M24

[vanamp]

25 minutes ago, justgary said:

I'm not sure I see it that way.  The whole point to deploying a flap is to force the hull to rotate and skid sideways.  You'd get more rotation from the same size flap by moving it forward, not backward.  Obviously, the sideways skid needs to be controllable and it needs to create an acceptable wave.  

In any event, I can see how a computational fluid dynamics (CFD) model could help one design a somewhat optimized wave machine.  I don't know if Malibu actually uses such a model to help them design, but it seems that a lot of people are impressed with the wave.  I'm supposing that they model before they build, simply because it is far cheaper than building and testing the real thing.

How about an experiment to settle this?  When one of you has the boat and the hankering to know, build a suck gate the same size and shape as the new gate, then stick it a the rear of the hull.  Be sure to come back with comparative photos of your wave.

Surfgate is not about hull rotation that is what the tab systems do.  Surfgate is about delayed convergence. I have already done this experiment on my old boat and it performed better with the gate further back. 

That being said as these boats get bigger and bigger you can probably give up a little and still have an awesome wave.  

[vanamp]

1 hour ago, Five Cent Worth said:

100%.  Do we really think all the R&D work would yield a worse wave than the previous generations?  Has that happened before?

Its not so much as the wave would be worse than previous malibu's but that they may have left a little on the table as far as surf wave goes with the sleek design.  It may be the biggest baddest wave ever but there will always be the "what if" that surfgate extended back to the traditional spot. 

[kerpluxal]

11 minutes ago, vanamp said:

Its not so much as the wave would be worse than previous malibu's but that they may have left a little on the table as far as surf wave goes with the sleek design.  It may be the biggest baddest wave ever but there will always be the "what if" that surfgate extended back to the traditional spot. 

The bigger the gate, the more effective it is. The gate on the hull is way larger than the ones behind the hull... This has been known for years and why the second gen tabs are bigger than the 1st gen. "Sleek" design might be one of the outcomes, but a larger gate produces a better wave. A gate that size could not go behind boat.

[CJAY]

1 hour ago, Five Cent Worth said:

100%.  Do we really think all the R&D work would yield a worse wave than the previous generations?  Has that happened before?

Yes many times int he industry changes that were supposed to be better have ended up with a worse product.  Not saying this will be one of them, but the assumption that R&D always makes a better product is for sure not true.  Most recent example was the 2013 xstar, that thing was supposed to be revolutionary, and bombed

[vanamp]

12 minutes ago, kerpluxal said:

 A gate that size could not go behind boat.

Sure it could, but they decided asthetics was more important then engineering a way to get a bigger gate behind a boat. I am not saying that was the incorrect decision on their part just that it was not done to improve the surf wave. 

[agarabaghi]

everyone on the malibucrew became a boat hull engineer overnight lol 

[Chappy]

On 10/1/2019 at 9:31 AM, vanamp said:

Surfgate fusion probably sacrifices some on the surf wave for the sleeker look, probably does not matter on a boat that big but still odd to take a step back in wave quality.

Ummm, do you really think Malibu would have done this if it sacrificed wave quality?  Everyone that has seen the boat says the wave is amazing so I am not understanding how you make this leap.

[Chappy]

23 hours ago, eubanks said:

3. I love the idea of sub-floor ballast like the G.  I think it's crazy that I can't fit anything in the rear lockers of my '19 23LSV due to the PNP bags.

Totally agree, this is about 4 years overdue.  Hope this makes it way down the line at some point!

[Chappy]

16 hours ago, CLTMalibu08 said:

Is it just me or does 3200lbs ballast seem mediocre?? I have that much in my 08 VLX.

That is 3200 sub floor, you do not have that in your VLX.

[boardjnky4]

18 minutes ago, Chappy said:

That is 3200 sub floor, you do not have that in your VLX.

The boat is also probably twice as heavy as an 08 VLX.

[NWBU]

35 minutes ago, Chappy said:

Ummm, do you really think Malibu would have done this if it sacrificed wave quality?  Everyone that has seen the boat says the wave is amazing so I am not understanding how you make this leap.

TMC would never agree this glass is half-full.

[TenTwentyOne]

19 minutes ago, boardjnky4 said:

The boat is also probably twice as heavy as an 08 VLX.

Honestly, that is my biggest facepalm with this boat. They built it almost 2k lbs heavier than it needs to be, just to avoid needing to incorporate competitive ballast amounts. The boat would have been much better if they could have figured out a way to have it be about the same weight as a 24MXZ, and have a 4500-5000lb ballast system.

Take a 24MXZ or a 25LSV, throw in 2000lbs of unnecessary lead, and I bet they perform as good or better than the M240...... but I bet it would get annoying to have the boat running around that heavy when you are using it for anything but surfing. That is what I don’t like about the excessive dry weight. Seems like a cheat, and has a lot of downsides. Not worth it in my opinion.

[Sparky450]

24 minutes ago, NWBU said:

TMC would never agree this glass is half-full.

I agree half full and also cold😂😂🥶🥶

[REHinH20]

42 minutes ago, NWBU said:

TMC would never agree this glass is half-full.

To me this looks completely full!!

1/2 with water 1/2 with air!

[Dock4]

I think the 240 looks amazing.  I'm not in the market for this boat for a number of reasons.  However, I'm happy Malibu is pushing the edge on what's possible and what people want.  Hoping to see some features trickle down to the rest of the models. 

[vanamp]

1 hour ago, Chappy said:

Ummm, do you really think Malibu would have done this if it sacrificed wave quality?  Everyone that has seen the boat says the wave is amazing so I am not understanding how you make this leap.

I am not saying the wave is not amazing(I have not been behind one) just that it probably would be better if it had the surfgates in the traditional position.  Look at how tapered the platform is there was obviously a reason for that.  This boat is not marketed at the surf nuts so yes it would make sense to sacrifice a little for aesthetics.  Even though they may have sacrificed a bit does not mean its not there best wave yet just that they may have left a little on the table in favor of a cleaner look.  As pointed out earlier this positioning probably had more to do with thrusters then the best surf wave.

[85 Barefoot]

10 minutes ago, vanamp said:

I am not saying the wave is not amazing(I have not been behind one) just that it probably would be better if it had the surfgates in the traditional position.  Look at how tapered the platform is there was obviously a reason for that.  This boat is not marketed at the surf nuts so yes it would make sense to sacrifice a little for aesthetics.  Even though they may have sacrificed a bit does not mean its not there best wave yet just that they may have left a little on the table in favor of a cleaner look.  As pointed out earlier this positioning probably had more to do with thrusters then the best surf wave.

 
A few leaked photos and one video are hardly enough to conclude ANYTHING has been left on the table or that traditional gates would have been better.  We're talking about a publicly traded company's flagship model thats been publicly released for a DAY, and we are already making conclusions about who its marketed to and speculation that it left a "little" on the table.  

[vanamp]

2 minutes ago, 85 Barefoot said:

 
A few leaked photos and one video are hardly enough to conclude ANYTHING has been left on the table or that traditional gates would have been better.  We're talking about a publicly traded company's flagship model thats been publicly released for a DAY, and we are already making conclusions about who its marketed to and speculation that it left a "little" on the table.  

Yes I am speculating (I am sure as hell not going to go buy one and put my old DIY surfgate on it) but its based on info. that has been talked about in much depth for years on TMC.  If thats the best spot for gates then why did it take so long?  Maybe because they needed a boat big enough to offset the negative impact on a wave?  Again the platform shape indicates the wave is forming closer to the boat.  Could you imagine those gates on a 20' boat.  Not really speculating on who its marketed to...look at the features and the cost and its pretty obvious.

 

[shawndoggy]

Looks to me like the location of the gates is to accommodate the thrusters.  If the wave is still very very good (what the people in the video said so it must be true!), and you can turn the boat like pushing a grocery cart backwards with the thrusters, seems like a pretty good "compromise."

[bass10a]

To me the biggest face palm of the boat is making a 24’ boat that has starboard cockpit seating of a 21’.  Nothing revolutionary about losing seating to an ice chest on cabinet drawer slides.  Convertible spaces like flip up seatbacks was huge.  Fixed spaces huge fail imo for a boat.  17 people in that boat and you just about won’t need any gate from the list. 

Edited October 2, 2019 by bass10a

[robbieg247]

2 hours ago, vanamp said:

I am not saying the wave is not amazing(I have not been behind one) just that it probably would be better if it had the surfgates in the traditional position.  Look at how tapered the platform is there was obviously a reason for that.  This boat is not marketed at the surf nuts so yes it would make sense to sacrifice a little for aesthetics.  Even though they may have sacrificed a bit does not mean its not there best wave yet just that they may have left a little on the table in favor of a cleaner look.  As pointed out earlier this positioning probably had more to do with thrusters then the best surf wave.

the 235 platform was very similar to this , i know i have stepped off many times . i have contact with the engineers and the gates are for a better wave. the weight will push gates so far under water that they become less effective so if they are on the sides they do not have to raise the platform as they did in the m235 to support bigger gates . if it were not a cost thing more of the models would have them. 

[robbieg247]

1 hour ago, shawndoggy said:

Looks to me like the location of the gates is to accommodate the thrusters.  If the wave is still very very good (what the people in the video said so it must be true!), and you can turn the boat like pushing a grocery cart backwards with the thrusters, seems like a pretty good "compromise."

you can get sturn turn on other boats without the integrated gates , this is not for the thruster . 

[robbieg247]

3 hours ago, TenTwentyOne said:

Honestly, that is my biggest facepalm with this boat. They built it almost 2k lbs heavier than it needs to be, just to avoid needing to incorporate competitive ballast amounts. The boat would have been much better if they could have figured out a way to have it be about the same weight as a 24MXZ, and have a 4500-5000lb ballast system.

Take a 24MXZ or a 25LSV, throw in 2000lbs of unnecessary lead, and I bet they perform as good or better than the M240...... but I bet it would get annoying to have the boat running around that heavy when you are using it for anything but surfing. That is what I don’t like about the excessive dry weight. Seems like a cheat, and has a lot of downsides. Not worth it in my opinion.

boat drives and feels like a 23 lsv . less rpm than m235 with an extra 1000 lb of lead and no more plug n play. 

 

[carguy79ta]

I will put my flame suit on..I think it is highly arrogant of Malibu to think that nobody would want to add wt via pnp. They have broke new ground with a 7500 drywt. Why hamstring it with no pnp. They say it is not required...according to whom? My opinion is the boat should have 3000 pnp. I have a different brand boat and I run full ballast 5550 or 6000 depending on who you ask, and 1000 lead. So I am in the minority of those who like to maximize the potential of the boat. JMO. Flame on..I will demo the boat when my dealer gets one ..am always looking for my next boat..

[TenTwentyOne]

29 minutes ago, robbieg247 said:

boat drives and feels like a 23 lsv . less rpm than m235 with an extra 1000 lb of lead and no more plug n play. 

 

 

With all due respect, I don’t think I can buy that. No bit of engineering brilliance is going to hide that much extra weight. It’s a huge amount more, and I was already told that “The boat is awesome, the stereo is ridiculously loud, and it handles like a complete pig”

 

But let’s say it’s that magical, and it does handle that good......... do you not think that it would handle significantly better if it weighed 5500-6000 like every other 24 footer? I mean, it’s not just a little heavier. It’s carrying around 30% more weight than it should be.

 

I definitely think it is good that they got the center of gravity shifted forward enough that the boat runs with the bow down and at a much lower RPM than something like the 235.