Jump to content

 

Welcome to TheMalibuCrew!

As a guest, you are welcome to poke around and view the majority of the content that we have to offer, but in order to post, search, contact members, and get full use out of the website you will need to Register for an Account. It's free and it's easy, so don't hesitate to join the TheMalibuCrew Family today!

Sign in to follow this  
wake00

Wedge...

Recommended Posts

wake00

First off, I would like to apologize of this is an old topic or discussion.

But, I recently found this on WakeWorld, and am a little concerned.

http://www.wakeworld.com/MB/Discus/messages/65921/85761.html

Are these incidents pretty common? I have always heard good things about the wedge, until I read this. I have a Sportster LX (which I know is common for having very low sides and the ability to swamp easily), but is it that bad with the wedge done and a descent amount of people in it? I just want to make sure my passengers and I are going to be safe. Any input is apprciated. Thanks-Jason

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jklein

Please don't take this the wrong way... but:

I think you should read through the entire WW thread carefully.

That topic was beat to death over there and any questions you have certainly have already been answered and addressed in the thread.

Re-hashing it over here is just a waste of time IMO.

After reading through the whole thread (and yes I have read through the whole thing... some time back) you still have questions, then by all means, post them here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Addictedto6

I've heard of the strut problem a couple of times, but not the big hull damage problem. I really feel for the guy who had his hull ripped out. The Verona area has great water but tends to have lots of underwater obstacles (mostly trees) that you need to be very careful of.

My personal opinion as an observer on the hull damage is more along the lines of kevin b. responses in that thread. Underwater objects hit just right & at speed can cause hull damage. However, if it happened to me personally with my young kids on the boat, I can't say I wouldn't react emotionally the same way the owner did.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Addictedto6
Re-hashing it over here is just a waste of time IMO.

I feel like I need to stick up for wake00. I don't think he was asking for a rehash on who's fault, etc (which is the bulk of the wake thread), but instead is it a common problem...

Edited by Addictedto6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Malibuman

No offense, BUT if you read the thread, the opinion of EVERYBODY, but the dipstick who posted it, was driver error. You have a 98 boat with the wedge and it's still intact and that's only the second post like that I have seen in 6 years, I would say the wedge is an awesome invention!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jklein

I think the broken bolt issue (as shown in the first picture on the ww post) was a real problem that Malibu claimed was a result of maufacturing quality of the bolt and the incoming inspection process at Malibu. I'm pretty sure they covered those broken wedges under warranty and since taken corrective action to prevent the defect in the future.

As far as hull damage occuring due to a deployed wedge striking a submerged object, and how often it happens is anyone's guess I suppose.

It likely depends on what time of the year it is, and how low the water levels are. I don't think that a floating log would do too much more damage with the wedge up or down to be honest. If you hit a log with the wedge down, it's going to strike the hull first, then the center fin assembly, then the strut / driveshaft, then the prop, then the rudder, and finally the wedge. Considering that you would be traveling at about 22mph when all that happened, I think it might do some damage, but it shouldn't rip a hole in your transom as shown in the second photo. It would also depend on how big the log was. I could be wrong. A log incident would be more likely in the spring I would think unless you're driving in a river.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
wake00

I would like to apologize again. I didn't mean to start another thread about one that has been beat to death from more then a year ago.

Also I am new to the inboard boat scene. And I know entire to much about early model f-bodys and Tacomas, and regularly post on those forums. I understand how it can be very annoying when newbies ask very redundant questions. I just would like to know and learn as much as possible.

For the question, I am sorry for not re-wording it. I have finals this week, and my mind is elsewhere. I did actually read the whole thing. I found most of it pretty frustrating, because it seemed to be people just arguing back and forth about whos fault it was.

I guess what I original wanted to know was: I recently just purchased this boat about two weeks ago. The owner I bought it from was a barefooter, and used the wedge only a few times. I bought this boat with my money I have been saving for awhile, and want to take care of it. I'm going to be wakeboarding most of the time, and will have the wedge down most of the time. I was curious to how other Sportster owners dealt with their boats with the wedge and a descent amount of people in it. Opinions? Problems? Ideas?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
NorCaliBu

I have a Sporty w/o a wedge right now but I plan on adding one. To me this makes the most since for wake enhancement. With the low freeboard of the Sporty you don't want to be putting a bunch a weight in it so the wedge really is the perfect answer.

As to the damage incurred by striking something...I don't know that the wedge will make you hit something that you wouldn't have hit anyway. It sure seems like the wedge itself would fold up and/or break off before it pulled the back of the boat apart. Just know your waterways and stay out of shallow water.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
doughickey

To wake00. You've asked a valid question in a valid way. I agree with addictedto6... you haven't asked to rehash the entire issue.... you're not trying to defend the poor knucklehead whose trying to get Malibu to pay up.... you've just asked if these kind of issues are common, and should you be concerned. Fair question.

I also followed the thread over a year ago (actually posted a response as well), and it was tough to read through all the arguments to determine whether the wedge offered increased risk....and if som under what conditions.

In spite of people trying to defend the wedge design, we also heard about pins/screws/bolts not long enough, hitting submerged objects, dangers with sharp turns, and dangers with wedge deployed at speed. Each of these in fact does increase risk, but risk is also reduced with awareness and common sense. Having said that, we don't always know what's underneath the surface.

Another factor that I've always had a hard time with. Some folks have said the malibu transom was designed to hold the wedge. I would seriously challenge this. i would suggest that the wedge was designed to be fitted onto the malibu transom as it was originally designed. There is a difference.

16 months ago the wedge thread scared me also. I posted that I would never buy a boat with a wedge. Too many risks. I've actually changed my mind. In the past 16 months I've seen the advantages of having a wedge for my kids who are starting to (yuck) like boarding. (not my sport). if I bought "used" i would be nervous of how the previous owner handled wedge usage, but if i inspected the hull/running gear/transom and saw no signs of damage, I would be fine. If I bought NEW, I would actually order WITH a wedge. Gives me the flexibility for boarding without fat sacks, plus increases resale value. Lastly, I've been on MBO and now The Crew for 18 months..... and have not heard 1 wedge horror story. MBO had 4000 members. I would suspect that if there had been a problem with any of the 4000, we would have heard.

The net. If you've inspected the hull and underwater gear and all looks good.... feel good, you're got a boat that offers ski/board flexibility. And good resale. However, as you have learned, just gotta know the waters you're in, no wicked turns, no high speed runs, keep an eye on the pins.

And if you don't like it, take the wedge part off, add a Scarpa Plate to the bracket, and you now have a wicked footin' boat!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sunsetter95

Looking at the new Malibu models compared to my '95 with a Wedge. One of the things I noticed is that the older Wedge has 3 SS bolts on each strut holding the foil on. The pins are solid 1/2" SS with 1/2" bolts at the top.

The later models have only 2 bolts per strut holding the foil on, the 1/2" locking pins are not 1/2" all the way, the are reduced to ~3/8" right where the strut to mounting plate is. They are still anchored at the top with the same 1/2" bolts.

It appears to me the Malibu has made attempts to address this safety issue by reducing the thickness of the locking pins at the shear point if an object struck the Wedge. The foil also has one less bolt per strut holding it which adds another built in failure point for safety.

I do believe that they, Malibu, will continue to provide a safe quality product for the public. With that said, I also believe that these are not just pleasure boats, but performance tow boats. Any time performance is involved, there are trade offs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jklein
In spite of people trying to defend the wedge design, we also heard about pins/screws/bolts not long enough, hitting submerged objects, dangers with sharp turns, and dangers with wedge deployed at speed. Each of these in fact does increase risk, but risk is also reduced with awareness and common sense. Having said that, we don't always know what's underneath the surface.
It appears to me the Malibu has made attempts to address this safety issue by reducing the thickness of the locking pins at the shear point if an object struck the Wedge. The foil also has one less bolt per strut holding it which adds another built in failure point for safety.

Good points by both of these posters. I concur with these thoughts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wkerat

If you think of the number of boats malibu has sold with the wedge and the few incidents we have heard of, the percentage is astounding. My dealer told me that something like 95% of the boats built have the wedge on them...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
88Skier

If you hit something hard enough to tear the wedge and part of the transom off your boat, you've got big problems whether the wedge was on there or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MARiley

should you be concerned?

not in the slightest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
m&m

i went back and looked at the old post from wake world. does anybody know how things turned out for greg, the guy with the damaged boat? has malibu made any changes or improvements to the wedge to allow break away of the wedge? don't want to rehash, curious how it turned out. thanks mike.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RogerQ

The unfortunate part of the story is that the owner had no insurance, thus the stink, according to one Malibu employee I met during the CA factory tour. Since my wedge is not as low as my rudder & prop, anything I hit under water will do a lot of damage regardless if the wedge is deployed or not.

Amy Mauzy has heard of 2 incidents like the one described. "As for your Wedge question, yes I am aware of the photograph that you were shown, but no, that type of thing does not happen often. In fact I know of two cases like this since the inception of the Wedge in 1997. In that time more than 20,000 Wedges have been installed and sold on Malibu Boats"

It does not seem like a problem or even much of an added risk to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sunsetter95
The unfortunate part of the story is that the owner had no insurance, thus the stink, according to one Malibu employee I met during the CA factory tour. Since my wedge is not as low as my rudder & prop, anything I hit under water will do a lot of damage regardless if the wedge is deployed or not.

Amy Mauzy has heard of 2 incidents like the one described. "As for your Wedge question, yes I am aware of the photograph that you were shown, but no, that type of thing does not happen often. In fact I know of two cases like this since the inception of the Wedge in 1997. In that time more than 20,000 Wedges have been installed and sold on Malibu Boats"

It does not seem like a problem or even much of an added risk to me.

20,000 Wedges! Shocking.gif Mine is #407. That must make it.... well....something Biggrin.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JohnDoe

No way that there have been 20,000 wedges.

I have seen plenty of wedges that have just been bent around without hitting anything (like the first picture in the WW thread).

If the driver was going a safe speed, did not hit anything, and someone is hurt from the sudden change in speed, should malibu be responsible? What if no one is hurt, should they be responsible for teh damage when the driver hasn't hit anything?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
NorCaliBu
I have seen plenty of wedges that have just been bent around without hitting anything (like the first picture in the WW thread). 

Really? I would venture to guess that you've seen "wedges that have just been bent around" and the owner claims he didn't hit anything. It's the "blame someone else and sue them" game. And it's BS, but let's not have this conversation again.

Edited by NorCaliBu

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
R1LOVER
No way that there have been 20,000 wedges. 

I have seen plenty of wedges that have just been bent around without hitting anything (like the first picture in the WW thread). 

If the driver was going a safe speed, did not hit anything, and someone is hurt from the sudden change in speed, should malibu be responsible?  What if no one is hurt, should they be responsible for teh damage when the driver hasn't hit anything?

:biteme::Doh:

20,000 since 1997 and now would be 80 boats per month at all three plants for the past 7 years......That's if every boat came with the wedge.....

Makes you think doesn't it ???

Edited by R1LOVER

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JohnDoe
I have seen plenty of wedges that have just been bent around without hitting anything (like the first picture in the WW thread). 

Really? I would venture to guess that you've seen "wedges that have just been bent around" and the owner claims he didn't hit anything. It's the "blame someone else and sue them" game. And it's BS, but let's not have this conversation again.

No, actually "curled" wedges were quite a problem in some '02 and '03 boats. The curling did not come from hitting something, they curled because the screws failed. This was a nationwide problem and many wedges were replaced after malibu discovered the problem. I have seen them firsthand and talked to people firsthand. So, no, I don't think that the driver is just saying they didn't hit anything. I don't live in an area where you ever hit anything anyway. I also know that the boat was very difficult to control after the curl, and could have caused many accidents.

The blame someone else and sue them game? Give me a break. If one of those operators had that happen and a wife or child fell overboard who lost a leg, I, unlike you, do not think it BS that they would sue Malibu. Do you really cast that much scorn on those who have to live with debilitating injuries the rest of their lives? I guess the only group you have more contempt for than victims are democrats.

As for there being 20,000 wedges, no way. First of all, that number may be accurate as to how many boats Malibu has made, but no Vdrives prior to '01 had a wedge, and not nearly every boat produced since 97 has had the wedge. It took a few years for it to even catch on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
NorCaliBu

I hadn't heard of the "curling" problem. If that be the case then I would say yes it's a defective product (or product design) and the manufacturer would be and should be liable. The only pic's/stories that I've ever seen/heard were object strikes and that simply is not the manufacturers responsibility. I personally like to affix responsibility to the person who did the stupid _______ (whatever).

As far as losing control of the vessel, you're doing around 20 mph, if the boat becomes difficult to steer, shut 'er down. Assuming you're a safe distance from shore, no harm done. Do you have some evidence of someone being ejected and losing limbs? Or did you just add that for sensationalism?

As far as 20K wedges...I have no idea. I never spoke to that so argue with someone else if you like.

My contempt for victims? Give it a rest, you're just showing your true colors. My previous post could in no way be deemed a personal attack, how about yours? Maybe it's time for more contemplation and reflection.

Edited by NorCaliBu

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JohnDoe
I hadn't heard of the "curling" problem.  If that be the case then I would say yes it's a defective product (or product design) and the manufacturer would be and should be liable.  The only pic's/stories that I've ever seen/heard were object strikes and that simply is not the manufacturers responsibility.  I personally like to affix responsibility to the person who did the stupid _______ (whatever).

As far as losing control of the vessel, you're doing around 20 mph, if the boat becomes difficult to steer, shut 'er down.  Assuming you're a safe distance from shore, no harm done.  Do you have some evidence of someone being ejected and losing limbs?  Or did you just add that for sensationalism?

As far as 20K wedges...I have no idea.  I never spoke to that so argue with someone else if you like.

My contempt for victims?  Give it a rest, you're just showing your true colors.  My previous post could in no way be deemed a personal attack, how about yours?  Maybe it's time for more contemplation and reflection.

Sure, "shut 'er down". I agree, you agree, I'm sure everyone would agree that thats what you should do. But I'm also sure that in an emergency, all people react differently: some collected, some not so much. Kind of like saying that in a tire blow out, gently apply the brakes and select a safe opportunity to pull off the road, right? I agree with you: affix responsibility on who did the stupid ______. Contrary to what must get reported in "norcal", thats the goal of the entire system.

I posed a hypothetical to solicit responses about whether a factual scenario like that would impose liability on Malibu. I didn't say that I "have evidence of someone being ejected", nor was I "sensationalizing". I posed a question and wanted some thoughts. Your thoughts were that people were playing a "blame someone else and sue them game", and I appreciate it. I disagree, but nonetheless, I got what I asked for, and responded in what I considered to be a fair way.

I don't know how to quote multiple people, I wasn't responding to you.

Give what a rest? In every discussion we have had, you have been of the opinion that when someone is injured, it's their own fault and that they're after a paycheck (paraphrasing, but certainly not far from the truth). As for showing my true colors, I don't really know what you mean. I am not, not have I ever been, afraid to show my true colors on here. I feel a great sympathy for people who have been hurt in accidents or who will become accident victims and I will stand up for them. I would certainly hope that my true colors have shined in the past. I will also stand up for them even though a well-funded war is being waged against victims and their future rights. It is so well-funded and distorting that our entire culture tells us that corporations do no wrong and that it's victims' fault. I will stand up for victims even though this war has created contempt for me and my colleagues because of distorted facts, figures, and case reporting. I don't need any reflection to figure out my colors. Perhaps it is you that needs to reflect since all you have ever done is blame victims and, for the first that I can remember, have admitted that victims are not always the tortfeasor. I have picked my side. I don't need to reflect any more. Reflect on your side. But I bet you'll change your mind one day.

Personal attacks don't bother me, I'm secure enough to handle them. But don't accuse me of needing more contemplation and reflection time in the same paragraph which accuses me of attacking you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
R1LOVER

Ding....... Ding.........back to your corners.................

Why do people want to argue on the internet??? Go figure......

Guns.gifGuns.gifGuns.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sunsetter95
I will also stand up for them even though a well-funded war is being waged against victims and their future rights.  It is so well-funded and distorting that our entire culture tells us that corporations do no wrong and that it's victims' fault.  I will stand up for victims even though this war has created contempt for me and my colleagues because of distorted facts, figures, and case reporting. 

Funny you should have this statement in you point of view.

We are fighting with a large corporation and it has cost us almost everything. And I mean everything. Our "New" home had construction defect in the foundation preparation and construction, and when we finally got the builder listen to us, they said "we don't see a problem with it".

They just have to just say no to the home owner and it is the home owners problem to figure out what is wrong, how and how much to fix it. All of this take a ton of money, time, and a lot of stress. If you can hold out to get it to court, there is still no guarantee that the judgement will go your way.

"our entire culture tells us that corporations do no wrong and that it's victims' fault"

is exactly the way we feel. We were told that we water our plant too much, that is why we have moisture issues in the house.

WE go to court Nov 1.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...