FFF....BFF..It depends...!
sailquik (Roger Jackson)
I find this thread to be pretty funny as no one (at least in the
multitude of posts
I looked at) including Mike or Hans or anyone else really ever specified
when and
where each technique is appropriate. Imagine that?
Mike F. sails in the Gorge, on small boards, with a single or minimal
offset rear footstrap (s) , in strong wind conditions (the stronger the
better, right Mike).
The Gorge is a river, with some degree of current flowing from the
mountains and
deserts of eastern Oregon/Washington down to the Pacific Ocean.
The heat in the desert is what fuels the Gorge "wind machine".
So, for Mike's conditions, on Mike's gear, his advice is probably fairly
good.
For those of you who sail in much less, or marginal winds, on lakes,
with no current
some of what Mike says might be applicable, but much of it is not.
For those of you who sail on rigs larger than 6.0 most of the time,
there simply isn't
the same sort of power available to sail small boards in big terrain,
like in the Gorge.
So, you may have less wind, no current, a rig that's twice the size of
Mike's.
Is his advice still applicable...? I don't think so.
Mike often seems to assume that everyone knows his style of sailing, his
conditions,
etc. But they don't, but will try his advice anyway, as they are having
a problem doing something some other way, and anything new is worth a
try, right?
Going BFF on a wider board (Mike's widest board is probably < 60 cm and
maybe
even less) with the rear footstraps offset simply is not going to work,
unless you are
powered out of your mind and make a stab at the footstraps and somehow
connect your back foot with the rear footstrap.
Wide boards, with modern rockerlines, REQUIRE you to put your back foot
right
in the middle of the board a little ahead of the rear footstrap, so you
have some ability to steer the board while you are getting your front
foot settled into the front
footstrap. So, on wide boards with widely offset footstraps, BFF simply
isn't going
to work, not for Mike, not for anyone, as if you put any weight that far
back, and
that far off the centerline, the board will make an abrupt turn upwind.
So guys, please put a little more general conditions detail into your
posts so we don't
have people trying things in their little pond, in < 12 knots of wind,
that we all know
only work in 25 knot + with the wind going against the current.
How you get into the footstraps is not something that there's a right
way or a wrong
way, unless you specify the windspeed, the current speed and direction
vs the wind direction, board type and size, rig size, footstrap offset,
and a few other little incidental factors I can't think of right now.
Even knowing all the details, there's still
no right or wrong, there's only what works for each sailor in their
conditions on their
specific gear.
Hope this helps,
Paul Braunbehrens
probably blowing an average of 15 that day, I was on a 145 JP with 6.0
sail. The run with the back foot was the best run of the day, so maybe
it was blowing 18, but iWindsurf shows that wind speeds never went past
that.
The straps are very offset each on the rail.
These are exactly the conditions you say are impossible to do BFF, yet
that is what I did.
The reason it worked is because I stuck my front foot forward enough so
that I was able to steer the board with the front foot while getting
the back foot into the strap.
In article <3F248C32...@mindspring.com>, Roger Jackson
Mike F
thread:
1. I was strapped in -- BFF -- years before I heard of the Gorge.
2. I sail many places besides the Gorge.
3. Gorge current flows with the wind in some places on any windy day and on
many days throughout the Gorge.
4. Board size applications and constraints have been addressed by me and
others in this forum.
5. The poster who started this thread was on a 6.0, not a 12.0.
6. It's not clear to me why the wind source matters, but very significant
Gorge wind sources also include fronts, jet streams, highs, lows, and
adiabatic drainage (THAT may not appear in past FF threads, but it's
irrelevant, IMO.)
7. I found BFF best for me and maintain that it's more logical in general on
boards up to four meters long and sails up to 7.5. As discussed before by me
and others, I have no clue how it might work on a Start or Go or any other
board with footstraps half a meter from the centerline. The greatest rear
footstrap offset I've BFFed was probably about a foot.
8. I also find BFF more effective for me and more logical in general in
marginal winds (i.e., not enough sail), in zero current (I can't imagine why
that would matter), and ... heaven forbid ... in frontal winds.
9. For the 17th (?) time, you incorrectly presume I actually put WEIGHT on
that back foot before I'm planing.
10. And it's exactly because all the well-archived nuances you point out,
relevant or not, valid or not, are in the archives that I simply referred
the inquiry to the archives. But if you guys insist on dredging up the whole
controversy again, have at it.
Mike \m/
"sailquik (Roger Jackson)" <sail...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:3F248C32...@mindspring.com...
Paul Braunbehrens
<iso...@urxSpamDam.com> wrote:
> 9. For the 17th (?) time, you incorrectly presume I actually put WEIGHT on
> that back foot before I'm planing.
If you are having trouble getting in the back strap pay attention to
this point. The problem with FFF that I was having is that the strap
is too far back, so when I lift my back foot to get it in the strap the
center of balance shifts in such a way that the board rounds up.
If the front foot isn't in the strap yet, you can put it in the spot
where it keeps the board going in the righ direction, not the spot
where the foot strap happens to be.
I guess my request to not rehash all the old stuff fell on deaf ears.
Oh well, maybe someone will read this stuff and find it useful.
Mike F
news:270720032032189352%baka...@removethisbakalite.com...
> Sorry, but this is simply not true. Read my original post. It was
> probably blowing an average of 15 that day, I was on a 145 JP with 6.0
> sail. The run with the back foot was the best run of the day, so maybe
> it was blowing 18, but iWindsurf shows that wind speeds never went past
> that.
>
> The straps are very offset each on the rail.
>
> These are exactly the conditions you say are impossible to do BFF, yet
> that is what I did.
>
> The reason it worked is because I stuck my front foot forward enough so
> that I was able to steer the board with the front foot while getting
> the back foot into the strap.
Exactly ... just as it also keeps our unsuspended weight farther forward on
the board than does going FFF.
But you and I and the other tens of thousands of BFFers (my limited polls
indicate about 10% of us are BFFers) should keep this to ourselves, lest we
confuse those who say it doesn't work. ;-)
Mike \m/
Stergios Papadakis
I have two boards. They are both old and skinny, with
one rear strap, but as Mike says, I think this is irrelevant.
I have sailed both boards with the same rig AND fin.
One is easier to BFF, the other is easier to FFF.
So, I guess it depends.
Stergios
Stergios Papadakis
I forgot to mention, the bigger board,
sailed in lighter winds, is easier to BFF.
Stergios
sailquik (Roger Jackson)
I haven't sailed the JP 145 so I have no idea how wide it is, or whether
Werner
Gnigler is using really modern "flat at the back" rockerlines. Since Werner is
a more traditional shaper my guess is that the board may have a much longer
planing surface than more modern boards.
But, you say you were in 15 knots of wind (that's alot of wind to many who
sail
on lakes etc.) with a 6.0 M2 rig.
That's nearly fully powered up.
From the photos/specs I see of the JP Free Ride 145 it's 277 cm long and only
70 cm wide. The footstraps are only offset about
8 cm (3") total. That's simply not much footstrap offset.
Compare this to a modern wide board at 90-100 cm wide with a footstrap offset
of 30-50 cm (11.8"-19.6") (The INBOARD straps on a Start are 35 cm offset the
outboard straps being 50 cm same as the Formula 117 and 147) and you can
begin to see the huge difference.
So, you specify a JP 145 (no one who does not have one knows that it's a
fairly
narrow more old school design) and people with boards half again as wide with
5 X as much footstrap offset start trying to go BFF.
As I said, it doesn't work because those reading your post don't have a frame
of
reference other than JP 145. The don't know or understand that the JP 145 is
relatively narrow at 70 cm wide. The Starboard Carve 145 is 7 cm (2 3/4")
wider
and has significantly more footstrap offset.
What gave things away here was your statement that you kept your front foot
forward with weight on it. Unless you were well powered up, on a more
traditional
long rockerline board, having your weight this far forward would not work very
well
because the planing surface of a modern rockerline board would still be
inclined down at the front. Negative planing surfaces don't plane. It's like
having an anchor
out.
If you are advocating standing on your board with your front foot up just
behind the
mast foot and sticking your back foot into the rear strap, I wish you lot's of
luck.
That's perhaps the least "balanced" and untenable foot position I can think
of.
Try this.
Move back slowly and progressively on your board until your back foot is a bit
in
front of your rear footstraps. (How far forward depends on your weight and the
board's tail width.) Then concentrate your weight on that back foot, right
over the
board's fore/aft centerline.
Then commit all your weight to the rig through your harness (or if you aren't
in a
harness yet, through your arms). Now slide your front foot into the front
footstrap.
Let the board gain more speed as the rig supports you. Then, when the board is
fully planing and stable, put even more of your weight on the rig (this
provides
mast foot pressure and will accelerate your board rather quickly).
Then put your back foot into the rear footstrap and begin to "push the fin"
driving
across the top of the fin to get the board into a slightly lee rail down
attitude.
You will fly upwind. If you just want to reach fast, flatten the board out
(rail to rail)
and go fast, but keep the MFP on by keeping your weight on the rig, and keep
pressuring the fin to get the most drive from it.
Hope this helps,.
steven
on this subject, here's another of my two cents. A dedicated fffer, I
tried bff. I missed the strap the first time and promptly fell, my
rear end smacking the board. This never happens when I go fff, even on
a board that I've never sailed before. The second time, I missed the
strap again, but managed to stay upright until I got yanked over the
rig. This happened because I couldn't have my weight back, with the
back foot bracing and balancing me, as I normally would. That ended my
grand experiment.
I'll admit one thing. I'm short. My legs are short. When I'm in the
straps, my stance is comfortable, and I don't want to get my legs any
wider. So having my front foot to be in front of the front foot strap
with my back leg reaching for the back strap is really awkward for me.
Even if I got in the strap, I'd feel really spread-eagled.
On a recent trip to the Dominican Republic, I talked to some of the
pros out there on this subject. They laughed at bff and thought its
supporters were actually joking with me. All of them felt that you
stay in control much better with fff. After all, that's your jibing
position. One of the pros said he had had a lengthy argument with Andy
Brandt about it, with the ultimate conclusion that what works for you
isn't necessarily going to work for everyone.
bsinclair
Interesting supposition.
I don't generally watch to see how people are getting into the straps, but I
don't recall ever seeing a competent sailor go BFF routinely. I only go BFF
if I'm so insanely overpowered that I'm water starting directly into the
strap just trying to get home.
Whatever. I can see how someone learning to get into the straps might find
it easier to go BFF, at least on their good side. Straps won't be on the
rail. Weight will be more on the dominant foot, which is forward on their
good side. Back foot should be relatively light. Try this on their bad
side and they stomp on the tail and round up. They would probably have to
go FFF on that side.
Much ado about nothing, IMO. I have trouble imagining that this would
develop into an insurmountable technical flaw once the sailor develops a
more balanced stance.
bs
"Mike F" <iso...@urxSpamDam.com> wrote in message
news:dp1Va.4272$R43....@fe01.atl2.webusenet.com...
Mike F
Bracing an extended back leg would help if you got rammed from the rear, but
how does it affect getting "yanked over the rig?" Do you brace your BACK
foot or your FRONT foot against the rope when playing tug of war?
Since there should be no weight on that BF when going for the back strap,
missing it should not make you fall.
My inseam is 29" -- apparently on the short side. I have no problem putting
my front foot against the mast foot with my back foot in its strap, as I
might when slogging in extremely gusty winds on a sinker.
Yup ... and at least one of those world-renown Caribbean pros teaches jibing
with straight knees. Try THAT in the real world.
Mike \m/
"steven" <sm...@seattletimes.com> wrote in message
news:9a736991.03072...@posting.google.com...
Mike F
STOMPING things uncontrollably. Whuzzat ... Tourette's Foot? ;-)
Mike \m/
"bsinclair" <bsin...@hawaii.rrdotcom> wrote
Jerry McEwen
better for them, far be it from me to say they're wrong. I would like
to add something though, which is that, when learning to use straps, I
started out trying to get both feet in ASAP, but later discovered that
there were many times when it was windy enough for the front foot, but
not the back foot. Sometimes I like to sail with both feet out on the
rail, neither in a strap, but feet next to each other in the "sweet
spot".
I cannot envision same using BFF.
On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 22:36:35 -0400, "sailquik (Roger Jackson)"
<sail...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>Hi all,
>I find this thread to be pretty funny as no one (at least in the multitude of posts
<snip>
Chris Kuryllo
90-100 cm wide boards, it doesn't mean that it is not a modern board.
"sailquik (Roger Jackson)" <sail...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:3F25314D...@mindspring.com...
Paul Braunbehrens
below.
In article <3F25314D...@mindspring.com>, Roger Jackson
<sail...@mindspring.com> wrote:
my guess is that the board may have a much longer
> planing surface than more modern boards.
Last season was my first foray into windsurfing after a more than 10
year hiatus. You'll have to forgive me if I think of this board as
"modern" ;-)
> But, you say you were in 15 knots of wind (that's alot of wind to many who
> sail
> on lakes etc.) with a 6.0 M2 rig.
> That's nearly fully powered up.
On that run I was definitely powered up nicely, no question.
(no one who does not have one knows that it's a
> fairly
> narrow more old school design) and people with boards half again as wide with
> 5 X as much footstrap offset start trying to go BFF.
It looks (and feels) to me like it has a fat tail. Then again, I'm
comparing it to 10 + year old designs.
> If you are advocating standing on your board with your front foot up just
> behind the
> mast foot and sticking your back foot into the rear strap, I wish you lot's of
> luck.
> That's perhaps the least "balanced" and untenable foot position I can think
> of.
> Try this.
> Move back slowly and progressively on your board until your back foot is a bit
> in
> front of your rear footstraps. (How far forward depends on your weight and the
>
> board's tail width.) Then concentrate your weight on that back foot, right
> over the
> board's fore/aft centerline.
> Then commit all your weight to the rig through your harness (or if you aren't
> in a
> harness yet, through your arms). Now slide your front foot into the front
> footstrap.
Getting into the front footstrap is easy. I figured out how to do it
last season. The reason it's easy is because you can see it without
turning your head around, and even if you lift you foot off the board
for a second you still have the mast and the rear foot to work with.
> Let the board gain more speed as the rig supports you. Then, when the board is
>
> fully planing and stable, put even more of your weight on the rig (this
> provides
> mast foot pressure and will accelerate your board rather quickly).
> Then put your back foot into the rear footstrap
and fly over the sail, unless I'm rounding up wind or both. This is
what happened every single time so far. I have sailed many runs with
my rear foot ON TOP of the rear foot strap, so I KNOW that there is
enough wind to sail in that position. I even took a lesson and was
told to keep my foot on the board and kind of walk, or slide it into
the strap.
Well, first of all, I can never find the strap with my foot, second, I
can't walk my foot because then my heel goes in the water and it's too
unstable. What's worse, is that you are right, doing everything right
accelerates the board, and I feel like I have no control, and no
leverage. You see, with the front foot in the strap, there is really
no way for me to use my body weight to prevent a catapult. Everything
is on the wrong side of the pull.
I'm sure that as I use BFF and manage to find the strap more easily
I'll use both FFF and BFF depending on conditions. But BFF really made
me improve my sailing very quickly, so I would not discount it as a way
to get into the straps.
Mike F
Mike \m/
"Jerry McEwen" <rec...@mail.not> wrote
Chris Kuryllo
even started to take out my front foot from the strap leaving my back foot
in when I hit a hole but still have enough power in the sail to get me to
the next stretch of gust. It appears to me that, WHEN GOING BFF IS POSSIBLE,
it is a faster, smoother, safer and more efficient way of getting into
straps. It works very well for me in all overpowered conditions or when I
need to take advantage of small waves or short stretches of gust to get on a
plane. Of course, what works for me does not necessary work for everybody.
"Jerry McEwen" <rec...@mail.not> wrote in message
news:cdnbivccj6bbctt49...@4ax.com...
Martin Allen
in?
Martin
"Mike F" <iso...@urxSpamDam.com> wrote in message
news:aOhVa.5499$R43...@fe01.atl2.webusenet.com...
Wolfgang Soergel
>
> Hi Paul,
> I haven't sailed the JP 145 so I have no idea how wide it is, or whether Werner
> Gnigler is using really modern "flat at the back" rockerlines. Since Werner is
>
> a more traditional shaper my guess is that the board may have a much longer
> planing surface than more modern boards.
?? Maybe i missed something but as far as i can tell the time of boards
with long flat areas forward of the tail is long over (with some
exceptions like the Mistral Flows). But in general, boards have short
"flat" spots (more correctly would be to say the minimum of curcature of
the rocker line) basically under the fin/back strap these days. Wehter
thay are regular in width, wide, super wide or super-super wide.
> But, you say you were in 15 knots of wind (that's alot of wind to many who
> sail on lakes etc.) with a 6.0 M2 rig.
> That's nearly fully powered up.
That's right, 6.0@15knots sounds fine and well powered, although i
assume that most of the wind speed numbers reported here are more like
peak windspead, maybe not the strongest gust but also not true average.
Or people say knots when they mean mph.
> From the photos/specs I see of the JP Free Ride 145 it's 277 cm long and only
> 70 cm wide. The footstraps are only offset about
> 8 cm (3") total. That's simply not much footstrap offset.
> Compare this to a modern wide board at 90-100 cm wide with a footstrap offset
> of 30-50 cm (11.8"-19.6") (The INBOARD straps on a Start are 35 cm offset the
> outboard straps being 50 cm same as the Formula 117 and 147) and you can
> begin to see the huge difference.
> So, you specify a JP 145 (no one who does not have one knows that it's a fairly
> narrow more old school design) and people with boards half again as wide with
> 5 X as much footstrap offset start trying to go BFF.
I wouldn't call the concept old school. I think it's perfectly modern
for its purpose: Get planing reasonably early, go b&f at good speed and
on good control and allow easy, smooth turning. I't simply not a race
board or detuned version of a race board but a freeride board more
similar to a blown up wave of b&j board. And as far as i can tell the
debate how to get into the straps relates well to that type of board. In
fact, i would not dare to comment on how to best get into themon a
really wide board with offset straps since i have not enough time on
them.
(I would go fff on said board btw)
--
Wolfgang
Juri Munkki
>That's right, 6.0@15knots sounds fine and well powered, although i
>assume that most of the wind speed numbers reported here are more like
>peak windspead, maybe not the strongest gust but also not true average.
>Or people say knots when they mean mph.
Maximum gust strength is useful for deciding on a sail size, if the goal
is to sail well powered up, but not overpowered. As a maximum gust speed,
15 knots would be quite low, but enough to have fun on fairly large sails.
Average wind speeds are more useful when you're trying to decide if it's
worthwhile to out with a certain sail. 15 knot average is about right
for me to be on a 5.8 or possibly even a 5.0, if there are strong gusts.
If it's not gusty, I think I would be much happier with a 6.8 though...
On our own weather station, we record minimum, 25%, average, 75% and
maximum wind over a five minute period. Of these, average, 75% and
maximum seem the most useful, although the 25%-75% band is also very
useful when viewed as a graph, as it gives a good idea of how much
the wind varies within that five minute period. You need just one good
gust every five minutes to keep the max wind numbers up, but to affect
the top 25% value, the wind has to stay up to that level a quarter of
the time in that five minutes.
http://www.hut.fi/~jmunkki/plot.html
(Color indicates wind direction. Dotted line is 10 m/s ~= 20 knots)
As far as the BFF/FFF debate is concerned, FFF is the normal procedure
and what I consider the most natural thing to do in light winds. I
sometimes use BFF when it's really gusty and there's a definite
danger of getting slammed as soon as I sheet in. This usually means
5.0 or smaller, so I can see how this could be more common in the
Gorge than in other places.
--
Juri Munkki jmu...@iki.fi What you see isn't all you get.
http://www.iki.fi/jmunkki Windsurfing: Faster than the wind.
Frank Weston
likes to eat dog food from the can. Lots of us would be horrified, some
would admit that they did it too, and a few might even try it. It would be
an endless topic for debate and there would never be any agreement between
the two sides.
And, at the end of the day, it wouldn't make any difference. Unless, of
course, eating dog food caused the development of special talents like the
ability to scratch behind your ear with your foot or to lick your private
parts, in which case a person might find it more efficient to go BFF.
Frank Weston
Tigger
When I beach start or waterstart my board, I place my feet on the
board, and then move the front foot directly into the strap, followed
by the back. Is this possible using BFF, or does one have to take a
step down the board first? I sail with a large spread on the straps,
on modern 75-120l shortboards.
Regards
unixmidiplugin
> Roger, thank you for your thoughtful reply, I have made some comments
> below.
>
> In article <3F25314D...@mindspring.com>, Roger Jackson
> <sail...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
> > Let the board gain more speed as the rig supports you. Then, when the board is
> >
> > fully planing and stable, put even more of your weight on the rig (this
> > provides
> > mast foot pressure and will accelerate your board rather quickly).
> > Then put your back foot into the rear footstrap
> you are right, doing everything right
> accelerates the board, and I feel like I have no control, and no
> leverage. You see, with the front foot in the strap, there is really
> no way for me to use my body weight to prevent a catapult. Everything
> is on the wrong side of the pull.
Hmmmm. Perhaps this is the crux of the matter!
IMHO, Roger's suggestions are excellent. You seem to concur, *except*
to say that following those suggestions makes you feel vulnerable to a
catapult, and that you've found a "safety stance" which protects you from
that possibility.
That reminds me of standing at the bottom of a steep, gnarly ski slope
and watching skiers descend. It is common for skiers who sense that they
are losing control to go into a "safety stance". Skiers will know what I mean.
The skier lowers his/her center of gravity by crouching, and skier leans
towards the hill to help control the pull of gravity. The "safety stance" is
an important survival skill for making it to the bottom of the hill without
crashing.
Ski instructors (at least tactful ones) will not say that having survival
skills is "wrong", but they will encourage skiers to develop skills which
allow them to "master" the steep terrain, not just "survive" it. I suspect
you are encountering the windsurfing equivalent.
If you had some other technique for preventing catapults, then you could
probably succeed follow Roger's suggestions. Not seeing a video, I'm just
guessing here, but from your description, it sounds like you try to control the
potential catapult by using "leverage" and "body weight" to oversheet (and
stall) the sail. Perhaps you couple that with tilting the sail to windward
to decrease the area exposed to the wind. That will certainly depower the
sail. However, when you return the sail to a "proper" position, the extra
power may return, perhaps *abruptly* as the sail changes from stalled to powered.
If you only depower the sail during a gust (which later subsides), or
until the board gets up to speed (moving the apparent wind forward), perhaps
the transition from a stalled sail to a powered sail is not so abrupt. Again,
just a guess. That seems consistent with the skiing analogy. You just need to
use the "survival skill" long enough to get yourself out of trouble. Then you
move to "standard" skills.
What if there were another way to depower the sail to prevent catapults?
A way that did not stall the sail? A way that allowed you to "master" the
conditions, not just "survive" them. The obvious other option is to sheet out
the sail. That way you don't need body weight or leverage. If your weight is
on both feet, standing on the board, you should probably be able to sheet out
rather quickly by rotating your shoulders from "parallel" to the board toward
"square" to the board. You can stay in the harness, and leave your arms straight.
Now I'm well out of my element. I am no instructor. Could Roger or Ellen or
someone more qualified chime in and suggest whether this theory is off base or
not?
-- Larry (Yes I realize I promised to keep quiet last time, this time I *really*
promise to keep quiet)
Mike F
planing, which is generaly aided by keeping our weight generally forward on
the board and driving the board forward. Getting our weight forward starts
with putting much or even most of our weight in the harness, with the
remaining weight bias being imparted with our feet (if there is NO weight on
our feet, that's defined as a catapult). Forward foot weight on the board
AND forward drive on the board are most easily achieved, seems to me, with
the front foot ... i.e., unweighing the back foot and using the FF to both
weight and drive the nose forward to achieve earlies planing ... or winning
a tug of war. Doing this leaves the back foot doing nothing AND leaves us
vulnerable to a catapult. Both problems are solved and time is saved by
sticking that bored back foot into its strap where it can be useful again
even though unweighted.
Now our weight is divided between the harness (the mast foot) and the front
foot, and the front foot is driving the board forward, promoting earlier
planing (on most boards under a meter wide). As soon as I'm planing, THEN I
transfer weight to the strapped back foot to the extent the board tail will
stay planing as pressure is transferred to it and footsteer with it
(admittedly tougher if the back strap is way out on the very rail of a wide
board) while I unweigh the now unneeded FF to put it in its strap. Thus
there is never any pressure tending to sink the tail as there often is when
the front foot is lifted first. I FFF only when already planing fully AND my
stance and feet position happen to favor it AND I trust the wind power not
to double in the next heartbeat AND the terrain is not too high and fractal
AND the mood strikes me.
It's easy to see how you missed that, considering the sheer volume of this
topic and the flood of personal issues some people feel compelled to force
upon us.
Mike \m/
"Martin Allen" <mr.m...@virgin.net> wrote in message
news:1ipVa.752$2u.1...@newsfep1-win.server.ntli.net...
Mike F
telling vulnerable novices/intermediates that they must FFF or die. While it
would be NICE if people would also stop slapping me upside the head for
suggesting BFF as an alternative, it is not important to those
novices/intermediates.
And don't start telling teen-agers that eating dog food will enable them to
lick their privates. The demand and price of dog food would skyrocket.
Mike \m/
"Frank Weston" <fr...@weston-american.com> wrote in message
news:S4acnRXIg-k...@comcast.com...
Mike F
into the strap, followed by the back", that is by definition FFF. FFF and
BFF in the same start are mutually exclusive. The only exception I can think
of is when both feet enter their respective straps simultaneously, which
I've managed only a few times.
As for the advantages to BFF, set aside a day and read my explanations on
BFF, starting with my previous post.
Mike \m/
"Tigger" <addisonch...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:5dbd4861.03072...@posting.google.com...
Mike F
correctly, usually address the issues rather than personalities. What more
could we want?
I agree that good sailors successfully and usually should sheet out very
momentarily to bleed off an unmanageable gust when not planing yet, but many
novices overdo this, giving the COE time to move aft in the sail and thus
rounding up. I'd like to add that this out-sheet should be very brief,
barely even observable, followed by quickly sheeting in the instant balance
is recovered so they can harness the extra power to get planing.
I might add that this quick out-in action is more efficient and thus quicker
with a roller harness bar, because it allows moving only arms, not arms,
shoulders, and upper torso.
Mike \m/
"unixmidiplugin" <ho...@bnl.gov> wrote in >
> What if there were another way to depower the sail to prevent
catapults?
> A way that did not stall the sail? A way that allowed you to "master" the
> conditions, not just "survive" them. The obvious other option is to sheet
out
> the sail. That way you don't need body weight or leverage. If your weight
is
> on both feet, standing on the board, you should probably be able to sheet
out
> rather quickly by rotating your shoulders from "parallel" to the board
toward
> "square" to the board. You can stay in the harness, and leave your arms
straight.
>
steven
with anybody else's. I was merely explaining my experiment, the
results, and my analysis of the problem as it relates to me. I don't
doubt that bff works for a lot of people. But I don't seem to have the
problem (catapulting) that it seems to be solution for, and after
trying bff, I don't see any advantage to it as yet. Meanwhile, there
seem to be number of good sailors who use fff. I'm looking the world
speed record web site, and Robby Naish and Antoine Albeau both do it,
although I'm sure they can both do whatever they want. Likewise for
anybody else out there. I just don't know that one method has proven
superiority over the other, because it very much relates to the
sailor's idiosyncracies.
I got yanked over the rig because I was hunting around for the back
strap, and eventually got pulled over the front. If my weight had been
back, then I wouldn't have gotten pulled over. I really don't have my
weight distributed the way you suggest. The front foot is pushing, but
my back leg is my anchor. And if I'm going to do much sailing on one
foot, it would definitely be on my back foot.
As for the jibing comment, I think the idea is that you jibe with the
front foot in the strap and the back foot out of the strap. Yet
somehow you can stay in control and not get catapulted. So it's clear
that you can stay in control sailing this way.
"Mike F" <iso...@urxSpamDam.com> wrote in message news:<aOhVa.5499$R43...@fe01.atl2.webusenet.com>...
Martin Allen
version of this debate and found it worked well. I will have to try it in
less powered conditions and see how it feels.
Cheers,
Martin
"Mike F" <iso...@urxSpamDam.com> wrote in message
news:HZyVa.494$Qv6...@fe01.atl2.webusenet.com...
Mike F
FFF to follow.
Mike \m/
"Martin Allen" <mr.m...@virgin.net> wrote
> I will have to try it
Mike F
places far less emphasis on max gusts. I see many people rigging never to be
overpowered, and in most places I've sailed that leads to huge amounts of
the isometric hula, followed next by some slow planing, then by occasional
fast bursts of speed. It costs them a great deal of planing time unless the
winds are unusually steady. I've seen people slog near-sinkers for well
over 50% of a long session, then complain about the holey wind as we came in
together, after what I considered all-time great sessions of very steady
winds which kept me planing for hours on end on smaller boards but much
larger sails.
Logic, TOW, and the extension of principles from many other endeavors in
life indicate to me that rigging to plane in most of the lulls has several
benefits:
1. It places our planing time in the MIDDLE of the sail's wind range, rather
than at one end, so the sail (or the dirt bike's suspension, or the race
car's power band, or the mutual fund's response to market vagaries) can work
its magic through the greatest input range possible.
2. It leaves room for, and even promotes, skill improvements which should
soon eliminate getting overpowered in the gusts. They can ... and I have ...
always jump in the water and wait a minute if the gusts get totally out of
hand, but that minute beats slogging for 5 or 10 minutes in the lulls, IMO.
3. It leaves room for, and even promotes, skill improvements at the early
planing end of the spectrum in the worst lulls.
If the sail (and/or board and fin or mutual fund or suspension setting or
cylinder compression, let's say) are chosen for one end of their performance
spectrum, we'll never know what might have been at the other end. In your
example, it denies us the opportunity, even the POSSIBILITY if no 3-sigma
gusts roll through, to challenge our upper skills or the sail's upper range.
Until some big, honkin', world-class speed sailor tries it and pronounces
that 'That sail will not handle any more power" ... ya just never know what
your sail is capable of. And until we get some appreciable TOW
"overpowered", we'll never realize that one guy's "overpowered" is the next
guy's meat and potatoes, maybe even marginal, power.
Why launch into this off-topic diatribe ... again? Because EVERY day on the
water I see a huge minority of people a) spending literally half their TOW
slogging if it's gusty or barrrrrrrrrely planing if it's less gusty, b)
complaining that it's too holey to enjoy, and often even c) quitting because
it's too gusty (often called too "windy" if they obsess on the gusts). Many
of these people sail full time or nearly so from Baja to Canadian lakes, and
many more are Gorge fixtures. Yet on most of those same days a large chunk
of us are having a blast, planing hard 95% or even a hundred percent of the
time because we've rigged to plane in most of the lulls and expanded both
our skills and our confidence in our gear.
Certainly some people just don't like sailing fast, or sailing powered up,
even on their small boards, but they're a small minority. The ones who
complain that it's too holey (they rigged to small) or too gusty (they
rigged too big) could reduce that complaint by expanding their skill and
confidence by operating in the middle of their performance range rather than
at either end.
Way back on the last windy day I saw (it's 110 today and the nearest wind is
two states away last time I checked), two regular Gorge sailors my size quit
because they were overpowered on 5.0s and it was just an hour 'til dark. I
was wishing my 5.0 was a 5.5, making do on more board than I would have
preferred. That difference often runs to a full meter, even in the 4.0
range, partly because I've usually rigged as per my second paragraph most of
my sailing history. And here's the part that scares me: there's a whole
'nuther level of skills represented by guys my size on 6.0s and 7.0s in
those same conditions. They may or may not go any faster than I in the
gusts, but they see NO lulls, so their average speed is in the stratosphere.
That puts me right back in the middle, right where I want to be, doesn't it?
Too long-winded? Maybe ... but how does one motivate and/or persuade people
to try something new other than hitting a point from several sides? No one's
making the choir read this preaching.
Mike \m/
"Juri Munkki" <jmu...@cc.hut.fi> wrote in message
news:bg5l9h$h57$1...@nntp.hut.fi...
MTVNewsGuy
which
places far less emphasis on max gusts. >>
Maximizing planing time in lulls is far more achievable with FFF technique.
Sailing with only the front foot in the straps is an early planing technique in
light to moderate winds. And removing the back foot from the back strap in
severe lulls can be coupled with increased mast base pressure to maintain
planing without digging in the tail.
Michael
US5613
Chris Kuryllo
The first time I went BFF was only a month ago and it happened quite
naturally. I was "fighting" with my sail and board to get going in a big
gust when I realized that my back foot was already on the back strap. So I
gave it a try and was surprised how much easier it was to point the board
more downwind and then put my front foot in the strap without a fear of
being catapulted. Although the board accelerated very fast, everything was
so smooth and I loved it.
On another day, I tried the same trick when I wanted to get on a plane in
rather underpowered conditions with small waves. I put my BFF and waited for
a wave. On the top on the wave, I raked the sail all the way back and slid
down the wave. That was just what I needed it to get on a plane and again it
was very smooth. With FFF, I had a very small success rate while trying to
take advantage of waves to get me on a plane. Usually I wasn't fast enough
with my back foot.
Just try it and see yourself whether it works for you. On the other hand, in
the conditions you sail you may not have to be this creative.
Cheers,
Chris
"Tigger" <addisonch...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:5dbd4861.03072...@posting.google.com...
Paul Braunbehrens
> What if there were another way to depower the sail to prevent catapults?
> A way that did not stall the sail? A way that allowed you to "master" the
> conditions, not just "survive" them. The obvious other option is to sheet out
> the sail. That way you don't need body weight or leverage. If your weight is
> on both feet, standing on the board, you should probably be able to sheet out
> rather quickly by rotating your shoulders from "parallel" to the board toward
> "square" to the board. You can stay in the harness, and leave your arms
> straight.
>
> Now I'm well out of my element. I am no instructor. Could Roger or Ellen
> or
> someone more qualified chime in and suggest whether this theory is off base or
> not?
>
> -- Larry (Yes I realize I promised to keep quiet last time, this time I *really*
> promise to keep quiet)
I don't think you need to keep quite, discussions of technique that
don't rehash old stuff are always interesting to me.
Sheeting out while only in front strap will (for me) turn the board
into the wind and or catapult me if I try to prevent it. It's like
you're on a pivot (your front foot) and you have no way of stopping the
momentum, other than unhooking and completely sheeting out and hope you
don't loose your balance.
Paul Braunbehrens
FFonly. BFF is a technique for getting into the straps, and it
obviously works. If the wind drops down, and you have too much weight
on the tail, you take you back foot out of the strap. So what?
The same goes for conditions where you won't make both straps. Just
sail FF only, I don't see the problem. If you feel like you have the
power needed and you end up putting your back foot in the straps, no
BFF police will come after you, I promise.
This whole discussion is starting to border on the ridiculous. The
biggest deal in WS is being comfortable on the board. If BFF gets you
sailing in the straps, then I see no reason not to use the technique.
If some conditions warrant FFF, of FF only, then use those.
I really don't see the big deal.
In article <20030729210335...@mb-m25.aol.com>, MTVNewsGuy
Juri Munkki
>Another goal some people prefer is maximizing their planing time, which
>places far less emphasis on max gusts. I see many people rigging never to be
>overpowered, and in most places I've sailed that leads to huge amounts of
>the isometric hula, followed next by some slow planing, then by occasional
>fast bursts of speed. It costs them a great deal of planing time unless the
>winds are unusually steady. I've seen people slog near-sinkers for well
>over 50% of a long session, then complain about the holey wind as we came in
>together, after what I considered all-time great sessions of very steady
>winds which kept me planing for hours on end on smaller boards but much
>larger sails.
One of those UK magazines (forgot which), wrote that most people are
happy if they can just plane a certain percentage of their session.
I think the quoted percentage was about 75%. For recreational sailing,
that's quite enjoyable. Nothing wrong with that.
BTW, nothing wrong with having to do some extra pumping etc to get
the board planing, if that's what you enjoy. In fact, I find that I
do enjoy the challenge of getting the board to plane in marginal
conditions. If I'm already on my largest sail, then it's pretty much
the logical thing to do anyway...
It actually works both ways: people often don't realise their full
low wind planing potential, just as they don't realise the full
high wind potential.
>Too long-winded? Maybe ... but how does one motivate and/or persuade people
>to try something new other than hitting a point from several sides? No one's
>making the choir read this preaching.
By being to the point, short and concise. And by letting all flowers bloom.
A quote:
"I basically (and honestly) have no objection to any of the
inconceivably multitudinous things that people find to occupy
themselves with in this hobby. If it's not a crime, then it
ain't nobody's business but your own."
http://www.steves-digicams.com/smp/05112003.html
Read the full article - it's pretty good stuff. While it appears to
have nothing to do with windsurfing, I find most of the content
very much to the point when it comes to all these little flame wars
people have here and on other message boards.
Tigger
point of what I was trying to ask. What I mean is: Is it possible to
go bff without taking a step back down the board first, i.e. can you
jump on the board and DIRECTLY go for the backstrap, or do you have to
step back first? I'm not sure I could reach the backfootstrap from my
initial (jump on board) stance, perhaps because I like a wide
footstrap stance.
regards
"Mike F" <iso...@urxSpamDam.com> wrote in message news:<YazVa.548$Qv6...@fe01.atl2.webusenet.com>...
MTVNewsGuy
FFonly. >>
I wasn't. A post in this thread addressed maximizing planing time. In
conditions where that is a primary issue the pros and cons of which foot goes
into the straps first are quite different than in the max gust conditions that
have been often discussed in this thread.
Lastly from me on this topic (I hope)...you wrote
<<the biggest deal in WS is being comfortable on the board. >>
To which I say "Yes, but..." I'd agree that if you try something again and
again and put your time in on the water and remain uncomfortable, you're doing
something wrong or your gear is somehow wrong. However, there are a number of
ways to sail or set up your gear which can feel comfortable, but which end up
being sizeable roadblocks to a sailor improving or learning more advanced
maneuvers and techniques. If a sailors final goal in windsurfing is to be
able to plane in powered conditions in a straight line (ie if early planing is
not a concern or goal) then it probably doesn't make any difference which foot
goes into which strap first. But, if early planing is a goal, I think it is.
Also, barring extreme winds and or big chaotic chop, I think the skills and
board control necessary to get sailing FFF is a prerequisite to being able to
smoothly set up for planing jibes.
A lot of what is behind schools of instruction like ABK or Dasher in Aruba, or
Jason Voss's work in the Bay area, is that they don't want to teach you
something that will work for you at one level that you'll have to unlearn later
to advance to another level. None of those schools will tell you not to do
something that works for you in crazy conditions. But in conditions where you
are in control, or almost in control, they emphasize sticking with technique
that you'll use as you advance. That's FFF.
The reason I feel strongly about all this is that I learned to windsurf BFF
(amongst other things) taught by a bunch of friends who'd pretty much developed
their own rules of technique. Ultimately I reached and got stuck on the same
plateau that they were on, more or less. When I decided to try lessons to
improve, I found myself first having to unlearn a number of techniques,
including BFF, so I could get on with advancing. Within two years, I went from
(in a group of 8 sailors) the least capable sailor to the best sailor. There
were 7 lessons during that time, all of which hammered "don't just worry about
what works now, but focus on what's going to work now and later".
If you like your windsurfing skill set now, and just want to get on the water,
then none of this matters. Me, I'm hooked on getting better at what I do, and
learning new moves. I'm inspired by sailors who can do things I can't and are
still trying to get better themselves, For the record, UnixMidiman goes out on
the water on old tattered gear, and can rip 50 different planing moves. He
also sails in nonplaning conditions, and does a hell of a lot then too. Mike,
on the other hand, limits his sailing, as he's explained. He sees intermediate
sailors doing things that he has no interest in even trying (I think that's
what you said, Mike, correct me if I'm wrong.) He is only interested in
sailing in chop or waves. No flat water, no freestyle, no big sails, no no
racing, no nonplaning. Within what he is interested in doing, his technique
advice presumably works. But there's a lot of windsurfing to be done outside
those parameter, and his advice often does not transfer, in my opinion.
If Iwent to the Gorge (and I hope to one day) I would absolutely take Mike up
on suggestions of what to do if I was having trouble, including doing things
that I don't do now. Outside of those conditions, however, I can pretty much
do whatever I want outside of advanced freestyle and racing, and I think there
is better advice out there for non-megachop/high wind conditions.
Michael
US5613
Frank Weston
"Mike F" <iso...@urxSpamDam.com> wrote in message
news:b6CVa.11$GN6...@fe01.atl2.webusenet.com...
Frank Weston
"Mike F" <iso...@urxSpamDam.com> wrote in message
news:R_CVa.48$GN6...@fe01.atl2.webusenet.com...
Frank Weston
"MTVNewsGuy" <mtvne...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20030729210335...@mb-m25.aol.com...
Frank Weston
"Paul Braunbehrens" <baka...@removethisbakalite.com> wrote in message
news:290720032231402873%baka...@removethisbakalite.com...
Frank Weston
"MTVNewsGuy" <mtvne...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20030730081320...@mb-m23.aol.com...
Frank Weston
"Juri Munkki" <jmu...@cc.hut.fi> wrote in message
news:bg7r0k$ltg$1...@nntp.hut.fi...
Frank Weston
"Chris Kuryllo" <kury...@rogers.com> wrote in message
news:5fIVa.25185$rsJ....@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
Frank Weston
"Paul Braunbehrens" <baka...@removethisbakalite.com> wrote in message
news:290720032218597198%baka...@removethisbakalite.com...
Frank Weston
"Tigger" <addisonch...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:5dbd4861.03073...@posting.google.com...
BarryWind
I'm a part time tele instructor and I tell my students to ignore the screams
from their brains that make them lean into the hill, when they should be
doing the opposite. It's a primal survival instinct - people don't want to
die head first - feet first will do just fine... I can relate from the
little bit of baseball that I played as a kid - sliding for home feet-first
was preferred over headfirst - gotta protect the head. Jamming a foot into
the rear strap, in all conditions, is just an instinctive way to keep from
getting pulled forward and slammed. So much for instinct...
-B
"unixmidiplugin" <ho...@bnl.gov> wrote in message
news:12075c07.03072...@posting.google.com...
>... and that you've found a "safety stance" which protects you from that
possibility.
>
> That reminds me of standing at the bottom of a steep, gnarly ski slope
> and watching skiers descend. It is common for skiers who sense that they
> are losing control to go into a "safety stance". Skiers will know what I
mean.
...snip...
Mike F
exceptions, confusion, wrong assumptions, etc. Thorough is more efficient,
IMO.
Mike \m/
"Juri Munkki" <jmu...@cc.hut.fi> wrote in message
news:bg7r0k$ltg$1...@nntp.hut.fi...
unixmidiplugin
> Re: Safety stance...
> I'm a part time tele instructor
A kindred soul! I am an advanced alpine skier, but only an
intermediate tele skier. That means that on those steep, gnarly
slopes, even while my tele instructors are yelling at me to get out
of my "survival stance" I still feel the need to "eat dogfood" (but
I'm not proud of it, and don't encourage others to emulate me).
I'm also a beginner snowboarder. I can handle groomed slopes,
but not moguls, parks, or pipes. Does that mean I'll start kiting
soon? AFAIK, one *always* straps on a snowboard FFF.
-- Larry (looking forward to my next backcountry tele trip in the
White Mountains).
P.S. Speaking of the White Mountains, someone ought to bring a
medium sized lake up there some time. Last time I was there, the
sustained winds were just over 100 MPH at the peak of Mt. Washington,
with gusts to 130. Even on the lee side, our camp kept getting
slammed by what felt like 60 knot blasts.
Mike F
feet can afford to be aft even though we're not in the harness yet. I
usually waterstart with my back foot in its strap even if too underpowered
to plane to provide max board control, but there's no WEIGHT on that foot as
I exit the water. As for beach starts, I can't remember that last time I did
one (at most spots I sail, we can very seldom walk out to the wind line)
unless you count what I call jump starts: stand waist-to-chest-deep, get in
beach start position, sheet in at the same time I jump off the bottom, clear
the board, and come down on it on a plane. In this case foot position isn't
too critical, but in a normal beach start too much weight on the tail digs
the fin into the bottom. The smaller the board the bigger that problem.
Mike \m/
"Tigger" <addisonch...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote
Cliff Frost
> That takes too much time, and very often leads to countless questions,
> exceptions, confusion, wrong assumptions, etc. Thorough is more efficient,
> IMO.
> Mike \m/
Mike,
One thing I learned the hard way (which seems to be how I learn
everything, sigh) is that if I seem to get into similar unpleasant
situations with a variety of different people then maybe there is
something I'm doing that I can change.
Now I notice two things here:
1) you seem to get into heated discussions with a wide variety of people
on a fairly regular basis; and
2) you seem always (or maybe just almost always) to blame others for this.
Maybe you're doing something you can change. Probably not without effort,
and quite likely you enjoy the heat anyway.
In an earlier post, Bob Jacobson did a good job of dissecting what
he experienced trying to communicate with you. I believe he hit the
nail right on the head.
Cheers,
Cliff
ps I've never tried BFF on my smaller stuff.
On Formula gear I almost always start with my back foot in the chicken
strap, then front and then back. CFB (Chicken-Front-Back)?
Still, if BFF helps someone get past a learning hump then I've no
objection but I hope that person should then learns how to do FFF as
soon as possible.
pps I guess Frank might say I prefer chicken food to dog food. ;-)
Mike F
>
> A lot of what is behind schools of instruction like ABK or Dasher in
Aruba, or
> Jason Voss's work in the Bay area, is that they don't want to teach you
> something that will work for you at one level that you'll have to unlearn
later
> to advance to another level. None of those schools will tell you not to
do
> something that works for you in crazy conditions. But in conditions where
you
> are in control, or almost in control, they emphasize sticking with
technique
> that you'll use as you advance.
Then why does Dasher (or was it Tinho?) teach straight-legged jibing?
> That's FFF.
Which, once again, says that BFF is wrong for advanced sailing.
I've never seen any rationale why that's true. All I've seen so far is that
"everybody FFFs, so it must be right, maybe even the ONLY right way."
> The reason I feel strongly about all this is that I learned to windsurf
BFF
> (amongst other things) taught by a bunch of friends who'd pretty much
developed
> their own rules of technique. Ultimately I reached and got stuck on the
same
> plateau that they were on, more or less. When I decided to try lessons to
> improve, I found myself first having to unlearn a number of techniques,
> including BFF, so I could get on with advancing.
You keep referring to this "plateau". Please explain it to me; if I'm at a
plateau because of my BFF, I'd sure like to know about it so I can work
around it or start FFFing and get over the plateau. The conditions in which
I prefer BFF get pretty extreme sometimes, yet BFF also works fine for me in
waterstarting/jibing/limited slogging in sub-planing winds, on boards of any
length. If I'm wrong in recommending it as an altenative, I want to stop
doing so, but until someone can point out this "plateau" or any other
downside of BFF, I have no motivation or rationale to change my thinking, my
advice, or my technique.
Mike \m/
Mike F
"Cliff Frost" <cl...@ack.Berkeley.EDU> wrote in message
news:bg9424$2nsh$1...@agate.berkeley.edu...
> Mike F <iso...@urxspamdam.com> wrote:
> > That takes too much time, and very often leads to countless questions,
> > exceptions, confusion, wrong assumptions, etc. Thorough is more
efficient,
> > IMO.
>
> > Mike \m/
>
> Mike,
>
> One thing I learned the hard way (which seems to be how I learn
> everything, sigh) is that if I seem to get into similar unpleasant
> situations with a variety of different people then maybe there is
> something I'm doing that I can change.
>
> Now I notice two things here:
>
> 1) you seem to get into heated discussions with a wide variety of people
> on a fairly regular basis;
No argument there. But notice who gets heated and quickly goes personal ...
and who doesn't.
and
> 2) you seem always (or maybe just almost always) to blame others for this.
I blame them for the OT ad hominem heat, rather than for the debate.
> Maybe you're doing something you can change.
Sure; I could simply shut up, or cave in even on topics I feel strongly
about. I've done the former often (believe it or not), but am unlikely to do
the latter when I believe a third party is being misled.
> and quite likely you enjoy the heat anyway.
The heat, no; debate, yes.
> ps I've never tried BFF on my smaller stuff.
Neither have many who denigrate it.
> if BFF helps someone get past a learning hump then I've no
> objection but I hope that person should then learns how to do FFF as
> soon as possible.
So once again someone who has never tried BFF implies it is wrong. I don't
get it ... but then I've been through that with Bonzers ... and closing the
gap, and short harness lines, and camless sails, too, so it shouldn't
surprise me.
I hope my terse responses here don't seem flippant, because your tone was
nothing less than magnanimous and helpful. To me terse => brusque, but some
people say I'm too long-winded, so I've compromised. Did terse raise your
hackles in this instance?
Mike \m/
Cliff Frost
> people say I'm too long-winded, so I've compromised. Did terse raise your
> hackles in this instance?
Ok, you asked. ;-)
Your reply didn't come across as terse at all. Count me amongst those who
much prefer terse.
Your note did, however, raise my hackles in one instance. And in two other
places it appeared to me you missed the point of what I was trying to say
and then jumped to unwarranted conclusions.
Here goes:
1) Hackle raising quote:
> So once again someone who has never tried BFF implies it is wrong.
This raised my hackles a little because I did not say that BFF is wrong
and didn't mean to imply it is. I understand how you came to this conclusion,
but you didn't have to respond the way you did. You could, for example,
have asked me if that was what I meant first.
2) Missing the point:
>> 2) you seem always (or maybe just almost always) to blame others for this.
> I blame them for the OT ad hominem heat, rather than for the debate.
> and who doesn't.
Your comment *exactly* illustrates the point you're missing. I sometimes
read the debates you engage in and I have to say I usually find your tone
absolutely as insulting as most of the folks you're debating against.
3) Missing the point again (and this is the only important point):
>> Maybe you're doing something you can change.
> Sure; I could simply shut up, or cave in even on topics I feel strongly
> about. I've done the former often (believe it or not), but am unlikely to do
> the latter when I believe a third party is being misled.
I think you've got one heck of a lot more options than that!
One thing you could do is this: think of someone whose "newsgroup behavior"
you really like. Study how that person interacts. Emulate.
Another thing you could do is ask more questions.
You've got plenty of imagination, I'm sure you can come up with dozens of
other options if you really think about it.
Thanks for saying my note was helpful, that is how I intended it. Dunno
about magnanimous however--it would be mildly helpful to me if I came back
from vacation without finding several dozen flames in my favorite newsgroup. ;-)
Thanks,
Cliff
MTVNewsGuy
<< MTVNewsGuy" <mtvne...@aol.com> wrote
>
> A lot of what is behind schools of instruction like ABK or Dasher in
Aruba, or
> Jason Voss's work in the Bay area, is that they don't want to teach you
> something that will work for you at one level that you'll have to unlearn
later
> to advance to another level. None of those schools will tell you not to
do
> something that works for you in crazy conditions. But in conditions where
you
> are in control, or almost in control, they emphasize sticking with
technique
> that you'll use as you advance.
Then why does Dasher (or was it Tinho?) teach straight-legged jibing?>>
Dasher most definately doesn't. I've never seen Tinho teach jibing, and don't
know what he teaches.
<,<Which, once again, says that BFF is wrong for advanced sailing.
I've never seen any rationale why that's true.>
It is more disruptive to the board's trim in the water than FFF, and it
requires more wind to plane than FFF. >>
"
> The reason I feel strongly about all this is that I learned to windsurf
BFF
> (amongst other things) taught by a bunch of friends who'd pretty much
developed
> their own rules of technique. Ultimately I reached and got stuck on the
same
> plateau that they were on, more or less. When I decided to try lessons to
> improve, I found myself first having to unlearn a number of techniques,
> including BFF, so I could get on with advancing.
You keep referring to this "plateau". Please explain it to me; if I'm at a
plateau because of my BFF, I'd sure like to know about it so I can work
around it or start FFFing and get over the plateau. The conditions in which
I prefer BFF get pretty extreme sometimes, yet BFF also works fine for me in
waterstarting/jibing/limited slogging in sub-planing winds, on boards of any
length. If I'm wrong in recommending it as an altenative, I want to stop
doing so, but until someone can point out this "plateau" or any other
downside of BFF, I have no motivation or rationale to change my thinking, my
advice, or my technique.>>
I've never seen you sail, Mike, so I don't know what plateau you may or may not
be on. Certainly I don't recall reading you discussing trying to learn a
technique or a move in the present tense. I don't think I've ever seen you ask
for advice on technique. As you wrote earlier, there are many things you are
not interested in even trying. I am curious...what's the last breakthrough
you've had on the water? But I was not talking about your plateau, or you, I
was talking about BFF, which, with the exception of extreme conditions, is in
my neck of the woods only employed by sailors stuck on plateaus that they've
been on for years. Not that there aren't FFF sailors on plateaus, not that I
don't get stuck on plateaus, but the back foot gang haven't improved in a long
time. They've found a way to be comfortable, and they're sticking with it.
One of the great things about both Dasher and Andy Brandt is that they
reexamine and revise how and what they teach. They're in the business of
improving people's sailing, not defending a position. And they teach for
sailing in a wide variety of conditions (in Aruba, Dasher is VERY big on
teaching technique that will work in the Gorge, San Francisco Bay etc, and is
always on the watch for technique that will fly on Aruban flatwaters but not
where the sailor lives.) Neither of them have a problem leaving some choices
to the sailor...the "catch the boom after jibing underhand vs overhand" they'll
give you the pros and cons of each and tell you what they recommend, but in the
end advise go with what works for you. When these top instructors, who
teach people of all sizes and abilities who sail in all conditions, stick with
FFF for all but chaotic conditions, I think its a strong vote in favor of FFF.
I encourage people who are interested in improving their windsurfing to
consider professional on-the-water instruction. It's extraordinarily helpful,
and is more useful than the best written advice, here or in a magazine or book
or videotape (though tapes are the best of the alternatives...you can learn
much by watching). I learned the hard way, waiting for years before I took
lessons.
Michael
US5613
Jerry McEwen
times when the front foot works, but there's not enough wind to get to
the back strap. Does that help you follow what I'm asking?
On Mon, 28 Jul 2003 20:23:13 -0700, "Mike F" <iso...@urxSpamDam.com>
wrote:
>Sounds more like NFF than BFF or FFF.
>
>Mike \m/
>
>"Jerry McEwen" <rec...@mail.not> wrote
>> Sometimes I like to sail with both feet out on the
>> rail, neither in a strap, but feet next to each other in the "sweet
>> spot".
>>
>> I cannot envision same using BFF.
>
>
Jerry McEwen
china. :)
On Tue, 29 Jul 2003 09:39:58 -0400, "Frank Weston"
<fr...@weston-american.com> wrote:
>This whole discussion is sort of like what would happen if Mike said he
>likes to eat dog food from the can. Lots of us would be horrified, some
>would admit that they did it too, and a few might even try it. It would be
>an endless topic for debate and there would never be any agreement between
>the two sides.
>
>And, at the end of the day, it wouldn't make any difference. Unless, of
>course, eating dog food caused the development of special talents like the
>ability to scratch behind your ear with your foot or to lick your private
>parts, in which case a person might find it more efficient to go BFF.
>
>Frank Weston
>
Jerry McEwen
On Tue, 29 Jul 2003 11:40:54 -0700, "Mike F" <iso...@urxSpamDam.com>
wrote:
> The demand and price of dog food would skyrocket.
>
>Mike \m/
Mike F
after just an hour I return to find three earnest (thus worthy of an
answer), lengthy, complex, topical questions awaiting ... and that's not
unusual?
"Cliff Frost" <cl...@ack.Berkeley.EDU> wrote
> it appeared to me you missed the point of what I was trying to say
> and then jumped to unwarranted conclusions.
> 1) Hackle raising quote:
> >> So once again someone who has never tried BFF implies it is wrong.
> This raised my hackles a little because I did not say that BFF is
wrong
> and didn't mean to imply it is. I understand how you came to this
conclusion,
> but you didn't have to respond the way you did. You could, for
example,
> have asked me if that was what I meant first.
I perceived no need to question your statement that "if BFF helps someone
get past a learning hump then I've no objection but I hope that person
should then learns how to do FFF as soon as possible". It implies only one
thing to me, and that is that there's something wrong with BFF in the long
haul.
> 2) Missing the point:
Cliff:: 2) you seem always (or maybe just almost always) to blame others for
this.
>
Mike: > I blame them for the OT ad hominem heat, rather than for the
debate.
>
Cliff: Your comment *exactly* illustrates the point you're missing. I
sometimes
> read the debates you engage in and I have to say I usually find your
tone
> absolutely as insulting as most of the folks you're debating against.
Exactly why I don't waste much time trying to anticipate how a large group
of other people of many backgrounds might react to my comments. I try very
hard to phrase most of my comments in the same neutral, fact- or
opinion-based, objective, impersonal manner which I have used for decades as
a technical writer and iin working with engineers across the board, in order
to minimize emotional responses ... or at least free myself of
responsibility for THEIR emotional sensitivities. Arrogant? No, just direct.
Insulting? Only if a) I fail to remain objective, in which case it is my
fault or b) a reader can't face facts or accept my right to an opinion, in
which case it's his problem. I can think of absolutely nothing I can do to
prevent a reader from infusing his emotions if that's how s/he operates, and
can't and won't go through life trying to tiptoe through everyone's tulips.
PC is constipating our society, and beyond being civil, there's little to
nothing we can do to avoid offending SOMEONE.
And it sounds like you and I interpret "ad hominem" differently (I have yet
to see it defined). To me, it means deliberately attacking the messenger as
a substitute for (or adjunct to) debating the topic -- a technique which
seems to be the mainstay of some people. To you, from your words, ad hominem
seems to include any comment to which someone reacts emotionally negatively.
I am dismayed, but can't help it, when someone feels insulted by facts or
topical opinions, but I don't consider that ad hominem. Maybe I need a latin
dicitionary.
> 3) Missing the point again (and this is the only important point):
>
Cliff: >> Maybe you're doing something you can change.
>
Mike: > Sure; I could simply shut up, or cave in even on topics I feel
strongly
> > about. I've done the former often (believe it or not), but am
unlikely to do
> > the latter when I believe a third party is being misled.
>
Cliff: I think you've got one heck of a lot more options than that!
> One thing you could do is this: think of someone whose "newsgroup
behavior"
> you really like. Study how that person interacts. Emulate.
I have seen no one yet ... including myself ... whose online behavior I
would choose to emulate. Just as any and all of us could list negative
aspects of my online behavior, I could list negative aspects of the online
behavior of everyone I can think of here. Seems we're all human! I have made
changes here in response to others' input and/or reactions, but that doesn't
necessarily include emulation. The changes have been primarily fact-checking
before typing, primarlily in response to world-class nitpicking 5-6 years
ago.
>
> Another thing you could do is ask more questions.
Yes, I could, and I do so when in doubt. But when another's statement seems
clear to begin with, I stop asking and start typing. I sometimes get the
impression -- beginning >50 years ago -- that some people would like us to
ask them if everything we're about to say is OK, and to avoid saying it if
it's not OK with everyone. That clogs up the world, and makes about as much
sense to me as Harvard Law School's thwarted attempt to make that a Law
School law last year: "Anyone who says anything that offends anyone is
subject to disciplinary action." Now THAT'S offensive!
> You've got plenty of imagination, I'm sure you can come up with dozens
of
> other options if you really think about it.
Haven't yet.
>
> it would be mildly helpful to me if I came back
> from vacation without finding several dozen flames in my favorite
newsgroup. ;-)
I consider flames to be the flamer's, not the flamee's, problem. I've been
asked many times by many people over many decades how I can respond so cooly
to personal verbal assaults. It's really pretty simple, for two reasons:
1. I've been angry myself, so I understand the emotion.
2. People who routinely resort to that type of ad hominem attack simply
prove their incapacity to respond logically and objectively. This is their
problem, not mine, and it is then my choice whether to work with them or
ignore them, depending on whether I perceive they're trying to resolve
issues or simply wage war. One's worth my time, the other's not. Arrogant?
Nope; fact. And solvable with technology once the latter is identified.
Mike \m/
Mike F
>
> Then why does Dasher (or was it Tinho?) teach straight-legged jibing?>>
>
> Dasher most definately doesn't. I've never seen Tinho teach jibing, and
don't
> know what he teaches.
>
surprised that -- then I guess it was -- Tinho's straight-legged method
failed him in the real world.
Mike: >>Which, once again, says that BFF is wrong for advanced sailing.
>> I've never seen any rationale why that's true.>
MTV: > It is more disruptive to the board's trim in the water than FFF, and
it
> requires more wind to plane than FFF. >>
Debatable ... and debated ... and probably dependent on the gear involved.
>>
> I've never seen you sail, Mike, so I don't know what plateau you may or
may not
> be on.
Me, neither ... which is why I asked what plateau you knew of that BFFers
may encounter.
> I don't think I've ever seen you ask
> for advice on technique.
The last time I did, I got first and foremost several rations of vile crap
from cynical people who claimed I was deliberately disguising criticism as a
legitimate question. Can't believe it STILL took me another whole year to
filter the bastards. (Now, THAT'S ad hominem. Cliff.) It was quite a while
and many posts before some more rational people contibuted some actual
advice on staying upwind in a heavy coastal rip current and holey impact
zone winds. Another time, when I asked about my jibing ability backslide
during a thread with a sports medicine physician and balance expert, the
question was ignored. And I asked for advice on solving several cultural
problems at our trashed-out, vandalized Gorge park, and 90% of the >100
responses were the usual vile crap from the usual suspects, including
repeated accusations of being a lying bigot. The Corps of Engineers
ultimately acted on the Roosevelt Management Plan I recommended to them
based on the 10 or 12 useful responses, but the price was heavy. (Not a
technique issue, but a legitimate request for topical advice from a group of
stakeholders, nontheless.)
>...what's the last breakthrough
> you've had on the water?
I ask myself every evening what I learned that day, and way more often than
not I come up with a positive answer, partly because I push myself past my
limits every day I sail. But after so many years at this, and after having
tried racing and freestyle and tricks in this and other sports and gotten
quickly bored with them (the activities, not the sports), big breakthroughs
are seldom. It's little steps now, except finding last week that my inner
ear loss has not completely precluded wave sailing, so my next objectives
include improving specific coastal sailing skills in preparation to spending
more time on the coast, especially the minute my wife retires (she wants to
go along).
For a whole year one jibing bud kept telling me "A jibe should be a
looooong, drawn-out, arc of at least 200 feet", insisting that my attempts
at tight ones were doomed. He still loses 200 feet of ground in his jibes; I
now often cross my own wake within seconds with no loss of speed whatsoever
between one beam reach and the next, in my attempt to emulate Bruce P's pool
table bank shots -- or crash trying.
I hope my days of sailing to stay dry, as some people here and elsewhere
have said they do, are still 10-20 years away. One very good sailor who
sails everything from big races to waves told me he will pass up a big jump
if he thinks it will cost him his plane, and that's on lakes where just
planing is about we CAN do on many days and big jumps are a rare treat.
> But I was not talking about your plateau, or you, I
> was talking about BFF, which, with the exception of extreme conditions, is
in
> my neck of the woods only employed by sailors stuck on plateaus that
they've
> been on for years.
That's not the case here. The BFFers I queried here have no problem playing
in anything the Gorge throws at them 8-10 months out of the year. It is so
natural and logical to us that we can't understand why it's any more
controversial than sail color.
> One of the great things about both Dasher and Andy Brandt is that they
> reexamine and revise how and what they teach. They're in the business of
> improving people's sailing, not defending a position.
Exactly why I advocate that people having trouble getting in the straps
explore the OTHER successful method as an alternative. Why it even needs
"defending" is beyond me, especially considering how much more logical it is
in most scenarios. And maybe Andy's reexamination is why ABK switched to
teaching boom-to-boom jibing ... well more than a decade after Monte turned
me on to it.
> Neither of them have a problem leaving some choices
> to the sailor...the "catch the boom after jibing underhand vs overhand"
they'll
> give you the pros and cons of each and tell you what they recommend, but
in the
> end advise go with what works for you.
> I encourage people who are interested in improving their windsurfing to
> consider professional on-the-water instruction. It's extraordinarily
helpful,
> and is more useful than the best written advice, here or in a magazine or
book
> or videotape (though tapes are the best of the alternatives...you can
learn
> much by watching). I learned the hard way, waiting for years before I
took
> lessons.
I'd love to avail myself of that. As I've discussed before, I've tried to
get lessons several times, ranging from one-hour jibing sessions with Cadiz
on Maui to a 40-hour week of personalized one-on-one instruction in a
two-page list of WSing skills from a top-notch racer and wave competitor in
Corpus Christi. The outcome of those and similar fiascoes turned me off to
committing another expensive vacation to lessons; I'll get 'em when the
opportunity arises. Besides, what I want to do is get out on the water and
slash and bash and tear the swell to little pieces, and I have yet to see
anyone do that harder than I do. I'm sure plenty of people do, but I ain't
seen 'em yet; I'd have to guess they're on waves, sailing powered up rather
than sliding down the waves on gravity power. Maybe that's why so many
people comment on my sailing. Would I like to improve my skills in that
regard? Sure. Is it worth several thousand bucks for a special lessons trip
to Maui or some place? Not 'til my wife retires in 18 months and can go
along.
> When these top instructors, who
> teach people of all sizes and abilities who sail in all conditions, stick
with
> FFF for all but chaotic conditions, I think its a strong vote in favor of
FFF.
I agree. That's why I don't say FFF doesn't work. But I've also seen
"experts" say in magazines that we should sheet out during high-speed
carving jibes and that the extra weight of a spinning wheel is what allows a
dirt bike to loft its front wheel in a jump, was told by a Gorge instructor
that rider weight is of no consequence in early planing on a sinker, and was
told by Cort Larned that switching both feet simultaneously was ludicrous.
Heck, there are still "experts" who think the Atkins diet is healthy, fer
gosh's sake! And maybe they'll even be proven right when the study hits the
10- or 20-year stage ... MAYBE. When and if they are, I'll rewrite my
position on THAT.
Mike \m/
Mike F
Mike \m/
"Jerry McEwen" <rec...@mail.not> wrote in message
news:c52hivcvf47e4tu96...@4ax.com...
Tom Whicker
I'm just back from three weeks at the NC coast. Sailed eight different
boards
sized from 220 litres down to 70 litres in wind from gusty 25kts down to
lazy 8kt days. BFF always works great. Out of boredom one day I tried
to
find a single reason for FFF. It's just not there. In all cases for me
BFF is
quicker to plane and superior from a control standpoint.
On most boards I come up from a waterstart and go directly into the back
strap on the way up. As my butt clears the water the back foot is already
in there applying some toe pressure to level the board. No weight is put
on the foot; just a horizontal toe force to get the fin to provide lift and
point the board down wind.
With a 6.0 sail and Veloce 278 (100 litres) in 15kts wind, I waterstart
straight into the back strap and am up to full plane within three seconds.
On an 8kt day, I sail an 8.5 on a long board and waterstart straight
into the back strap.
Hit a lull? The front foot comes out and moves forward. Back foot
stays in the strap.
Tom Whicker
Chapel Hill, NC
WARDOG
Mike F wrote:
> Besides, what I want to do is get out on the water and
> slash and bash and tear the swell to little pieces, and I have yet to see
> anyone do that harder than I do. I'm sure plenty of people do, but I ain't
> seen 'em yet; I'd have to guess they're on waves, sailing powered up rather
> than sliding down the waves on gravity power. Maybe that's why so many
> people comment on my sailing.
I've SEEN quite a few sailors shred the Gorge in my time, at least 2
dozen of the top guys went on to become some of the world's top
wavesailors who use gravity and a little bit of wind for their sails to
surf the waves and one is even the World Champ...some pretty hot women
sailors, also...no reason to name drop, but for the life of me, I don't
remember one of them being a 60+ year old, anal curmudgeon with a
propensity for bombastic hyperbole, wearing a helmet, goggles, and
faceshield, with lifejacket and seat harness over a drysuit using a 5
finned board with a slotted fin!!!...;-)
Any pictures?
A picture would be worth 1000 of your words.
Maybe Hans could scan them for you, unless you finally got that scanner
software figured out...;-)
Some people need to get out more...reality check time...maybe that heat
wave has poached your brain...take the couple hour drive to the Hatchery
Jibeatorium , Dougs, the Wall, or hell, even the Coast the next day with
"waves" and wind and actually observe some good sailing...if you don't
want to leave your kingdom, you could even order out a video and/or DVD
and have it sent to you...
WARDOG (keepin' it *real*, AGAIN...;-)
http://www.surfingsports.com
BarryWind
pretty good technical skiers and some windsurf [added to keep the thread
topic police at bay]. Your wide variety of snow conditions must mandate good
skiing ability. Out here, we [me included] tend to get jaded with soft and
dry snow. I haven't alpine skied since about '82. I can make it down the
'blue' runs on a snowboard, but really I'm content to just carve up anything
soft on tele gear. If you ever venture out to NM, let me know and we'll give
you the tour...
Re: BFF/FFF and snow sports...
I'll have to add - NFF - no feet first... ;^)
-B
"unixmidiplugin" <ho...@bnl.gov> wrote in message
news:12075c07.0307...@posting.google.com...
> "BarryWind" <barr...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:<svQVa.114$jg7...@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>...
> > Re: Safety stance...
> > I'm a part time tele instructor
>
> A kindred soul! I am an advanced alpine skier, but only an
> intermediate tele skier...snip...
> I'm also a beginner snowboarder. I can handle groomed slopes,
> but not moguls, parks, or pipes. Does that mean I'll start kiting
> soon? AFAIK, one *always* straps on a snowboard FFF.
>
> -- Larry (looking forward to my next backcountry tele trip in the
> White Mountains).
...snip...
Frank Weston
"Tom Whicker" <t.wh...@mindspring.com> wrote
> On most boards I come up from a waterstart and go directly into the back
> strap on the way up.
>
> With a 6.0 sail and Veloce 278 (100 litres) in 15kts wind, I waterstart
> straight into the back strap and am up to full plane within three seconds.
>
> On an 8kt day, I sail an 8.5 on a long board and waterstart straight
> into the back strap.
>
Sounds to me like you're waterstarting way too much.
Frank Weston
Tom Whicker
> "Tom Whicker" <t.wh...@mindspring.com> wrote
>
> > On most boards I come up from a waterstart and go directly into the back
> > strap on the way up.
>
>
> Sounds to me like you're waterstarting way too much.
>
> Frank Weston
You prefer to uphaul?
Mike F
It was just another open-minded sailor who has seen the LIGHT. ;-)
Mike \m/
.
"Tom Whicker" <t.wh...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:3F28C26D...@mindspring.com...
Scott G
like a jibe entry!
Flexion, angulation, knee drive, knee bend, etc.
If you enter a turn tele, and come up and back down in a reverse tele
(still making the same turn) that is like a jibe with a foot change!
The only problem, is you can't pretend to oversheet with your hands -
to bring your inside hand to the back of the turn is to invite the
rear ski to skid out - gotta keep those hands forward.
Scott G
"BarryWind" <barr...@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:<xM8Wa.514$jp....@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net>...
Frank Weston
Frank Weston
Weed Fin
<<Any pictures?
A picture would be worth 1000 of your words.
Maybe Hans could scan them for you, unless you finally got that scanner
software figured out...;-)>>
I think Windsurf, Windsport or American Windsurfer magazine ought to do a story
on Mike F. I would love to see pictures Mike F at his age getting monster air,
slicing and dicing huge overhead swells in 40 knot winds. It would be an
inspiration for all us baby boomers.
Mike F
claimed, monster air.
Mike \m/
"Weed Fin" <wee...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20030731191651...@mb-m21.aol.com...
Martin Allen
first time in non overpowered conditions. Worked fine in moderateley powered
conditions and seemed like it could be an advantage in the unusually (for
us) gusty conditions we had today.
I'd say idealy you should learn to do both and choose the best method for
you/the prevailing conditions.
I think that is what you are saying isn't it Mike?
I haven't got much of a problem with the way you are saying it. Your initial
post to Hans seemed a bit disrespectfull but no where near as bad as some of
the posts you have been subjected to.
Martin
"Mike F" <iso...@urxSpamDam.com> wrote in message
news:ZpdWa.750$GN6...@fe01.atl2.webusenet.com...
Weed Fin
<<To set the record straight, I've very seldom been accused of, and never
claimed, monster air.>>
I would be very interesting if one of the windsurfing mags did an article with
pictures on older sailors of the Gorge. It's a topic that's never been done
before as far as I know.
Mike F
news:C2jWa.10066$Id1.7...@newsfep2-win.server.ntli.net...
> Out today on 125 liter with 8.0m, and 95 liter with 5.4m tried BFF for the
> first time in non overpowered conditions. Worked fine in moderateley
powered
> conditions and seemed like it could be an advantage in the unusually (for
> us) gusty conditions we had today.
>
> I'd say idealy you should learn to do both and choose the best method for
> you/the prevailing conditions.
>
> I think that is what you are saying isn't it Mike?
>
> I haven't got much of a problem with the way you are saying it. Your
initial
> post to Hans seemed a bit disrespectfull but no where near as bad as some
of
> the posts you have been subjected to.
Absolutely, positively, and repeatedly. ;-)
Mike \m/
Mike F
than I out there in big conditions, including some women, I'd guess (but
never ask). You'll find if you stay at it that 60 is hardly an issue except
maybe in day-in, day-out durability.
Mike \m/
"Weed Fin" <wee...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20030731211502...@mb-m21.aol.com...
Tom Whicker
> "Tom Whicker" <t.wh...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> news:3F295A1C...@mindspring.com...
> > Frank Weston wrote:
> >
> > > "Tom Whicker" <t.wh...@mindspring.com> wrote
> > >
> > > > On most boards I come up from a waterstart and go directly into the
> back strap on the way up.
> >
> > > Sounds to me like you're waterstarting way too much.
> > >
> > > Frank Weston
> >
> > You prefer to uphaul?
> >
> I prefer to make my gybes.
>
> Frank Weston
Good, Frank. That is the first step toward improving.
BarryWind
Great observation. Yeah, I never thought about the parallel between a tele
turn and a carved jibe either. Thx for the teaching tidbit, next time I
teach a tele or windsurf lesson. They both feel so good when done properly.
Perhaps that's why I like the feel of a reverse foot jibe [flip the sail
before the feet] over a step jibe and don't really like to step jibe unless
I'm on race gear and/or in light wind. I should back up a bit - plastic tele
boots have taken a bit of the feel out of the turn... There are a lot of
similarities between a tele turn and a jibe, like the stance and being on
the balls of the feet. And even the arm and upper body movements share
similar stance mechanics. Which somehow brought to mind...
Years ago, ~'87, I went to a ski swap and bought some cheap and long alpine
rock skis. I then put on a pair of tele bindings mounted about 6" further
back than normal, machined some aluminum blocks to mount a rubber hourglass
about a foot in front of each binding, and connected the two skis with an
aluminum bar [~14" long] connected to each uni. Put another uni and base cup
at the middle of the connecting bar to be able to connect a windsurfing rig.
My apologies for not having a picture here. My intent was to take it up to
one of a couple places in NM with relatively open and rolling terrain [if
you're familiar with NM, Valle Grande or Chama]. However, after my
tele-ski-sailor sat in the garage for two winters without being used, I
robbed the unis and the skis got tossed...
However, I'm really going to try harder this winter and make a date with a
ram kite and tele gear. I've got a 2.2 Windwing but that may be too small,
unless it's a stinkin' blizzard. Might have to try this with a 5-6 meter
kite. Oh, and some snow this winter sure would be nice too...
-Barry
"Scott G" <surfsa...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:89787298.03073...@posting.google.com...
Frank Weston
Let's kill this thread.
Go here: http://www.insults.net/html/odd/random.html
select the criteria that best fit your case and press the button.
Frank Weston
Tom Whicker
Frank,
First the stuff about the dog food. Now the insults. A typical
result of going FFF for so many years!
Cliff Frost
> Jeez, guys ... is it any wonder I go on and on and on and on and on, when
> after just an hour I return to find three earnest (thus worthy of an
> answer), lengthy, complex, topical questions awaiting ... and that's not
> unusual?
Well, I'm sorry you didn't take the time or make the effort to understand
what you were replying to. Your responses are 100% off-target.
So much off-target that I have to suspect you didn't spend more than a
few seconds reading and absolutely no time thinking about what I wrote.
This is probably the key aspect of your behavior that causes a wide variety
of folks to react negatively to you.
On the other hand, maybe you did spend a lot of time trying to learn something,
and maybe you really are incapable of seeing it. In that case you'll probably
just continue your pattern of getting into lengthy heated and sometimes nasty
debates.
No skin off my nose, really, so I'm not going to continue to "clog up the
world" with this discussion. Best of luck to you.
Cheers,
Cliff
ps If you want to continue the discussion let's take it to email. I won't
reply on this topic on the newsgroup--specifically to keep from wasting
other people's time.
Chris Kuryllo
"Frank Weston" <fr...@weston-american.com> wrote in message
news:JvmdnfjiC6A...@comcast.com...
Paul M
found that I needed more support in the feet - very strong sideway forces
when kiteskiing. Regular downhill boots worked best for me. YMMV
-P
"BarryWind" <barr...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:kLtWa.1358$jp...@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net...
Mike F
them very carefully and repeatedly before responding to them, and re-read
them again now. I just don't see any other interpretations than my initial
ones. I can only guess we just think very differently. And certainly I can't
control others' nasty tangents.
Mike \m/
"Cliff Frost" <cl...@ack.Berkeley.EDU> wrote in message
news:bgeg83$520$1...@agate.berkeley.edu...
Cliff Frost
...
> ... And certainly I can't
> control others' nasty tangents.
We agree on this. The only point I was attempting to make is:
You can change your behavior and thus change repeated
patterns of interaction.
It appears to me that you don't want to change. If so, that's fine.
(And it's not at all interesting to hear your reasoning on why you might
not want to change--so please spare us!!!)
If I'm wrong and you do want to change I'm very open to more discussion
on the subject.
Cheers,
Cliff
ps For a concrete and easy to find example of where you completely
missed a point in the earlier thread, check out what you wrote about
ad hominems and whether I used a different definition than you.
In fact, I never once said or even remotely implied anything
at all about ad hominems. To understand this, recognize that
ad hominems are only one way of being rude or insulting or otherwise
unpleasant in a discussion. There are literally thousands of other
ways of being nasty, some even have fancy latin names.
Again, a description of why you misinterpreted what I wrote is
completely uninteresting. (Since anyone can easily see where you got
off-track, such a description is actually annoying. It reads like
self-justification.)
mauialan
proponent. I for one would like comment from professional
instructors/sailors, not amateurs.
Me, I'm a FFF guy. I am a very competent Maui sailor, not prolevel, but
better than most of the amateurs out here. I went out the other day and did
BFF a bunch, just to check it out. It is possible, but sure feels weird to
me, as it makes my legs get too far apart for good stability. I think if the
main advantage is to avoid catapulting, then there is something else going
on here. I do FFF first, and catapults are a vey rare event, and when they
happen it's usually because I hooked in before planing, and was inattentive
to a gust coming, usually near the end of a session when I'm getting tired.
I also watched at Hookipa the other day, focusing only on the guys I
considered to be the best out there, to see what they do. The answer: FFF.
Dan Weiss
straps bff. It typically unsettles the board and
is mostly employed when waterstarting very small boards in very, very
overpowered conditions. I used to do this on a tiny little Clam Sandwich
and quite often when sailing in the Gorge, but almost never when sailing
anything larger than 85 liters. Conventional wisdom is get in the straps
FRONT FOOT FIRST. You are completely right, Alan. Take it from Tinho:
http://www.windsurfingmag.com/article.jsp;jsessionid=1EB17CF1997B998CC7EB149
32D3AB378?ID=30430&typeID=167&categoryID=100
--
-Dan
"mauialan" <maui...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote in message
news:tKcXa.2441$5e.1...@twister.socal.rr.com...
Mike F
You've not been reading the posts, or are reading the posts of the people
who are not reading the posts. Catapult insurance is but a beneficial side
effect of the real rationale of BFF.
The best guys also use waist harnesses. Does that make Surf Seats wrong?
Mike \m/
"mauialan" <maui...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote
> I went out the other day and did
> BFF a bunch, just to check it out. It is possible, but sure feels weird to
> me, as it makes my legs get too far apart for good stability. I think if
the
> main advantage is to avoid catapulting, then there is something else going
> on here.
> I also watched at Hookipa the other day, focusing only on the guys I
Tom Whicker
> Maybe I misunderstand, but I don't think most people regularly get into the
> straps bff. It typically unsettles the board and
> is mostly employed when waterstarting very small boards in very, very
> overpowered conditions. I used to do this on a tiny little Clam Sandwich
> and quite often when sailing in the Gorge, but almost never when sailing
> anything larger than 85 liters. Conventional wisdom is get in the straps
> FRONT FOOT FIRST. You are completely right, Alan. Take it from Tinho:
> http://www.windsurfingmag.com/article.jsp;jsessionid=1EB17CF1997B998CC7EB149
> 32D3AB378?ID=30430&typeID=167&categoryID=100
I sail in moderate, East coast conditions. Bff works much better on every
board I've sailed, in 8kts or 28kts. It allows you to keep your weight
supported easily over your front foot, whilst your back foot goes weightlessly
wherever you need it to go. The wider stance is more stable and allows
you to put your center of gravity wherever you want it.
Conversely, the FFF method forces BOTH feet to the back of the board.
There is no way to do this without shifting weight toward the back. This,
of course, means you have to be up to speed *before* you get into the
straps. How is this a preferred condition?
Beginners are much more likely to sink the windward rail in their attempt to
get
both feet back there. They get off the centerline, they oversheet the sail,
they
sink the rail, they round up.
With the BFF method, the front foot supports the
weight forward and well over the center line. Most beginners get it smoothly
the first time. A number of beginners that have taken certified lessons and
still can't get in the straps have seen the Bff method described on this forum
and they've had overnight success. Proof is in the pudding.
For the more advanced sailor, the Bff method allows you to
go into the back strap as part of a waterstart. You can apply toe pressure
to the fin and be on a plane before your butt has ever cleared the water!
Good for the beginner, good for the advanced sailor. And before anyone
says anything about dog food: It makes its OWN GRAVY!!
Conventional wisdom has been wrong before. Consider the
conventional wisdom on high jumping or the conventional wisdom
on how to shoot basketball free throws!
Regards,
Dan Weiss
pump, right? I agree that using FFF shifts weight to the back, but that's
pretty much the point, I guess.
I dunno, I figure I better be up to some sort of speed before I get in the
back strap. :)
--
-Dan
"Tom Whicker" <t.wh...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:3F2DC00F...@mindspring.com...
Tom Whicker
> Yes, BFF does force both feet back. but I assume you step back part way to
> pump, right? I agree that using FFF shifts weight to the back, but that's
> pretty much the point, I guess.
>
> I dunno, I figure I better be up to some sort of speed before I get in the
> back strap. :)
Dan,
Under 12kts I sail longboards, so I don't know how this applies to formula
stuff.
Sure, in light wind I wait for a bit of speed before putting either foot in.
But even on a longboard and an 8.5 I go Bff. Often with back foot in and
the centerboard partially down to rail the board up about 30deg. Front foot
moves around freely to control the railing. Last week in 8kts I beat all the
wideboards this way.
(I'm sure none of them were formula experts...so don't get me wrong :^)
But at 13kts and above, I'm on short boards and here you just pop that back
foot in as you are coming up from a waterstart. You never really stand up on
the board at all, you just hang straight down from the boom with arms fully
extended overhead. Back toe goes into the back strap at the same moment
your butt comes up outta the water. Front foot slides just up on rail beyond
the front strap. Neither foot is putting any weight on the board as you are
hanging from the sail.
The board immediately bears off and you are up to plane speed really
quick. In the next second, you just come up far enough to hook-in. You
are now in fully sheeted sailing stance with your front foot just in
front of the front strap. At your leisure, you go ahead and put the front
foot in. This is not a high wind technique; works any time you have
enough wind to waterstart. It works so smoothly I just don't know
how changing to FFF could improve any aspect of it. Do any of you
sailors waterstart straight into the front strap? Maybe there's
something I'm missing......
Disclaimer:
I'm a self taught windsurfer and this is the way I've always done it since
the iridium settled on the KT boundary. 8^)
frusdniw
FFF, and if there was a chance I'd ever go BFF.
This is what I determined: I go FFF because on my way toward the back of
the board, moving back as board speed increases, it's natural to just
stick the FF in the that strap. It's the first strap I come across. I
also am almost always hooked in before I get in the straps. I can't ever
recall being in the straps first, though I'm sure it has some uses ( I
know some have mentioned going into the straps before harness on the new
Hypersonic, for example ). I point this out because I don't think feet
weight is much of an issue. I have most of my weight in the harness.
One time I purposely avoided putting my foot in the first strap, and the
next natural thing was to put the BF in it's strap. So, I'm guessing
those that like BFF are avoiding putting that first foot in the strap as
you make your way back on the board. I don't know why you would avoid it,
I feel better with my feet in the straps asap if I'm moving along at all.
Even on strap to strap jibes I come out into the front strap.
I still think that FFF is more useful. I understand someone might want to
go BFF for awhile to get over the significant hurdle of using
footstraps. After that, though, if the person is still going BFF, I think
(oh yeah Mike, this is an OPINION) they are content with how they are
sailing. If that's you, fine. If it's not you, if you want to improve,
if you are not content and you are going BFF, it's time to try something
new, I think you'll see the improvement.
Before I wrote this I went and bought an avalanche kit, so I'm ready
Mike. I've heard your side, but go ahead and try to suffocate me with a
bunch of longwinded posts. I know there's no avoiding it.
Hans
--
Hans -
http://www.windsurfingradio.com/
http://windsurf.hansanderson.com/
**** remove the z's from my email address to reach me ****
Frank Weston
Seems to me that the issue shouldn't be FFF or BFF, but balance and control.
For any given situation, there is a certain stance or position that will
yield the optimum balance and control. Thus when getting into the straps,
the issue shouldn't be which foot first, but where to be for the best
balance and control. If a person can get to that position and stick his
back foot into the straps first, he may be working more inefficiently than
the rest of us, but that's his choice.
There are people who type extremely well with just two fingers, people who
have unconventional grips and swings in golf and baseball, people who marry
members of the same sex, and people who go BFF. Who's to say they're wrong?
Certainly not the Supreme Court. The perverted practices of BFFers should
be tolerated. They're not harming anyone but themselves.
Frank Weston
"frusdniw" <frus...@haznsazznderszon.com> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.21.0308040727370.18850-100000@balingwire...
WARDOG
Frank Weston wrote:
> There are people who...marry
> members of the same sex, and people who go BFF. Who's to say they're wrong?
> Certainly not the Supreme Court. The perverted practices of BFFers should
> be tolerated. They're not harming anyone but themselves.
"A fanatic is someone who can’t change his mind and won’t change the
subject." — Winston Churchill
Well said, Frank...
Welcome to the real world, where most people choose facts over
Fickshun...;-)
We should practice tolerance, accept and embrace diversity...it's what
makes us great, as a people and a country...
Test yourself for hidden bias lingering in your psyche:
http://www.tolerance.org/hidden_bias/index.html
WARDOG
http://www.surfingsports.com
Tom
I am a long time FFF guy. When I got my F175 I switched to BFF (I can't get
it planing FFF - but that is just me - and it contradicts Roger Sailquik -
who knows way more about Formula board saling than I do.)
Going BFF helps me get a) MFP maxed out and b) control the fin. Control of
the fin is the key issue in getting the F175 planing for me. So getting my
foot in that back strap while hanging on the booms magically gets the board
on a plane.
So I tried it on my smaller boards (100 L and 86 L) and found that IMHO
getting my back foot over the fin while letting the board surf down a wave
and run downwind enables me to get the fin *hooked up* which is the key (my
key anyway) to getting the board on a plane.
So here I find myself agreeing with MikeF - but I really don't care what
anyone else does. I think everyone should try both and see what works when.
BTW, when getting in BFF, my front foot is already pretty far back -
sometimes just behind the front footstrap.
Tom - Chicago
"frusdniw" <frus...@haznsazznderszon.com> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.21.0308040727370.18850-100000@balingwire...
Dan Weiss
far as my rig power would allow, but that did not always entail the
rear foot in the back strap. For example, in marginal planing
conditions going downwind it is often faster to pump onto a plane with
your front foot in the front strap and rear foot just behind than to
put the back foot in the strap and then pump. For maximum speed in
minimum winds it can often be slow to sail with the back foot in the
strap without the front -especially as this tends to push the tail
sideways and can really reduce the effective lift coming from the fin.
It's not so much a question of rounding up but rather one of driving
as hard as I can without starting to push water from the back of the
board. Almost flat is almost right -I think 4 degrees is one ideal
angle for planing.
As for waterstarting, I'm sure you do what you say you do, but I think
the generally accepted way to waterstart in light winds (read: minimal
wind) is to be very close to the mast step. For example, if wind
drops during a waterstart, we can grab the mast below the boom with
out front hand. I can't do this effectively with my back foot in the
strap. If the wind drops further, I tend to grab the foot of my sail
with my back hand and allow the rig to tip to leeward and use its
leverage to lift me up onto the board. I feel certain that this
cannot be done without both feet free, usually stradling the mast. In
a "normal" wind shortboard waterstart, I guess you can bear so far off
the wind right before you come up that you prevent your weight from
sinking the sail or the board rounding up, since the rig itself is
pushing more directly with the center line. I don't think, however,
that waterstarting BFF is the best way to maximize waterstarting
opportunities. Maybe you run your back footstrap farther forward than
I do. That might explain a bit of your satisfaction with
waterstarting bff. Depending on the board, I sometimes would
waterstart right into the front strap, mostly with older no-nose race
boards with thick tails that took off like a rocket once powered but
rounded up so fast if my weight was too far back. Other than that, I
waterstart with both feet free of the straps and pump to a plane out
of the straps, stepping back into the front then into the back.
-Dan
-Dan
Tom Whicker <t.wh...@mindspring.com> wrote in message news:<3F2DF305...@mindspring.com>...
Mike F
"Cliff Frost" <cl...@ack.Berkeley.EDU> wrote >
> You can change your behavior and thus change repeated
> patterns of interaction.
> (it's not at all interesting to hear your reasoning on
> why you might not want to change--so please spare us!!!)
> completely uninteresting"
>open to more discussion on the subject.
Do I understand that I should agree to sign up to your program before I get
to see and/or accept it, without discussion or reasoning? I wouldn't do or
advise anyone else to accept action that unilateral in ANY scenario, whether
in behavioral
psychological therapy or used car shopping. How do your comments indicate
you're open to discussion? How is someone interested in neither my rationale
nor my priorities qualified to "cure" me? I don't know squat about
psychology, but I do suspect Bruning's cognitive, educational, interactive
theraputical approach trumps Skinner's strictly behavioral, black-box,
unilateral approach when the subjects are intelligent beings. One's
horse-whispering, the other's animal abuse. Like most
people, I'd love to improve myself, but not at the price of having someone
else determine my priorities, rationale, and actions.
If you want to make some suggestions for my consideration, as I so often do
here in response to others' queries, they would be welcome. Until then, I
must assume the foremost reason for my central part in many of the rec.w
debates is my outspoken candor, and I can't think of a reason to give that
up. Disagreements get resolved by discussing them directly, not by dancing
around them in The PC Waltz. I've been praised, repeatedly assigned, even
awarded medals as a win/win negotiator because I proved adept at dissolving
rifts by frank, open discussions among everything from two battling
individuals to Dept of Defense prime contractors, in issues ranging from
personalities to billion-dollar programs. My honest, forthright negotiation
skills averted Congressional intervention in one program and helped a
whacked-out menopausal secretary keep her job in another, explicitly because
I believe
win/win conflict resolution works best under free information
flow. I'm not interested in abandoning those principles for PC, because I
believe PC does far more harm than good, partly by leaving underlying issues
festering. That some people would rather fight than resolve issues and
others can't tolerate arguments (yet won't stop reading them) isn't
sufficient motivation for me to abandon what works when it counts. My
negotiation skills often undid problems created by my commanders'
unilateral rank-pulling, leaving a bad taste in my mouth for unilateral
action even though I also had rank to pull.
> For a concrete and easy to find example of where you completely
> missed a point in the earlier thread, check out what you wrote about
> ad hominems and whether I used a different definition than you.
You're right; the ad hominem comment I referred to was Bob Jacobson's, not
yours. I mistakenly attributed it to you, maybe because you said his
comments hit the nail on the head. My mistake.
Mike \m/
Mike F
Mike \m/
"frusdniw" <frus...@haznsazznderszon.com> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.21.0308040727370.18850-100000@balingwire...
Mike F
lost his career. The entire rest of the global medical community caused
millions of patients to suffer, even die, because the refused to see his
evidence or even consider his logic. Fortunately, the WFF issue is
infinitely less important and both approaches will ultimately work, even
though the entire rationale for BFF is exactly that: optimum balance and
control.
Mike \m/
"Frank Weston" <fr...@weston-american.com> wrote in message
news:hUednesaRuI...@comcast.com...
Mike F
foot strapped into my sinker providing precise control of board pitch, roll,
and yaw while leaving the tail virtually unweighted. .
Mike \m/
"Dan Weiss" <dwu...@bellsouth.net> wrote