Which 150L board for a heavyweight?

[jingebritsen]

good choices all. only one i have not ridden is the magic ride.

width allows one to do dry jibes, but may not glide as well as longer, somewhat narrower. that's the meat of the matter. if you want to excel at planing jibes i would chose longer, esp if you don't want to stay lit all the time.

i have discovered that the shorter and wider boards do not glide as well in power off modes. the physics explanation is beyond me. just know that it is prevalent. bic seems to have confirmed this.

if one insists on short and wide and desires to plane thru jibes, try duck jibes. power off transitions can far less duration. just another observation i have made in light wind, Florida conditions.

[jfeehan]

[NOVAAN]

Sail size and water conditions seem to dictate whether short and wide or longer and narrow boards work best..haven used both style boards and the stubie's, I tend to lean to the slightly longer and narrow boards. I think for the advancing windsurfer, it might be best not to go extreme in either direction. Its seems that a lot of the board makers are going to far to the short and wide boards.

[GURGLETROUSERS]

Over the last week, two seperate days of similar winds have given chance of a comparison between two different boards of the same volume, but of very different eras. 1) My 2008 Exocet Cross 94 litre (shorter wider but not extreme) 2) My 1998 Bic Saxo 270, of the same 94 litres. (Longer and narrower with a turned up nose, but fairly normal for that period.)

The Cross 94, my current rave favourite since I found the right fin for it, is at its best (for me) in 4.7 or 5.5 sail winds and seas, and the Saxo was -and still is- at its best (for me) in 5.5 to 6.0 sail and sea conditions. Two seperate days of normal, gusty, wind and sea conditions have allowed for for a fair comparison with both boards in their window of use, with the same 5.5 sail.

(Computer problem, so will continue.)

[GURGLETROUSERS]

(Continued.)

The conditions were normal for our coast being typically gusty with stronger periods, and fairly frequent weaker parts and lulls. On both seperate days each board was planing at reasonable speed for about 60% of the time, and slogging in the lully parts for the rest. The only measurable points (Garmin) were max speed, and average speed over a set period of an hour, to average out the conditions and give a fairer picture.

The max speeds mean little. since both boards are capable of much more. They were 22.6 m.p.h. for the Saxo, and 21.7 for the Cross. The averages over the set hour were, 6.4 m.p.h. for the Saxo, and 7.1 m.p.h. for the Cross.

As John says, longer narrower boards do glide a little easier in slogging conditions so I was expecting the Saxo to be faster there, but a probable slight difference in wind strength and duration skewed the result.

(Will continue)

[GURGLETROUSERS]

(Continued.)

It was clear though, that the longer narrower turned up nose of the Saxo sat higher out of the water when slogging, and was more directionally stable against the chop. The shorter squatter nose of the Cross burried itself more (Leverage of rig over shorter nose length?) in the water adding resistance, as well as being lurched about more.

Short of being able to compare side by side on the same day (two riders) I can only add that both boards can be very satisfying to use. I had forgotten how good the Saxo used to be at long arc drawn out fast gybes. When properly powered in the windier spells, being sooner to plane isn't that relevant, since neither could get going in the lulls anyway.

The Cross 94 is my current favourite board, especially in 4.7 conditions where it excells. (Given up on stupid low volume wave boards in our normal non-consitent wind conditions.) But I do wonder whether shorter and wider is, in some cases the Emperors new clothes thing, for us normal non-pro standard experienced and otherwise competent windsurfers?

After all, perfect art is being able to make perfect use of what we have to hand, and it need be no less satisfying on a good older shape of board.

[akrausz]

[isobars]

[GURGLETROUSERS]

Yes akrausz, I agree that the mainstream sensibly proportioned shorter and wider boards of today (such as my favourite crosses of 94 and 84 litres) have a balanced mix of performance characteristics, which allow the tackling of fairly challenging conditions on the open sea. They may or may not be a little better than the old, but they are certainly no worse.

But it's all too easy to get fixated on the board and forget that sheer raw enthusiasm which drove us all, when windsurfing was THE new and exciting sport. We just wanted to nail it, whatever! (That attitude has now crossed to kite surfing, with ever growing numbers.)

I suppose my point is that many longstanding windsurfers have forgotten the past, and too readily assume that the older boards were all inferior to the new. The old may have been a little harder to use at times, but I don't find them so inferior. (Who decrees things have always got to be easier, and WHY?)

So yes, when my current boards need replacing I'll settle for new. (No choice really) but I won't believe that will offer any real advance in performance, over what I have now. Laws of physics, and all that!

[isobars]