What about BIC SAXO 265 96

Colin J.C

unread,

Dec 4, 1996, 3:00:00 AM12/4/96

to

I'd like to know what do you think about the bic saxo 265.
I'd like to buy one and I'd like to have your advice.
Do you know better wave/slalom board and not to expensive?

J.C

Serge Rezzonico

unread,

Dec 4, 1996, 3:00:00 AM12/4/96

to

> I'd like to know what do you think about the bic saxo 265.

I have one and love it !

I use it with 6.0-5.3 and the 31cm slalom fin
and with 5.3-4.5 with the 23cm wave fin.
The few times I had to use 3.6,
I wished I had a smaller wave fin.

This board is reasonably fast and easy to jibe in the slalom
configuration, very fun in the wave config (move the footstraps
in the central inserts). Great jumps.

I heard some complaints about its weight, but I didn't find
this to be a problem: planes well for its volume.
Better get a 96 (better strap inserts) or
97 model (new material) if you can. The 95 version can
be used with twinzers.

--

Serge (65kg/145lbs)

"gartland...@fia.net

unread,

Dec 5, 1996, 3:00:00 AM12/5/96

to Colin J.C

Colin J.C wrote:
>
> I'd like to know what do you think about the bic saxo 265.

> I'd like to buy one and I'd like to have your advice.
> Do you know better wave/slalom board and not to expensive?
>

> J.CI had a three fin last year and loved it but it broke. The extra slots
were a pain in the ass to try to keep sealed, but the board was a lot of
fun and good in the waves. I traded it on warantee for a new, single
fin, concave bottom 96 board and it is still fun but not as loose or as
good in the waves.

It's a good board with lots of range, I have sailed it with a 5.8 down to
a 3.2.

Simon Papps

unread,

Dec 7, 1996, 3:00:00 AM12/7/96

to

> a 3.2.--

The '96 is concave? I would have thought that would make it a little more slashy
at the expense of speed. I haven't heard of anyone running a tri-fin setup. In
the end I got the twinzer boxes epoxied over.

I enjoy sailing mine and I only have two slight criticisms:

It has slightly too little volume for light wind wave-sailing. I can uphaul it if
I really have to but it's a trial if there's a swell running.

It would be nice if it was a little lighter. Still you get what you pay for and
its ding resisance is nice when a gust of wind picks up the board and throws it
against a picnic table.

Serge Rezzonico

unread,

Dec 9, 1996, 3:00:00 AM12/9/96

to

> I traded it on warantee for a new, single
> fin, concave bottom 96 board and it is still fun but not as loose or
> as good in the waves.

> The '96 is concave? I would have thought that would make it a little

Can anybody confirm/deny this ?
Did the Saxo's shape really change ?

This would be very surprising, as a new shape
is generally well advertised (even if it's not really an improvement).
None of the mags I read mentioned that.

Serge

Ian Gibbons

unread,

Dec 11, 1996, 3:00:00 AM12/11/96

to

In article <32AC49...@lig.di.epfl.ch>, Serge Rezzonico <rez...@lig.di.epfl.ch> says:
>
>> I traded it on warantee for a new, single
>> fin, concave bottom 96 board and it is still fun but not as loose or
>> as good in the waves.
>
>> The '96 is concave? I would have thought that would make it a little
>
>Can anybody confirm/deny this ?
>Did the Saxo's shape really change ?
>
>

I just bought a run out '96 Saxo 265 - Single fin, flat bottom,
lots of kick in nose, and tucked rails. No concaves.

Toby Holland

unread,

Dec 12, 1996, 3:00:00 AM12/12/96

to

Colin J.C <jcc...@infonie.fr> wrote in article
<01bbe174$793fc960$1011c00a@appolon>...

> I'd like to know what do you think about the bic saxo 265.
> I'd like to buy one and I'd like to have your advice.
> Do you know better wave/slalom board and not to expensive?

I have a 1995 saxo 265 and love it - mostly sailed inland with sails from
3.7 to 5.1 and 31cm fin. Gets on the plane easily, just cruises round gybes
beautifully.
--
Toby Holland
MD Orbicon Ltd.
thol...@orbicon.demon.co.uk