View Full Version : Formula 160. Mast track position
23rd June 2008, 03:34 AM
could you please let me know what is the best mast track position on a F160 (I'm 74 kg. I use a Vapor 11 2007 and a Deb R13 +6 M or a +8 S). As back as possible is fine/correct? Thanks a lot
(I couldn't find any related post from the past...)
23rd June 2008, 07:52 AM
I am not an expert, but pretty proficient. I have been racing for 25 years and am still on my 160. A 147 before that and the 175 before that. I weigh 79 kg and use Maui Sails TR -3's 11.0, 9.2 & 8.4 and a Deb R13 +6 M. If you were to number the track from 1-10 (rear to front), I am usually at 4 (slightly back of center) for well powered sailing. Light winds or under powered I go back to 2-3. For heavy winds I go up to 7 to keep the nose down.
Seems to work well for me, others may have a different opinion.
24th June 2008, 07:51 PM
I would try it not right at the back but about 2cm from the back (which is around halfway between the middle and the back or 2-3 on Ken's scale). The reason I suggest to go a little further back than Ken has just mentioned is because you are on the '07 Gaastra sails. The '07 sails had the draft quite far back which meant you have a considerable amount of back hand pressure whilst sailing. Whenever I gave someone a go of my sails (especially after riding a NP sail) they would think it terrible that the sails felt so unstable and back hand twitchy, however I thought it such a positive. Having the backhand pressure meant you always had power to load your fin, even in super light winds and you could really jam on the outhaul in highwinds and still have pressure in your sail (the NP's didn't like excessive outhaul).
Anyhow, on the 160 this meant that you were always getting good fin pressure and the board would ride best with the nose quite high. Too far back in the track and I would find with the Gaastra sails it was harder to initiate planing in light winds as you've reduced the wetted surface area of the board with its nose too high. 2cm from the back seemed to be the best compromise for early planing and good speed.
Also, I would probably only use the +8 S in that board. I thought the M was too stiff to get the power and felt a little uncomfortable downwind in higher winds whereas the S allowed you to depower the fin when you are tailwalking downwind ;) (but you'll know whats best for your style).
25th June 2008, 05:14 AM
Hi just got a 160 and find it a lot easier when it blows than my Apollo. I find Im using both boards with a similar set up mast foot baser plate just on the edge of the insertion hole.
Is that tying in with your recommendations Sean? Im 75 k and use a 9.7 Point 7 Ac-2 or in very light winds 12.5 Tushingham Spitfire. For the best light wind performance for both boards should I be moving the mast foot to a more forward position?
25th June 2008, 07:33 AM
I haven't sailed either the P7's or Tushingham sails so you might have to test this yourself however, generally speaking, I would usually run the track a little further forward using a 12-12.5m sail as they seem to stall a little with the track too far back. I wouldn't ever sail the 160 with the track in the middle or further forward unless it was really windy as this board trims best with the nose riding high.
Another point to make, is that you might see other riders doing well with the track further forward. The reason for this is they are probably heavier than you. At 75kg (I'm 80kg, so we are both relatively light) we are not putting as much weight on the back of the board as say a 95kg guy. He could run the track further forward and still get the nose to lift simply because he's putting more weight on the back of the board.
With the 9.7 sail I would run the track 2cm from back as suggested earlier.
30th June 2008, 01:59 AM
Thanks Ken, thanks Sean for your adivices. Boards works definitely better at 2cm from the back.
vBulletin® v3.8.6, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.