Old Boards vs New Boards

MCDORO · Joined: 15 Nov 1993 Posts: 59

Tired subject, I know.

Went out in a clearing wind last Wednesday. Was gusty..13 to 25, so hard to fault a board/sail combo, but this is my experience.

Tried my Carve 111. Too wide for the wind chop, and felt funny with a 5.3...pretty hard on the knees! Tried my Kode 86. Great in the gusts, but really horrible in the drops down to 13-14 kts....also using the 5.3. The Kode is short and wide...very modern thinking.

Went up to the beach and rigged my very old Real Wind, I think it's about 104 liters, the orange one. Narrow outline compared to the newer ideas, quite a bit of a turned-up nose, so the float is really in the thickness.

Planed easily. Went up wind very well. Couldn't get it to spin- out. Cut through the chop WAY better than anything I've been on for a long time.
Felt like the 5.3 was made for it. Also, because it has volume, it made it through the lulls.

I know there are a lot of readers on here who sail in the bay area. I see folks talking about buying this-or-that new board. I just wonder how many of you sail the older, more narrow designs vs the new wider shapes....especially a question for those in the central coast/NorCal areas with the continual higher winds.

As I said, I know it's a subject that has been beaten to death, but when you actually have a day like I had, the subject takes on a new life.

And no, I'm not plugging Real Wind...just the older shapes that had their birth in windier conditions. I like my Starboards, but when the wind comes up, man, I don't know...

VinceSF · Joined: 05 Apr 2005 Posts: 249 Location: Maui, HI

My 2cts:
I just looked at a movie from the 90's and all I can say is this: length appear to be such a useless cumbersome thing. why did we need to have boards 9 foot long and above? what was the need to have 3-4 feet of foam sticking out of the water and making the board seemingly so uncontrollable?
I currently ride a board which is 6'11 and I am very pleased with it's control.
I have the opportunity to ride the older style board and though they perform well, I just don't need the extra length.

isobars · Joined: 12 Dec 1999 Posts: 20935

The length is there to boost flotation for the lulls. Achieving that with extra width penalizes the ride in harsh chop, and achieving it with extra thickness means a corkier ride. (The same hull tricks that help some wider or thicker hulls ride better also work with longer/thinner/narrower.) Everything's a tradeoff; if it weren't, we'd all be on the same board all the time.

My board choices are all over the (recent) map as the wind and water conditions change, because I'd rather pick up a different board than rig a different sail when conditions change significantly. Take Saturday: as everybody else rigged 2 or 3 sails (wind averages 20 to 30 + much higher gusts, sail sizes 3.7s to 4.7s) and still slogged way too often, I just ran a 5.2 all day and grabbed different boards to suit the varying conditions. No lulls, no slogging, no bouncing out when I should have been on a 4.2 and could have planed on a 3.7 --- the time I spent all last season getting dialed into a wide variety of boards really helped me pick the right one for each set of conditions. Every brand, style, length, volume, material, etc. since the late '90s has its pros and cons.

Powered like most other people choose to be, my wide early-planing Evo is a delight, but when the wind picks up and almost everyone rigs down and my wide Evo gets evil, I just grab a narrower board and keep on truckin' and smilin' while they undress, eat, re-rig, shoot the bull, and often waste 30-60 minutes of sailing time. 29 of those minutes can be the highlight of the day, as I can open it up without having to dodge others and/or worry about pissing them off or scaring them. That's a great feeling on a crowded day, and it's due in part to a variety of boards.

Mike \m/

carl · Joined: 25 Feb 1997 Posts: 2674 Location: SF bay area

I hear the Realwinds are great for bay area chop especially at Coyote where you're pounding into it when it's blowing westerly. The new
RWs still have that shape (why fix something that ain't broke?)
I am a big fan of narrow/longer boards in chop like that. Heavy guys really benefit, you can handle a bigger board in higher wind/chop and still have some float when the wind drops.

boggsman1 · Joined: 24 Jun 2002 Posts: 9123 Location: at a computer

Real Wind boards are great. period. Everytime I go to Maui or the Gorge or demo at Crissy, I cant wait to get back to the store and unload the crap I just sailed and get back on my RW.
Boggsman

victor · Joined: 03 Aug 1998 Posts: 581

a longer, narrower board with a pointy nose and tail will move thorugh the water easier than a short, wide board of the same volume thereby allowing it to get up to planing speed in less wind.

i love my realwinds board(red) it does seem to take a little downwinding to get it planing but stays on a plane longer.

cbknap · Joined: 03 Jun 1997 Posts: 373

This is an interesting debate. I've had a series of custom slalom boards, one set designed for Southern California and one set for Kanaha (Hawaii), as well as a wave quiver that I have constantly updated and I can share with you these observations:

--The longer boards have more wind range, plane through jibes more easily, are more forgiving and (generally) plane quicker.
--Tuned properly the shorter boards generally have a higher top speed as they are designed to plane on a narrower (or more high aspect) surface and thus are not as "sticky."
--Short wide boards take more skill to get on a plane--even if the flotation is identical to a longer, narrower board (again, less forgiving).
--Short wide boards with tail cut-outs have a tremendous top end range but sacrifice low-end and early planing.
--For slalom, if you sail with a lot of power and can keep your short, wide board up on top of the water and planing you can beat older, longer designs. If you come off a plane they will go right by you.
--For waves the narrower boards generally turn better on the wave face. Look at all the pro wave boards and you'll note that they are narrower than the "real world wave" (i.e: intermediate wave sailor) boards from the same manufacturer.
--There are a lot of times when I wish I had kept my 2000 Naish 8'11 (100 liter) Freeride. However, when properly powered and tuned my new 238 cm Goya and JP Freestyle wave are far faster and livelier.

My own view is that the freeride/freestyle boards have gotten too short and wide and we will see a move back to slightly longer and narrower. 9 feet is too long. 7'7" is, in most cases, too short.

Those are my thoughts. Flame away.

--ck

boggsman1 · Joined: 24 Jun 2002 Posts: 9123 Location: at a computer

I agree ck. I demoed a Quatro freestyle/wave at the Gorge and it felt really short/fat. I felt like I was on a big skateboard in the water, which would suit the freestyle crowd, but not the back and forth slash and crash crowd.
Boggsman

MCDORO · Joined: 15 Nov 1993 Posts: 59

isobars...Thanks. An unexpected take on the problems of adjusting to conditions..I kind of did exactly that in rediscovering the joys of an old board, but it was unintended. One sail, different boards......I'll report back!!

isobars · Joined: 12 Dec 1999 Posts: 20935

Wider boards plane earlier but have slower top ends.

In
http://www.windsurfingmag.com/article/Bonus-Coverage/How-Wide-is-Too-Wide ,
for example, Jim Drake says, "Be prepared to be ridiculed by the skinny board north shore Maui crowd in return for more water time at more places."

Also see
http://www.boards.co.uk/articles/index.asp?ID_A=298&article_type=16

Mike \m/