| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
manuel
Joined: 08 Oct 2007
Posts: 1158
|
 Posted: Sat Jan 17, 2015 8:51 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
By volume up front I meant thin tails, not discussing pin, fish, square, etc.
I understand a shape is complex but was hoping to just touch the volume distribution subject.
There are a few things I don't understand. Side-onshore conditions often mean, choppy not-organized waves, holes, upwind sailing.
I understand a thin tail would help make a responsive pivoty board but on the flip side, the lack of drive can hurt upwind performance, make cruising through holes more difficult, cause the rails to catch, increase spin-out chances.
Or maybe it's the trade-off to ride a dog to the waves and a beast on the waves?
_________________
*NEW* - Manu's Windsurfing Blog, The STORE! |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
isobars
Joined: 12 Dec 1999
Posts: 20946
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 17, 2015 9:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| manuel wrote: | By volume up front I meant thin tails ...
I understand a shape is complex but was hoping to just touch the volume distribution subject.
Side-onshore conditions often mean, choppy not-organized waves, holes, upwind sailing.
I understand a thin tail would help make a responsive pivoty board but on the flip side, the lack of drive can hurt upwind performance, make cruising through holes more difficult, cause the rails to catch, increase spin-out chances.
Or maybe it's the trade-off to ride a dog to the waves and a beast on the waves? |
Yes, I was talking about volume distribution, not shape, but even a weight-forward board has a relatively fat tail if it's over 100 liters. Heck, even a skinny 2000 wave board of 90L has a fat tail compared to a 2000 72L wave board.
Realize I'm talking about sailing in the Gorge, other big inland lakes, and/or any such on-shore conditions -- you know, the real world where many of us live  -- not glassy wave faces. Sure, I give up windward drive to many boards, but I still get upwind just fine even where and when there's no current as long as I'm powered up, and if I'm not I go ashore and fix that problem along with that issue of planing through holes. At the places where I sail, not two percent of the sailors routinely pinch any higher than I do when I'm recovering from a downwind riff. That's good enough for me.
I don't remember ever catching a rail on a wave board. Some, mostly modern shortwides, don't turn as well as mine at speed in chop, so I don't ride them unless I'm on my biggest sail and still desperate for planing power. I just don't enjoy the feel of fat tails and very seldom need them. If I lived near a coast with waves when there's little wind, that would change. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jingebritsen
Joined: 21 Aug 2002
Posts: 3371
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 18, 2015 4:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
the trick with onshore choices is find a designer that has to deal with onshore quite a bit too.
exocet cross, x-waves and older exo-waves do well in onshore, but great in side off too. they have moderate rocker, so they accelerate and upwind well.
my favorite exo-wave 105 is a trifle dull on flat water, excels in the gorge and surf. 64 wide 245 long. it, for me, has yet to be the best wave board i've ever owned. shorter boards offer less fore and aft stability and require more precise foot placement and sailor inputs in dynamic reaction to wind and water conditions.
the cross 104 is virtually the same planform with slightly less rocker in the tail and a little more powerful rails.
i know these boards best, and merely trying to explain the reasons i like these types of boards for sailing 70% onshore.
_________________
www.aerotechsails.com
www.exocet-original.com
www.iwindsurf.com
http://www.epicgearusa.com/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
adywind
Joined: 08 Jan 2012
Posts: 665
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 18, 2015 1:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Isobars if a boards tail is thin and narrow at the same time, wouldn't it make it very difficult to plane. Most brands don't give the OFO specs for their boards, but looking at the pictures it seems that the skinny tails are wider and the thicker tails are narrower. My FSW is from the skinny/wide variety I can't wait to try the other ones and feel the difference. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
isobars
Joined: 12 Dec 1999
Posts: 20946
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 18, 2015 3:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| adywind wrote: | | Isobars if a boards tail is thin and narrow at the same time, wouldn't it make it very difficult to plane. Most brands don't give the OFO specs for their boards, but looking at the pictures it seems that the skinny tails are wider and the thicker tails are narrower. My FSW is from the skinny/wide variety I can't wait to try the other ones and feel the difference. |
Just like "very difficult", "thin" and "narrow" (and their combined effect on tail volume) are relative terms. All other factors being more or less equal, a smaller tail will plane less quickly than a bigger one, a narrow one less quickly than a wider one ... and that's before actual tail planform shapes complicate the picture.
Someone accustomed to fatter (greater volume, whether due to thicker and/or wider) tails (or just bigger boards in general) would find smaller tails very sticky and tough to break loose onto a plane with the same size sail they're accustomed to (one remedy is more power). Some sailors make the leap easily, some don't. Many of those who stay in control and sheeted in when the real wind hits and the chop gets waist high experience a revelation in comfort, control, confidence, and often top speed their first time on a small-tailed, low-volume board. Sure, an expert racer on high-wind slalom gear can go faster even in heavy chop, but seldom with comparable comfort, control, confidence, or carving compared to smaller board with smaller tails.
And it's not just smaller tails. All my boards but two have small tails (one was under 12" at one foot and so thin the Chinook fin box protruded above the deck even after shaving it down) and all are hand-picked for a smooth ride in rough stuff, but there are still clear winners among them in their comfort, control, confidence, and carving while going flat out in big gnarly terrain. I trust any of them, but some do it with even silkier flow than others. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jingebritsen
Joined: 21 Aug 2002
Posts: 3371
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
isobars
Joined: 12 Dec 1999
Posts: 20946
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 19, 2015 9:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
| jingebritsen wrote: | | short and wide lacks a bit in glide too. |
<G>
As does tiny, even with old school dimensions.
I'm sure some observers wonder why I sometimes slip both feet out of their straps, throw my legs up and out to each side of the board, and land in the water on my butt with my crotch aft of the tail of the board ... while planing. It's because I see a major lull/hole approaching fast with absolutely no way to plane through it and I simply don't wanna slog any more. It's just less effort than slowing down, fighting the lull, giving up, and more gracefully dropping into the water anyway. I keeps the rig right where I want it on the far side of the lull.
No, I haven't yet failed to clear the tail of the board, thank goodness. That would put an end to that stunt.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
manuel
Joined: 08 Oct 2007
Posts: 1158
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 19, 2015 4:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| adywind wrote: | | Isobars if a boards tail is thin and narrow at the same time, wouldn't it make it very difficult to plane. Most brands don't give the OFO specs for their boards, but looking at the pictures it seems that the skinny tails are wider and the thicker tails are narrower. My FSW is from the skinny/wide variety I can't wait to try the other ones and feel the difference. |
Generally speaking yes, a narrow/thin tail would be more technical to keep the board going straight. That is why the general freeride/freeride design is to have more volume under the feet.
If there's little volume out back then more width, or a flatter rocker compensates to help with going straight.
What amazed me is that the single thruster is completely directional. The board doesn't pivot on a vertical axis when going straight also it hardly pivots on a horizontal (forward) axis either staying a little higher on the water.
But when on a rail it turns very sharply. I certainly could use a bit more looseness and great rail bite personally. I wonder if a their quad will do just that.
When looking at online tests, the Evo and the Single Thruster were both classified somewhere in the middle between the loose end and the directional end maybe a touch towards the loose end. I wonder why? To me the Evo feels much looser.
Volume, or should I say size (because someone's else 86 might size like someone else's 86!), plays a role. Maybe I should try the Evo in their 80 version which would balance better for my weight. I have always found my 86 Acid too big for me, while I never thought that of my 105. It's all balanced in the shape.
There's a woman who sails here, lighter than me, she has been sailing on her Acid 80 instead of her Fanatic Tri-Wave 79. I wonder why because in lighter winds I'd expect the exact opposite to happen.
Strange sport, let me tell you!
_________________
*NEW* - Manu's Windsurfing Blog, The STORE! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
isobars
Joined: 12 Dec 1999
Posts: 20946
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 19, 2015 6:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| manuel wrote: | a narrow/thin tail would be more technical to keep the board going straight. That is why the general freeride/freeride design is to have more volume under the feet.
If there's little volume out back then more width, or a flatter rocker compensates to help with going straight.
But when on a rail it turns very sharply. I certainly could use a bit more looseness and great rail bite personally.
To me the Evo feels much looser.
Maybe I should try the Evo in their 80 version which would balance better for my weight.
Strange sport, let me tell you! |
Absolutely! One can choose to
a) ignore the technical part and just go cruising, maybe even never planing, without any analysis,
b) spend more time analyzing and measuring than they do sailing, or
c) any middle ground, and
Every approach is valid.
I don't want to go straight (even if just trying to get from Point A to Point B, I get distracted by every passing ramp and swell), so fatter tails and flat rockers serve only one rare purpose for me: earlier planing, aka better glide. But the costs (e.g., ride, looseness, feeling like part of my body) are too great to actually go out and spend a hundred dollars on such a board.
My 2008 Evo XTV 80L was loose when powered modestly, but it was never intended for powered-up sailing in the Gorge's rough terrain. It beat the crap out of me when powered up, and would sometimes pearl while flat-out and hooked in. Not my kind of stick. I saw a flurry of them when I bought mine, but that faded quickly after a few very windy - i.e., bumpy -- days made their owners think twice. Fortunately, there's still a good and valid market for them here in folks who like to cruise and milk the swell luffed or powered modestly. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
manuel
Joined: 08 Oct 2007
Posts: 1158
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 23, 2015 11:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
In super light winds today (13-17 knots) I got to try two more versions of the Single Thruster.
The 93L, with 20cm + 10cmx2 setup, it did feel a little bit bigger than the 82 but quite draggy in light winds. Takes some wind to get it to lift.
Definitely overfinned for light underpowered days.
The jibe and surf felt similar to the smaller version with more backfoot because the volume was added in the middle and the nose, my take is to keep it as reactive.
Then I tried the 99L version and it felt much bigger with more volume again under the mast foot, it made the rail mid-section fat under my hand. I tried it in single mode with my 22.5 fin. The board was slightly more free but not necessarily a great early planer, the cause was the lack of volume in the back. The best way to plane early is to ride a swell but it won't go take off as fast as a fsw in the light, it has a more "fragile" take-off which can get upset more easily than a board with more rear float.
Now, they all tracked great, they aren't as technical to ride as my Starboard Acid, the tri-fin setup makes it go upwind slightly better. I'm comparing 20cm 10cm x 2 and 20cm + 9cmx2 with single 22.5cm. The 20cm of the tri needs to be sized down to be closer to a true thruster. I bet they ride fine with just the 20s!
Anyway, so for a light wind board, I think it'd make more sense for me to look at something with more volume out back to help with lulls, early planing.
Tomorrow should have more wind, we'll see what it reveals!
_________________
*NEW* - Manu's Windsurfing Blog, The STORE! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You can attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
|
|
|
Search
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Register
