It seems to me there are now four kinds of free ride boards. One could argue with my classifications, but I would say the first is the relatively long and narrow free rider, such as the Tabou Rocket, Naish Starship, and Goya Carrera.

The second is the free move category, such as the JP Magic Ride, RRD Fire Move, and Fanatic Gecko. Most manufacturers moved from the old school to the free move a few years ago--for example, Fanatic phased out the Shark and replaced it with the Gecko; and JP phased out the Xcite Ride and replaced it with the Magic Ride.

The third category is the stubby (very short and narrow) category and includes the Fanatic Blast and JP Super Ride. It is too early to tell, but I suspect this new category will replace the free moves such as the Gecko and Magic Ride.

The fourth category has the free race boards such as Starboard Futura, JP Super Sport, and Goya Bolt.

There are also some boards that are hard to put into a category--such as the Goya Volar. It is longer than the boards in any of the other categories but moderately wide side to side and thin top to bottom like the free move boards.

I actually understand what the free race category is about--namely, going really fast with a really powered up sail and jibing at the end of a reach. It is the other three categories (long and narrow, free move, and stubby) that I am confused about. I'd be grateful if someone out there who has some experience with boards in a couple of these categories would please explain the performance differences. Why do JP and Fanatic offer boards in both the free move category and the stubby category? Who is each category intended for? For example, are the free moves for lower intermediates while the stubbies are for higher intermediates and advanced riders? Is one type faster than the other, earlier planing, easier to jibe, or whatever? If yes, why? And why are the two new categories (free move and stubby) better or worse than the long and narrow style (like Rocket and Carrera? Finally, why choose one category over the other?

When free move boards came out, we were told they would plane earlier and be easier to jibe than the older style long and narrow boards. That is not my experience with them, but if that is what you experienced, please share.

Finally, are the stubby boards such as at the Blast and Super Ride really thick top to bottom? If they are short and wide, the volume must go into making them thicker top to bottom. Does that make them hard to tack and slog? (I am terrible at tacking.) Since they are so short and narrow, are they harder to get planing or do adjustments to the rocker, V, concave, and rail make up for the short and narrow outline as far as planing is concerned?

That is a lot of questions, probably too many. But I included them to stimulate conversation. Please don't feel like you have to answer them all (or any of them).

And thanks in advance for your thoughts.

Freerace.. fast.
Freemove..easy, softer, friendlier.
Stubbie...can handle sharper, quicker turning.
Trad freeride..compromise of speed, ease, smooth.

LeeD,

Thanks. I always enjoy reading your comments in the forums. You know a lot and are good about explaining what you knowl.

Have you tried any of the stubby boards? If so, does packing all that volume into a short and narrow footprint make them taller top to bottom and therefore tippy and hard to tack? I have looked at side view photos of Super Ride and they seem really, really thick--which I suspect would make them really, really tippy. I am just wondering if that is really the case.

If the big advantage for the stubby is being able to turn quicker, then that category is not for me. I actually like to make turns with a big arc. I seem to keep my speed up better with a big arc provided that I jibe where the chop is not too tall.

I had a free move (Starboard Atomiq 114) a few years ago and hated it. It was much harder to get planing than more conventional boards (i.e., long and narrow boards that were thin top to bottom). Maybe my technique is lacking or not a good match for that style or at least not for the Atomiq. I know, I know: go deep off the wind and pump. I tried that with the Atom and it really didn't work for me. I had great difficulty getting it to rise up and to stay on a plane when I hit a lull. Also, my GPS speeds were relatively low (low to mid 20s) on that board even though Windsurf magazine thought it was a speedster. But as I said, maybe that style is not a good fit for my skills.

Do you have any thoughts on which category is more exciting to sail?

I wouldn't classify freerace boards as "freeride".
The narrow or wide freerides have their purpose. (Ocean vs flat water). Tried all three varieties above, and sticking with the regular freerides.
Don't know much about stubbies.

Thanks, Obelix.

I am a bit confused by what you mean when you said you were sticking with "regular" free rides. Can you tell me which free ride board you have?

Regardless fr would be your first catagory. Pretty fast, traditional jibe, somewhat smooth riding, all around. Do everything.
It's preferences. Of course, Stubbies need a quick tack.
Free move needs a wide step to bank the board.
Freerace needs more careful choice and tuning of the sail.
They're all good.

John, I mostly sail a standard Tabou Rocket (as opposed to the "wide" version of Rocket).
The Rocket works well everywhere. I sail the 145L volume in the open ocean up to 25 knts winds.
After 25 knts, I go smaller to a much smaller FSW board.
There you go - another "freeride" version :-)

I also like Patrik freeride boards. Older versions of F2 and Fanatic freerides.

There are an infinite number of sizes and shapes a board can be, so the manufacturers use labels to direct the buyer towards what they might want.

Slalom is pretty straight forward.
Freerace is a de-tuned slalom board, made to a cheaper construction and usually made easier to gybe, hopefully with little loss of speed.
Freemove is a board which is easy to turn and forgiving for the intermediate who is not yet ready for a full wave board or a freestyle board. They are meant to be fun, without necessarily being that fast.
Freewave tends to replace the FSW or 'freestyle wave' category, mostly because intermediates often shy away from freestyle moves, but want a windy weather board for control and easier sailing in wavey or choppy 5m weather - and for other small sails.

Amongst 'true Wave boards' we now have traditional single fin boards, quad fin, tri fin, and twin fin wave boards, and then we have onshore wave boards and side shore boards, all built to various lengths and widths. The onshore wave board needs to plane easily, and to hold its speed in the turns. Whereas the side shore board can have more rocker and a narrower tail for control and looseness on the wave face.
And then we have Stubbies, which again vary a lot in shapes and dimensions - when you try and do a direct comparison.
Some stubbies were born out of the 'fish' surfboard idea and were/are quite wide. But nowadays the trend is for parallel-sided stubbies which tend to be narrower as well as quite short. So there's the Fish stubby, and then there's the Tomo Stubby.
To be a true Stubby, the board ought to be under 220cms long, but some 'Freewave stubbies' have taken on the squared-off nose, chopper tail, and parallel rails, whilst actually being nearer 230cms long.

Extra length - even 10cms - tends to make a board more forgiving, especially in a gusty wind, because you can a longer planing section. A shorter hull tends to be twitchier and requires more driving skills from the sailor to keep it moving through lulls, but the true benefit comes when turning the board - with a shorter hull fitting better in the pocket of a smaller wave and working well for slammed back foot turns..

Extra width gives the sailor more float and a more stable platform, but the narrow, parallel-sided boards can be faster, whilst requiring more sailor input to engage the rail in a turn. A board with a lot of width in the middle tend to be easier to gybe.

Then there's rocker line, tail kick, and rail shape, which are probably a whole other discussion.

Select to expand quote

Basher said..
There are an infinite number of sizes and shapes a board can be, so the manufacturers use labels to direct the buyer towards what they might want.

Slalom is pretty straight forward.
Freerace is a de-tuned slalom board, made to a cheaper construction and usually made easier to gybe, hopefully with little loss of speed.
Freemove is a board which is easy to turn and forgiving for the intermediate who is not yet ready for a full wave board or a freestyle board. They are meant to be fun, without necessarily being that fast.
Freewave tends to replace the FSW or 'freestyle wave' category, mostly because intermediates often shy away from freestyle moves, but want a windy weather board for control and easier sailing in wavey or choppy 5m weather - and for other small sails.

Amongst 'true Wave boards' we now have traditional single fin boards, quad fin, tri fin, and twin fin wave boards, and then we have onshore wave boards and side shore boards, all built to various lengths and widths. The onshore wave board needs to plane easily, and to hold its speed in the turns. Whereas the side shore board can have more rocker and a narrower tail for control and looseness on the wave face.
And then we have Stubbies, which again vary a lot in shapes and dimensions - when you try and do a direct comparison.
Some stubbies were born out of the 'fish' surfboard idea and were/are quite wide. But nowadays the trend is for parallel-sided stubbies which tend to be narrower as well as quite short. So there's the Fish stubby, and then there's the Tomo Stubby.
To be a true Stubby, the board ought to be under 220cms long, but some 'Freewave stubbies' have taken on the squared-off nose, chopper tail, and parallel rails, whilst actually being nearer 230cms long.

Extra length - even 10cms - tends to make a board more forgiving, especially in a gusty wind, because you can a longer planing section. A shorter hull tends to be twitchier and requires more driving skills from the sailor to keep it moving through lulls, but the true benefit comes when turning the board - with a shorter hull fitting better in the pocket of a smaller wave and working well for slammed back foot turns..

Extra width gives the sailor more float and a more stable platform, but the narrow, parallel-sided boards can be faster, whilst requiring more sailor input to engage the rail in a turn. A board with a lot of width in the middle tend to be easier to gybe.

Then there's rocker line, tail kick, and rail shape, which are probably a whole other discussion.

I'm so glad we have lots of different boards to get confused with good to have choice and now we have foil hybrid boards too !
The right sailer can make a freeride board fast with the right sail, fin and tuning but a crap sailer can make a fast slalom board slow so the categories can get bit fuzzy mabe .
Over my 35 + sailing years I've had most of the different type's of boards had some dog's and some fantastic shapes (wish had kept) now I'm into my second childhood I'm just about to get into foiling but still retain a small FSW and a Freerace and now a hybrid foil board (tabou RP123).
I do however think the label given to some board's can be bit confusing, I have had my FSW challenge my mate's on there full slalom kit with similar sail, sailer but is my board still FSW.

Select to expand quote

JiberJohn said..
......
I had a free move (Starboard Atomiq 114) a few years ago and hated it. It was much harder to get planing than more conventional boards (i.e., long and narrow boards that were thin top to bottom). Maybe my technique is lacking or not a good match for that style or at least not for the Atomiq. I know, I know: go deep off the wind and pump. I tried that with the Atom and it really didn't work for me. I had great difficulty getting it to rise up and to stay on a plane when I hit a lull. Also, my GPS speeds were relatively low (low to mid 20s) on that board even though Windsurf magazine thought it was a speedster. But as I said, maybe that style is not a good fit for my skills.
.......

I had one of those and it was/is an interesting board to sail and I found it great fun and very useful as a light wind machine for winds of 12-20knots.

I never understood why people said you had to bear off to get it going but they were right when they said the wide hull was hard to get unstuck. Because I sailed freestyle boards I found the Atom was a board you had to 'pop' out of the water to plane early - and you don't actually need to bear away to do that.

The advantage of that 'wide style' board was that, once planing, it would cruise through lulls and just keep going. It would also carry big sails and the tail width allowed you to hold down a long fin, so it tanked upwind, pointing high. That pointing ability meant the board was great for cruising around, upwind and down, like a course racer.

The downside to that sort of width is that the board can be a bit slow when not flying fully-powered on the fin. And of course turning on wide boards requires a lot of commitment from the sailor, so they are not great for those learning to gybe.

Too many Variables in personal preferences to make a wag on which category that fits your wants and needs.

Fsw is often slalom speed in rough water-high winds.

LeeD, Obelix, Basher, Nerdycross, and ForceTen: Thank you all for the comments. You helped out a fellow sailor understand boards better.

But I confess I am still a little confused. I have read this thread over and over and what I come away with is that you guys don't have anything good to say about the new short & narrow free ride boards such as the Blast and Super Ride, but you have nice things to say about the free move boards (such as Atomiq and Magic Ride) and the more conventional longer and narrower boards (exemplified by Bolt, Rocket, and Starship). Not sure if your lack of input on the short and narrow boards is due to the fact that maybe you haven't sailed them or to something else. No matter. After pondering your comments, I think I have decided the short and narrow category is not for me. The place where I sail often has 90 degree wind shifts that require me to tack A LOT to get back to the launch site and I think I would be falling too much while tacking on a really short board. (Of course, I know I should work on becoming better at tacking.)

When I think about where boards are developed and tested, it is always in a place with constant wind and warm air and water. My lake is the opposite. It has highly variable wind and icy water and the air temp is not that great either. We can get wonderful days with full on planing for hours, or we can get slog-and-ride days with planing rides of 100 yards followed by a slog. The test teams develop wonderful boards that work great for our good days but something that is only 230 long would be sinky and difficult where I sail. So after thinking about my choices and what you guys said and didn't say, I think I will not be switching to the short and narrow category. Now I just have to sort out whether to buy a free move or a longer and narrower style (like the Bolt, Rocket, or Starship).

However, if I misunderstood something you were telling me, please let me know. Otherwise, thanks again for trying to help a friend.

LeeD, Obelix, Basher, Nerdycross, and ForceTen: Thank you all for the comments. You helped out a fellow sailor understand boards better.

But I confess I am still a little confused. I have read this thread over and over and what I come away with is that you guys don't have anything good to say about the new short & narrow free ride boards such as the Blast and Super Ride, but you have nice things to say about the free move boards (such as Atomiq and Magic Ride) and the more conventional longer and narrower boards (exemplified by Bolt, Rocket, and Starship). Not sure if your lack of input on the short and narrow boards is due to the fact that maybe you haven't sailed them or to something else. No matter. After pondering your comments, I think I have decided the short and narrow category is not for me. The place where I sail often has 90 degree wind shifts that require me to tack A LOT to get back to the launch site and I think I would be falling too much while tacking on a really short board. (Of course, I know I should work on becoming better at tacking.)

When I think about where boards are developed and tested, it is always in a place with constant wind and warm air and water. My lake is the opposite. It has highly variable wind and icy water and the air temp is not that great either. We can get wonderful days with full on planing for hours, or we can get slog-and-ride days with planing rides of 100 yards followed by a slog. The test teams develop wonderful boards that work great for our good days but something that is only 230 long would be sinky and difficult where I sail. So after thinking about my choices and what you guys said and didn't say, I think I will not be switching to the short and narrow category. Now I just have to sort out whether to buy a free move or a longer and narrower style (like the Bolt, Rocket, or Starship).

However, if I misunderstood something you were telling me, please let me know. Otherwise, thanks again for trying to help a friend.

I don't think the squared off nose short boards would be harder to tack than the slightly longer narrow nose boards - the nose may be 10 - 20cm longer but doesn't provide much "float"

I've owned a starship 100 fast board brilliant fun board but not freerace and a atom 100 fast board with big wind range but bit dull allso have owned Goya 118 very fast definitely freerace lively but brilliant fun . I have a fox 105 at present fast board freerace yes but brilliant bump and jump and easy to sail I haven't received my 2020 Tabou rocket plus 123 yet but don't think it's as fast as Goya bolt or fox but think will come close with good fin so is it freerace?
I've found all above boards good to tack and very easy to go blasting and bump and jump I would be happy to keep any of them but my favourite was???

Select to expand quote

JiberJohn said..


Have you tried any of the stubby boards? If so, does packing all that volume into a short and narrow footprint make them taller top to bottom and therefore tippy and hard to tack? I have looked at side view photos of Super Ride and they seem really, really thick--which I suspect would make them really, really tippy. I am just wondering if that is really the case.

If the big advantage for the stubby is being able to turn quicker, then that category is not for me. I actually like to make turns with a big arc. I seem to keep my speed up better with a big arc provided that I jibe where the chop is not too tall.

I had a free move (Starboard Atomiq 114) a few years ago and hated it. It was much harder to get planing than more conventional boards (i.e., long and narrow boards that were thin top to bottom). Maybe my technique is lacking or not a good match for that style or at least not for the Atomiq. I know, I know: go deep off the wind and pump. I tried that with the Atom and it really didn't work for me. I had great difficulty getting it to rise up and to stay on a plane when I hit a lull. Also, my GPS speeds were relatively low (low to mid 20s) on that board even though Windsurf magazine thought it was a speedster. But as I said, maybe that style is not a good fit for my skills.

Do you have any thoughts on which category is more exciting to sail?

I think there is a lot of marketing hype around some boards. The Fanatic Blast isnt a stubby as its still 232cm long. That square nose might provide a few more litres for extra float when not planing, but once you start to plane its out of the water and thus irreverent. It then becomes a larger target for damage in catapults. I sometimes wonder if they made it like look like a stubby to appeal to wave sailors. The JP Superride has similar dimensions but looks much nicer. The Blast looks Mr. ugly big nose.
I've tried wider boards like the JP Magic Ride & Tabou Rocketwide. They are easier to use when not planing due to the extra length and width, even if they are a similar volume to Blast/Superride. Tacking & uphauling etc was easy. The problem I found with them was they felt a little slower and less exciting than narrower boards. Gybing was a bit more cumbersome due to the width, I prefer freerace boards as they are narrower. For 6.5m and 7.5m use, my Exocet S3 is 110l, 67cm wide, 235cm long so is thicker compared to the JP Magic Ride & Tabou Rocketwide wider style boards. Its boxier an sharper rails require a bit more commitment in the gybe but the shape at the back does mean it goes upwind very well.

The Atom had a bit of hype about it when it was launched. They said they gave it a slalom rocker (from the Isonic 110) for speed and early planing. It didnt make sense to me for a freeride board. For top speed thats correct, but freerace/freeride boards have a slightly longer planing flat section for early planing but a slightly slower top speed. A shorter flat section of a slalom rocker also makes it more prone to tail walking so it needs more trimming whilst sailing. The Atom was actually 5cm longer than the Isonic 110, so their claims about it having the same rocker dont make sense. Was the 5cm added to the back as extra flat or to the nose as higher rocker?

What size sail did you use on your Atom 114? I've seen people use wider boards like that Atom 114 with a 6.5m sail as their largest, where I really think they should be powered by a 7.5/7.8m. Properly powered up its better for upwind, downwind, speed and gybing. A 6.5m would feel a bit unbalanced for the board to me, not enough power.
Interestingly, the Atom board went from 110 to Atom 114 and is now a Carve 111. Their main marketing blurb now says "The secret to a whole new level of freeride performance: a 15 cm extended flat section in the rockerline. This gives a longer, more efficient planing surface that helps get you planing, keep planing and accelerate more with every gust."

My old Exocet S4 from 2004 is 125l, 80cm wide, 235cm longer has a short planing flat and very wide tail. Bearing off a bit to get it planing gets me going earlier than 90 degrees to the wind. When gybing its best to flip the rig early for the same reason, to keep it on the plane. Maxed out with an 8.5m its quite lively. Its quite thin, but goes upwind well due to the very wide tail. I'd be happy with a slightly narrower width, narrower tail but with boxier rails. When I replace it I'll go for a 125l/135l freerace but one no wider than 80cm.

Freerace will give a more lively ride. As well as not liking the JP Magic Ride & Tabou Rocketwide, I also found the Blast a bit bland. A friend also tried one recently and bought the Jag freerace instead. Its a personal thing.

Size wise, take the largest sail use want to use with the board, and select a board where they say the maximum size the board takes is 1m larger. Eg if you have 7.5m as your largest and decide a Goya Bolt is the one for you, pick the 117l as they say its for sails up to 8.5m.
That should give you plenty of float in a lake.
goyawindsurfing.com/boards/y2020/bolt-pro/
Thats if you are average 75/80kg in weight and have reasonable skills.

Select to expand quote

PhilUK said..

JiberJohn said..


Have you tried any of the stubby boards? If so, does packing all that volume into a short and narrow footprint make them taller top to bottom and therefore tippy and hard to tack? I have looked at side view photos of Super Ride and they seem really, really thick--which I suspect would make them really, really tippy. I am just wondering if that is really the case.

If the big advantage for the stubby is being able to turn quicker, then that category is not for me. I actually like to make turns with a big arc. I seem to keep my speed up better with a big arc provided that I jibe where the chop is not too tall.

I had a free move (Starboard Atomiq 114) a few years ago and hated it. It was much harder to get planing than more conventional boards (i.e., long and narrow boards that were thin top to bottom). Maybe my technique is lacking or not a good match for that style or at least not for the Atomiq. I know, I know: go deep off the wind and pump. I tried that with the Atom and it really didn't work for me. I had great difficulty getting it to rise up and to stay on a plane when I hit a lull. Also, my GPS speeds were relatively low (low to mid 20s) on that board even though Windsurf magazine thought it was a speedster. But as I said, maybe that style is not a good fit for my skills.

Do you have any thoughts on which category is more exciting to sail?

I think there is a lot of marketing hype around some boards. The Fanatic Blast isnt a stubby as its still 232cm long. That square nose might provide a few more litres for extra float when not planing, but once you start to plane its out of the water and thus irreverent. It then becomes a larger target for damage in catapults. I sometimes wonder if they made it like look like a stubby to appeal to wave sailors. The JP Superride has similar dimensions but looks much nicer. The Blast looks Mr. ugly big nose.
I've tried wider boards like the JP Magic Ride & Tabou Rocketwide. They are easier to use when not planing due to the extra length and width, even if they are a similar volume to Blast/Superride. Tacking & uphauling etc was easy. The problem I found with them was they felt a little slower and less exciting than narrower boards. Gybing was a bit more cumbersome due to the width, I prefer freerace boards as they are narrower. For 6.5m and 7.5m use, my Exocet S3 is 110l, 67cm wide, 235cm long so is thicker compared to the JP Magic Ride & Tabou Rocketwide wider style boards. Its boxier an sharper rails require a bit more commitment in the gybe but the shape at the back does mean it goes upwind very well.

The Atom had a bit of hype about it when it was launched. They said they gave it a slalom rocker (from the Isonic 110) for speed and early planing. It didnt make sense to me for a freeride board. For top speed thats correct, but freerace/freeride boards have a slightly longer planing flat section for early planing but a slightly slower top speed. A shorter flat section of a slalom rocker also makes it more prone to tail walking so it needs more trimming whilst sailing. The Atom was actually 5cm longer than the Isonic 110, so their claims about it having the same rocker dont make sense. Was the 5cm added to the back as extra flat or to the nose as higher rocker?

What size sail did you use on your Atom 114? I've seen people use wider boards like that Atom 114 with a 6.5m sail as their largest, where I really think they should be powered by a 7.5/7.8m. Properly powered up its better for upwind, downwind, speed and gybing. A 6.5m would feel a bit unbalanced for the board to me, not enough power.
Interestingly, the Atom board went from 110 to Atom 114 and is now a Carve 111. Their main marketing blurb now says "The secret to a whole new level of freeride performance: a 15 cm extended flat section in the rockerline. This gives a longer, more efficient planing surface that helps get you planing, keep planing and accelerate more with every gust."

My old Exocet S4 from 2004 is 125l, 80cm wide, 235cm longer has a short planing flat and very wide tail. Bearing off a bit to get it planing gets me going earlier than 90 degrees to the wind. When gybing its best to flip the rig early for the same reason, to keep it on the plane. Maxed out with an 8.5m its quite lively. Its quite thin, but goes upwind well due to the very wide tail. I'd be happy with a slightly narrower width, narrower tail but with boxier rails. When I replace it I'll go for a 125l/135l freerace but one no wider than 80cm.

Freerace will give a more lively ride. As well as not liking the JP Magic Ride & Tabou Rocketwide, I also found the Blast a bit bland. A friend also tried one recently and bought the Jag freerace instead. Its a personal thing.

Size wise, take the largest sail use want to use with the board, and select a board where they say the maximum size the board takes is 1m larger. Eg if you have 7.5m as your largest and decide a Goya Bolt is the one for you, pick the 117l as they say its for sails up to 8.5m.
That should give you plenty of float in a lake.
goyawindsurfing.com/boards/y2020/bolt-pro/
Thats if you are average 75/80kg in weight and have reasonable skills.

I totally agree with you philuk I much prefer old school shape than the wide style. I am keeping my fox 105 and 94 FSW but have ordered a2020 tabou rocket plus for foiling and fin sailing this is my only interest of the RP. But the RP 123 has a very similar shape hull and cut out's as the salmon manta and with a good fin should be fast !

Ausbinny, Nerdycross, and PhilUK:

Thanks a ton for your comments and suggestions. I found them very helpful for my understanding.

Ausbinny, you are probably right about ease of tacking. But I am not going to take a chance on a board that MAY BE difficult to tack. If you have ever experienced the joy of falling off the front of a board into icy water, you would understand why. Better to err on the side of caution.

Nerdycross,

You said the Fox and Goya 118 are easy to tack. I haven't seen a Fox in anything but photos, so I haven't tried one. But I am very jealous. The look great and get fantastic reviews.

I am not sure what you mean by "Goya118". Is that the Bolt, the One, the Carrera, or what? (They all come in a volume about that much.) I would like to know. If you are talking about the One, it makes me think I should also consider a freestyle wave.

PhilUK,

You said you found the Magic Ride and Rocket Wide less lively and slower and also found the Blast a bit bland. That perfectly describes the wide free move boards (and Blast) that I have tried. I am glad you said that because I thought it was just me that felt that way. I was really surprised that the Blast felt bland when I tried it because it looks so modern and racey. But I just got a bit bored with the one I tried. It did not have a lively feel. Are you familiar with the windsurfing term "mowing the grass"? It means just going back and forth with a jibe in transitions. I felt the Blast was good for that but the reaches back and forth seemed dull. I don't know how they managed to make narrow board that seems dull, but they did.

You stated a way to figure out which size board to get that I hadn't heard before. Namely, you said buy a board that will take one sail size larger than the large sail you want to use. So, for example, if you want to use an 7.0, buy a boat that will take an 8.0. A few years ago Peter Hart had an article in the British Windsurf magazine that said something similar. He said manufacturers overstate the range of their boards; that boards are really only good across a 1.5 meter range; and if you want to know the the true range, divide the manufacturer's range by two and add and subtract 7/10 to 8/10 of a meter. So, for example, suppose the manufacturer says his board will cover sails from 5.0 to 8.0. The midpoint is 6.5. The real useful range is 6.5 minus .8, or 5.7, on the small side and 6.5 plus .8, or 7.3 on the large side. (Those were not Peter's exact words, but that is how the way he said to do it works out in real life.) So anyway, the real range would be 5.7 to 7.3, not 5.0 to 8.0. Peter said that of course you could put a beginner on a 4.5 sail on a board that is 160 liters and which the manufacturer says will carry a 4.0 to 10.0, and the board would work with a sail that small. But for normal sailing, do the divide in two thing I described above.

Guys, thanks a lot for your input. I really appreciate it.

Select to expand quote

JiberJohn said..
Ausbinny, Nerdycross, and PhilUK:

Thanks a ton for your comments and suggestions. I found them very helpful for my understanding.

Ausbinny, you are probably right about ease of tacking. But I am not going to take a chance on a board that MAY BE difficult to tack. If you have ever experienced the joy of falling off the front of a board into icy water, you would understand why. Better to err on the side of caution.

Nerdycross,

You said the Fox and Goya 118 are easy to tack. I haven't seen a Fox in anything but photos, so I haven't tried one. But I am very jealous. The look great and get fantastic reviews.

I am not sure what you mean by "Goya118". Is that the Bolt, the One, the Carrera, or what? (They all come in a volume about that much.) I would like to know. If you are talking about the One, it makes me think I should also consider a freestyle wave.

PhilUK,

You said you found the Magic Ride and Rocket Wide less lively and slower and also found the Blast a bit bland. That perfectly describes the wide free move boards (and Blast) that I have tried. I am glad you said that because I thought it was just me that felt that way. I was really surprised that the Blast felt bland when I tried it because it looks so modern and racey. But I just got a bit bored with the one I tried. It did not have a lively feel. Are you familiar with the windsurfing term "mowing the grass"? It means just going back and forth with a jibe in transitions. I felt the Blast was good for that but the reaches back and forth seemed dull. I don't know how they managed to make narrow board that seems dull, but they did.

You stated a way to figure out which size board to get that I hadn't heard before. Namely, you said buy a board that will take one sail size larger than the large sail you want to use. So, for example, if you want to use an 7.0, buy a boat that will take an 8.0. A few years ago Peter Hart had an article in the British Windsurf magazine that said something similar. He said manufacturers overstate the range of their boards; that boards are really only good across a 1.5 meter range; and if you want to know the the true range, divide the manufacturer's range by two and add and subtract 7/10 to 8/10 of a meter. So, for example, suppose the manufacturer says his board will cover sails from 5.0 to 8.0. The midpoint is 6.5. The real useful range is 6.5 minus .8, or 5.7, on the small side and 6.5 plus .8, or 7.3 on the large side. (Those were not Peter's exact words, but that is how the way he said to do it works out in real life.) So anyway, the real range would be 5.7 to 7.3, not 5.0 to 8.0. Peter said that of course you could put a beginner on a 4.5 sail on a board that is 160 liters and which the manufacturer says will carry a 4.0 to 10.0, and the board would work with a sail that small. But for normal sailing, do the divide in two thing I described above.

Guys, thanks a lot for your input. I really appreciate it.

My mistake the Goya bolt was a 115 and not 118 ,it was couple years ago I've had few board's since the bolt. Apologies.

Select to expand quote

JiberJohn said..

PhilUK,

You said you found the Magic Ride and Rocket Wide less lively and slower and also found the Blast a bit bland. That perfectly describes the wide free move boards (and Blast) that I have tried. I am glad you said that because I thought it was just me that felt that way. I was really surprised that the Blast felt bland when I tried it because it looks so modern and racey. But I just got a bit bored with the one I tried. It did not have a lively feel. Are you familiar with the windsurfing term "mowing the grass"? It means just going back and forth with a jibe in transitions. I felt the Blast was good for that but the reaches back and forth seemed dull. I don't know how they managed to make narrow board that seems dull, but they did.

You stated a way to figure out which size board to get that I hadn't heard before. Namely, you said buy a board that will take one sail size larger than the large sail you want to use. So, for example, if you want to use an 7.0, buy a boat that will take an 8.0. A few years ago Peter Hart had an article in the British Windsurf magazine that said something similar. He said manufacturers overstate the range of their boards; that boards are really only good across a 1.5 meter range; and if you want to know the the true range, divide the manufacturer's range by two and add and subtract 7/10 to 8/10 of a meter. So, for example, suppose the manufacturer says his board will cover sails from 5.0 to 8.0. The midpoint is 6.5. The real useful range is 6.5 minus .8, or 5.7, on the small side and 6.5 plus .8, or 7.3 on the large side. (Those were not Peter's exact words, but that is how the way he said to do it works out in real life.) So anyway, the real range would be 5.7 to 7.3, not 5.0 to 8.0. Peter said that of course you could put a beginner on a 4.5 sail on a board that is 160 liters and which the manufacturer says will carry a 4.0 to 10.0, and the board would work with a sail that small. But for normal sailing, do the divide in two thing I described above.

Guys, thanks a lot for your input. I really appreciate it.

I should have added that the Blast I tested was the 130, that was the largest size in 2015. I wanted something for 8.5m (sometimes 7.5m) for harbour and sheltered bay sailing. I would imagine the smaller sizes would be good for more open ocean rolling swells type sailing where the less lively nature would be welcome.

I've not seen that Peter Hart formula before. Putting the numbers of my current boards through it, it returns very closely to what I have comfortably used on those boards. Apart from the daft suggestion of 5m to 11m of 1 board.

PhilUK,

You asked what sails I used with my Atomiq 114. I just noticed I didn't answer. I apologize for that.

I checked my sailing log. The sails is used on that board are Ezzy Cheetahs in sizes 8.0 (mostly), 7.0 (a few times), and 6.0 (only once).

The Atomiq was rated by Starboard to carry 5.5 to 8.5 sails. The 8.0 seemed too heavy for the board. When the sail would fill with wind, the downforce would push the board deeper into the water and make planing more difficult. I could plane just as early or earlier with the 7.0. I tried everything we are told to do--went off the wind, used a longer fin, pumped, etc. I just could not make the board work for me. I am sure I was doing something wrong, but I have no idea what. Before I got the Atomiq, I had a 68 cm wide 116 liter free race board and I could easily sail it with an 8.5 down to 5.5. 8.5 was no problem at all. So I don't blame myself for failing to get the Atomiq to plane.

Love the look of that Fox.
Everyone who has one, raves about it. No S/H on the market...

Select to expand quote

Obelix said..
Love the look of that Fox.
Everyone who has one, raves about it. No S/H on the market...

Yeah the 105 fox is fab board it's super fast if you push it hard happiest with 6mtr and 7mtr do sail it with 7.5 NCX but not so suited to 5mtr. It's at it's best being sailed of the fin fully powerd up to over powerd, angry sea dosent faze it if you got the balls to keep the power on. The 95 fox is slalom fast too but feels big at 95 ltr.

I don't think wide freerides benefit from big sails. I had a 108 Rocket wide. I think it was rated 5 to 8. The 7.5 felt way too big for it. 6.7 felt perfect.

Select to expand quote

Faff said..
I don't think wide freerides benefit from big sails. I had a 108 Rocket wide. I think it was rated 5 to 8. The 7.5 felt way too big for it. 6.7 felt perfect.

I totally agree I'm not sure what model of sailer weigh they use to give there info.
I'm quite interested Faff in your thoughts of the Tabou wide. I'm wating for my 2020 tabou RP 123 to arrive, I'm mostly wanting to use the RP for foiling but am hoping it will be a good blasting board with a good quality fin fitted. I believe the RP is detuned manta so am hoping will rip with a powerful sail.

Select to expand quote

nerdycross said..

Obelix said..
Love the look of that Fox.
Everyone who has one, raves about it. No S/H on the market...

Yeah the 105 fox is fab board it's super fast if you push it hard happiest with 6mtr and 7mtr do sail it with 7.5 NCX but not so suited to 5mtr. It's at it's best being sailed of the fin fully powerd up to over powerd, angry sea dosent faze it if you got the balls to keep the power on. The 95 fox is slalom fast too but feels big at 95 ltr.

Hi, i have a fox 105 v2 and i love it. I am considering some options for 95ish lt middle board for fast b&j, but ruled out the fox due to its too flat rocker (i worry about nose catching spteep chops we have here), so i was leaning more towards exocet x-cross even though its much more expensive for me.

Now seing 105 and 95 fox next to each other at your photo, 95 looks to have quite a lot of rocker compared to 105.
Are rockers really that much different or angles created an illusion at that photo?

Select to expand quote

Sea Lotus said..

nerdycross said..

Obelix said..
Love the look of that Fox.
Everyone who has one, raves about it. No S/H on the market...

Yeah the 105 fox is fab board it's super fast if you push it hard happiest with 6mtr and 7mtr do sail it with 7.5 NCX but not so suited to 5mtr. It's at it's best being sailed of the fin fully powerd up to over powerd, angry sea dosent faze it if you got the balls to keep the power on. The 95 fox is slalom fast too but feels big at 95 ltr.

Hi, i have a fox 105 v2 and i love it. I am considering some options for 95ish lt middle board for fast b&j, but ruled out the fox due to its too flat rocker (i worry about nose catching spteep chops we have here), so i was leaning more towards exocet x-cross even though its much more expensive for me.

Now seing 105 and 95 fox next to each other at your photo, 95 looks to have quite a lot of rocker compared to 105.
Are rockers really that much different or angles created an illusion at that photo?

I do sail the 95 in big chop with no problem but as I mentioned before I do feel it's bigger than 95 ltr stated but I'm no expert outher than 35+ year's windsurfing.
I'm 80kilo and happy on 6mtr and 5mtr with it but when gets anything stronger that 5mtr wind for me I'll be on my 94fsw. Sorry I've had ne experience of the exocet x-cross so can't give my numpty thoght on the x cross . I can say one board I've kept through out from new is my RRD freestyle wave v3 94 ltr when I put my 30 speed or 28 slalom fin in it it's as fast as the fox ! But put stock 28 or 26 wave fin it's awesome down to 4mtr wind and modest wave riding.
All I've commented on it is just my numpty thoughts so not gospel I do agree the fox is fab freeride board and once you have confidence with it in chop to push it's a good fun.

Sorry, what I meant was, is there any significant difference at rockers between fox 105 and fox 95?

Select to expand quote

Sea Lotus said..
Sorry, what I meant was, is there any significant difference at rockers between fox 105 and fox 95?

The rocker lines increase incrementally through the sizes of the Fox. The 105 has 5mm more nose lift than the 95.

Select to expand quote

hoop said..

Sea Lotus said..
Sorry, what I meant was, is there any significant difference at rockers between fox 105 and fox 95?

The rocker lines increase incrementally through the sizes of the Fox. The 105 has 5mm more nose lift than the 95.

Oh, so 95 nose is even lower, i guess due to thickness and length. Anyway, so if I understand correctly, rocker difference are very small. Thanks for info Hoop.