Those few days a year...

[LeeD]

Yeah, Beatles music isn't listenable...
JerryLeeLewis and BuddyHolly just don't apply anymores.
Dead is what you think is dead. The next guy sails faster than you, jumps higher, makes more planing jibes on your "dead" gear.
Yeah, old guitars don't work anymores.
And BrucePeterson didn't laydown full 28mph planing jibes on HyperTec and Clams, it was just an illusion.
Tigas? Well, I didn't sail the 20 lbs flexi flyers, but I've seen many sailors much better than you doing great on them.
My old 250 Carve does everything a bump and jump needs to do, compared to ANY vintage 75 liter board.
And the '89 Starship can look just as good nowadaze with '07 sails just as it did in ...... '89.
But if you could not windsurf in those old days, you'd think the gear didn't work. Of course, it was the gear's fault.

[swchandler]

I have to side with LeeD here, because older stuff isn't necessarily bad. Still though, I would avoid mast track forward stuff from the early 90s and before. Not that this stuff can't still rip, but in my opinion, the newer mast track back stuff is much better overall in so many respects.

[ScuzzyBreeze]

I totally agree that some or many of the older boards are rocket ships and should not be discredited. I really like the Mistral Diamond Head and the older Explosions, but when I jump on a new Carve, it's hard to justify putting a beginner on one of the old goodies (this has been a local argument lately).

I don't have much experience with low volume wave boards, but I'm getting the feeling from this post that it's the same deal.

Honestly, I'm waiting for the winds to fill in around here this fall so that I can splash an ancient Sea Trend glass board that I've never really been able to gybe. The challenge makes my other windsurfing that much more enjoyable and I feel a little more in touch with the sport.

[coachg]

I would guess that some people would not want a rocket ship when it is nuking unless you are sailing on a small lake or flat water. For those rare days at any open bodied water venue you are likely to get big to huge swell. In those conditions most people I know would consider a fast board or a board that planes very quickly a bad thing. In those conditions a board that planes up slowly, sits in the water and is slow, and a board that is highly maneuverable so you can slash around the hills and choose which ones you want to jump is a good thing. My hat’s off to those of you that can sail a slalom board at Sherman on an ebb tide in nuking conditions.

Coachg

[beallmd]

Do you all remember how the Flat type older boards would occasionally pearl the nose? YOW! These new wide tailed boards turn so much easier and allow you to play all day with the chop and swell in a way we never could have dreamed of in the old days. The old boards go straight and fast but the new boards have helped me to slow down and enjoy the mogul fields out there. I sail slower now and I'm proud of it! Older wave boards, with a lot of spoon and narrow tails are more controllable in very high wind. They stay in the water better... Have you noticed the smaller wave boards are still designed that way?

[LeeD]

Huh....
First you downplay the old stuff as too fast and flat, rave about new stuff, then go back and say old stuff (wave gear) is slow and turny....maybe insinuating it's close to NEW stuff ??????
In the old daze, as is TODAY, you can choose to ride turny slow stuff or superfast straight line stuff.
Was true in 1984, is still true today.
Old new, whatever, watch Naish sail in 1984 and tell me the new stuff is better.
Cascade made some of the nicest, turny, semi smooth riding high wind stuff in the late '80's.
Why didn't you ride one of those, or a Dill, back then?
I chose to ride bump and jumps back then, flatter rockered wave shapes.
I also had the HyperTec, Priesters, and Pettits, for the high wind days.
The choice is out there, you just need the smarts to make it.....

[beallmd]

Sorry if I confused you-maybe I'm just confused, but larger B and J stuff have wide tails and turn very easily making mid range wind more fun. However when the wind comes up the wave boards of today are similar to older gear in having narrow tails and more spoon (they are not flat though) and stay in the water better. these boards are more like the older stuff... Wave boards have not changed nearly as much-is that clearer?

[LeeD]

Yeah, nothing like the feeling of zipping around well powered on a 66 liter flat rockered wave shaped 1996 shape.....13.5 lbs.
That one is a Kinetic, but Clam is interchangable too.....
Fragile? Yeah, if you fall every jibe and smash it onto the rocks, yes.
Mast track to middle of front footstrap on my 1989 Starship is exactly 22.5". That's basically modern for freeride, not freestyle boards.
You DO know the difference, don't you?

[isobars]

If you lived in the Gorge, faced 30 kts very often (maybe 40 days so far this year?), and wanted to show the Hatchery gurus a thing or two, my entire post would read, “Go to the Hatchery and ask them.” Unfortunately, a) you don’t and b) this topic is near and dear to me, as I sail sinkers several hundred hours a year, have ridden hundreds of them, and am very picky about their performance.

First, why wait for 30 kts to use a low-volume board? Their handling benefits start at more like 20 kts or whatever wind speed powers up a 5.2 for you, presuming you have some terrain to work with. You can take advantage of the extra handling of a sinker (liters < weight in kilos) in knee-high swell; chest-high is icing on the cake. The maneuverability difference, and maybe to a lesser degree the control difference, between 65 and 75 and 85 liters is very noticeable even between three otherwise identical boards. 95 liters is a whole different kind of WSing, and is a joke at 30 kts for mortals on rough terrain.

Of course, one must consider the downsides. First and foremost, what's the penalty for a sudden dramatic wind speed drop where you sail? If it's a tolerable swim with no real hazards, smaller is better for control and handling. Hazards (e.g., ships, a hundred-foot-high spillway, a landlord, offshore winds in big water) temper that advice. A swim is a small price for me considering the benefits of small boards.

The next downside is planing power. The smaller and/or narrower they are, the quicker they drop off a plane and the slower they are to plane up. Getting hit by a sudden gust when slogging a sinker is a real challenge for weaker guys, but just another day at the gym for stronger guys. Learning to use your harness instead of your arms while getting onto a plane narrows that gap, but even if you’re a gymnast, slow-to-plane = way more arm exercise than you want. Early planing GOOD!

With no unmanageable hazards, halfway steady winds > 20 kts, terrain over knee-high, and lots of gym (or sailing time), give me a sinker every time, preferably 65-75 liters at my 190#. The boost in maneuverability is paramount TO ME. I emphasize "TO ME" because my top priority is maneuverability while powered way up; a person who prefers to cruise in straight lines and/or surf the swell de-powered wants much earlier and more sustained board planing power than I want. They use extra width and/or volume to get their planing power, usually at the expense of maneuverability; I use smaller/narrower boards for their extra maneuverability and get my planing power from bigger sails. Almost all the guys up to 225 pounds yesterday were on 3.7s and 4.2s on their sinkers; I was happier than a pig in $#!+ on my 5.2 and 75 liters (it was a little holey for 65). I went up to 85 when the wind slacked off in the evening … but my only risk was a downwind slog home in warm water.

A bud’s wife “made him” buy a highly touted 79-liter ‘07 Starboard Kombat. He was about to abandon WSing for kiting, but her new board changed his mind. I drove it under a 5.2 and a 4.7 (wind range from 20 to near 40 mph), and was extremely impressed by its incredibly smooth ride, its dramatically early and sustained planing, its utterly effortless slogging, and its very easy turns. I was eager to spend more time on it and consider buying one until I tried extremely tight slashing on it. It balked, and thus so did I. It turns best when its full rail is engaged, whereas I’m used to whipping instantaneous 120-150-degree slams merely by twitching my back foot in its strap at top speed under full power in any terrain. There are MANY new boards I haven’t tried yet, but the few I’ve carefully chosen have failed that test; I suspect width is an issue when trying to combine high speed, smooth ride, and pool-ball-off-the-rails turns in amateur hands. That works best with the narrow, thin tails common 6-10 years ago in high-wind boards.

Much obviously depends on whether you want to merely manage high winds comfortably or cut loose and just go nuts in them. I prefer the latter, and that narrows the field considerably even though my “nuts” is a young expert’s “cruise control” (you won’t see me upside down or with one foot out of its strap in the air). Many boards will manage them, via weight, lots of rocker, narrow widths, exceptional hull shapes, etc. That Kombat was amazing up to a point. Highly rockered (aka banana) traditional wave boards are very easy to control in big winds, but primarily because they’re slow, whereas I want fast. If I use a wave board, I want one the magazines say is very fast, on which I can pass most sailors in big rough terrain.

Even if some 2008 board WILL do absolutely everything in the hands of a recreational sailor who rides it only a few times a year, a) is that worth $2k to you and b) how ya gonna find it? Demoing, even in the Gorge, is a PITA because trying to identify and rent several candidate boards one at a time and find appropriate winds could eat up a month, and anything less will hardly justify spending $2k.

One alternative is using back magazine issues and word of mouth to build a list of candidate boards, then look for them locally and online. Another is to find a shop you trust and take their advice on buying closeout or demo boards. I’ve had very good success doing this with Big Winds in Hood River, but I can walk in there and at least look at, maybe even ride, a selection, and I have a huge buying market nearby if I don’t like what I bought.

As for age, you can save 90% to >99% just by going back less than 10 years … WAY short of the early 90’s boards with mast tracks way forward. I bought a well-rated 1999 AHD wave board for $10 recently to donate to a good cause, and there were plenty more boards of all kinds for similar prices where it came from. $100-$300 will buy top-of-the-line boards from the 2000 era, all with modern mast track location. My top-rated 1999 JP wave board looked (and weighed) like new and included a marginal fin, Chinook two-bolt mast base and uni, and new footstraps all for $100 two years ago. I like it better than any of the handful of 2003-2008 board I’ve owned and/or ridden in the same size range. People almost give away their “old” stuff, partly because some shops say it doesn’t work any more AND PEOPLE BELIEVE IT.

Unless you have very specific performance criteria that may narrow your field, any well-rated 1999-2004 or so B&J or fast wave board should work great for you and cost under $300-400. If you’re the usual 160-pounder, mid-70s displacement should be your biggest contender at 30 kts; some 75-liter wave board still feel too big and/or too rough-riding at 30 kts average windspeed. But for broader use in the 20-30-kt average windspeed range, about 65-75 liters would be tough to beat unless that swim would be a major problem ...presuming you have the skills for it and want maximum performance rather than mere competence.

Just don’t think that “old” -- say, 2000 -- means slow, or heavy, or stodgy; plenty of high-performance 2000 boards weigh about 13 pounds and are exceptionally fast in rough water. I suspect the wider trend is a successful effort to make small boards more user-friendly for the average recreational sailor, who seldom sails in winds averaging 30 kts and just gets by at 30, rather than aggressively taking advantage of their wind range.

Mike \m/

[andymc4610]