After pulling Hard tanks in 210 . . .

[Clibka]

I have a 2012 210 Sante and have been trying to decide on the best ballast setup.

I think I have decided on pulling the back hard tanks, replacing them with 1100's . . . The question is, what is the best route on the front of the boat? I have talked to a very knowledgeable dealer and they have given me their suggestion. I just want to hear some other options if there are any?

Just for reference:

Wakeboard 80%
Surf 20%

My knee jerk reaction is to go with a tsunami pump and W706 open bow sac just because it gets the most weight for the $, but it wouldn't be automated. If I go with integrated bow sac I think it needs a tube sac to get enough up front which takes the cost up $210 plus install ...

smoke em' if you get em'

[gride]

forget whatever dealer, call wakemakers. make it easy on yourself.
http://www.wakemakers.com/wakeboard-...s?boat_make=26

[HS]

In the time that you've had the boat, what ballst has been your setup for WB? I ask b/c that's a lot of weight given you are 80% WB...is the extra to have on hand for surf, or is that amount of ballast what you are using for WB? Obviously I am not riding at the pro level, so excuse my comments

[Clibka]

In the time that you've had the boat, what ballst has been your setup for WB? I ask b/c that's a lot of weight given you are 80% WB...is the extra to have on hand for surf, or is that amount of ballast what you are using for WB? Obviously I am not riding at the pro level, so excuse my comments

Fair Question. I have had the boat out twice and both with stock ballast. Entirely too small if you ask me.

I imagine I would cycle the pumps 2-3 times on the rears run ~800#'s per side for wb. The extra is to have on hand for surf.

Any thoughts on the bow? the open bow sac is 800#'s plus the stock bow hard tank (450#'s i believe?) so that would leave me 1250#'s in bow to 1600#'s in rear, anyone have experience at this weight/distribution? is it worth that much more $ and loss of bow storage to go with the hidden sac?

I also was told that the pumps are ran on timers and that the "Standard Profiles" would still work after pulling hard tanks? The Linc only knows full cycle = wakeboard pro so on so forth ...

[Nordicron]

I've got an 08 210 and use 750's on top of the hard tanks. I pull the false floors up so the bag sits right on the tank and I think they fill fine, prob atleast 600lbs maybe more. So still have the tank with 300 in it. As for front I have the arrow sack(guessing only fills about 300 at most)because I didn't want to take up space under the seats. Lastly I have 300 in lead that I toss around where needed. Most often running 100-150 right in nose, just enough to help plane and keep boat from porpoising. Now I will say with this setup if your not running a 1235 prop good luck getting on plane! Also the 210 doesn't seem to like a lot of extra weight up front, the more you add the more it rounds off the wake.

[OKWAKEBDR]

You and I have the exact same boat.

I have the 750s on top of the hard tanks in the back and the integrated bow sack in the front - all automated. I cycle the pumps twice. The wake is really REALLY good. The 210 likes rear weight, and I don't think any additional weight is needed in the front. You could possibly put the locker sack in there also, but it's not needed in my opinion. This way it is all automated and all hidden.

If I were you, I'd do the 750s + the integrated bow sack, and if it's not enough then add the locker sack later. [I imagine you'll be completely satisfied without it though.] Conversely, you could pull the har tanks in the back and add the 1100s instead of 750s. However, the only reason I'd do that is if you want the extra storage when the ballast is empty.

Either way, you'll want a new prop. The 1579 with the weight I run, until you load the boat up with people also. I'm running the 1617 and it is perfect.

[Andrew14]

I just sold my 2008 210 and I ran 400's in the rear on top of the factory tanks and initially just the integrated bow sac. The problem I had with just the integrated sac in the front was porpoising because it was too rear heavy - our SouthEastern Nautique rep said just add the tube/ski locker sac and then plump it up to the integrated sac (because the integrated sac only fills about 1/3 of the way at best...not much room under bow seats in a 210). Once I added the locker sac, things got a lot better (although I still experienced some porpoising at times in rough water because the Zero Off really needs to be upgraded with the antenna and software update to completely eliminate the problem). I still have my locker sac along with the proper hose lengths and fittings to plumb it up to the Integrated sac. Let me know if you're interested in buying it from me - only used 1 season.

Andrew

[OKWAKEBDR]

I just sold my 2008 210 and I ran 400's in the rear on top of the factory tanks and initially just the integrated bow sac. The problem I had with just the integrated sac in the front was porpoising because it was too rear heavy - our SouthEastern Nautique rep said just add the tube/ski locker sac and then plump it up to the integrated sac (because the integrated sac only fills about 1/3 of the way at best...not much room under bow seats in a 210). Once I added the locker sac, things got a lot better (although I still experienced some porpoising at times in rough water because the Zero Off really needs to be upgraded with the antenna and software update to completely eliminate the problem). I still have my locker sac along with the proper hose lengths and fittings to plumb it up to the Integrated sac. Let me know if you're interested in buying it from me - only used 1 season.

Andrew

My integrated sack fills nearly the whole way. The porpoising is not caused by the ballast, it's caused by the Zero Off antenna and software that needed the upgrade. The 2012s do not have this problem at all.

[Clibka]

Now I'm on the fence about the rear. On one hand I like the idea of still having stock tanks back there (gauges, resale, less work) on the other the 1100's make a lot of sense (extra storage, a guaranteed 1000 + lbs on the corner for surfing, don't have to worry about airlock) too many decisions. Someone needs to make a definitive best solution for 210 weight thread!!!

But the info I gained here is awesome. Glad to know I don't need to go as heavy in the nose. This might make me run 1100's in back and integrated in the bow to call it a day. 1617 is going to be the prop of choice.

[scottb7]

I pulled the hard tanks in back and put in 1100's. It was a pain to get them out but glad i did. The gauges did not work anyway when filling so not a big loss there. I have them in attic for resale. It is very nice to have the extra storage in back and to sit in there when working or looking at the engine.

I am just starting to surf this year...for the center/frontI have heard everything from you don't need anything but stock belly to arrow, seat, etc. I think I will just try stock belly. I have a center locker sack from my old boat I will piggy back into belly if i need to. There is a thread somewhere about how to put 1/4 pvc tube thru so you don't have the air lock issue. I will use that method when/if i do the belly piggyback.

I am guessing I will have to get another propeller. I don't really want to spend the dough on a propeller. Depends how much surfing we do and how bad it is i guess. Just that that opens up more issues around which prop and gel burn etc. I would wonder what diff is between 1617 and 1235.

[Andrew14]

OKWAKEBDR - your 2012 210 must be a lot bigger and better boat than my 2008 210 then if your integrated sac fills nearly the whole way and you do not have any porpoising issues. Maybe you have a G21???

[Andrew14]

OP - 1100's full in the rear with the belly tank full is probably fine for surfing (I really only board), but you'll never plane out/get up to riding speed with that set-up for wakeboarding. Even with the Integrated sac full (650lb sac...fills 1/2 at best so call it 325lbs) and factory belly tank full, you wont be able to get up on plane with the 1100's full in the rear (just not enough front weight...you might have a chance with the 1235 prop, maybe). I would say if you are going to run 1100's full in the rear for wakeboarding (which is a crazy amount of weight for only a 21 foot boat), you will need to have the 1235 prop on there and the open bow triangle sac full in the front (possibly on top of the integrated sac full). I would just run the 1100's 1/2 - 3/4 full for wakeboarding with and all the way full for surfing.

[HS]

I am guessing I will have to get another propeller. I don't really want to spend the dough on a propeller. Depends how much surfing we do and how bad it is i guess. Just that that opens up more issues around which prop and gel burn etc. I would wonder what diff is between 1617 and 1235.

I had the same question: the 1617 is a 14" prop diameter with a pitch of 13.75 -- so a 1/2" less diameter than the 1235 but with less pitch (13.75") than both the 1579 and the 1235 (14.25).

Was there a test thread showing the differences in rpm's on these?

When I spoke with ACME, I was learning that if I were to go to a 14.5" prop (like the 1235), that I would choose the 1273 which has the same dia. and pitch as the 1235 but a tad more cup -- you get the hole shot and maybe less revs at cruise speed...http://www.acmemarine.com/prop-list_ski-boat.php

[OKWAKEBDR]

OP - 1100's full in the rear with the belly tank full is probably fine for surfing (I really only board), but you'll never plane out/get up to riding speed with that set-up for wakeboarding. Even with the Integrated sac full (650lb sac...fills 1/2 at best so call it 325lbs) and factory belly tank full, you wont be able to get up on plane with the 1100's full in the rear (just not enough front weight...you might have a chance with the 1235 prop, maybe). I would say if you are going to run 1100's full in the rear for wakeboarding (which is a crazy amount of weight for only a 21 foot boat), you will need to have the 1235 prop on there and the open bow triangle sac full in the front (possibly on top of the integrated sac full). I would just run the 1100's 1/2 - 3/4 full for wakeboarding with and all the way full for surfing.

Sorry if I offended you. What you are saying may be what you experienced with your boat, however it is not true of my 2012 (the OP and I have the exact same boat, the colors are even similar). Hard tanks + 750s is roughly equivalent to pulling the hard tanks and running 1100s. I fill everything all the way up (I'm not going to debate how full the integrated bow sack gets) - so let's call it roughly 2800 lbs of total ballast (2 750s + 900 lbs stock + integrated bow sack; note in the thread below, Jeff calls it over 3k lbs). I have no problem getting the boat on plane with the 1579 prop. It struggles when there's a lot of people in the boat, so I run the 1617, and I have no problem whatsoever.

Here's the test results if you don't believe me.

http://www.planetnautique.com/vb3/sh...at-s-What-s-Up!

Original porpoising thread here...

http://www.planetnautique.com/vb3/sh...ght=porpoising

[Nordicron]

I agree with Andrew. I don't care if you have a 2012 or 2008 or 2010 hull is all the same. Yes earlier boats with the round GPS Puck had porpoising problem. But even with new software and new GPS if you don't have enough bow weight in a 210 it will porpoise. Also you are not going to get on plane with a 1579 prop and full 1100's without having at least another 500 pounds in the front in addition to the belly tank. If I fill my 750s and only fill my arrow sack and belly tank even with a 1235 I struggle to get on plane. I need about 200 more pounds of lead in the nose and then she planes fine.

Also the 1235 is better in every way than the 1579! Better hole shot, better TopSpeed, lower RPM at wake boarding speed! I've said it before: Nautique screwed up not designing this boat to be able to run the 1235!!!!