What was Mistral thinking in 2001?
JD
Supervision, Flow. When you see a catalog its hard to see the
difference in micro increments from a 95, 111, 130, 150. Anyone care
to comment on the enduring qualities of the 2000-01 Mistral lineup?
Alan White
130, etc., are not "micro increments". Or, did I misunderstand your post?
Alan
--
Windsurfing Club: http://www.ibscc.org
Homepage: http://pw1.netcom.com/~alannc44/qsl.htm
"JD" <h20s...@xmission.com> wrote in message
news:3c30a7d...@news.xmission.com...
KarabaszJP
designers and Bruce Wylie & co. the new design team. With completely new
designs for 2002
but just a note the Scores, Flows & Visions are vastly different one to another
Are you asking HOW they are different? or is the question Why are they the
same? Which I never found them to be> So I can't help you on the later question
Glenn Woodell
The boards are of different shapes with some being wider for early planing,
freestyle, etc. A change from 111 to 130L is actually quite a noticible change.
Combined with the different shapes these should be no different from most other
board lineups.
Glenn
JD
Guess you answered my question, I didn't realize the designers had
changed.
Mike F
significant ways as soon as the terrain gets rough, the wind gets
challenging, rider weight gets challenging, or the path deviates from the
straight and narrow.
Mike \m/
"JD" <h20s...@xmission.com> wrote in message
news:3c30a7d...@news.xmission.com...
Bill
boards.
At least two other sources confirmed the change in designers at
Mistral, and, the obvious differences were added width and less V as
indicated. Much preferred the 2000 custom (dark blue) which had
greater range. Much preferred the 276 and 284 to the 2001 105. And
would forgo the 2001 85 for a 2000 26?.
Wonder if the learning by Mistral from many years of testing that
included such successes as the screamer and flow has been lost.
Am told that Mistral has once again changed designers for 2002.
"Mike F" <iso...@urxSpamDam.com> wrote in message news:<IlcY7.6687$ok6.1...@news.webusenet.com>...
Wolfgang Soergel
>
> Why the huge line of "similar" boards such as Score, Vision,
> Supervision, Flow. When you see a catalog its hard to see the
> difference in micro increments from a 95, 111, 130, 150.
Micro increments? I have boards with round 60, 67, 77, 90 and 98 liters
myslef and Do note the difference. And while i don't want to imply that
i absolutely need ALL of those boards i'm just a single person. A mass
manufactorer wants /needs to make boards for persons from say 120 - 220
pounds, for those who consider waterstarting an advanced manouver to
these who do pushloops for warming up, for these who want maximal
straightline speed to thos who never go staright etc. Even not really
offering a variety of choice for the extreme ends, a lineup looks then
about like taht:
+ A line of waveboards, at least 3 different sizes. Better make it two
lines, one a bit more adavanced/ sideshore oriented/ front foot driven,
one a bit easier, better planing and more onshore in orientation. And
better have some more sizes. Mistral did this with the Naish lineup (4
traditional waveboards and the floater as a speciality / niche board)
and the wave scores (only 2 boards for onshore / freestyle wave).
+ A freestyle lineup. Also more than one board needed since most riders
prefer a pretty narrow volume band, just enough for uphauling and
slogging but not more. Mistral had the scores, only 2 sizes if i
remember correctly (or was the Naish Flying pig released as a Mistral?).
+ A freeride lineup in smaller sizes. Many sailors use these boards as
bread and butter boards in many different conditions. Should they be a
bit wider, shorter, planier? Or narrow, with round rails and a littly
wavy in feeling? Or rather with boxy rails, fast and a bit hars riding?
How demanding should this line be? Mistarl decided to have the Flows (a
somewhat odd shapeconcept with flat rocker lines but vee and round
rails, in different incarnations) and the Naish freerides as more
demanding and advanced alternative, each in a couple of sizes. Plus
again the somewhat different concept of the Nais Titan.
+ Lightwind boards for sails larger than 6.5 . Again lot's of concepts
possible, from slightly or not at all detuned (Formula) raceboards to
blown up freestyle boards or more traditional, rather narrow shapes.
Afaik. Mistral only had the Visions in this class in 2000/2001, again a
somewhat unussual shapeconcept with very round lines which made not
everyone happy.
+ Real race and slalom boards. Not sure what Mistral offered there.
So if one sums up, it's around 20-25 different boards per manufactuerer.
Wether this is good or not may be debatable, i see points for both
sides. E.g. i like the fact that a meanwhile i (@<65 kg) do at least
have a decent choice between different models for a mid sized waveboard
between 70 and 80 liters. But it's still thin below, although getting
better.Technology which allows quick model changes also increases
competition between manufacturers, they;re not stuck with bad decissions
for years anymore like it used to be 10 years aga: Once they had a mold,
a board had to be made for some years to pay the thing. Modifications
were only feasible, if they could be achieved by modifuing the existing
mold. But i'm not sure wether 20 new models each year really pay their
money for every manufacturer. Makes also comparisons hard: No mag, even
if they wanted to, can really thoroughly test everything on the market,
even if they only include the 6,8 or 10 most important makers in thir
market, no shop owner or salesperson etc. can really fairly test
everything on the market. Many try to interpolate from one model to the
next in the lineup or between years. May work or may not work. E.g. the
2000 and 2001 Naish 8'4" are two quite different boards, despite having
similar specs and looking quite similar. Or some years back, two "Rides"
from F2 from the same model year were indeed from different shapers and
consequently felt different (i think it was the 277 from Peter Thommen
and the 282 from Werner Gnigler, both good boards but different).
Something not uncommon, also with sails. Neil Pryde had a complete
change of designers in the last years for example and they did not
always rename the sails when they were totally changed in design.
Similar for Naish sails, totally new designer and designs for 2001 and
also a marked change in building philosophy, they are now among the
lightest sails instead fighting with the Ezzies for the title heaviest
sails of the world. Still well built 'though, just maybe not that bullet
proof anymore. But no point in telling anyone how good/bad/whatever e.g.
a 98 Nalu is when he's looking into buying 2001 or 2002 models.
The confusion with Mistral may indeed stem from the fact that they kept
changing desing teams for the raceboards since some time and mid 2001
also parted ways with Rick Naish/ Harold Iggy who had designed almost
all non-race Mistral boards for at least one decade (after the old
screamer which was from Helmut Kirner, although it really looks like a
Nais board and they probabely had some input).
--
Wolfgang
Jsmin
Weren't the Flows the same as the "classics" anyway?
Is this new board shaper Bruce Wylie the same guy who designed those
westcoast "sled" sailboats?
Plus, what fin box are the Mistrals using these days?
(No answers...just more questions)
JSmin
Jerry McEwen
Dave
Dave in Charlotte.
Rich A.
imagine that only people with an interest in sit-down sailing (past or
present) would be wondering.
Rich A.
smin...@battelle.org (Jsmin) wrote in message news:<4b968287.02010...@posting.google.com>...
Dan Weiss
Though small in stature he gives up little on the racecourse. Mistral has a
winner with him.
--
-Dan
"Rich A." <thisaddres...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:b7cb2c65.02010...@posting.google.com...