Go Back   Starboard Forums > Free Forum

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 28th August 2006, 05:26 AM   #51
PaulM
New Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 8
Default RE: Apollo Vs F161

Sitka, you mean to stop the nose burying ? Yep that does make semse, although my 02 FF138 ssems to use the nose scoop to do the same job without so much width. But with the ultra short nose the problem must take more solving. I do remember the Exocet 'canoe nose' open 310 was said to be frightening in a blow downwind. I'm sure Scotty's point about lift generation plays a part too in getting that 'dancing on the fin' attitude.

Guess I'm gonna have to try and learn to love functionalism
PaulM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29th August 2006, 10:12 PM   #52
scotty
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 45
Default RE: Apollo Vs F161

Hey Starboard guys, just want to say the product pages are getting better every day! I like the new images which show top and bottoms of the boards. A few broken links on the PA and Isonic pages, but I'm sure you'll have that sorted! The bigger image of the wood Serenity is great as I'm starting to sway towards that model. Also I like the opening of a separate page with the forum!

Got my wish list... which comes first??

PA 74, I sonic 87, Serenity, Isonic 50, Isonic 97.... B)
scotty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 4th September 2006, 07:50 AM   #53
Garda
New Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 8
Default RE: Apollo Vs F161

I'm with Paul and Scotty, aesthetically FW boards are very dodgy to my eye......frankly ugly in fact.

Sure, they work, but "handsome is as handsome does" only goes so far, or else an efficient recycling facility (ie garbage tip) or chemical factory would be seen to be as attractive as the Taj Mahal or a beautiful but dumb model. We humans seem to prefer more streamlined shapes (ie slender) with lots of curves.

I love the look of my Kombi towing a rusty old trailer full of windsurfers and it's very effective at the job, but that doesn't mean that most people would think it looks as good as a Bentley Speed Six or Jaguar driven by a supermodel.

What works doesn't always look good, and it's not just a matter of being initiated.
Garda is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 6th September 2006, 11:03 AM   #54
Nathan
New Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 7
Default RE: Apollo Vs F161

Scotty & PaulM

Have either of you guys used formula equipment?

Nathan
Nathan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 6th September 2006, 06:50 PM   #55
scotty
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 45
Default RE: Apollo Vs F161

Hey Nathan

I've used a 2003 model Formula board a few times with a 10.6m sail. I decided to go for the more free formula route and go with a F-148 and 10m sail.

Thinking about it now, I would have gone for the 160 Formula board as basically if you want to plan really early and go up and downwind really well the wide tail with parallel rails is the only way I think. But anyway I'll put that on my 2008 budget!!
scotty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 9th September 2006, 07:50 PM   #56
PaulM
New Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 8
Default RE: Apollo Vs F161

Natham,

I've tried a little formula & sail with 'em on the water not infrequently. They're impressive, no question. It's the combination of transport, storage , windrange (for mortals) & maybe (if I'm honest) looks that sets the 80cm limit for me.
PaulM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13th September 2006, 12:38 AM   #57
Ken
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Dallas, Texas USA
Posts: 799
Default RE: Apollo Vs F161

When you are hanging on to a 9m sail running downwind in 25 knots over 1m chop, you want function, not form. Getting killed on a pretty board makes no sense.

Personally, I think if you could engineer a bus that could beat a formula 1 race car, you would draw a lot of attention. Same with a formula board. You see a lot of heads turn when you blow by a keel boat or cat.

I was into "looks" for sails and boards at one time, but now, its, function first, then let's see what it looks like.
__________________
Toys:
Formula 160; iSonic 111; HiFly Move 105; Tiga 263; '85 Mistral Superlight.
Maui Sails TR 11.0; 9.2; 8.4; 7.6; 6.6; Maui Sails Switch 6.0; 5.2; Maui Sails Global 4.5; 4.0.
Ken is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13th September 2006, 09:11 PM   #58
scotty
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 45
Default RE: Apollo Vs F161

Although formula gear is impressive for VMG courses, wearing a GPS, shows the top end speeds are less than sensible sized gear in my experience. If you are planning to do back and forth sailing, then formula kit isn't ideal, unless early planning at all costs is the target!
scotty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18th September 2006, 09:37 PM   #59
crwind
New Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 7
Default RE: Appolo

Hi Guys,

Sailing in a really non windy and full of lac place, I really welcome and appreciate the arrival of the Appolo.
I can race with my Formula but waht I would like to have is a machine that really optimize Xlight wind sailing. How about an Appolo that is NON formula class, i-e a limited version that is lighter that the formula class minimum weight? I believe that if you can get a borad that is 1 or 2 kg lighter, then we can push the limits further down?
What do you think (and yes it is going to be frigile, but that's the trade of many people take with all pro-models and custum boards - no problem there).
Second Q: other than the sail that's being developed by Severne, would you plane faster say on an RS6 12.5m2 than on a GTX9.8 for example? I am asking this because I red many times that the planing threshold is not so different, but the capacity to go up-wind better is really what you gain with the 12m5.

I look forward to any replies!

Regards,

Chris
crwind is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19th September 2006, 04:16 AM   #60
milk laser
New Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 9
Default RE: Apollo Vs F161

I'm absolutely against Apollo. It doubles costs for racers. It eliminates weekend club racing from scene, because again you must have a lot of equipment.
Formula was fantastic class before Apollo arived. Only one board was enough to race every weekend all year long. So STARBOARD guys, don't register it to be legal IFWC board. Let it be as it is, but don't touch FW!!! If you'll register Apollo for IFWC, I'll made it not valid for local and national competitions for a year or two. I have an experience with an old style slalom which required more than one board. It died. Every racing discipline will die very quickly if it requires more than 1 board and 1-2 sails. Also more than one board killed and is killing children sport.
Let it be experimental board until all the industry will agree on its place. If it is Apollo class then it is Apollo. Not formula. Leave windsurfers in silence. Don't f*ck their brains with early planing progress. I see progress in marketing only

Best regards and don't think it's an angry post. I love formula very much
milk laser 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 01:25 AM.