Go Back   Starboard Forums > Free Forum

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 26th August 2006, 04:00 AM   #41
PaulM
New Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 8
Default RE: Apollo Vs F161

Scotty, You're right formula is pretty amazing in it's elemet but looks far from sleek - especially from the front where you see the full 'barn door'. Of course there's no prizes for elegance, but many formula are bought by non racers, whom I bet normally prefer to buy things they feel have a certain amount of style. I've wondered if a formula board would look better if it was a more normal width to somewhere between mast foot & footstrap, then tapered out to the full metre in the standing area. To make tacking possible for weekend warriors the nose would have to be pretty thick - maybe semi canoe nose ?

BTW has Apollo got cut outs ?
PaulM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26th August 2006, 06:41 AM   #42
steveC
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 639
Default RE: Apollo Vs F161

Hi PaulM,

Maybe I'm missing something here, but isn't the high volume line of the iSonic line what you're thinking about? Narrower tails, yet still a fairly healthy width in the nose. Somewhat less upwind/downwind in concept, so I would think that might integrate a bit better with the more back and forth folks (most intermediates). Nonetheless, I bet it could still be pretty directional, given the right sailor and fin combo. Also, larger sails are in the mix too. I think Starboard is already offering a product to suit your needs.

steveC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26th August 2006, 09:42 PM   #43
scotty
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 45
Default RE: Apollo Vs F161

Hi Tiesda,

Website is getting a little better! See more details involving the boards now! I can now see how the wood Serenity really looks much easier. The image for the Serenity used in you technology section is a really good one and a good angle! I do hope that the guys at Windsurfjournal get a wood version for their images as at the moment I prefer the white, but I think could be I haven't seen the wood properly.

But for sure cool stuff! Going to have to start saving some pennies for next year!!
scotty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26th August 2006, 10:39 PM   #44
PaulM
New Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 8
Default RE: Apollo Vs F161

Hi SteveC, I mean the other way round. For upwind work we know we need width at the back for leverage over the fin, but why does the nose have to look like a barn door coming towards you across the water ? Must have a fair bit of aero drag when in the nose up attiude it's designed for. Whats the function of that nose width ? - as soon as the boards up and running the front half is out of the water anyhow.
I'm saying there's anything wrong with formula performance, but Scotty was reluctant to buy something ugly and I think there's are quite a lot of people who agree. One reason my personal width limit is 80cm.

PaulM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26th August 2006, 10:53 PM   #45
scotty
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 45
Default RE: Apollo Vs F161

Yeah Paul,

I agree that for me Forumula gear tends to look pretty aweful! I mean an Equipe has much nicer lines. But Formula is purely a factor of function. I went for the F-148 just because the looks were not bad for such a board.

I think the wide nose acts like a giant wing, and compresses the air to promote eary planing on the F-types and then the tapered tail just provides a more ergonomic position for general back forth sailing. I think had I the chance again, I'd have gone for the F 160 or 161. Maybe it's fine I didn't as it would appear the F type has plenty speed to keep our fun social racing pretty even with a friend on a 2003 SB Formula board.
scotty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27th August 2006, 12:36 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
Old 27th August 2006, 04:46 AM   #47
mark h
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: NW England,
Posts: 712
Default RE: Apollo Vs F161

Steve C
A couple of months ago, I bought a Formula weed fin from Wolfgang Lesscher to use in neap tide conditions (loads of very shallow sand bars) on light days. Used it properly today, conditions where varied through the day. First was 20 knots wind with swell, second was in 12 ish knots with very flat water. The fin looks weired on the beach but works really well. Down wind was nearly as fast as my C3 fins. Speed is needed before you can get decent angle upwind. Gybing is'nt great, you can really feel the over-hang from the fin, but you can get around the corners.
__________________
Cheers - Mark H

The toys:
iSW44 - - iSW49 - iSW53 - iSW58 - iS107 - iS137 - F161.
North Warps: F2012 5.2m, 5.7m, 6.3m, 7m, 8m, 8.6m, 9.5m F2006 11m.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
mark h is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27th August 2006, 05:52 AM   #48
sitka
New Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 5
Default RE: Apollo Vs F161

crimminy....!!

the noses are wide because when you go deep down wind you need a trim mechanism to handle to huge variations in power experienced by the rig, fin and sailor. the board is of slight consequence as long as it keeps those things aligned. If that means wide nose who cares.

It's not estetic, it's neccesity. Once connected to the forces involved the wide nose is beautiful in it's time and place. Ugly only to the un initiated.
sitka is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27th August 2006, 11:58 PM   #49
steveC
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 639
Default RE: Apollo Vs F161

Hi mark h,

It is good to hear that Lessacher's weedfins work well with formula boards, despite the overhang. I know I was initially a bit worried about the overhang of the 34cm Duo Weed (still I really have to be careful when waterstarting), but it didn't seem to be a problem, even in the jibes. But, like I indicated above, my course slalom is quite narrrow. What size did you buy for the formula board?
steveC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28th August 2006, 03:45 AM   #50
mark h
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: NW England,
Posts: 712
Default RE: Apollo Vs F161

Hi Steve C
The Lesscher formula weed fin isnt on his web site, but it has a vertical drop of 41cm, the length is around 55/60cm (will measure it some time), it has a massive surface area and a very thick chord. Wolfgang told me its very popular with the formula guys/girls in Strandhurst, Holand.

Cheers
__________________
Cheers - Mark H

The toys:
iSW44 - - iSW49 - iSW53 - iSW58 - iS107 - iS137 - F161.
North Warps: F2012 5.2m, 5.7m, 6.3m, 7m, 8m, 8.6m, 9.5m F2006 11m.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
mark h 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 04:01 AM.