Response hull history

[Nick in the TC]

Looking for info on the hull changes through the years. Can’t find much when I search the forums. Thanks

[tvano]

resources tab at top of page has a link to malibu specs and another for axis

[Suggy]

Don't know how new you're looking, but the TXi was re-designed, hull-up, for 2017. That's the only hull change I know of recently. Not sure on the years prior.

[ahopkins22LSV]

Response lxi hull was new in 2003 until 2006, modified in 2007 to 2011, modified to the TXi hull in 2012 to 2016, redesigned TXi hull as mentioned above in 2017 to current. 

The response and response lx were on the sv23 diamond hull basically from inception to the end of the models in the mid 20-teens. I forget which year. 

Then there was also the response fxi which I believe was the VTX hull with a direct drive engine. 

All are very good, all are based off the same concept and base design. Some are considered better than others but I have never skied a “bad” response hull. All ski great imo. 

What specifically are you looking for in the changes?

[UWSkier]

Close. There were very early Responses without the diamond hull in 1997. SV23 Diamond hull came out in '98 and served as the base hull architecture up until the 2012 TXi. It was stretched and massaged through that 14 year span to fit LXi models, various V-drives, etc. It lives on down in Australia on the Response TXr. The TXi was the first rethink of the hull philosophy to be more of a wetted surface. This was tweaked again in 17 with the new TXi. 

There's really not a hull architecture in the history of towed watersports that had a longer run or was as versatile. 

[ahopkins22LSV]

5 hours ago, UWSkier said:

Close. There were very early Responses without the diamond hull in 1997. SV23 Diamond hull came out in '98 and served as the base hull architecture up until the 2012 TXi. It was stretched and massaged through that 14 year span to fit LXi models, various V-drives, etc. It lives on down in Australia on the Response TXr. The TXi was the first rethink of the hull philosophy to be more of a wetted surface. This was tweaked again in 17 with the new TXi. 

There's really not a hull architecture in the history of towed watersports that had a longer run or was as versatile. 

Thanks, I knew there was a difference at the beginning but couldn’t remember exactly what it was. 

[Slayer]

8 hours ago, UWSkier said:

Close. There were very early Responses without the diamond hull in 1997. SV23 Diamond hull came out in '98 and served as the base hull architecture up until the 2012 TXi. It was stretched and massaged through that 14 year span to fit LXi models, various V-drives, etc. It lives on down in Australia on the Response TXr. The TXi was the first rethink of the hull philosophy to be more of a wetted surface. This was tweaked again in 17 with the new TXi. 

There's really not a hull architecture in the history of towed watersports that had a longer run or was as versatile. 

I think you're right.  Starting with the first Eschelon model in 1993 I think, Malibu debuted the SV23 Hull.  Then the diamond followed as you stated @UWSkier.  Pretty sure it was 1993.  It's a wonderful hull and it's what put Malibu on the map in so far as tournament towboats are concerned.  

[Woodski]

Response rides on the SV23 hull which debuted in '93 as the Echelon and is the hull that put Malibu in the big 3 conversation as it matched the big 2 in 3 event wake performance.  Also first model to be all fiberglass (no wood stringers). Response was introduced in 96 as a slightly more affordable variant of the Echelon which was phased out over the next few years, Echelon LX a walk thru, Response LX a step over to the playpen.  The hull has been slightly massaged over the lifespan of the R / RLX / LXR but basically keeping the same basic design (diamond, diamond cut were the variants).  The upper deck got a trunk (~99 IIRC).  The most significant hull change is with the gen 1 Response TXI intro in '12, the deadrise was reduced to improve the slow speed wake, the Gen 2 TXI (17) updated the hull with modified strakes.  Also in the mix is the LXI ('03 intro Gen 1 & '07 Gen 2), a wider, slightly modified SV23 hull which was phased out with the TXI intro and did run concurrent with the RLX for several years. 

[Nick in the TC]

Was wondering more about LX and closed bow response from 2012 but was also wondering about the txi and lxi info. Thanks

[UWSkier]

Response CB and LX, LXr had the same wetted surface from 1998 til eventual retirement in 2016. Good run. 

[Nick in the TC]

Thanks for the replies. I ended up buying a 2012 Response cb with ZO.  The wake is small and firm but I won’t be able to ski through a course until next spring behind it.   Have about 6-8 sets behind it and am really liking it. I ski 34 mph and most runs are 32 off. 

[Slayer]

1 minute ago, Nick in the TC said:

Thanks for the replies. I ended up buying a 2012 Response cb with ZO.  The wake is small and firm but I won’t be able to ski through a course until next spring behind it.   Have about 6-8 sets behind it and am really liking it. I ski 34 mph and most runs are 32 off. 

Congrats!! 

 

Where are the pics???  

[ahopkins22LSV]

3 minutes ago, Slayer said:

Congrats!! 

 

Where are the pics???  

Ive skied that hull many of times and love it just as much as the others. 

[UWSkier]

2 hours ago, Nick in the TC said:

Thanks for the replies. I ended up buying a 2012 Response cb with ZO.  The wake is small and firm but I won’t be able to ski through a course until next spring behind it.   Have about 6-8 sets behind it and am really liking it. I ski 34 mph and most runs are 32 off. 

Sweet!  Get some weight in the bow and run half tank of fuel or less when able and that wake at 32 is non-existent.  This vid is with driver only and no counter-weight and with about 20 gal of fuel aboard.  When balanced, it's even better.

https://photos.app.goo.gl/TN43ZNJ3exddJpC96

Edited October 11, 2019 by UWSkier

[Eagleboy99]

For "fun" one day I took mine out at 35 off, almost no gas. Zero wake to speak of (34 mph)  At 36 there'd be even less if that's possible.  

[UWSkier]

Just now, Eagleboy99 said:

For "fun" one day I took mine out at 35 off, almost no gas. Zero wake to speak of (34 mph)  At 36 there'd be even less if that's possible.  

Beyond 35 at 34 MPH the RLX starts to get a little troughy compared to the LXi and TXi, but I'm not good enough to actually spend time there so no bother.

[Eagleboy99]

I was going to actually make that comment.  The trough is pretty small though.  Weight in the bow helps.

Edited October 11, 2019 by Eagleboy99
Correction

[Chaabo]

How much bow weight do you guys suggest for a Response (CB if it makes any difference over the LX)?

I tried 25, then 35, and finally 45lbs (weight plates, put on the floor in the bow, as far upfront as I could get them) and didn’t notice ANY difference in wake size or shape from -15 through -32off at 34 mph.

For skiing, my tank gets never filled more than 30%, back seat is removed, trunk is empty.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not complaining about the Response wakes at all, I think they are fantastic, and I like skiing behind my boat even over the latest and greatest (and totally ugly and overpriced SN). But if there’s a way to make them even smaller, I’d sure like to try that!

Edited October 11, 2019 by Chaabo

[Eagleboy99]

I am talking 150 lbs in the open bow. You would think it would wreck it but it does not.

 

[Nick in the TC]

Pics are hard to put up. I have 2 50# sand bags in the nose and may have to try one more bag but will be waiting until next summer for that. 

[justgary]

2 hours ago, Chaabo said:

How much bow weight do you guys suggest for a Response (CB if it makes any difference over the LX)?

I tried 25, then 35, and finally 45lbs (weight plates, put on the floor in the bow, as far upfront as I could get them) and didn’t notice ANY difference in wake size or shape from -15 through -32off at 34 mph.

For skiing, my tank gets never filled more than 30%, back seat is removed, trunk is empty.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not complaining about the Response wakes at all, I think they are fantastic, and I like skiing behind my boat even over the latest and greatest (and totally ugly and overpriced SN). But if there’s a way to make them even smaller, I’d sure like to try that!

@Woodski can take you down a path to "enlightenment" if you will pardon the pun.  But you have seen his aluminum block thread.

Personally, I still think that a lifting foil at the stern would reduce the wake by adding a few hundred pounds of lift.  Maybe the wake isn't nice after that, but it could be worth a try.

[UWSkier]

40 minutes ago, justgary said:

@Woodski can take you down a path to "enlightenment" if you will pardon the pun.  But you have seen his aluminum block thread.

Personally, I still think that a lifting foil at the stern would reduce the wake by adding a few hundred pounds of lift.  Maybe the wake isn't nice after that, but it could be worth a try.

Lifting foil would still displace water.  All that energy has to go somewhere.  Woodski's Echelite is the ultimate sleeper.  Just looking at the wake in videos, I'd be willing to bet there's not a better wake available from anything any of the big three have made in the past 20 years.

[Nitrousbird]

On 9/27/2019 at 12:43 AM, UWSkier said:

There's really not a hull architecture in the history of towed watersports that had a longer run or was as versatile. 

Or better selling.  SV23 hull is the best selling inboard hull of all time (or at least anything in the last 50+ years).

[Eagleboy99]

6 minutes ago, Nitrousbird said:

Or better selling.  SV23 hull is the best selling inboard hull of all time (or at least anything in the last 50+ years).

McDonald's sold more hamburgers than anyone else. 

[justgary]

2 hours ago, UWSkier said:

Lifting foil would still displace water.  All that energy has to go somewhere.  Woodski's Echelite is the ultimate sleeper.  Just looking at the wake in videos, I'd be willing to bet there's not a better wake available from anything any of the big three have made in the past 20 years.

Sure, but foils tend to lift without causing a big wake at the surface.  The mass of the water goes down as the hull comes up, but a few hundred pounds of water is not that much to move down.  The key here, again, is that a foil moves the water below the surface, so the wake is minimal.  And by lifting the stern, you wouldn't need ballast in the bow to get the same angle.