Is my board too small?

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

As you know, I am one of those advocating keeping a 3 board quiver.
Learn to forecast the wind in advance at your sailing site.
Then always take the mid-size board. The decision then is take the small board
if it's going to be windy, or take the long board if it's going to be light wind.
I've done this for years with a 5 board quiver and I only take 3 boards in the van (I have a long drive too). When it's really windy, NOTHING works better than a small board. You should be able to tell from the professional forecasts and your own forcast of your local sailing site, whether it will be really windy or light. Get used to knowing your weather and having more boards than you can carry,,,, it is your future, if you want to sail in all conditions.

antonputman · Joined: 22 May 2014 Posts: 137 Location: North Shore Italy

isobars.

Hey I just found a used 112 RRD FIREMOVE LTD V2 2014 for €1.000
Not a bad price considering it costs twice new.
Everybody is talking about this "benchmark board" so I am kind of intrigued..
But the sailrange is only 6.0 – 8.0? So I can't even use my 5.5 sail??

How come the Tabou's state a much bigger lower range, or is it just marketing bullshit?
- 2014 3S 116 CED, 242 x 66, 4.7 - 7.8, new €1.000
- 2014 Rocket 115 CED, 242 x 66, 4.7 - 7.5, new €1.000

btw It is very easy condition wise. In the summer 5-15 knots onshore. In the winter 20-30 knots offshore. The dilemma is that those 15-20 knots (15 - 25 mph) rarely exist. That's why I sold the 125L Rocket. I got my boards right for summer + winter but the real problem are my slogging skills en confidence in the 96L board!!

jingebritsen · Joined: 21 Aug 2002 Posts: 3371

the longer boards will sail a bit smoother in choppy winds.

i do like the fire moves, but they require either smoother winds or very stable sails.

shorter boards can sink the nose if one does not position the feet perfectly for any given angle of attack and applications of power. again, been there, compared that.

isobars · Joined: 12 Dec 1999 Posts: 20935

coachg · Joined: 10 Sep 2000 Posts: 3550

Carl,

Iso's is probably correct on wind predictions. We are very spoiled here in the bay area with our reliable/consistent wind which is fairly easy to predict. That's why Andy has so many windsurf clinics here & only 1 in the Gorge. The Gorge can be epic but is much more of a crap shoot.

antonputtemans,

On the Fanatic line you might consider an older Hawk. The boards were originally made for pro super cross which was kind of a slalom race in B&J conditions with some freestyle thrown in. The board is fast & very maneuverable. The older the Hawk you get the better as the new ones are moving more towards a freemove shape. The 2010 110 liter Hawk that is 245x65 cm. At your weight the 110 sail range is 5.0-7.5 but I don't see why you couldn't use a 4.7. Use a 3 strap setup with the smaller sails & 4 strap with larger sails. Set the Hawk up with an appropriate wave or convert fin & it will handle 5.0 B&J conditions in the bay or the Gorge @ your weight. Down the line wave sailing applications are probably not as good as some other boards that you can get in this size, but will 20-30 knt offshore winds really provide much wave sailing for you? That I can't answer, just that the Hawk 110 is a very good large B&J board that handles strong winds & rough water.

Coach G

jingebritsen · Joined: 21 Aug 2002 Posts: 3371

the original hawk was more of a cross venue board like its predecessor the XXX line. after that first year, it became more of a faster free ride. the original grey hawks were fabulous. was impressed during the WS Mag test, and had a few rides on one of tinho's from time to time. another classic that should have been left alone.

GURGLETROUSERS · Joined: 30 Dec 2009 Posts: 2643

Agree John. There are many old boards which 'nailed it' for their intended usage. Attempts to improve them simply shifted the emphasis. If a design is right, it remains right. (The laws of physics are a constant.)

We are continually told that new boards have a much wider range of use than old, but on what basis is such a claim made? Have those making that claim done a PROPER head to head with a good old board of equivalent type?

My first board (Hi-Fli 555) was of the thin and wide typo, and was found to be wanting in beating upwind angles, off the plane. Thick boxy rails and waterline length were the answer to that. (Those laws of physics again.) Does that not still apply anymore??

In a situation of difficult gusty offshore winds and frequent lulls (only fitful bursts of planing, now and again), is thin and wide (and SHORT waterline length) really the ideal? I certainly don't find so!

isobars · Joined: 12 Dec 1999 Posts: 20935

GURGLETROUSERS · Joined: 30 Dec 2009 Posts: 2643

I KNOW about slogging tiny wave boards upwind, by technique. (Spent too many years in the surf doing so.)

With regard to the second point (short and wide moving the emphasis to the lower end) that was precisely my finding on head to head testing of my old (original late 80's) 103 litre Mistral Screamer against my later (06 104 litre shorter wider) Mistral Syncro.

At the lower end the Syncro felt more floaty and versatile. (Less windy and less lumpy seas.) In the 'normal mid range winds, there was little discernable difference in performance. (After a few minutes, the board I was on was of no importance.) But at the higher end (typical 5.0 B&J bouncy seas) the Screamer was clearly better. The Syncro (wider) becomes too bouncy!

I could cite more comparisons (Have 15 boards, both old and newish in use, and several more in the attic), but suffice to CLAIM, a good old board remains just that, though equally SOME old boards were just always bad ones.