WindSurfing Magazine Sail Tests (Windwings)
Barry Ritchey
Re: WindSurfing Sail Tests (USA rag - April '98 issue)
Thought I'd share a letter that I sent to WindSurfing magazine. Can't
plan on it being printed. I'm a self-appointed watchdog for Windwing
sails. Anyone else find this many faults / inaccuracies with their other
favorite brands?
-Barry "NM-0"
Albuquerque, NM
=======================
WindSurfing,
Like many boardheads out there, I immediately scanned your latest issue
to look and see how 'my' brand of sails did in the testing. It's only
human nature - to want reassurance that those hard earned greenbacks
were spent on the best gear. I can appreciate the hard work it must take
to compile all the testing into a concise and accurate review - I put
out a short 'n' sweet local windsurfing newsletter which consumes much
of my unpaid time. But you guys get paid for testing gear and writing
about it. Therefore, you are going to be held to a higher standard. And
unfortunately, you have to take slightly defensive flack from people
like me.
I've been an owner and supporter of Windwing sails for many years - my
first was purchased in '87. By '89, it was the only brand in my quiver.
With that said, here are some comments regarding your April '98 sail
test - with an emphasis on Windwings of course.
First the obvious errors and omissions:
pg. 52 - The Synthesis should be in the 'Free-Ride' category. Major
omission! It was designed especially for that niche.
pg. 56 - I believe the sail in the picture is a camless Interface Wave
(not an Air). The Air is an all x-ply and monofilm 1-cam sail, while the
wave is camless and constructed of x-ply with a vinyl window. All
battens on the Air and Wave are solid-section - not tubular. The Air has
two that are carbon. Let us - the readers - know if you tested the Air
(described) or the Wave (which is pictured). At 180#s, your testers
should have been using a 460-25 mast - hence the "overly soft feel." The
owners manual lists either a 430-21 or 460-25, based on sailor weight.
The 430-21 would be more appropriate for lighter sailors. At 170#, I
usually use a 430-21 with last years 4.9 Air, but my 5.5 is a lot more
stable with a 460-26.
pg. 59 - You tested the 8.3 Synthesis in the 'Jumbo' class. You could
have also tested the 7.7, 8.2 or 9.0 Race against the other race sails
in this class. Aren't we testing apples against oranges when mixing race
and non-race sails?
pg. 63 - Where's the Interface Wave in the 'Wave' category?
pg. 68 - You tested the 5.7 Synthesis in the speed class. Why not the
5.9 or 6.2 Race? The 5.7 Synthesis doesn't have three cams - only two.
The 6.0 Synthesis jumps up to three cams. And hopefully a huge typo
here: you mean a 460-25 mast right - not a 490-29 for a 5.7?
And the not so obvious:
Your 'Vital Stats' have a durability rating. Nice addition. However, you
fail to emphasize the correlation of weight to durability. Almost all
the heavier sails (within a class) are more durable. Life is full of
compromises and so are sails.
Why didn't you mention Windwing's decoupled head in your 'no point' side
bar (pg. 51). The 'DC' head was in last years Race line and this year it
also appears in the Synthesis. Although not as obvious as some of the
other 'whip tip' designs, the design strives for the same benefits. No
other non-race production sail has anything at all like this.
I think your sail classifications should have been: wave, bump, slalom,
race. If you have to use the already cliche, free-ride wave, free-ride
bump, free-ride slalom, and race (racers aren't 'free'). Or, for even
more 'nicheness', free-ride wave 4-batten, free-ride wave 5-batten,
free-ride bump camless with 6 or more battens, free-ride bump camless
with five or less battens, yada yada yada.
Hope the loyalists to the other brands don't have to sling as many
arrows as I did.
One more thing, how about publishing actual board widths in your board
tests next year? I think the public would be interested in seeing how
wide course race board 'bleeding edge' designs will go, as well as
seeing how board speed correlates with width for conventionally designed
boards.
-Barry Ritchey
barr...@earthlink.net
Brian Mckenzie
I was disappointed that I didn't see the Interface Wave in the Wave
catagory (especially since I'm interested in one). It was obviously
reviewed, since they took a picture of it and labeled it IF Air.
Brian
PS. Since your the Windwing watchdog. Is there a huge difference in
the IF Wave or Air 5.8 or 6.1 size? Both have close to the same low
end grunt?
------------------------
Brian Mckenzie
http://jollyroger.com/windsurf/
Triangle Boardsailing Club, Raleigh, NC
Bob Jacobson
I was also annoyed that they didn't put board width in the ststs.
Especially since they mentioned board width in some of their write-ups,
but didn't bother to give us any numbers. Another stat I'd like to see
is range of adjustment for the mastfoot, measured from the leading edge
of the finbox. This would give some idea what size sails the board could
accomodate. Their subjective power ratings for sail size don't take into
account the varying boom lengths of sails.
I also believe that they test boards with the OEM fins. Every board in a
class should be tested with the same fin and sai, if possible.
Otherwise, too many variables are introduced.
As to why they didn't test the appropriate Windwing sails, I imagine
it's because the sailed what Windwing provide for the tests. In the past
I know they tested the Windwing Slalom comp against race sails, and gave
it a very good review. I don't think they have any bias against
Windwing, or any other manufacturer. I think they are only human, and
trying to do a very difficult job. And I'm sure they appreciate our
feedback :-)
Bob Jacobson
clive
Wow! You sure are alert!
It's not surprising WindSurfing Magazine made a few
mistakes in their tests. They are using some new kind of
format, which I don't think is going over well. For
example, they have a new classification: Jumbo. That's
very strange since manufacturers make jumbo sails in all
different styles. Take the Sailworks Retro - why did they
put it in with race sails?
Their justification is that almost all sails can be used in
all conditions, but I think they could have done better
than that.
I have a feeling that WindSurfing Magazine is trying
something new: I think they are trying to slightly shift
their focus a little. Something became evident to me in
their latest issue - the word 'slalom' was not as common as
usual. They may be trying capitalize on the 'free-ride
revolution' and are moving away from their usual high
dedication to race sails and speed.
Has anyone noticed this? Is it just me?
Clive
sailquik (Roger Jackson)
On Fri, 13 Mar 1998 10:54:59 -0600, Bob Jacobson <sto...@ameritech.net>
wrote:
>I was also annoyed that they didn't put board width in the tests.
I agree!
> Another stat I'd like to see is range of adjustment for the mastfoot, measured from the leading edge
>of the finbox. This would give some idea what size sails the board could
>accomodate.
How does this distance affect what size sail you can use???
To me it makes no difference, because all the way back is the only place
it'll be, regardless of sail size, unless I'm pressed to go upwind, or I
find some sweet spot maybe 1/2" to 1 1/2" forward of all the way back.
>Their subjective power ratings for sail size don't take into
>account the varying boom lengths of sails.
Please enlighten us as to how boom/clew length affects the power of the
sail.
If this has to do with how much power is available in a certain wind
range, ie longer booms (lower aspect ratio) for lighter air performance,
and shorter booms (higher aspect ratio) for higher windspeeds, then I would
agree. Otherwise????
later
sailquik (Roger Jackson) US 3704 |Ph#in MD 301-872-9459
F2/North Sails/ True Ames/Rainbow|Ph#in NC 919-995-3204
US Sail Lvl 1 WS Instructor
Bob Jacobson
Roger,
I wasn'trefering to a sail parameter, but a board rating they used. The
higher the power rating, the bigger the sail a board can carry. At
least, that's haow they defined the rating.
Bob Jacobson
Wolfram Pietzsch
Barry made some very good observations about the Windwings.
I have a more general criticism of the sail test, especially the part that deals
with the Free-Ride Speed category. It would have been far better if WINDSURFING
has picked all sails in the 6.5m size and rigged them with 4.60 m masts. Most of
us have mostly 4.60m masts and are not going to buy a 4.90 m mast just because
we want a slightly larger sail. Or am I being presumptuous?
I have to replace my old NP V8 6.0 this year and was looking forward to a direct
comparison between the new V8 and the north spectro (6.0 or 6.5 m would have
been fine). The V8 is missing in this test category, and we can only guess from
the 8.0m version that it is a good sail.
Wolf
Barry Ritchey
Brian,
I haven't sailed a '98 Air or Wave yet. My current small 'fun' (not my
race sails) sail quiver runs: '96 (USA built) 5.5 Interface, '97 4.9
Interface, and '95 4.4,3.9,& 3.5 BD Airs. I have a '98 4.4 Air on order
that's due any day now (a 6.8 race too). What I really want is an Air
with a vinyl window. Since I can't get that, and I'm a landlocked
sailor, I opt for the single-cam sails. I still like the stability that
the single cam adds in gusty conditions. I'll run my sails with the 3/4
batten instead of the cam maybe 3 or 4 times a year - during the
handfull of days I get to wavesail (Port-A or the West Coast). I'd say
in the relatively large sail sizes that you are considering, a cam (the
Air) might give you a little more stability and a potentially better
bottom end, since the cam would help shape out the sail when it is
depowered. If you sail in munching wave only, you may opt for the Wave -
it's all X-ply and vinyl (more durable) with a higher foot. You gotta
make that call. Or call / e-mail Windwing - Bill would be more than
happy to chat.
Who knows if they (WindSurfing) actually tested the Air or the Wave.
Hopefully they will clear the air.
-Barry
=========================
Brian Mckenzie wrote:
--
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Barry Ritchey - Albuquerque, NM
barr...@earthlink.net
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Barry Ritchey
Clive,
Re: The 'Jumbo' category.
We can probably define 'Jumbo' as any sail big enough to make you want
to drink a beer instead of sailing. You either 'Jumbo' or drink.
Although I'm a beer snob, 'Jumbo' is anything bigger than my 7.7 Race.
And if I run out of beer, or win the lottery, I'm gonna buy a 9.0. How
many beers not drank does it take to buy a 9.0 anyway? Time to turn-off
my sarcasm...
Re: Mixing apples and oranges - race and non-race sails.
I don't know if it's a good idea to mix non-race and race sails in a
test. Why? Sails will be sold, and not sold, because someone will cross
Brand-X off their list because it tests 0.5 points lower than Brand-Y -
that might just happen to be a better performing race sail. WS's
intention might have been, I'm speculating here, to show how close the
gap is between race and non-race sails.
Re: 'Free-Ride'
In my limited vocabulary, it's already cliche. If you're a marketing
person, ya gotta love it though. I equate the word, I didn't use it, to
also mean 'slalom'. If it's a windy Spring and/or Summer, get ready for
an 'El Nino' sail or board... or what about 'Free-Nino'? Nix that. I
guess marketing isn't my bag. ;^)
Re: Sail testing in general.
I'm taking a big liberty here - pure speculation of course...
Just think how you would feel it your (make believe hypothetical)
company lost sales because:
A. You couldn't deliver your gear in time for testing - you were busy
developing last minute prototypes.
B. The testers didn't rig the sail according to the instructions -
perhaps this hurt performance.
C. The pictures didn't match the write up - or is it, the write up
doesn't match the picture?
D. You have a really unique design that doesn't make the test - was it
edited out due to story size restrictions? Or is it due to David's
performance beats Goliath, which might jeopardize future ad money?
E. You have sails that weren't tested in their intended and proper
catetories - matter of opinion? an oversight? done to make other sails
'shine'? Sure is fun - and easy - to speculate.
I sure am glad I have a job that pays the mortgage, independent of how
my products test in a magazine...
-Barry
------------------------------
sailquik (Roger Jackson)
On Fri, 13 Mar 1998 17:15:34 -0600, Bob Jacobson <sto...@ameritech.net>
wrote:
>Roger,
>
>I wasn'trefering to a sail parameter, but a board rating they used. The
>higher the power rating, the bigger the sail a board can carry. At
>least, that's haow they defined the rating.
>
Bob:
Gotcha!
Another totally subjective criteria.
Have these guys ever put a number on anything? I mean a real number,
like this sail went 25 mph in 15 windspeed, or this sail attained a 1.5
boardspeed/windspeed ratio, not some 5-10 rating system
that makes everything look equal even when it's not.
Magazine tests! Kinda lame to me. I've been doing this along time, and if
I can't figure out which is better from their tests, how do the ever expect
someone just starting in the sport to be able to tell anything from their
rating systems.
Sorry, I will have to read those tests again. Didn't notice that one!
Cris Pavloff
>pg. 56 - I believe the sail in the picture is a camless Interface Wave
>(not an Air). The Air is an all x-ply and monofilm 1-cam sail, while the
>wave is camless and constructed of x-ply with a vinyl window. All
>battens on the Air and Wave are solid-section - not tubular. The Air has
>two that are carbon. Let us - the readers - know if you tested the Air
>(described) or the Wave (which is pictured). At 180#s, your testers
>should have been using a 460-25 mast - hence the "overly soft feel." The
>owners manual lists either a 430-21 or 460-25, based on sailor weight.
>The 430-21 would be more appropriate for lighter sailors. At 170#, I
>usually use a 430-21 with last years 4.9 Air, but my 5.5 is a lot more
>stable with a 460-26.
I agree that that's bad. Really, really, bad...
>pg. 59 - You tested the 8.3 Synthesis in the 'Jumbo' class. You could
>have also tested the 7.7, 8.2 or 9.0 Race against the other race sails
>in this class. Aren't we testing apples against oranges when mixing race
>and non-race sails?
Sorry, but Windwing wasn't the only snub. They aren't testing any
race sails in this test because they figured that they covered most of
them last year. That's why the Hot Sails Mach 1.1 wasn't included,
which I thought it should be (I am Hot Sails sympathizer)
I asked Hot Sails designer Jeffrey Henderson about this and he told me
that they are testing race sails, all 8.0 and biggger, in the July
issue. Great. That means that if you want race sails other than
Pryde or North, you can't get test results utnil July. The problem is
that the Mach 1 recieved a ton of praise last year, and with the Mach
1.1 surely being improved, it doesn't represent Hot very well. lat
year, they tested all of the race sails they missed at the end of the
'96 year, and I was a little peeved that they didn't do the same
thing.
With their whole "no-point" section, they basically said that they
weren't going to test any of the whip-tips. thus Gaastra really lost
out because they have Wave, Slalom, Race, and Freeride sails all with
their Total-Flow Whip tip Technology. Also probably not going test
the Pryde z1, but they may test it in July.
NLW TFW NM
RE:"Have these guys ever put a number on anything? I mean a real number,
like this sail went 25 mph in 15 windspeed, or this sail attained a 1.5
boardspeed/windspeed ratio, not some 5-10 rating system"
Uh, oh -- you're getting back into things I've argued for many pages, both here
and in PWR magazine: How does a test team determine those numbers?
A mag test consists of a few testers getting a few hours -- sometimes per
tester, sometimes per sail -- on each sail. I've seen both PWR and Windsurfing
Mag make do with MUCH less time than that on some occasions. Yet Elliot Leboe
tells me many pro racers spend weeks to months dialing in a sail. So as soon as
a mag says Sail A will go 23.4 knots in 15 knots of wind and Sail B will go
23.5 knots, Sail A's maker will make it go 23.6 and RAISE HOLY HELL --
legitimately. The Sail B's maker will make it go 27.2, and we're off to the
races again. Not to mention rider size and shape; board, fin, wind and water
conditions; etc. Subjective numbers are 1) probably as accurate, given the
measuring process, and 2) more defensible.
Mike \m/
Never Leave Wind To Find Wind
JohnMic
Re: How does a test team determine those numbers?
I'm with NLWTFW on this one.
If there aint a uniform or standardised testing method ,and to
my knowledge there aint one in the WS industry,the numbers are pretty
meaningless.
So how does one formulate a standard test?
Considering all the variables ,with great difficulty.
JohnM
han...@xws.com
In article <3508B8D7...@earthlink.net>,
Major Snippage
Much of your observations are true, however everyone should be aware of the
following:
FYI - WindSurfing sails tests.
Windwing Race Sails - Our Race sails were tested in the summer of '98 and were
one of the top picks. Therefore, there was no need to test them in the Fall.
Most companies are now releasing new Race sails in the Spring so they are
unavailable for the fall tests.
Synthesis - Windwing provided the Synthesis in several sizes for both the
Free-Ride and Jumbo categories. We felt it was versatile enough to be tested
in both recreational and high-performance slalom categories due to its
performance, handling and cam-in/cam-out feature. The tests proved us more
than correct.
Windwing also provided both '98 Interface Air and Wave models in 4.9 and 5.2
sizes. These got limited testing due a lack of sufficient conditions for sails
of this size and will be more thoroughly tested in the future.
Bill Hansen
Sail Design/R&D
Windwing
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
han...@xws.com
In article <3509FB50...@earthlink.net>,
Barry and Brian:
Perhaps this will help.
FYI - Windwing Interface Air and Wave
Interface Wave - The Wave has been extensively re-designed for '98 with more
luff curve and longer booms for a tighter leech and more power. It is a 5
batten no-cam full-on wave sail featuring a 100% X-ply and fabric body (no
monofilm) and vinyl window. Battens are all RBS epoxy/glass with a shorty
option .
Interface Air - The Air is an all new Bump/Wave design. It has the same
planform and dimensions as the Wave but a much lighter and different monofilm
panel layout which includes more built-in twist and stiffer battens. The body
is stepped 5/7 mil monofilm with a fabric luff and X-ply clew and foot.
Battens are all RBS including two custom-tapered carbon race battens and a
single cam/RAF option.
Vinyl Windows - vinyl (PVC) is useful as a window material in wave sails due
to its resistance to tearing and scratching. However it lacks dimensional
stability and is quite heavy. As such, it has little use in monofilm sails as
it compromises performance, adds considerable weight and contributes
negligibly to the overall durability of the sail.
Brian Mckenzie
>I was also annoyed that they didn't put board width in the ststs.
>Especially since they mentioned board width in some of their write-ups,
>but didn't bother to give us any numbers.
If I could request something from them, I would like to see the mid &
tail widths on boards listed. Not just by them, but also from all the
manufactures who advertise. I know alot put mid-width in, but I also
like to see the tail width of the boards to use as a reference point.
Brian
Charles Lategano
Brian,
I was recently in NYC and managed to pick up the January issue of
Windsurf (UK) at a newsstand specializing in foreign
publications. The Windsurf magazine board reviews give 4 width
measurements in addition to the length. They have nose, tail,
masttrack and front footstrap width's. Very interesting to
compare boards when you have all the information. I might even
subscribe since the PWA articles and intermediate/advanced
instructions are top notch. Great info on clew first sailing
techniques, clew first backloops, and a 10 page write up on
beginning wavesailing techniques.
10 times the PWA coverage than in Windsurfing and while it didn't
have any Dubock photo's it still have some nice shots.
IF you can get a copy it's well worth the cost, mine was $7.50
and was more interesting than the Feb Windsufing mag.
Charles
--
------------------------------------------------------------
Sailing PCM Designs (Clark foam/Polyester Resin, Hydro Hull)
Hot GRD sails and $99 Booms.
Why? - the sailor not the equipment makes the difference
Charles Lategano
>> Most of us have mostly 4.60m masts and are not going to buy a
>>4.90 m mast just because we want a slightly larger sail. Or am
>>I being presumptuous? >>
7.0 on a 490cm mast. You give up a bit of low end pumpability
but the top speed and stabiity in gusts are increased by a great
deal. I guess it's sort of like the difference between a carbon
and aluminum boom. If you can afford one it's worth the price.
Vesa kuusava
Charles Lategano <7530...@CompuServe.COM> wrote:
>Brian,
>
>
>I was recently in NYC and managed to pick up the January issue of
>Windsurf (UK) at a newsstand specializing in foreign
>publications. The Windsurf magazine board reviews give 4 width
>measurements in addition to the length. They have nose, tail,
>masttrack and front footstrap width's. Very interesting to
>compare boards when you have all the information. I might even
>subscribe since the PWA articles and intermediate/advanced
>instructions are top notch. Great info on clew first sailing
>techniques, clew first backloops, and a 10 page write up on
>beginning wavesailing techniques.
>10 times the PWA coverage than in Windsurfing and while it didn't
>have any Dubock photo's it still have some nice shots.
>IF you can get a copy it's well worth the cost, mine was $7.50
>and was more interesting than the Feb Windsufing mag.
>
>
> Charles
......and the address is: Windsurf Magazine Subscriptions,
The Blue Barns; Tew Lane, Wootton, Woodstock, OX20 1HA,
England.
or e-mail 10051...@compuserve.com
os...@dlc.finononono
Brian Mckenzie
Thanks Charles, I'll look for the mag. or maybe even subscribe also.
Its been a few years but when we were in England on vacation, I picked
up Windsurf and Boards mag. They both had so much info. that its
unreal!
You're right. I can't hardly compare boards without knowing the mid &
tail width. We need that data !!!! Maybe our mags will put them in
sometime soon.
MTVNewsGuy
Brian,
Where was that newsstand? I live in New York and would very much like to
find Boards.
-Michael
US5613
Charles Lategano
>> Maybe our mags will put them in sometime soon.
Don't hold your breath waiting. I enjoy reading the equipment
reviews, even though I haven't bought a new production board
since 1989. I just feel that Ken Winner is out of touch with the
average sailor's needs and wants. As a heavyweight I can't
relate to any of his comments or recommendations. Many years ago
WindRider used to offer individual comments on board tests from a
woman, lightweight, average weight and heavyweight sailors. This
format was excellant, I don't know why they stopped doing this, I
guess Ken's ego got in the way. So now we get his racer/185 lb
perspective which is useless to my wife and I. I guess when
you're the only magazine in the States doing board reviews there
is no incentive to be objective. Ken Winner is dead, long live
Ken Winner!
Charles
PS. Last Monday was my birthday and I got to sail/swim in 25 mph
sideshore NJ surf. 5 foot and raining, it may not be Maui but I
was happy to get wet.
Keith Meder
Charles,
You definitely need some new equipment, as a heavy weight you would
probably benefit the most from the new high volume big slalom boards and
the new jumbo slalom sails.
You didn't say how much you weigh, but the F2 Thommen 305 (185 liters)
with an Aerotech Advantage VMG 9.6m or a North Sails Pyro 8.5m will have
you up and planing better and having more fun than you could on any
vintage 1989 equipment.
I know the new equipment seems expensive, but the best part is you don't
need as much. As a heavy weight you could probably cover a pretty wide
wind range with only two sails an 8.5 and a 6.3m and if you only wanted
one board you might look at something like the Mistral Explosion 295 or
315 both of these boards will handle a wide range of conditions and are
easy and fun to sail.
Keith
Mark & Lynne Frost
I totally agree, although I may be biased, being limey and all, and reading
the UK's 'Windsurf' mag for years and years... Windsurf is a great magazine.
It actually takes me a WHOLE weekend to read it, as oppose to a US magazine
with an almost identical name that barely suffices the 20 minute bus ride to
work. Peter Hart's technique series are excellent. He covers a lot of
ground, and a lot of good tips. Mark Kasprowicz (the editor) is/was a
participant in the Compuserve Windsurf forum. If you e-mail him, don't
forget to remind him what a spell check is!!! ;-) Anyone who has read the
mag will understand! The e-mail I have from the front page is
in...@windsurf.co.uk .
I also used to read 'Boards', their graphic design department needs some
help, but the fact that the have a web site is forward thinking....
Get it!!!! I get my subscription sea mail - it *only* takes a few months,
but it's worth it!
____________________________________________
Mark & Lynne Frost
Portland, OR, USA
remove _nospam from domain name to reply to sender
____________________________________________
Charles Lategano <7530...@CompuServe.COM> wrote in message ...
>Brian,
>
>I was recently in NYC and managed to pick up the January issue of
>Windsurf (UK) <snip>
Steven Swann
Why not subscribe to Boards like I do? Delivery is very prompt - even here
downunder.
Boards Mag have THE best equipment reviews going - particularly their
board tests which are so detailed and incisive. Find their postal address
at the web site - Boards.co.uk I buy PWR, Windsurf (UK), Windsurfing
(USA) and Boards have easily the most detailed and informative equipment
reviews.
SS.
Charles Lategano
>>You definitely need some new equipment,
Keith,
If you're buying it for me I'd love for you to send over the gear
that you described. For right now I'll stick with my 12 sails,
10 fins, 6 masts, 5 booms, and 4 boards and hold off on any new
equipment purchases. Though I said I hadn't bought a new
production board since 1989, I didn't mean that I hadn't bought
any new equipment since then.
I've had the opportunity to try the Xantos boards and some newer
large sails, they are definately fun when the wind is light, but
then again so is surfing and I'd rather paddle into a wave when
its blowing 6 mph than spend $3000 to plane off in 6 mph.
Charles