F2 Thommen comments?
Phil Morgan
comments/suggestions on the board, recommended "all-around" fin?
Major technology improvements the past few years that should pursuade me
to reconsider and look for something newer? (btw, been shortboarding
about 11 years, or so)
Thanks,
Phil
sailquik
> Considering a 97 F2 Thommen (179L) for light wind days. Any
> comments/suggestions on the board, recommended "all-around" fin?
board,
especially with something like a 48-50 cm Tectonics or
System B fin.
Combine these fins with a 8.0-9.5 sail with good low end
power, and
you can plane in about 10 knots.
Depending on your weight, something like the Thommen 280 CR
L-XL will
plane a not of 2 sooner, and be significantly faster once it
gets going
due to the decreased wetted surface. You can carry a larger
fin (2 reasons)
The foot straps are far enough outboard to allow good
control of a 50-56 cm
fin, and the CR's use a deep Tuttle box. The limiting factor
on fin size for
the 305 (pre 1999) is the Powerbox. Not many fin designers
want to make larger
than a 50 cm for a powerbox.
For just blasting around, the 46 or 48 cm North Shore Carbon
Trap fins work
ok, with sails up to about 8.5.
> Major technology improvements the past few years that should pursuade me
> to reconsider and look for something newer? (btw, been shortboarding
> about 11 years, or so)
If you really want to stay with F2 the the 280 CR L-XL are
quite good, but
for a little less early planing, something like a Starboard
W-75 L AVS (flapper)
board will take you from 10-12 knots (weights a factor here)
all the way up
to well over 20 knots.
Or the larger wider Roberts AVS boards are quite fast as
well. If you decide against
AVS, the the ProTech Z series are very fast and quite
durable.
I'm assuming you want a race oriented board, since you are
looking at the Thommen.
If you are more into free riding, and want a board with
unreal range, then you
might want to check out new F2 Xantos 290/300, the Starboard
Carve 140 or other
freeride boards in the 135-155 liter range.
The new Starboard Formula 155 may be another option. It will
take you to 20 knots,
it will plane earlier than almost anything, go upwind with
the race boards, and
will give you more overall useable range than just about
anything else on the market.
Hope this helps,
Roger
WINDSUMIKE
he is looking for a 54 cm fin to balance a 10m.
Advice from UK importers, new buy so I cant give a report but it does plane 2-3
knots earlier than his Xantos 295 with an 8.0.
Mike
sailquik
Mike:
I hope your mate is one really big guy with thighs and calves like a pro
football
player.
The tail of the Thommen 305 (anyone want to buy a nice one) is too
narrow to allow
really good control of a 54cm fin.
The newer Thommen 280 CR L comes with a "deep Tuttle" 54 cm North Shore
fin, but
the tail on the 280 CR is much much wider that the 305 T.
The tail on the Thommen 280 CR XL (Extra Large) is about an inch wider
and a bit
thicker and the XL comes with a deep Tuttle 56 cm North Shore fin.
At my weight, (160 Lbs/72.6 Kg) the 280 CR L planes about 2 knots
earlier than
the 305 T and the 280 CR XL (with a 9.7 Race sail) planes another knot
or so
earlier. IMHO the 305 Thommen is not what I would consider an "early
planer"
by contemporary standards, especially for a really large sailor.
The new Starboard Formula 155, the RRD "Monster", the new F2 Thommen 75
XL II & 85 XXL II
will set new standards for early planing, this year!
Check them out:
http://www.f2.com/surf/boards/race/race.htm (F2 Website)
http://users.skynet.be/b141/ (Dusseldorf Show Photos)
http://www.star-board.com/bd_fml.htm (Starboard 2000 Website)
--
sailquik (Roger Jackson) US 7011
Cert. WS Instructor (Lvl 1)
Sailworks/Starboard/F2/MPB/HPL/Chinook/Kokatat/DaKine
Phones: So. MD (301)872-9459; Avon, NC (252) 995-3204
sailquik
They work!
Also check out the new AHD 78 in the Dusseldorf photos!
F2 Website (Race series boards
http://www.f2.com/surf/boards/race/race.html
Dusseldorf Show Photos
http://users.skynet.be/b141/
Starboard 2000 Website "Formula 155"
http://www.star-board.com/bd_fml.htm
Roger
gmart...@my-deja.com
sailquik <sail...@ameritel.net> wrote:
> Phil:
>
> > Considering a 97 F2 Thommen (179L) for light wind days. Any
> > comments/suggestions on the board, recommended "all-around" fin?
> I'd guess you are talking about the Thommen 305. It's a good
> board,
> especially with something like a 48-50 cm Tectonics or
> System B fin.
> Combine these fins with a 8.0-9.5 sail with good low end
> power, and
> you can plane in about 10 knots.
>
I've had a T305 for over a year and have logged 40 sessions. I weigh
185#. Using an aerotech 9.5 Course VMG, I have made careful correlations
of windspeed vs planing characteristics with this combination. I have
measured windspeeds in the middle of the lake using a hand-held
anemometer (Kestrel) and have also correlated these measuremnts with an
anemometer located about 200 yards from my launch site which is located
on a floating bridge. Please note these comments are in MPH. I am an
advanced intermediate sailor (planing jibes, shortboard tacks, working
on advanced transitions) but no shortboard racing experience. At 6 MPH
with gusts to 8, I cannot get the T305 to plane. At 8 MPH with gusts to
10, the board planes easily with pumping, but upwind is a struggle. At 9
MPH (8 knots), the board is fun to sail and will teach you subtleties
about initiating and maintaining a plane. With 10 mph and up, the board
will plane without much if any pumping and blasts upwind. Once on a
plane, the board is very forgiving and easy to sail. It handles chop
well (I've had it totally wound up with a 6.5) and carves nicely. You
will find that planing through jibes in 10 MPH is very difficult,
although a lighter no-cam sail might make the sail flip easier. I use a
51 cm Curtis fin which planes earlier but is slower than the northshore
48. The NS48 is fine for 8.0 and smaller. Although I have not ridden the
newer wider boards, my guess is that they are faster and potentially
will plane a bit earlier, although I would like to see some head to head
testing. For the average sailor my size, I doubt planing in 6-7 MPH is
realistic. Experts/pros and/or lightweights might feel otherwise. Unless
you are in the Gorge or someplace else with an opposing current, upwind
will still be a problem. I am planning on getting a 9.5 retro this year,
and will redo my measurements.
Gary
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Rondo68285
>> > comments/suggestions on the board, recommended "all-around" fin?
I sail it with a 50cm spitfire 9.6 and 8.7. Easy to sail, best speed is well
off the wind. Sailed from the fin
on a broad reach, it's a blast. Rides over chop well until you get to about two
foot wind waves then the rails can sometimes catch.
Goes upwind better with the stock NS 48 but control suffers. I like the
spitfire
with it. In flat water or light chop get it powered take it nice and deep for
speed.
I plan to use a 9.5 v8 with mine this
year. Oh, I'm not a small fellow, but have no problem sailing the above sail
sizes with a 50cm fin or so.
Dave
sand...@my-deja.com
> will still be a problem. I am planning on getting a 9.5 retro this
year,
> and will redo my measurements.
>
> Gary
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
>
Gary,
Do you anticipate getting more power/earlier planing from the Retro?
I look forward to your comparison of the VMG to the Retro. In an
article in windsurf magazine about a year in a half ago, (I think
titled "how low can you go") they were testing planing threshold. The
state of the art at that time which they were using was a Thommen 305
and a Roberts 28 AVS with a 9.6 VMG (1999) and a 9.5 Retro. They also
were trying an 11meter Retro prototype. If I recall correctly, thier
numbers were pretty similar to yours.
Steve
(Aerotech 9.6, Seatrend Allstar 80)
gmart...@my-deja.com
sand...@my-deja.com wrote:
> Do you anticipate getting more power/earlier planing from the Retro?
>....
>
> Steve
> That would be nice, but if I had to guess the difference in planing
threshold will be small. As you know, Aerotechs are excellent sails and
the Aerotech Course 9.5 is a very powerful, longboard oriented sail,
with a deep draft that pumps extremely well. What I am looking for in
the Retro is something lighter that rigs on a 490 mast that will be
easier to throw around in transitions, has a back-handed feel and will
be slightly quicker to rig, as I do alot of quick afterwork sessions.
Your 9.6/Allstar 80 must be a sweet setup!
sailquik
> > Do you anticipate getting more power/earlier planing from the Retro?
> >....
> >
> > Steve
> > That would be nice, but if I had to guess the difference in planing
> threshold will be small. As you know, Aerotechs are excellent sails
and
> the Aerotech Course 9.5 is a very powerful, longboard oriented sail,
> with a deep draft that pumps extremely well. What I am looking for in
> the Retro is something lighter that rigs on a 490 mast that will be
> easier to throw around in transitions, has a back-handed feel and will
> be slightly quicker to rig, as I do alot of quick afterwork sessions.
> Your 9.6/Allstar 80 must be a sweet setup!
I think you will be pleasantly surprised to find that the 9.5 m2
Retro will have far more low end "grunt" than your Aerotech Course
board sail. You will need to pump far less, at least that's been
my experience. And rigging will be a breeze, throw the mast in,
downhaul for the conditions, hook up your adj. outhaul, and you'll
be on the water.
You will give up a significant amount of the Retro's range if you
choose not to use an adj. outhaul. The range is still there, but
you will need to stop, adjust the outhaul, and maybe to boom length
to get the full range.
later
Roger
--
sailquik US 7011 Ph.(301)872-9459 (In So. MD)
USW L1 Instuctor (252)995-3204 (In Avon, NC)
Sailworks/Starboard/F2/MPB/System B/True
Ames/HPL/Kokatat/Da Kine
gmart...@my-deja.com
>
> I think you will be pleasantly surprised to find that the 9.5 m2
> Retro will have far more low end "grunt" than your Aerotech Course
> --
Roger
Thanks for the input. I just ordered the 9.5 Retro. Since I am heavier
than you and less experienced, I am not sure I will be able to achieve
the same planing threshold as you did with the 9.5 Retro/Thommen 305
combination (7.5 MPH), but I'll be happy to get close with less effort
than it currently takes to get the Aerotech going in 9 MPH. Do you
happen to recall your specific rig settings, mast track settings,
boom height etc? Keep up the posts.
Ga
bbarr...@my-deja.com
gmart...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> >
> > I think you will be pleasantly surprised to
find that the 9.5 m2
> > Retro will have far more low end "grunt" than
I am very curious about the whole low end issue
of cam sails vs no cams.
I have sailed with Gary on several occasions -
the dynamics are guite differant as I weigh 145
and am on a Go board, but here are some specifics.
I was on a 99 Hot Stealth 9.0, wind maybe 5-8 and
only planing in short bursts. I had 5-10 previous
sessions with this combo so it was fairly well
dialed in. The Hot was on low to medium downhaul
and very full on the outhaul. Gary loaned me his
9.5 Aerotech which was rigged in a similar
manner. The Aerotech was MUCH heavier with
really reduced EZ handling even on a platform as
wide as the Go. But the Aerotech just tractored
the Go onto a plane.
Marginal sailing always seems to be an iffy
thing - but my perception from this single event
was that the cammed sail had much more power
than just a 1/2 meter size increase would
warrant.
Bruce Barry
sand...@my-deja.com
ever read. I'm sorry I can't personally comment on the comparison.
Roger Sailquick, who is a great source and seems very credible is the
one dissenting opinion on this topic that I've read.
Steve
sailquik
Since the following quote is something I posted,
perhaps I can respond here.
> "I think you will be pleasantly surprised to
> find that the 9.5 m2 Retro will have far more
> I am very curious about the whole low end issue
> of cam sails vs no cams.
As I'm sure many others are.
But most of them are not seeing the "bigger
picture" on this issue.
The "low end grunt" found in the larger Sailworks Retro
is partially a function of the "perimeter loaded"
camless design, but more a function of the amount of
draft, and how it's positioned in the sail.
The camless "perimeter loaded" design allows Sailworks
to use the perimeter as a framework to support the draft
positioning in the sail. Draft is created and positioned
by seam shaping, and batten design, within the perimeter
loaded "framework".
Low end power is a function of the overall draft of the sail
and were that draft is positioned. Large Retro's have
significantly more overall draft than the Hot Stealth.
And they have more overall draft than most race sails.
But they are also very "tuneable" and the overall draft
can be diminished, and repositioned by careful tuning and
use of an adj.outhaul (AOH).
This gives the Retro more overall range of use.
It can be very drafty, top to bottom (positive draft all
the way to the top batten), or if downhauled and outhauled
(tuned) for higher winds, it will have less draft down low
and a floppy negative draft up in the top 2 battens.
To make the big Retro's work best, they need a certain amount of
outhaul to ensure that the entire perimeter of the sail is loaded.
For downwind sailing the AOH can be slacked alot, but the draft
is not what makes the board go when you are sailing almost directly
down wind. A baggy sail "catches" more wind when sailing down wind.
As you come back up to a broad reach, you need to add "perimeter"
tension to position the draft and get the luff to "inflate" properly.
As you come up higher to beam reach, you can use the AOH to "flatten"
the sail a bit more. Still plenty of draft, but adding outhaul will
tend to move the draft forward a little bit.
For upwind sailing, a flatter entry is desirable, and once again a
tug on the AOH will flatten the sail some more and also bend the mast,
resulting in the top of the sail opening up (looser leech) and some of
the positive draft in the top of the sail changing to neutral of
slightly negative (i.e.. the battens no longer curve upwind, they are
flat (luff to leech) or even have dropped off slightly. This
flattening or negative curvature (luff to leech) is what I'm calling
negative draft.
For maxed out overpowered sailing, adding some downhaul and even more
outhaul will make the Retro look very much like a race sail.
Very loose leech up in the top of the sail, top 3 battens dropped off
on the leech ends, tight, flat entry luff sleeve with the batten just
above the boom well back behind the rear of the mast.
> I have sailed with Gary on several occasions -
> the dynamics are guite differant as I weigh 145
> and am on a Go board, but here are some specifics.
> I was on a 99 Hot Stealth 9.0, wind maybe 5-8 and
> only planing in short bursts. I had 5-10 previous
> sessions with this combo so it was fairly well
> dialed in. The Hot was on low to medium downhaul
> and very full on the outhaul.
I'm familiar with the Hot Stealth 9.0. It is not a
design with a lot of overall draft.
Since it's also a camless sail, sailing it with minimal
outhaul (I'm interpreting your term "very full" to mean
neutral or negative outhaul) may result in alot of "lost
effort or power" due to the stretching of the rear of the sail
with minimal outhaul on it. In my experience you might get better
low end power by reducing the downhaul even more, and bringing it
back to the same state of tune with the outhaul.
> Gary loaned me his
> 9.5 Aerotech which was rigged in a similar
> manner. The Aerotech was MUCH heavier with
> really reduced EZ handling even on a platform as
> wide as the Go. But the Aerotech just tractored
> the Go onto a plane.
Yes! The Aerotech 9.5, set up and tuned as you have suggested
probably would have significantly more overall draft than the
Stealth 9.0.
It's the increased draft that "tractors" you up onto a plane.
But that same Aerotech, when rigged for racing, and going upwind,
will have significantly less overall draft.
Then it would lose some of it's low end grunt.
You could make up for this by pumping alot, but why do that.
I noted your comments about the weight and ease of handling, but
everyone's heard my opinion of these two subjects ad infinitum so
I will just say thanks!! :-)
> Marginal sailing always seems to be an iffy
> thing - but my perception from this single event
> was that the cammed sail had much more power
> than just a 1/2 meter size increase would
> warrant.
Rigged that way, and compared to a relatively non-drafty
camless design, I'm sure your impressions are valid.
Come by Hatteras, bring Gary, and we'll compare 9.5's
I think your impressions will be somewhat different.
Later
Roger
Kirk Robertson
got a good powered up day with it thursday. When I first got there it was
10-12 mph gusting to 15 and the thing got me on a plane on my techno 283 with
no problem. ( I'm 185 lbs) After 1 1/2 hours the wind picked up to 14
gusting 20 and I had no problem hanging on to the sail even though I didn't
touch the outhaul. I could feel the draft move forward in the puffs but it
wasn't horrible. If I wasn't such a wimp and had been able to stay out longer
I just would have downhauled more and I'm sure it would have been fine. Even
as it was in the puffs you could hear the top of the sail rattle loosely.
Much more manageable than my 5 yr old 7.5 multi-sail. I even got a few
waterstarts in!! I love the sail, I just need to update the smaller range of
my quiver for my trips to Isabella this spring. Kirk.
bbarr...@my-deja.com
> I think your impressions will be somewhat different.
> Later
> Roger
>
Thanks for your very detailed reply. It makes a lot of sense because I
was out in 6-12 mph for a few hours yesterday and was playing with
outhaul quite a bit. And, just by coincidence, Gary Martin showed up
later on in the day with a new YTK 9.5 Retro.
Comparing the 99 Hot 9.0 Stealth to the Retro showed some really
significant differances. Huge differance in draft (didn't try to
measure), huge differance in aspect ratio. The Hot spec is 532/222,
the larger Retro 528/243. The Retro when rigged to light end spec
looked more like the sail on a boat, top battens even with the boom or
slight hook to weather with noticable draft running up the body of the
sail to the top batten. The Hot when rigged fuller than spec (2cm less
downhaul) still looked flat with the top batten just beginning to twist
off.
I was going to get another large YTK Hot this year, now it looks like
there are more choices. One disadvantage to the Retro is it runs max
length on a Chinook carbon course and looks like it might be a boom
killer trying to use that boom.
Other than that, I know that Hot has added what they claim is
significant draft to the Stealth, they also have a 2 cam version of the
same sail. They have also dropped the aspect ratio this year and all 4
of the Hot Sails (Stealth/Daytona 9.0/9.5) should fit on my existing
boom.
Decisions/Decisions
Bruce Barry
sailquik
> was out in 6-12 mph for a few hours yesterday and was playing with
> outhaul quite a bit. And, just by coincidence, Gary Martin showed up
> later on in the day with a new YTK 9.5 Retro.
Somehow whenever we talk about different gear here, the "bigger
picture" seldom gets addressed.
I think you may now see why I feel the big Retro's have about
the best low wind (i.e. <10 knots) power on the market.
Comparing Gary's Y2K Retro 9.5, to most other sails, it
will almost immediately be visually apparent that the Retro
has much more draft, and for low wind grunt, it's the draft
that makes the power. Sure, if you pump alot, you can take a
less drafty sail, pump the boardspeed up to about 1.5+ x windspeed,
which brings the apparent wind up even more, and then these
less drafty sails indeed do have lots of power.
But a draftier sail will do this for you, simply because it has
more draft.
>
> Comparing the 99 Hot 9.0 Stealth to the Retro showed some really
> significant differances. Huge differance in draft (didn't try to
> measure), huge differance in aspect ratio. The Hot spec is 532/222,
> the larger Retro 528/243. The Retro when rigged to light end spec
> looked more like the sail on a boat, top battens even with the boom
> or slight hook to weather with noticable draft running up the body
>of the sail to the top batten. The Hot when rigged fuller than spec
> (2cm less downhaul) still looked flat with the top batten just
>beginning to twist off.
some of my posts.
> I was going to get another large YTK Hot this year, now it looks like
> there are more choices. One disadvantage to the Retro is it runs max
> length on a Chinook carbon course and looks like it might be a boom
> killer trying to use that boom.
new Chinook Adj. Outhaul setup, on the 24" extensions. This setup
should retro fit into your Chinook Carbon boom head and arms very
nicely.
But, you may be right on this. I had to get the larger (220-268 cm)
Fiberspar All Carbon Race boom to get the width I need for the Retro
9.5 Proto I have which has an even lower aspect ratio.
It's a very nice boom. but I'd like to have a good long talk
about block "lead angles" and how many blocks it takes for a
high efficiency adj. outhaul boom rear end.
> Other than that, I know that Hot has added what they claim is
> significant draft to the Stealth, they also have a 2 cam version of the
> same sail. They have also dropped the aspect ratio this year and all 4
> of the Hot Sails (Stealth/Daytona 9.0/9.5) should fit on my existing
> boom.
"test" the 9.0 Retro before you by a 9.5 Stealth/Daytona.
You may find the 9.0 Retro to have better low end due to it's
extreme tuning range. Might be as good or better on the top
end too.
You coming to the Midwinters? Drop by and I'll show you a Retro
rigged for very overpowered upwind sailing. You may think
I've sneakily put some cams in or it's some new race sail.
> Decisions/Decisions
Come up to Hatteras sometime and you can probably arrange some
direct "on the water" comparisons.
Later,
Roger
P.S. Anyone interested in the "Huge difference in draft", and the
"looked more like the sail on a boat, top battens even with the boom
Send me an email request and I will post them to you.
sailquik (Roger Jackson)
>I just thought I'd throw in my two cents. I've got a 9.5 retro and finally
>got a good powered up day with it thursday. When I first got there it was
>10-12 mph gusting to 15 and the thing got me on a plane on my techno 283 with
>no problem. ( I'm 185 lbs) After 1 1/2 hours the wind picked up to 14
>gusting 20 and I had no problem hanging on to the sail even though I didn't
>touch the outhaul.
Try the adjustable outhaul that came with the sail.
You could have solved 2 little problems.
More outhaul would have stabilized the draft (funny that it would move,
mine don't do that) and it might have eliminated the rattle in the top
of the sail.
> I could feel the draft move forward in the puffs but it
>wasn't horrible.
I haven't experienced this. Are you sure you are using enough
outhaul? Retro's need alot. For maxed out conditions on the 9.5,
you might use as much as 3" or more.
Set the batten above the boom for the conditions you expect,
and do the rest of the tuning with the outhaul.
> If I wasn't such a wimp and had been able to stay out longer
>I just would have downhauled more and I'm sure it would have been fine.
If the top was "ratttling" it sounds as if you already had enough downhaul,
maybe even a little too much.
> Even as it was in the puffs you could hear the top of the sail rattle loosely.
I take it you have a 1999 9.5 Retro.
This has been eliminated in the 2000 sails with mini battens on the leech.
>Much more manageable than my 5 yr old 7.5 multi-sail. I even got a few
>waterstarts in!! I love the sail, I just need to update the smaller range of
>my quiver for my trips to Isabella this spring.
The smaller Retro's are just as tuneable as the larger sizes, and have a lot of
range if you are willing to tune them.
Try the adj. outhaul, you can tune on the water, even for gusty changing Lake
Isabella conditions.
later
Roger
Kirk.
gmart...@my-deja.com
Appearance; The 2000 Retros are great-looking sails (IMHO). The sail has
a very deep draft, significantly more than a North Pyro, for example,
but less than my Aerotech 9.5
Rigging; Physically easier and faster than my cambered 9.5 (Aerotech),
but slightly more cerebral
Carry weight; lighter due to only 6 battens and a shorter mast
Uphauling; Much easieer than the Aerotech, felt more like my cambered
8.0
Planing; I weigh 185# and ride a Thommen 305. The wind was 9.5 gusting
to 11.5 on the beach (measured) and likely 10-13 outside (not measured)
The Retro got me planing quickly and smoothly without pumping, even when
set to the "max" downhaul/outhaul settings. I'll need a day with less
wind to comment about "early planing", but it looks good so far.
"Feel"; The COE is further back than the Aerotech ( 2 full inches on my
harness lines) but is very comfortable on a reach with a light feel in
the hands and with a very stable COE
Downwind; Very good, but not clearly faster than the cammed sail
Upwind; Excellent, very "slippery" feel when fully powered and when only
lightly powered provides instantaneous feedback to allow corrections in
sheeting angle. I not uncommonly oversheet my cammed sails when pointing
high and am lightly powered. It was not gusty enough to evaluate whether
the Retro will give the same instant acceleration that cammed sails give
when a gust hits.
Tacking; Much easier, much lighter feel, it luffs. I even did a couple
of heli-tacks
Jibing; Entry requires more attention to sheeting angle to avoid slowing
down but the sail flip is much easier
Waterstarts; Very easy
Overall; This is an excellent sail. It is too early yet to comment about
the absolute planing threshold. Although I can't comment about it's
stability in stronger, gustier winds, I am not concerned. If it was any
windier than it was when I tested the Retro, I'd sail a 6.7 with my Air
265
Tom - Chicago
Upwind; Excellent, very "slippery" feel when fully powered and when only
lightly powered provides instantaneous feedback to allow corrections in
sheeting angle. I not uncommonly oversheet my cammed sails when pointing
high and am lightly powered. It was not gusty enough to evaluate whether
the Retro will give the same instant acceleration that cammed sails give
when a gust hits.
Tacking; Much easier, much lighter feel, it luffs. I even did a couple
of heli-tacks
Jibing; Entry requires more attention to sheeting angle to avoid slowing
down but the sail flip is much easier
Waterstarts; Very easy
These three characteristics (along with great low end) make such a huge
difference in the quality of my sailing experience, that I would easily
trade off some top-end for them. But with the Retro's incredible range, I
don't feel like I am giving up much, if any at all.
Tom - Chicago
sailquik
> I think you are confusing the 9.5 Aerotech Course Race with the 9.6 VMG.
I could be, yes, but I think there are a number of folks out there who do not
know the difference.
>The Course race is a long board sail with better low end power than any
sail on the market.
You designed it, so you should know.
I may have some sails I think will have more power, earlier, but may not have
the top end range, and are probably a little lighter.
I did pretty well against some of your sails at the Mid Winters last year,
until my boom broke, and expect to do so again this year.
> It has a long boom and a tight leech and was designed for early plannig
> and pumping while not planning.
I understand, and I would know the difference the minute I saw one, due to
the difference in aspect ratio and draft positioning.
> I don't often recommend this sail for short board sailing as it has limited
>speed once planning.
As do all super drafty low end oriented sails unless they are tuned "on the fly"
but they will never have the nearly unlimited top end of the VMG's and other
top of the line race sails. But these "race" sails also don't power up as early,
without alot of pumping
But, my caveat here is that I'm a light weight, and don't like to pump,
so I use more tuneable sails, with as much or more initial draft.
I may have a prototype at this years Midwinters that's got more low end,
and top end than what I've been sailing, but I'm going to have to let the
sail convince me it'll make power in the 4-6 knot range.
I'll try to bring the MPB again and get the sail numbers on for the
speed check.
>For heavier sailors who want to plane first this sail will do the trick.
I agree. You may not have seen my long post where I tried to explain that
the overall amount of draft is what makes the low end (<9 knots) power to
the greater degree. Size is important, but a draftier sail half a meter
smaller may get lightweights going earlier than a larger flatter sail.
I think Gary Martin (out in Seattle) may give us an independent reading on
this.
You make very good sails, and lots of races are won on them, but for
free sailing, I think there are other sails that may be more suitable.
Big guys like you and Alf can pump those big suckers, I can too, but
don't want too. Free sailors in lite air often don't want to or
know how to.
>For better overall range the VMG is a better choice.
I agree!
C'Ya at Tinho's on the 3rd. You're gonna hate me, for this, but I'm hoping for
8-10 knots.
Got some tricky new gear that's working real well in that range.
Will you be able to get your mom to race?
See if you can sign her up for the Learn to race clinic or workshop.
Gotta get her in the straps somehow, someway, someday, right? :-)
Best regards,
Roger
Sailaero
I think you are confusing the 9.5 Aerotech Course Race with the 9.6 VMG.The
Course race is a long board sail with better low end power than any sail on the
market. It has a long boom and a tight leech and was designed for early plannig
and pumping while not planning. I dont often recommend this sail for short
board sailing as it has limited speed once planning. For heavier sailors who
want to plane first this sail will do the trick. For better overall range the
VMG is a better choice.
Thanks
Steve Gottlieb
Aerotech sails