Response hull history

[UWSkier]

2 minutes ago, justgary said:

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.

would be interesting to see, no doubt.  But it seems like we already sortof have that in the form of transom hook and lifting strakes... but I hear ya.  IN the water vs ON the water.

Edited October 11, 2019 by UWSkier

[ahopkins22LSV]

3 hours ago, Nick in the TC said:

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. 

There are two ways to post pics, one is host them on a third party site then post the imagine code here. 

The second is to be a paid member then you can upload them directly from your phone or computer. You also unlock a lot of year round discounts to different boat store. More information here:

https://www.themalibucrew.com/index.php?/supporttmc.html/

[Chaabo]

Thanks all, I’ll experiment a bit with what I have. (~160lbs in various sizes of lead bags plus a couple different weight plates) Even though 150 pounds sounds a bit excessive to me. Not sure if my boat with that load upfront won’t tip off the lift. 

Edited October 11, 2019 by Chaabo

[Eagleboy99]

30 minutes ago, Chaabo said:

Thanks all, I’ll experiment a bit with what I have. (~160lbs in various sizes of lead bags plus a couple different weight plates) Even though 150 pounds sounds a bit excessive to me. Not sure if my boat with that load upfront won’t tip off the lift. 

Depends if you have a spotter or not and how much they weigh. In a CB it is easier to get the weight more forward than the open bow, and that makes a difference.

[Eagleboy99]

53 minutes ago, justgary said:

And by lifting the stern, you wouldn't need ballast in the bow to get the same angle.

But that might affect tracking and speed hysterisis, although the latter could be controlled by Zero off or PP for the most part.

[Chaabo]

@Eagleboy99

True, I can shove the weight pretty far forward inside the nose. My weights had been right behind the bow eye mount. That’s why I never tried more than the 45lbs.

I usually have just a driver. To compensate for that, I put 75lbs of lead bags under the observers seat (as far to the left as possible). Occasionally it’s 2 people in the boat. In that case I completely remove the counterweight.

[Nick in the TC]

Don’t have any of my own pics yet but here are some of the add when I bought it and on of my son skiing. 

 

 

[Chaabo]

Sharp looking Response! Reminds me a lot of my 2005 CB. Almost identical color scheme, except we choose bright white as base interior color.

 

... and we had the dealer replace the factory decals with the patriotic decal option. 

Edited October 13, 2019 by Chaabo

[Nick in the TC]

Looks good. These boats didn’t change much in 15 years. 

[Sethro]

I actually have a 25 gallon ballast tank under the bow of my Echelon....from my wakeboarding days.  I don't think I've had water in it for 15 years.  I do remember experimenting with filling it for skiing and recall a slightly difference in shape, but I really don't recall a big improvement.  I'll have to try it again sometime.

[Chaabo]

Today I tried 50lbs of lead stuffed all the way up in the nose.

Tracking at 32mph improved slightly, (keeping a straight path through the course got a little less work). The wake on the other hand suffered a bit at that slower speed. My wife, who skis that speed was not happy. 

I skied at 34 and again didn’t notice any difference. (15 through 32off). But again, I have no issues with the wake. Never had. So I might as well remove the bow weight alltogether and leave it at that.

[Woodski]

The easy way to balance or pitch the nose of the boat down is going with extra weight where wanted, the more effective is to move the CG by reducing the weight at the offending location.  It is worth the effort to reduce transom weight on the SV23 hull and to pitch the nose down.  As for lateral balance, I moved the battery over to the gunnel to minimize the added ballast for driver only runs.

[Michigan boarder]

On 10/11/2019 at 5:09 PM, UWSkier said:

Woodski's Echelite 

Good one!

[85 Barefoot]

On 10/13/2019 at 9:38 AM, Chaabo said:

Sharp looking Response! Reminds me a lot of my 2005 CB. Almost identical color scheme, except we choose bright white as base interior color.

 

... and we had the dealer replace the factory decals with the patriotic decal option. 

Chaabo,

 

you can rest easy knowing that your German, American flagged Response is still being used.  Doesn't quite look as good as it does in these pictures, but she's running.

[Woodski]

The really cool aspect of playing around with my 'old' boat is the opportunity to improve a long running ('93 to present) hull to match pretty much any current offering as far as slalom wake performance.  It provides an opportunity to trade work v $ to achieve great results so no reason a financially limited slalom addict can't end up with a great performing boat, thanks to a great base design by Malibu to begin with.  Not easy, but very doable and can be a great learning experience depending on how deep you want to go. 

[Chaabo]

On 10/14/2019 at 11:53 PM, Woodski said:

The easy way to balance or pitch the nose of the boat down is going with extra weight where wanted, the more effective is to move the CG by reducing the weight at the offending location.  It is worth the effort to reduce transom weight on the SV23 hull and to pitch the nose down.  As for lateral balance, I moved the battery over to the gunnel to minimize the added ballast for driver only runs.

I 100% agree, and I did what I could do without getting too deep into it like you did @Woodski on your Echelite. I as well moved the battery as close to the port side as possible, replaced the (relatively) heavy and fairly huge trunk floor piece (think it’s some hdpe stuff) with a very lightweight honeycomb material and removed the wedge.

I’m still contemplating about getting rid of the SS wedge bracket and just plug the 4 holes in the transom, but I doubt that I would gain anything while doing so.

[Nitrousbird]

On 10/16/2019 at 11:45 AM, Chaabo said:

I’m still contemplating about getting rid of the SS wedge bracket and just plug the 4 holes in the transom, but I doubt that I would gain anything while doing so.

You'd gain a few bucks in your pocket, as you can get $350-450 out of that floating wedge bracket...

[Eagleboy99]

On 10/16/2019 at 9:45 AM, Chaabo said:

I’m still contemplating about getting rid of the SS wedge bracket and just plug the 4 holes in the transom, but I doubt that I would gain anything while doing so.

Would be a real PITA to  get it off - pull the tank, etc.  And then the holes need to be filled...  And the next buyer might want that bracket at least.

[Griffo]

Hi all first time on this site. I have been skiing behind my mates 2006 Response LXi for many years and still think its the best slalom wake I have tried. I have also tried a 2013 and 2016 TXi which I also found was a great slalom wake. From my understanding and from what I read in the  above chat the hull design was slightly changed over many years until the big change in 2017. I have heard people say that the wake on the 2007 - 2011 Response  was not as good as the previous model (2001-2006) or the one after (2012- 2016). Appreciate your input as I am in the market for a LXi. Thank you Griifo.

[UWSkier]

47 minutes ago, Griffo said:

Hi all first time on this site. I have been skiing behind my mates 2006 Response LXi for many years and still think its the best slalom wake I have tried. I have also tried a 2013 and 2016 TXi which I also found was a great slalom wake. From my understanding and from what I read in the  above chat the hull design was slightly changed over many years until the big change in 2017. I have heard people say that the wake on the 2007 - 2011 Response  was not as good as the previous model (2001-2006) or the one after (2012- 2016). Appreciate your input as I am in the market for a LXi. Thank you Griifo.

The 2007-2011 gets kindof a bad rap.  It's not a bad boat by any stretch at 34 and 36 MPH and 28off and shorter.  The '03-06 and '12+ LXi/TXi tend to be more favored if you're a 15 or 22 off skier going 32 MPH or slower.

[Woodski]

@Griffo - As noted there are 2 generations for the LXI model - Gen 1 (2003-2006) and Gen 2 (2007-2011).  The Gen 1 tends to be the preferred model, and if barefooting is a sport of choice, I would suggest demoing prior to a purchase of a Gen 2 hull.  The Gen 2 was not a barefoot favorite compared to other SV23 hull variants.  The TXI (2012 - present) hull change improved the long line and slower speed slalom wakes.  Personally, and as you have noted, the Gen 1 LXI is an awesome slalom machine.  Happy shopping.