Go Back   Starboard Forums > Free Forum > Gap in the starboard range?

Thread: Gap in the starboard range? Reply to Thread
Your Username: Click here to log in
Image Verification
Title:
  
Message:
Post Icons
You may choose an icon for your message from the following list:
 

Additional Options
Miscellaneous Options

Topic Review (Newest First)
12th May 2010 05:50 AM
Ola_H Yes, it's sort of a small 80 liter board. In that sort of language I would say it compares to a 74 FSW rather than an 80 FSW if you know what I mean.

But if you're skeptical I really think you should get you hands on one and demo (it could be any Acid 80 from 06 and forwards too...close enough to get a feel for it). It's just too much money to take this sort of leap of faith I reckon. Unless you buy used, then you will not loose much if you don't like it and decide to sell it.
11th May 2010 12:41 PM
mitchiedog yes thats true, Ive read that. The Quattro FSW I think was also at the pure wave end of the FSW spectrum too? I guess Im asking where does the Kode80 sit on that spectrum, in terms of actual sailing performance, (and ignoring its physical dimensions). Clearly the branding says its with the Goya & quattro. I'm at that ability level where all round ease of use is really important, and so far I seem to have got that from faster/wider tail FSW designs. The other brands seem to make it clearer to me what board is best for that. Ola I think I read that you said the K80 sails like a MUCH smaller board? is that true?
10th May 2010 07:44 PM
Ola_H I guess at least half of the result of such a test would depend on if the testers THOUGHT it was a pure wave board or not by just looking at it and knowing its history. But with a bit of luck the actual test sailing of the board could maybe also influence things...

But seriously, check out a board like the Goya One. It's often included in fsw tests, but the tail is narrower than most and it's at least half way towards a pure wave board. Comparing width relative tail width the Kode is just a half a cm or so narrower in the tail. So there are no clear lines between the segments.
10th May 2010 04:00 PM
mitchiedog ok, fair point, the rockers are close. Maybe its just as good. I'd be stoked if it was as cool and quick for bump and jump as the 86L version, I really loved that when i tried it. I'd be interested to see if Starboard would be confident to send a Kode 80 up against the JP fsw or fanatic fw or RRD fsw if the mags called for a 56cm wide "all purpose board" test. I guess its that, or nothing.
10th May 2010 03:36 PM
Ola_H While you are probably right that mags will not test the Kode 80 together with fsws because it's labelled as a wave board, your preconceptions on rocker is not correct. I went back to my computer and checked (I happen to have the sort of twisted mind that must in detail measure every board I sail). I would say that as far as measurement goes, you can't differ between the Kombat 79 and the Kode 80. So as far as rocker goes, the Kode is just as exciting and early planing as the Kombat 79, or if you want, an "fsw version" of a Kode 80. That rockers were so close was one of the motivations to merge the Acid and Kombat lines.

But as pointed out, the tails is a bit narrower. This means you loose a bit of light wind performance and generally a bit of B&J range (but gain a bit of wave range). Also, the rails on the Kode 80 has become a bit softer and more forgiving, which further affects the ride. As PrydeMan says, the old 2006 Acid 80 (and similar rocker) was the king of B&J as far as wave boards go, mostly because of harder rails.

So in the end, the Kode 80 do offer a very fsw like crisp and exciting ride, early planing etc etc, but rails and narrower tail still means it is not a "true fsw". But as long as you don't need to rely on best possible performance in the lightest of winds, I'd say the difference is smaller then you might think.
10th May 2010 11:19 AM
PrydeMan The guys here in Melbourne still like the older 2006 Pure Acid 80 for more bump and jump.
10th May 2010 09:24 AM
Unregistered mmmm. I'm not convinced. yes I had a kombat, which is why I'm surprised a similar shape has gone from the range in this size. I've also sailed the kode 86 and its fantastic, but too big for me. I bet that the Kode 80 has less rocker flat, & more tail kick than this board and the other brands FSW options. In other words its a wave board, and won't plane in marginal winds as easily, or be as exciting in a straight line as competitors FSW. or be any good for freestyle. Sure the narrower tail, rocker & control and wave performance will be superior, but thats not why you look for a crossover shape. Furthermore if you wanted to see how the Kode 80 stacks up...its unlikely to be tested against FSW from other brands because of its waveboard label. Just an observation, interested if others agree or disagree. Just when SB were closing the gap on the benchmark FSW, they don't offer one anymore in this 55-56cm size?
10th May 2010 04:26 AM
Ola_H Yeah, there used to be the Kombat 79. A nice board. But even back then, the Kombats and Acids in fact had the same rockers and only outline differed. The Acids were alwasy consedered really good wave boards for blasting and B&J and that holds for the small Koden now also. Effectively, they are like fsws with narrower tails and if you're lighter, that might even be a plus.

So, my recommendation would be the Kode 80. It's a 56cm wide, but with a narrower tail than a comparable "pure fsw", but overall, I'd say it can hold its own in a B&J setting compared to anything.
9th May 2010 05:50 PM
Unregistered say sailors 65kg-78 kg
9th May 2010 01:29 PM
agrelon Depends how on your weight I guess, but under 55kgs you could always opt for a Prokids board which would be really great due to its light weight.
This thread has more than 10 replies. Click here to review the whole thread.

Posting Rules
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


All times are GMT +7. The time now is 06:12 AM.