Go Back   Starboard Forums > Free Forum > Why no Tufskin Apollo?

Thread: Why no Tufskin Apollo? 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)
14th April 2007 03:56 AM
Krister
RE: Why no Tufskin Apollo?

I have tried the Apollo and the F161 in close comparison and to me the low planning threshold comes a lot from the longer rocker flat. This gives a very gradual transition between non-planning and planning and there is no need to pop the board out of the water. The tail width then helps to maintain a high pressure on the fin, which also needs to be powerful in order to lift the board out of the water.
I like the Apollo a lot since it has a more traditional feeling compared to traditional formula boards that are quite extreme and mainly focussed at high and low angles to the wind. For recreational low-wind riding I can recommend the Apollo, the only drawback being the gibe performance compared to freeformula. It also gives very early planning with smaller sails, like a 10.0, which normally only work in high winds on the more regular formula boards. Once planning the nose has to be kept clear of the water, this is an issue especially when going deep downwind, and I guess that could be a problem with a more durable construction and more weight in the nose.
14th April 2007 12:27 AM
MA_Pete
RE: Why no Tufskin Apollo?

Tiesda:

One last question for you:

What is your thoughts on early planing threshold between the FE160 and the F-Type 158, with equivalent fin and sail?

The FE160 has a wide tail, and that should theoretically help with early planing, but it is also a little heavier, which will hurt.

Thanks!

-Pete
13th April 2007 04:44 PM
Guest
RE: Why no Tufskin Apollo?

Hi Pete,

Yes, after posting my reply I re-read your post and saw that your comment was on the largest, 100cm wide F-Type. You're pretty much spot on there when you say that it was indeed a great board but yes, it had to go given the very large range we have.

The Apollo project is really picking up some momentum now so it's quite exciting to see where the next step will be.

Per was a great guy and a close friend. I miss him dearly, will miss working with with him and our travels together. He's left quite an empty space behind.

Tiesda
13th April 2007 10:59 AM
MA_Pete
RE: Why no Tufskin Apollo?

Tiesda:

Thanks for the additional comments. Yes, please do consider more recreational derivations of the early planing shapes like the Apollo in the future, with more durable constructions like Technora or Tufskin. Us non-racers hate getting skunked too!

I am aware that the iSonic 145 and 155 are evolutions of the F-Type 138 and 148, my comment above was directed at the disappearance of the 231 x 100 cm F-Type 158, which was my favorite. But I understand you guys have a very broad line and need to make tough decisions where there is overlap. I am considering the 145 and 155 as options in my quiver rebuilding going on this year.

Keep up the great work!

-Pete

P.S. My sincere condolences on the passing of your friend and colleague...

13th April 2007 04:24 AM
Guest
RE: Why no Tufskin Apollo?

Hi Pete,

I guess it would have been possible to have the Apollo available in Tufskin for recreational purposes and if the trend continues towards Apollo type boards then I'm sure it can happen. For the time being, the Apollo project's main goal is to help Formula Windsurfing work in less windy conditions and therefore help it become a strong contender as the official Olympic windsurfing class in 2012.

In the long term, there's no doubt that developments on the cutting edge with boards like the Apollo lead to the next-generation developments on the recreational boards too. This is how the F-Types where born for example.

As for the demise of the F-Type range, it is still there in 2007 with the iSonic 145 and 155. These are the F-Types in disguise. We included some iSonic developments which we learnt the year before (side cuts that provide extra release and fin drive, and a voume distribution shifted slightly to the mid section and tail).

Tiesda
12th April 2007 09:34 PM
MA_Pete
RE: Why no Tufskin Apollo?

o2bnme:

Yes, please do let us know how the iS145 is. That is equivalent to the F-Type 138 at 88 cm wide, please also try the iS155, which is more like the F-Type 148 at 96 cm wide, if you can.

I am kind of bummed they "got rid of" the 231 cm x 100 cm F-Type with the shift to the iSonic, but I guess at that point SB just wants you to buy the F160 or the Apollo. I wish they offered those in Technora or Tufskin construction. (The reason this thread got started.)

I should clarify that am getting a Kona or Phantom in addition to whatever I do in the Formula-like category, as a second family board plus a "longboard" for me when I want. Nice to have a trailer with lots of room.

Thanks!

-Pete
12th April 2007 08:20 PM
o2bnme
RE: Why no Tufskin Apollo?

Quote:
MA_Pete wrote:
James:

Thanks for the feedback. I have considered the same thing re the 148. I know Bill in ME (o2bnme here) uses a 70 cm fin on his with I think a NP V8 9.8.

My opinion seems to differ from others' on the differences between the F-Type 148 and 158. I made the switch from a 158 to a 148 last year. I was suprised at what I lost in early planing with my 9.5 Retro (for me at least). I also was surprised that my 9.5 felt a little big for the 148, while it was just fine on the 158. Quite frankly I wouldn't think of putting an 11.0 or so on the 148.

-Pete
Yup, I put a 70cm fin on my FT148. Actually, I use this fin most of the time with this board. New England Windsurfing Journal has some Hatteras Windfest pics from 2006 in an issue last year. They have me planing in winds nobody else could plane in. I was using my FT148 with a 39cm weed fin and my 9.8 V8. I'm fairly light at 65kg though. Go Pro Video took the pictures, so they are available on his web site -- he seems to be working on the website so the images aren't available. Suffice it to say, there was very little wind.

I like the idea of looking at a Kona or any of the Phantoms. I grew up in New England and have fond memories of my father and me jumping on Windsurfers and heading out from Newport on adventures. We'd go 30 miles down the coast and then return. With their centerboards, these boards would give you that experience.

The iSonic 155 idea is another good one. I'm hoping to try the iS145 next weekend at Windfest. I'll report back how it compares to the FT148.
12th April 2007 07:26 PM
AlexWind
RE: Why no Tufskin Apollo?

Why don't you go for an iSonic 155? It's simply the evolution of the old F-type.. They have it also in Technora version..
Maybe it wouldn't glide as soon as Apollo does but maybe you'll find again the feeling you got with your previous F-Types..
12th April 2007 06:04 AM
MA_Pete
RE: Why no Tufskin Apollo?

James:

Thanks for the feedback. I have considered the same thing re the 148. I know Bill in ME (o2bnme here) uses a 70 cm fin on his with I think a NP V8 9.8.

My opinion seems to differ from others' on the differences between the F-Type 148 and 158. I made the switch from a 158 to a 148 last year. I was suprised at what I lost in early planing with my 9.5 Retro (for me at least). I also was surprised that my 9.5 felt a little big for the 148, while it was just fine on the 158. Quite frankly I wouldn't think of putting an 11.0 or so on the 148.

That is what I experienced between the 2 boards, I am sure other people experience things differently. I am still fairly intermediate in skills, so that might be an influence here.

I am also thinking of a Phantom or Kona for less "I must plane or it sucks" pressure, but I am having a hard time buying into that thus far. With the F-Type 158, I loved the feeling of planing around while virtually everyone else was on the beach!

I would buy a Serenity, but I would have to spend $2K to get my garage door opening raised, as it wouldn't fit in my trailer and thus would have to go on top. That makes it a $4K board for me!

Thanks for the additional input. I am tempted to go with the FE160 for the durability and value, add an 11.0 or so to the sail quiver, and see how that works for me for lowering the planing threshold. But for less than the price of an FE160 + an 11.0 rig, I could get an Apollo and stick with the 9.5, and maybe that would be just as good if not better. Decisions, decisions...

-Pete
12th April 2007 02:15 AM
James
RE: Why no Tufskin Apollo?

Hey Pete,

I share your interest in durable formula boards. My F158 has a ton of little repairs, and the wood finish on the belly has started to get exposed and split, requiring me to sand and repaint. Ugh.

Anyway, what I wanted to say is this: "Why get an apollo or FE160 when you already have a F-type 148?" I think the difference in early planing will be very slight- perhaps less than you could get by using an 11 m sail and 70 cm fin on the 148. If conditions are too light and gusty for the 148, then I think you would have more fun and less frustration by using a high-performance longboard or hybrid.

That's my 2 cents.
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 10:55 PM.