Is my board too small?

[coachg]

GURGLETROUSERS,

I understand what you are saying & I agree with much of it but I'm not so sure "bouncy" is the word you are looking for. If you carried the concept of wider boards become bouncy to the extreme then there is no way I could sail my formula board into lower 20 knt range. That is why I don't think width automatically makes a board more "bouncy" as fast as increasing volume because if it is paired with an appropriate larger fin the board is still stable. For me increased volume, especially in jibes, is where I feel the "bouncy" effect. For me wider boards are not more bouncy but harder to jump, flip or carry speed through jibes.

Coachg

[isobars]

All other hull parameters being the same, width smacks the chop harder. We've all ridden some shortwides that remain extremely smooth-riding in chop, but at a cost in other performance factors. I'm not implying a shortwide is a lesser board; it's just a different board, with its own set of pros and cons like any other type of board. Any board whose pros and cons perfectly match the rider's demands is a treasure regardless of its shape and size.

[techno900]

I think width contributes to "bouncy", but not that alone. Example. I have a 108 liter Starboard iSonic and a 105 liter HiFly Move. Both 69 cm wide, the same length and almost the same volume.

The iSonic is without a doubt a rougher (bouncy) ride than the HiFly in the same winds, say 20 mph. The iSonic has a wider tail and a flat bottom with very little rocker. The HiFly has a narrower tail, a slight V and a little more rocker than the iSonic. Subtle differences but VERY different rides.

[jingebritsen]

if one considers the fore and aft elements, the shorter boards in vogue right now have a narrower range of stability, fore and aft than classic longer boards. simply put, one has either less space for foot placements or weight shifts for proper trim. if one is dealing with lots of chop, following currents, unpredictable waves, and wind, the hyper sensitivity of the fore and aft trim becomes burdensome, and down right dysfunctional.

the last post, techno900 is spot on too.

in side off, with smooth and glassy conditions, with widely spaced waves, short and wide is fine. in anything less ideal, it has its limitations. i don't like that r+d is coming too much from so few ideal locations. i esp do not like that stuff crammed down the avg consumers' throats.

[isobars]

But aren't the shortwides, at least in B&J and freeride mode, more user-friendly for the average recreational WSer, who seldom pushes his gear? My first shortwide, a Starboard Evo, got great reviews and was a lot of fun even in confused water as long as it was used it within its performance envelope: going off on the glassy side-off waves you mention or mildly powered, modest speeds, seeking smoother patches for jibing and carving, early planing, easy chop hopping when in rougher real-world conditions. Its evil side stayed pretty well under the surface until I tried to sail it aggressively in rough water... more power, more speed, more altitude (because that required more speed), more chop, more g's, carving and jibing when and where *I* wanted rather than having the terrain dictate when and where, sailing the swell with the hammer down rather than luffed, ... just more adrenaline-oriented sailing, period, despite the rough water.

Once I realized those pronounced limitations, I relegated it to the more casual, underpowered, intricate, "sweetly" powered sailing so many folks do most of the time when not at side-off wave venues. What made me sell it was the day it pearled at high speed in chop. No way in hell am I gonna ride a board even capable of that, because if I can't trust my board to be better than I am, I'm gonna ride something better suited to my low ratio of skills to aspirations. i.e., I want boards that make me look better, not worse, than I am.

That's why I hadn't bought a new board since they went shortwide, until Naish recognized that need and went all retro with its 2014 thruster Wave board. Slightly longer, slightly narrower, slightly more nose to carry it through whitewater foam or nasty chop, and insane back-foot turning anywhere, any time, at any speed. The Evo, as a classic shortwide, punishes aggressive riding in typical Gorge crap; the Naish Wave rewards it, even better than most of my fleet of fast traditional wave boards. That was no surprise, as every Naish board I own rewards hard-charging, powered-up sailing exceptionally well and every wider board just takes life more easily.

Maybe if I make it to 80 I'll back off and join the shortwide trend. It might even be cheap if the pendulum has swung back towards traditional shapes (a quiver of 2014 Naishes isn't cheap.)

[coachg]

Techno,
I would say bouncy & rough riding are two different feelings. A rough riding board would not necessarily be bouncy for me
Coachg

[techno900]

coachg,

We are probably picking "nits" here, but to me, bouncy could be defined as a board wanting to take off (air under the board), an issue for wider boards at top speed. Rough riding could be defined as pounding and hard on the legs, back, etc. because of chop and the angle of the board hitting it. Narrower V bottom boards, with rocker and narrow tails ride smoother in chop.

I think some of the newer, wider boards are subject to both issues at top speed.

[GURGLETROUSERS]

Coachg - Appreciate your input, and perhaps I should have been clearer. When I said the Syncro became bouncy, I meant as Techno just described. In no way is a harsh board, and it is a favourite in good swelly/chop decent sea-breeze type going, with a 6.0 sail.

It revels in those good force fours, and lively seas, and feels spot on as it blasts and swerves along the faces (special sea-breeze beach location which rapidly builds swell and interspersed chop) in complete control. (As does the Screamer, of course.)

However there is a fine line, and just a bit of a rise in wind and steepness of swell and chop, and its limitations suddenly show. It no longer feels attached to the bumpy surface, and wants to lift. The Screamer, on the other hand still faithfully follows the steeper surface, sort of glued to it, but is ready to soar at the riders whim. That, to me, is one of its greatest attributes.

With the Syncro, at that stage, it is better to change down boards, but with the Screamer there is not that need.

[gvogelsang]

[pmlct]

In regards to the original topic I would say to keep the 96 3S. I own the 86, 96 and 116 liter sizes of those boards. The 96 is perfect in the 5.5 and 4.7 conditions and could easily work up to a 6.2 or so. If it is 5.5 wind then 96l is the size to be on (or smaller). A bigger board might still work in 4.7 but will not be as good of a match for those conditions. The 116 is an awesome board from 6.3 to 5.5 (conservative range) but windier than that calls for a smaller board. You shouldn't be slogging or needing to tack if it is that windy.
I also have the Rocket 125 as my big board and sail it in flat water from 7.5 down to about 6.0 The 116 is for rough water 6.3 to 5.5 and you know the rest already. I weigh 185 w/gear and sail New England, Florida and Hatteras