Thread: Apollo Vs F161
View Single Post
Old 27th August 2006, 01:36 AM   #46
steveC
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 639
Default RE: Apollo Vs F161

Hi PaulM,

I guess I misunderstood your earlier post above. When you were talking about tacking and the thick nose, I thought wide up front. My apologies.

I have to admit, the super wide formula designs, to include many of the jumbo short wide designs are more problematic for me too, but my reasoning is a bit different. Actually, my two widest boards are only 61cm, and I'm not very inclined to go much wider because the bars on my stainless steel rack are only 61cm long. I had it built for my van in 1998, and the short wide concept boards were only just beginning to be introduced. If I purchased a super wide board, to include the giant sails, masts and booms required; I would be forced to totally rethink and modify the existing interior of my van. A troublesome and expensive task, at the very least.

Still, with an 8.3 sail, my old course slalom has a surprisingly early planning threshold, and it remains very fast and capable in B&F mode. Yet, the upwind drive available to me is far short of the standards now associated with current formula designs. In spite of my dated light wind board, I'm still quite happy with my light wind potential.

Nonetheless, I can't help being tempted a bit, especially by the likes of the Serenity. It would be very cool to have a high performance board where I could be out in super light wind well before the kiters could even dream of hitting the water. Other than obvious storage and transportation issues I would have, I still worry about kelp and weeds with a formula length fin. It would have to work with a weedfin. Frankly, I have my doubts that the concept would work near as effectively with a sufficiently raked fin. While I have probed a number of times about this on the forum, still no one a Starboard appears to want to tackle this issue.

steveC is offline   Reply With Quote