M24

[vanamp]

37 minutes ago, robbieg247 said:

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. 

This is contradictory as if it were not an asthetic move they would have made the gates taller(platform height has nothing to do with it) so they did not go under water.  But that would admittedly be ugly to have them extend above the platform.  This design looks cooler but its not helping the wave.  If it had no surfgate and you had a choice of a oversized surfgate on the platform or a couple ronix wedges on the side what would you choose?

[robbieg247]

D

21 minutes ago, TenTwentyOne said:

 

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.

i drove it for about 2.5 hrs 2 weeks ago . You don’t have to buy it you need to drive it . It performs awesome 

[robbieg247]

6 minutes ago, vanamp said:

This is contradictory as if it were not an asthetic move they would have made the gates taller(platform height has nothing to do with it) so they did not go under water.  But that would admittedly be ugly to have them extend above the platform.  This design looks cooler but its not helping the wave.  If it had no surfgate and you had a choice of a oversized surfgate on the platform or a couple ronix wedges on the side what would you choose?

If you look at the m236 platform it steps up so surf gate was able to be taller . All I’m saying is the gates do not fully bury under the water in this application 

[ahopkins22LSV]

3 hours ago, vanamp said:

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.

 

You keep using your DIY gate and old boat as data to support your assumption and those are about as far away from the same as this new boat you can get. Hulls are being designed around surfing and surfgate now so setups and data from precious generation hulls aren’t really worth comparing. I have no doubt that they put the Gates where they are because they perform better. 

And every swim platform is tapered in on new boats. It’s all to get the platform away from the surf wave regardless of surf system. 

[Chappy]

3 minutes ago, ahopkinsVTX said:

You keep using your DIY gate and old boat as data to support your assumption and those are about as far away from the same as this new boat you can get. Hulls are being designed around surfing and surfgate now so setups and data from precious generation hulls aren’t really worth comparing. I have no doubt that they put the Gates where they are because they perform better. 

And every swim platform is tapered in on new boats. It’s all to get the platform away from the surf wave regardless of surf system. 

Apparently @vanamp is an engineer at Malibu knows more than us peons are to to stupid to know. He is purely trolling at this point!

[vanamp]

29 minutes ago, Chappy said:

Apparently @vanamp is an engineer at Malibu knows more than us peons are to to stupid to know. He is purely trolling at this point!

Your right, I was just trolling....surf systems moved up the hull are obviously better without any room for speculation.  Might just mod my surfgate to deploy mid hull, its gonna be epic. 

[kerpluxal]

11 minutes ago, vanamp said:

Your right, I was just trolling....surf systems moved up the hull are obviously better without any room for speculation.  Might just mod my surfgate to deploy mid hull, its gonna be epic. 

From rumors that I have heard.. someone is doing this and producing the same wave with less ballast... It still has the suck gate rear of hull and added one mid ship..

I get your point.. but there are other factors that you are not looking into... As stated earlier the surfgate is massive compared to the regular surfgate which is more than compensating if location diverse  effect. If they would put that gate on rear everybody would be complaining on that, regardless of wave.

Also, if moving from rear of hull to transom would be such a dramatic effect, why does everyone now use suckgates instead of the ghettogates? and no one produces the transom gate anymore, only the suckgates. Not trying to prove a point or say that between the two locations there is no difference, minimal difference, huge difference... just food for thought 

[Slurpee]

1 hour ago, vanamp said:

This is contradictory as if it were not an asthetic move they would have made the gates taller(platform height has nothing to do with it) so they did not go under water.  But that would admittedly be ugly to have them extend above the platform.  This design looks cooler but its not helping the wave.  If it had no surfgate and you had a choice of a oversized surfgate on the platform or a couple ronix wedges on the side what would you choose?

Let’s take this from another angle. Engineering is compromise. Always always compromise.  For instance, move the gates 10% forward. And it’s about 10%. Not mid-Hull. Don’t be dramatic. Result: Freedom to Increase surface area of the gate, clear the stern for appliances, add to aesthetics (subjective), and take the “yeaaaah” kool aid innovation smash forward (sorry, saw the ad earlier and it’s stuck in my head now from childhood).  I actually thought from some early photos I had that they’d managed to get the actuators inside the hull to avoid the harsh environment of them being submerged all the time in use.  Looks like instead there is a pocket in the hull now sheathed in stainless.  Otherwise same concept.  

So if we delay wave convergence by 10% but increase surface area on the deflection, then what do we get?  I sure as hell don’t know first hand. I’ve not been on this boat yet. But I would really like to find out. I know I wrestle with lots of parameters to keep my gate in the prime spot. Bigger gates give more margin for setup in my mind. I like the concept. 

[PNWoke]

11 hours ago, justgary said:

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.

great idea! My money is on the further back the better.  The fluid dynamics assoc w placing the gates all the way back on the transom is the primary reason why original surf gate delivered (and still does) a noticeably better wave on any boat vs any suckgate its compared to.  Knowing this, Malibu moved surfgate to where a suck gate is actually a competitive option.  

[PNWoke]

1 hour ago, vanamp said:

Your right, I was just trolling....surf systems moved up the hull are obviously better without any room for speculation.  Might just mod my surfgate to deploy mid hull, its gonna be epic. 

 

1 hour ago, kerpluxal said:

Also, if moving from rear of hull to transom would be such a dramatic effect, why does everyone now use suckgates instead of the ghettogates? and no one produces the transom gate anymore, only the suckgates. Not trying to prove a point or say that between the two locations there is no difference, minimal difference, huge difference... just food for thought 

 they don't produce them anymore because:

1.) they were dangerous and difficult to fish them under the swim platform

2.) because surf gate (2013) and other innovations (all of which, for some weird reason, attach to the very back of EVERY boat made) is literally making all suck gates obsolete in general. 

Edited October 3, 2019 by PNWoke

[Sparky450]

6 hours ago, vanamp said:

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.

 

Maybe R&D took that long and I am sure it is not CHEAP to integrate not only the surfgate but also the actuators into the hull. Dude, go demo one, take your ghetto gates, strap them on and see if they left something on the table. Rant Over!! 

[IXFE]

3 hours ago, carguy79ta said:

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..

Nobody is stopping you from adding your own supplemental ballast system. One could argue that locker bags run off dedicated, reversible pumps is superior to a piggyback system anyway. I did this a few years ago in lieu of PnP and quite liked it!  

1) Buy the M240

2) Plumb in some huge sacks in those deep lockers as well as a walkway or bow sack

3) Return and report 

[Sparky450]

4 hours ago, robbieg247 said:

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

Glad to hear as I have it sitting in a box waiting to install on my 25. I just wish we had more hours in a day. 

[Raffit78]

Great looking boat. It’s going to make all the owners and their families of this boat extremely happy. 

Keep up the great work Malibu! Love seeing the fierce competition across all the manufacturers. It’s giving the client outstanding boats. 

Happy to be in the mix to see the wakeboat scene grow tremendously. 

 

Love our 17 25lsv. It’s my families perfect boat. Seating, room, sound and wave. 

 

Guys at Malibu are working hard and diligently to satisfy their customers and it shows with every new build. This boat is just another milestone! 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[PNWoke]

6 hours 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."

Good thread to check out.  Definitely don't need to move the gates for the thrusters.

[bass10a]

2 hours ago, PNWoke said:

Good thread to check out.  Definitely don't need to move the gates for the thrusters.

if they get that on a thumb switch mounted to the throttle so you never take a hand off the wheel, its a whole new ball game.

[Raffit78]

35 minutes ago, bass10a said:

if they get that on a thumb switch mounted to the throttle so you never take a hand off the wheel, its a whole new ball game.

That is already an option. Simply using a new throttle with a switch on it. Can’t recall the company name that makes that throttle. But yes, you have that option. 

[ahopkins22LSV]

One thing I caught in the walk through line is the engineer get saying M series lineup. Does that mean there with be a 26’ version, or 22’? Or both? 

[85 Barefoot]

12 hours ago, vanamp said:

This is contradictory as if it were not an asthetic move they would have made the gates taller(platform height has nothing to do with it) so they did not go under water.  But that would admittedly be ugly to have them extend above the platform.  This design looks cooler but its not helping the wave.  If it had no surfgate and you had a choice of a oversized surfgate on the platform or a couple ronix wedges on the side what would you choose?

van, you just got told by someone with first hand contact with the engineers and yet you remain adamant that you know more than them about which gate design is most effective on a boat you've never even seen before.  No offense, but I don't think you have a clue about Malibu's R&D process and the number of people whose full time jobs it is to design these things.  They're not center consoles.  Do you actually think anyone on that team forgot the mission of the boat, in all regards, including wave maximization?  Sorry, but I think you're being awfully arrogant.  Do you know how many design iterations were experimented with on this boat?  This wasn't some CAD design that they just "went with".  There is an unbelievable amount of tweaking, experimentation, and manpower that went into this, and have no doubt that the design team's conclusion that this is a more effective design for THIS BOAT is correct.

[Michigan boarder]

13 hours ago, carguy79ta said:

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..

My guess on this one is that if they make a boat with 7500 dry weight then the boat can circumvent the rules on certain lakes (that are trending more and more) that specify not adding ballast.  Can't recall the terminology but I think it would get around it.

[Five Cent Worth]

33 minutes ago, Michigan boarder said:

My guess on this one is that if they make a boat with 7500 dry weight then the boat can circumvent the rules on certain lakes (that are trending more and more) that specify not adding ballast.  Can't recall the terminology but I think it would get around it.

I agree.  I think this is innovative thinking in looking out 3 - 5 yrs.  Get away from extraordinary ballast systems that take time to fill and add complexity to the boat.

[boardjnky4]

42 minutes ago, Michigan boarder said:

My guess on this one is that if they make a boat with 7500 dry weight then the boat can circumvent the rules on certain lakes (that are trending more and more) that specify not adding ballast.  Can't recall the terminology but I think it would get around it.

You think that will stop the wake nazis? They'll just ban the sport or the boat.

[justgary]

26 minutes ago, Michigan boarder said:

My guess on this one is that if they make a boat with 7500 dry weight then the boat can circumvent the rules on certain lakes (that are trending more and more) that specify not adding ballast.  Can't recall the terminology but I think it would get around it.

I suspect that part of the weight may be defense against hull cracking like they have seen in the past.  You guys torture these boats with weight and then run them through chop and each others' wakes.  Most of you have no idea what kind of forces get localized on a hull plowing through a wave, let alone just trying to move forward.  It makes sense to me that Malibu would go ahead and double down on the hull so you can't break it in half and you start at the weight you wanted without bags rolling around crushing everyone.

I have not done any density calculations, but I'm still wondering if the added weight is all hull, or if they actually added hard ballast in the hull, like maybe stainless I-beam stringers.

Yes, this was an Axis, but they are made the same.  Depending on where on the hull this break is, it would be the devil to repair properly.

[Michigan boarder]

12 minutes ago, boardjnky4 said:

You think that will stop the wake nazis? They'll just ban the sport or the boat.

Actually I do!  It would be hard to ban a 24' boat, that adds no ballast, and not ban a 28' cabin cruiser (that also pulls the occasional tube, etc.).  Banning the sport - not sure on that, has the sport itself ever been banned or do they just ban the wake?

[Michigan boarder]

20 minutes ago, justgary said:

start at the weight you wanted without bags rolling around crushing everyone.

 

Dude, it's not that bad!