Go Back   Starboard Forums > Free Forum > Help with recreational Formula Board choice...

Thread: Help with recreational Formula Board choice... Reply to Thread
Your Username: Click here to log in
Image Verification
Post Icons
You may choose an icon for your message from the following list:

Additional Options
Miscellaneous Options

Topic Review (Newest First)
4th May 2007 08:13 PM
RE: Help with recreational Formula Board choice...


Thanks for the input. I do agree with your thoughts above.

What through me over the edge towards the F-161 was the praise for the improvements here in the forum for the 2007 shape. Had they been equal in shape I probably would have went for the FE...

4th May 2007 11:18 AM
RE: Help with recreational Formula Board choice...

Hi Pete,

Just a bit of a test here to ensure that you're strong in your final resolve. The basic thing that you've noted all along is that you're focused on a recreational formula board, and I've always thought that the FE160 might be a favorable option within that category. While I'm not using formula equipment, I've noticed that that there is a balance between design and construction weight. I sometimes feel that absolute light weight can be a bit overated, especially if one really considers the strengths of a good design.

Let me develop this some, because light weight has always been an arguable point of concern in my mind. If you wanted to be a competitive racer, I wouldn't recommend going with anything less than Starboard's top flight light weight construction. However, for recreational purposes, a little bit of added weight is in the noise level. For my high wind boards, I can say that my boards are quite heavy, at least 2-4 pounds greater than an equivalent production epoxy board. Despite the extra weight, I find that the design shape easily overcomes the seemingly great weight liability.

The 160 formula design was a solid performance winner on the pro circuit, so there's little question of its integrity, at least with a fair degree of experience under your belt. So, does the extra weight (but added strength and durability) really become a liability here? Of course, it's your decision, but I would be remiss if I didn't test your resolve on this point. The cost savings would be probably be enough to buy a new carbon boom or maybe an extra sail. Clearly something to consider seriously.

4th May 2007 04:09 AM
RE: Help with recreational Formula Board choice...

Well, Apollo's are backordered for 3 months in North America, so that made my choice easier.

I am going with 2007 Formula 161...
2nd May 2007 08:11 AM
RE: Help with recreational Formula Board choice...

Okay, I think I have it narrowed down to a 2007 F-161 or a 2006/2007 FE-160.

Can anyone provide any direct feedback between to the two of those, with regards to the early planing capabilities?

I would imagine the extra weight (~2 kg) would have more effect than the shape evolution, but I don't know how much.

Thanks in advance!!
1st May 2007 02:26 AM
RE: Help with recreational Formula Board choice...


Thanks, that is helpful.

Anyone else out there have specific feedback on specifically the heavier Tufskin FE160, and early planing capabilities versus the F-Type 158 and/or a comparable lighter wood Formula board?


1st May 2007 12:20 AM
RE: Help with recreational Formula Board choice...

Yes. The 160 will for sure plane earlier than the F-Type.

I owned a F-type 158 for a year, and it was clear to me, that the formulaboard was the erarliest planing board.

Used the F- type 158 with a Drake 70 fin and a RS3 size 11m2.

In my view the F-type is not a early planing board compared to other "semiformulaboards"
Not as easyplaning as the Bic Techno Formula, but faster. I owned at Bic for severlal years.
30th April 2007 08:45 PM
RE: Help with recreational Formula Board choice...

Another way of wording the question... would an FE160 plane as early or earlier than an F-Type 158... ??? I guess that's how I would be thinking of this one. I wouldn't be as concerned about the weight if it will plane as early as or earlier than the F-Type 158.
30th April 2007 09:01 AM
RE: Help with recreational Formula Board choice...


Thanks for the input.

Does anyone have any input on how much the weight of the FE160 affects the early planing ability versus an equivalent lightweight wood alternative?

The price tag of the FE160 plus the durability sure seems attractive as long as I wouldn't be sacrificing much on early planing...


30th April 2007 04:36 AM
RE: Help with recreational Formula Board choice...

Pete, maybe it's time you tried a real Formula board, since you've done your apprenticeship on the F-type. You shouldn't have too much trouble finding a good used one, and at the right price. I'm around your weight and about a year ago started sailing a Fanatic 2004 Formula TT(7.5kgs), and for me it is the only choice for light wind. Over the whole year, it could be the board I use the most. It gets lonely though, when you're the only one on the water
29th April 2007 01:52 PM
Del Carpenter
RE: Help with recreational Formula Board choice...

What is the windspeed range you are talking about when you say "light wind"? Some sailors who have to fight tides, currents or waves think anything under 15 mph is light wind. Some sailors like me think any wind strong enough to get someone planing is a "moderate" wind.

My guess is there is far less difference between an Apollo, an FE160 and an F-type 158 than there is between winds of 8 mph and 12 mph. At a general condition of 12 mph (fluctuating between 10 and 14) maybe they generally all plane with a 9.5 and your weight. At a general condition of 8 mph (fluctuating between 6.5 and 9.5) maybe only the Apollo generally planes with a 9.5 and your 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 11:36 PM.