Go Back   Starboard Forums > Free Forum

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 8th February 2007, 04:31 AM   #41
Expander
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Santa Croce lake, Italy
Posts: 132
Default RE: Anybody try the Apollo Yet?

--

Bensen, I want to congratulate you for photographic work and for your bravery in windsurfing in so severe weather condition.

Anyway, from your photos, it seems Apollo really suffers for lacking of buoyancy at the bow:




It will be interesting to understand if this could be interpreted as a positive quality in hi-speed condition (where board rises on water and it is supported only by tail surface), rather than a negative quality in low-wind / full-displacement board condition...

- Exp.
Expander is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 9th February 2007, 01:01 PM   #42
barks
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 42
Default RE: Anybody try the Apollo Yet?

Quote:
steveC wrote:
You presented quite a few interesting shots of the tail features that show much more than anything available on the Starboard website. The detail design features come off as very sculptural in nature.
In that regard I came across these pics of 161 to Apollo comparisons from a Swedish distributor: http://www.onwater.se/expo_apollo.html
barks is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 9th February 2007, 03:40 PM   #43
Expander
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Santa Croce lake, Italy
Posts: 132
Default RE: Anybody try the Apollo Yet?

--

http://www.onwater.se/expo_apollo.html

GULP !
Expander is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 9th February 2007, 04:08 PM   #44
Hugh Jarmes
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 38
Default RE: Anybody try the Apollo Yet?

Very interesting

I had planned to do similar comparative photos (as per my last post)

On the face of it the Apollo is noticeably wider in the tail than the 161. (the 161 doesn't seem very different to my 160)

The cut-outs differ slightly as do the rear strap position and foot pad.

Taking into account the difference in tail width, the Apollo being longer and no perceivable difference in board thickness it is hard to see why the quoted volume of the apollo is less than the 161.

Still waiting for mine.

the weather is looking more favourable next week so I might get out.
Hugh Jarmes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14th February 2007, 01:34 AM   #45
Hugh Jarmes
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 38
Default RE: Anybody try the Apollo Yet?

The Apollo has landed! I collected it from my dealer today. Unfortunately, it arrived in not quite the perfect condition I had hoped. A small imperfection has marred what looks like a fantastic design. (We couldn't see any courier damage to the packging so it appears that the damage was done during packing) Nevertheless, I have taken photos of the depression and we'll see what the importer (Tushingham) or SB have to say.

If you visit the blog page of www.windsurf.me.uk you will see a photo (more to follow) showing the Apollo alongside my old x-186 and my more recent 160. It certainly is an excellent example of evolution. What this photo doesn't show is how thin the Apollo is forward of the front footstrap and I can now understand Bensens comment that the Apollo lacks volume in the nose. This should prove interesting when my 94kg (yes I've lost 2kg!) tries to tack. Hopefully, watching "Pro Secrets" will have improved my racing tacks so that I won't be spending too much time sinking the nose.

Also of note is the size and rake of the Drake fin. It is big. I didn't believe 5cm would make that much difference. What is very noticeable is the upright nature of the fin which is even more dramatic than my +8 Deb.

I am planning to go out on Thursday. More after that.
Hugh Jarmes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14th February 2007, 08:42 AM   #46
steveC
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 639
Default RE: Anybody try the Apollo Yet?

While both Bensen and Hugh Jarmes have noted that the Apollo has a thinner nose, I think that one must also recognize that the board is somewhat longer. This makes me wonder whether the Apollo is similarly thick in the area of the nose that would correspond with the length of the 160 or 161 (with the nose of the Apollo thinning out with the extra length). Maybe Hugh Jarmes could offer some input here through a comparison between his 160 and the Apollo. Of course, in this type of comparison, the position of the mast track relative to the tail must be considered too.

steveC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14th February 2007, 02:49 PM   #47
Expander
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Santa Croce lake, Italy
Posts: 132
Default RE: Anybody try the Apollo Yet?

Quote:
Hugh Jarmes wrote:...Unfortunately, it arrived in not quite the perfect condition I had hoped. A small imperfection has marred what looks like a fantastic design. (We couldn't see any courier damage to the packging so it appears that the damage was done during packing) Nevertheless, I have taken photos of the depression and we'll see what the importer (Tushingham) or SB have to say...
--

I've received my 161 (yes, I have purchased a 161) with a small circular fissure (1-2 cm) too; this is located on bottom, near nose... nothing really worrying (it can be easily fix with a drop of putty and a hand of sanpaper) but very annoying.

Anyway through this small fissure I can see wood construction inside board... a way to understand how Starboard makes its boards but I liked better to rely on catalog informations instead ! :@

As Hugh said, I haven't seen any courier damage in packging so I 'm sure this damage has been done during packing.

What has Starboard to say about ?


- Expander.
Expander is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14th February 2007, 03:21 PM   #48
Hugh Jarmes
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 38
Default RE: Anybody try the Apollo Yet?

Steve C wrote Maybe Hugh Jarmes could offer some input here through a comparison between his 160 and the Apollo. Of course, in this type of comparison, the position of the mast track relative to the tail must be considered too.
If you look at the picture on the blog page of www.windsurf.me.uk you will see that the the position of the mast track relative to the tail is the same.
Hugh Jarmes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14th February 2007, 10:49 PM   #49
Hugh Jarmes
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 38
Default RE: Anybody try the Apollo Yet?

I am posting some more pictures of the Apollo on the blog page of www.windsurf.me.uk. I would put them on this forum if I knew how.

These compare the rear, side and front views of all 3 boards. The side and front views confirm that the Apollo is much thinner in the nose than the 160 and is nearer the x-186. However, the Apollo is as thick as the 160 in the rear. The rear view shows just how wide the Apollo is.

I also took the opportunity to weigh the boards. They came out as follows:

x-186 = 9kg, 160 = 9.25kg. Apollo = 9kg.
Hugh Jarmes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15th February 2007, 12:09 AM   #50
steveC
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 639
Default RE: Anybody try the Apollo Yet?

Hi Hugh,

Upon looking at your photo (I could only see the top view shot), it's certainly a clear indicator of the evolution between the boards, particularly from the x-186. Also, the close weight between the boards is quite interesting. Given the x-186s greater length, one would think it would weight more. Yet, the 160, being the shortest board, is unexpectedly the heaviest.

Regarding the thickness of the different boards, I'll check the blog back later for the added views. Thanks for sharing your photo comparison.

steveC 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 03:54 PM.