Go Back   Starboard Forums > Free Forum

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 27th February 2007, 07:45 PM   #71
Hugh Jarmes
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 38
Default RE: Anybody try the Apollo Yet?

Quote:
Expander wrote 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 ?
Regarding the damage to my Apollo the UK distributor Tushingham were very decent about it and gave a significant discount that should more than cover any repair costs which would be necessary to make the board cosmetically perfect
Hugh Jarmes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28th February 2007, 02:54 AM   #72
Hugh Jarmes
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 38
Default RE: Anybody try the Apollo Yet?

Quote:
Expander wrote: good test, very analytic and really significant.

But I think real field of comparison will necessarily be to test both boards with their ideal sails, that are sizes of 11 m. and bigger.
Wind is looking good for Saturday - 8mph (7knots). Should be out on the 11.6 but perhaps even the 12.5 if its not too gusty
Hugh Jarmes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 1st March 2007, 05:40 PM   #73
Hugh Jarmes
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 38
Default RE: Anybody try the Apollo Yet?

It would appear that news travels fast!

Perhaps Starboard needs an Italian forum

http://www.windsurf-roma.it/index.ph...temid=59<br />
Hugh Jarmes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2nd March 2007, 12:27 AM   #74
steveC
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 639
Default RE: Anybody try the Apollo Yet?

Hi Hugh and Bensen,

I think both of you did a great job of pictorially presenting the Apollo. I&#39;m glad that you both took the time to highlight and share your findings and thoughts. Regarding the word getting around, it doesn&#39;t surprise me. Interesting and insightful stuff is almost always noticed.

steveC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2nd March 2007, 05:14 AM   #75
steveC
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 639
Default RE: Anybody try the Apollo Yet?

In looking back a bit, I&#39;ve failed to include the earlier contributions of Expander on this thread that were focused on the different Formula outline shapes that have been on the market over a period of time. Really, his posts kind of started the gel that Bensen and Hugh Jarmes got some added lift from.

The input from these folks made a difference here in my mind.

steveC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 4th March 2007, 02:37 AM   #76
Hugh Jarmes
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 38
Default RE: Anybody try the Apollo Yet?

The wind was good for testing the Apollo today. Average 10-12 mph initially (more in the gusts) dropping off to 8-10 mph later.

I rigged Neil Pryde RSs 9.8 and 11.6.

Over 4 hours of testing both the Apollo and SB160

It proved to be very interesting.
Hugh Jarmes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 4th March 2007, 06:09 AM   #77
James
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 236
Default RE: Anybody try the Apollo Yet?

Hugh,

Please elaborate on "interesting"!
James is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 4th March 2007, 08:04 AM   #78
GeorgeUSA39
New Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 18
Default RE: Anybody try the Apollo Yet?

Dude your killing me please elaborate, inquiring minds want to know...
GeorgeUSA39 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 4th March 2007, 07:53 PM   #79
Hugh Jarmes
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 38
Default RE: Anybody try the Apollo Yet?

Previous posts refer

Stock Drake fins (SB 160 70cm Apollo 75cm)

In non-planing conditions the Apollo sailed closer to the wind (I suspect this was due to a combination of its greater waterline length (creating more lateral resistance) and its larger fin. However, I can’t say I really like its tendency to ‘luff-up’ so easily. Perhaps I will overcome this as I become more familiar with it. I should also point out that at these lower wind speeds it was far more difficult to get into the Apollo’s rear foot straps and their more outboard position becomes very noticeable.

In planing conditions it was difficult to differentiate between the two boards at these lower wind speeds. However, it felt like the Apollo planed a little earlier and that it came off the plane a little later (as per the previous higher wind trial). But again, the Apollo felt slower and despite its ability to point slightly higher than the 160, it was no faster to the windward end of the lake. Even more noticeable was the 160s ability to accelerate once planning. The 160 also responded far better to a few short sharp pumps (enabling me to squeeze past some of the isonics that were out yesterday – much to their chagrin) Perhaps the claim that a softer rig would suit the Apollo is correct.

Much has been said about the Apollo “PLANING IN 2 KNOTS LOWER WIND THAN TODAY”. What does that mean and ‘2kts lower than what?’

I think it is important to differentiate between ‘wind speed required to get the board onto the plane’ and ‘the planning speed of the board’. The former was far more difficult to assess, as the wind speed was not constant (apart from visiting the shoreline to check the 10 minute average wind speed) However, the use of a GPS enabled the latter to be established.

Whilst, the planing speed of a board will be different for sailors of dissimilar weight and ability, for me the Apollo planed 2 mph (approx 1.75 knots) slower than the 160 and it was a very strange sensation to be planning at such a relatively slow speed.

I won’t go into facts and figures (I wouldn’t want to be accused of being “irrelevant” or of “trying to look very smart”) but I imagine what you wanted to know is that, to me, the Apollo felt as though it planes at a much slower speed than the 160. It is also slower than the 160 as my sailing partner (x-186) made me very aware! (He took some &#39;Helmet Cam&#39; footage and some &#39;stills&#39; which should be available later)
Hugh Jarmes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 5th March 2007, 12:34 AM   #80
GeorgeUSA39
New Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 18
Default RE: Anybody try the Apollo Yet?

Hugh it seems logical that the Apollo would be slower once on the plane given the increased drag of the fin, but does the Apollo get planing earlier, in other words does it get planing in 6 knots of wind versus 8 knots of wind?
GeorgeUSA39 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 03:05 PM.