out), but it works really well (takes about 2-3 cycles on the pumps to fill) and all your ballast is hidden (which was top priority for me). With all that full and Fly High 400's full on top of rear factory ballast, the wakeboard wake is incredible. I had several "almost pro level" riders tell me that its one of the best wakes they have ever ridden. Good luck!

[HS]

Andrew, how low does the bow ride? So that's a 370 tube sac in the belly plus int. bow sac under the bow seats? Cool, I think n3 has that on the forward install.

[Andrew14]

HS - if you're offsetting this bow weight with atleast the Fly High 400lbs full in the rear, the boat rides pretty level and dipping the bow really isn't a problem (not even close to a slammed pre-2013 X-Star or even a slammed Supra). I just use to make sure to give it a little bit of throttle coming back across rollers after a downed rider to keep the nose well up, but since a good bit of the weight is in the belly (not out of over the bow like the triangle bow sac), dipping the bow shouldn't be an issue. I always felt pretty safe running this set-up and its a good bit of weight to be all hidden in a 21 foot boat. I'm going to do something similar in my new 230 by trying to plumb a triangle bow sac under the deck, then routing it up to an integrated bow sac...not going to be easy, but we'll see!

[HS]

Andrew, FWIW I went with the Arrow locker sac, even though I know it doesn't fully expand to its full dimensions, but because it at least maximized the utilization of volume under the deck. Plus i wanted it as low as could be to the keel just for the purpose of mot getting nose low. I'd be interested to hear what you learn about the space available under the deck of the 230 and which route you take.