RRD FSW size rant...

[noelh325901]

Old person whin... Latest version of the RRD FSW, no 78L or equivalent size😩.
Looks like the lowest volume V2 FSW is 88L. There are a few of us who don't need the extra 10L for sub 5.2M conditions. RRD, low sales of the 78L eliminate this size?

The good news is that based on a couple marginal 5.5-5.8M days the V2 FSW 100L felt floater than the spec 100L, but handled like it was smaller than the V1 FSW 96L. Need to test ride the 88.

Any opinions from V1 FSW78L riders who have water time on the new V2 FSW 88L?

[dllee]

Lots of the new wave boards have flatter rockers, so the need for a small FSW is going downhill really fast.
If you look closely at the rocker of the RRD FSW vs Waves, you'll see the only difference is from 12" OFO thru the tail, while the rocker from 12" up to the mast track is very similar.
That little bit of tail straightness helps a bit in early planing, not so much in top speeds, and hurts the turning ease tremendously.
Lots of companies have gone thru similar shapes and sizes, one with tail rocker (wave), and one with flat rocker, and the differences were rider preference, not performance oriented.
Since you ride a 78 liter in winds over 20 mph anyways, the chop encountered can affect the top speed more than the flatter rockers of FSW boards.

[PeconicPuffin]

I'm surprised by that. For one thing, a modern 77 liter FSW board is not that small (doesn't sail that small). I'm 165 lbs /75kg and sail my Fanatic 77 with sails 5.3 and down. I sometimes wonder if the 77's aren't hurt by people who haven't tried them and think they are the equivalent of a sub-80 liter board from 10+ years ago. Because they aren't.

[dllee]

Everywhere I look these days, everyone seems to be sailing on bigger volume boards than ever before.
We used to try to sail on the smallest boards possible, in the early '90's.

[isobars]

Some of us still do, with room to quibble over the term, "possible", as my forearms get older. But give me steady 4.0 wind ... PLEASE ... and rough terrain and I'll still favor 70 liters over 80. That's a major reason I prefer old school (i.e., slightly narrower and longer) wave boards; I think they sail small yet still slog big enough and they eat up chop.

On the flip side of that coin, if the wind dictates long or many slogs, to the extent the right size board threatens long swims, I'll take out relatively huge -- wavy, of course -- boards and put up with their size. 96L and a hammered 3.7 is a bad match, but it beats swimming a kilometer.

I'm probably buying a 90-100 liter wave board soon, but only because it will see many 6.2 sessions and is extremely loose. OTOH, the only board I've sold in deference to my age was 55 liters. I'm keeping and expect to use the 65s because they're just so damned much fun when this place nukes.

Back on track, even if a few years off the pace, my 2006 RRD FSW 90 is a very impressive board. It slogs to distant windlines easily, planes like 90L, slashes like 80 or less, and jumps high enough to destroy a knee. If RRDs are still that versatile and great, I can understand the OP's narrow quest. Many brands have, IMO, degraded their performance by kowtowing to the shortwide trend. (Dare I say, "fad"? If not, and if no marque bucks the trend, whole generation of WSers will miss a great performance niche. Fortunately, at least one brand is offering a retro model, as did Roberts, who led the way out of the no-nose mistake 20 years ago.)

[kmf]

I traded a RRD 80 FSW in for the new 88 RRD FSW. Works for me. I weigh 160lbs. Why? you might ask. The 80 RRD was a great board, but at a powered up 4.0 it was too fast and too big for the columbia river, my Kode 75 actually made more sense at that sail size and thus the 80 RRD became redundant. I love RRD FSW's, So I tested the 88 and found that I could sail a 4.0 on it, and it also handle my 5.8 just fine. So now i use the kode 75 for windy choppy days, and the RRD 88 for holy 4.2, and up.

I don't need anything bigger.

KMF

[U2U2U2]

get the small 3S by Tabou

[manuel]

Goya did the same thing and dropped their low volume fsw. Leaving only a quad or twin for high wind bump and jump or freeriding.

Being the owner of a 77l fsw and 86l hardcore wave, for bump and jump conditions the fsw offers huge jumping abilities, is very fast to plane, is very easy to ride with lots of volume and width out back.

The downside of the fsw is lack of comfort in the chop, long turning radius at the jibe which makes it challenging to jibe through chop.

The wave board is much easier to jibe in the chop and more comfortable riding over bumps but requires a bit more active steering so it's a bit more technical.

I'd look into the Firewave or their wave cult. Ask them see what they say.

Also imagine for lighter people that want to freeride in high winds then they need to be wave boards. Turns out they aren't bad freeriders but it's not their primary intent design.

[isobars]

[LeeD]

Problem is the bigger "hardcore" wave.
It should have been a universal wave or all world wave, but not "hardcore" wave.
The first two have wide tails and fast rocker, the "hardcore" has narrow tail and lots of tail rocker, soft rails, and huge nose rocker.