Go Back   Starboard Forums > Free Forum

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 10th April 2007, 12:07 AM   #1
MA_Pete
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 79
Default Why no Tufskin Apollo?

Svein, Tiesda and Team:

Why is there no Tufskin Apollo? When the 2007 Website first went live in the fall of 2006, I recall that both Tufskin and Wood constructions were shown on the website. Later the Tufskin disappeared.

I can guess the answer is that the heavier construction to some degree undermines the early planing nature of the board. But for us recreational sailors wanting the best solution for "skunk-proofing" ourselves for earliest planing, a $2299 USD board with a delicate wood construction is not necessarily the best answer.

I am going from F-Types (158, now 148) which I used down to 7.5 (these are fantastic boards, versatile with a broad range), and now want just the earliest planing solution, for 9.5 and up. I will now use another freeride for 8.5 and below. I would love to have the Apollo, but the price and the wood construction are scaring me off. I may go for the FE160. It still has a much wider tail than the F-Type 158, and based on the design premise of the Apollo should thus plane substantially earlier than the F-Type 158. (Am I correct in that assumption?)

I would bet if you offered the Apollo in Tufskin construction, a price slightly above the FE160, you would sell *a lot* more of them!

Thanks,

-Pete
MA_Pete is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10th April 2007, 01:59 AM   #2
Guest
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 1,321
Default RE: Why no Tufskin Apollo?

Hi Pete,

The Tufskin construction is ideal for the Formula Experience class that requires a board to be built with an ASA skin. Boards that have been registered for the class need to remain unchanged for four year periods to help keep the class as an affordable racing option. This means that the next big change for boards will be at the end of 2008 -and yo can be sure we'll be putting out the best possible shape then.

Tiesda
Guest is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10th April 2007, 02:46 AM   #3
MA_Pete
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 79
Default RE: Why no Tufskin Apollo?

Tiesda:

Thanks for the reply. I am aware of the Formula Experience Class and the requirements for ASA and the 4 year design cycle.

My inquiry is:

1) Why didn't you make the Apollo available in a less expensive construction, Tufskin or Technora, for recreational sailors looking for early planing?

2) Will the FE160 plane much earlier than a F-Type 158?

I want to go for earliest possible planing on a Formula type board, but not sure if I can justify the Apollo price tag.

Thanks!

-Pete
MA_Pete is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12th April 2007, 01:15 AM   #4
James
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 236
Default 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.
James is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12th April 2007, 05:04 AM   #5
MA_Pete
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 79
Default 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
MA_Pete is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12th April 2007, 06:26 PM   #6
AlexWind
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 166
Default 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..
AlexWind is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12th April 2007, 07:20 PM   #7
o2bnme
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Maine & North Carolina
Posts: 230
Send a message via AIM to o2bnme Send a message via Yahoo to o2bnme
Default 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.
__________________
Starboard [Gemini, F-Type 148, iSonic 105], AHD [Convert 60, GT Special 73], Windsurfer
Neil Pryde [v8 9.8], Sailworks [Retro 8.0; Hucker 6.6, 5.6, 4.8]


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
o2bnme is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12th April 2007, 08:34 PM   #8
MA_Pete
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 79
Default 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
MA_Pete is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13th April 2007, 03:24 AM   #9
Guest
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 1,321
Default 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
Guest is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13th April 2007, 09:59 AM   #10
MA_Pete
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 79
Default 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...

MA_Pete is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Tags
None

Thread Tools
Display Modes

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

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +7. The time now is 09:56 PM.