Planing Threshold: Same Sailor/Sail: Starboard 120/131/144?

Planing Threshold: Same Sailor/Sail: Starboard 120/131/144?

Post by (PeteCresswell » Tue, 02 Aug 2005 05:48:34


Few days ago, we had one of those all-day teasers where me and my new 7.5 were
only planing intermittantly - yet lighter people on smaller sails and people my
size on bigger boards were constantly flying past me.

Got me thinking again about expanding my board quiver to 2 boards.

But I'm not sure where ability to plane earlier with me and my 7.5 stops and
capacity to take bigger sails than I'll ever own begins.

Until earlier this summer, I thought the cutoff point was at my Carve 123.  i.e.
larger boards offer the ability to carry more sail and therefore plane sooner
with the larger sail, but don't plane any sooner with the same weight sailor and
the same sail.    But there's this one guy that looks to weigh just about what I
do, has the same sail on a Carve 131 that is seems to be planing quite often
when I'm not.

I know for a fact that I could go to a Formula or Free-Formula board and plane
sooner with the same sail: I've tried it.  

But I'm limiting my thoughts to Starboard's "Carve" line.     Starboard bc
that's what my dealer sells and "Carve" because I find that as boards get wider
and/or slalom-ier, the joy dissipates.

Are there any other borderline clydesdales out there have direct experience with
planing using the same sail and different-sized boards in Starboard's "Carve"
line?

--
PeteCresswell

 
 
 

Planing Threshold: Same Sailor/Sail: Starboard 120/131/144?

Post by LeeD » Tue, 02 Aug 2005 06:49:43

  The elusive search for earlier planing never stops with any limits on
EQ.
  Even for 145lbs., you can search endlessly for the lowest mph limits
for planing.
  Somewhere along the line, you gotta decide for yourself what limit to
set, go with it for a season, then re-evaluate.
  Me, sailing mostly EastBay, SF Bay, biggest 94 liter and 5.7.
  Sure, I own two 130 liter superlightweight slalom boards and sails up
to 8.7 and all the 100% carbon parts for, but they never see the
outside of my garage.....for this year, and the last 3.
  Draw the line somewhere.

 
 
 

Planing Threshold: Same Sailor/Sail: Starboard 120/131/144?

Post by (PeteCresswell » Tue, 02 Aug 2005 12:18:40

Per LeeD:

Quote:
> Somewhere along the line, you gotta decide for yourself what limit to
>set, go with it for a season, then re-evaluate.
>  Me, sailing mostly EastBay, SF Bay, biggest 94 liter and 5.7.
>  Sure, I own two 130 liter superlightweight slalom boards and sails up
>to 8.7 and all the 100% carbon parts for, but they never see the
>outside of my garage.....for this year, and the last 3.
>  Draw the line somewhere.

I've been drawing that line at a 7.8 Infinity and, until recently, a Carve 123.

Now it's a 7.5 Infinity and an Aero 127.

But if I could gain, say, a solid 5 mph in planing threshold on a Carve 131 or a
Carve 145, maybe I'd accept the hassle of lugging 2 boards around......
*maybe*....
--
PeteCresswell

 
 
 

Planing Threshold: Same Sailor/Sail: Starboard 120/131/144?

Post by LeeD » Tue, 02 Aug 2005 09:40:24

  Without a major upgrade in sail size and kind, you'd be lucky to gain
ONE mph early planing by switching from 123 to 131.
  I'd suspect you can gain 1.5mph earlier planing with 160 Carve.
  So now, if you are really thinking 5mph lower winds for planing,
realistically only a Formula and 11.5 with 70 fin can be close.
  It's really hard for 220lbs'ers (wetsuit, harness, dripping wet,
booties) to plane up in lower than around 8-9mph without pro level
pumping and equipement.
  I think you are that size, forgive me if I ballooned your weight.
 
 
 

Planing Threshold: Same Sailor/Sail: Starboard 120/131/144?

Post by (PeteCresswell » Tue, 02 Aug 2005 13:06:30

Per LeeD:

Quote:
>  Without a major upgrade in sail size and kind, you'd be lucky to gain
>ONE mph early planing by switching from 123 to 131.
>  I'd suspect you can gain 1.5mph earlier planing with 160 Carve.

Tried a Carve 160 and it was just to wide.   130, I could get used to,
145...maybe..... but not 160.... and that would only be 1.5 mph, not five.

...which validates my view to date - and puts to rest my current little
obsession.   Now I can get back to enjoying my new Aero 127.

Quote:
>  So now, if you are really thinking 5mph lower winds for planing,
>realistically only a Formula and 11.5 with 70 fin can be close.

Same with a Boston Whaler.... but in both cases, the thrill is gone.
I suspect we have similar feelings in this area.

Quote:
>  It's really hard for 220lbs'ers (wetsuit, harness, dripping wet,
>booties) to plane up in lower than around 8-9mph without pro level
>pumping and equipement.
>  I think you are that size, forgive me if I ballooned your weight.

You're right on the money.   Been trying to lose 10 pounds for about fif***
years - and have succeeded in gaining 7....-).

But for me, a good 7.5 day seems more like 18 than 8....  
--
PeteCresswell

 
 
 

Planing Threshold: Same Sailor/Sail: Starboard 120/131/144?

Post by LeeD » Tue, 02 Aug 2005 10:50:56

  Well, I agree with you about not trying to own the earliest planing
and biggest EQ.
  Hope you get enough planing sailing days each season.
  Today here, slow windup from around an average of 13 at 2PM to now at
6:45 16-24mph winds at BerkeleyMarina.  I played tennis today, decided
to save some energy for the next two day's work, so got home and stayed
home by 3PM.
  Can't sail every day, hope you got some.
 
 
 

Planing Threshold: Same Sailor/Sail: Starboard 120/131/144?

Post by rod. » Tue, 02 Aug 2005 16:45:52

I've been in a similar position. Over the last two years I have kept my
largest sail at around 8.5m2 but my boards have gone down from an
original Start to a Starsurfer M, and I reasoned that as long as I kept
the sail size at 8.5, my planing threshold would not alter too much.

It's only lately that I have noticed guys planing earlier than me, and
made me realise how much the board mattered.

Now I'm back on a wide tailed model, the F-Type 158 and I have noticed
an immediate difference in my planing threshold. An added bonus is that
the wide board has also extended my sails use in the other direction as
well, allowing me to hold onto it in more wind before rigging down.

regards,

rod

 
 
 

Planing Threshold: Same Sailor/Sail: Starboard 120/131/144?

Post by Martin Alle » Tue, 02 Aug 2005 17:00:00

Quote:
> Tried a Carve 160 and it was just to wide.   130, I could get used to,
> 145...maybe..... but not 160.... and that would only be 1.5 mph, not five.

> ...which validates my view to date - and puts to rest my current little
> obsession.   Now I can get back to enjoying my new Aero 127.

Hi Pete,

Last year I made the mistake of upgrading from a bic Techno 125 to a bic
techno e large (135 litres).

The mistake was that I assumed that the extra 10 litres and 5cm of max width
would give noticeably earlier planning. In fact it planned later, but it
does turn better, handle rough water better and is easier to try and jump.

I now have a fanatic cross 120, this has the same max width as the Techno
125 but seems to plane later despite being lighter.

I assume the Aero 127 being a board that is (as I understand it) designed
for waves and manoeuvres could well be similarly not good for early
planning. I think a board of the same size or slightly larger, that focuses
more on early planning will get going noticeably earlier. But as LeeD says
not 5mph earlier unless you are going really big and wide.

But there will be somedays where that extra 2mph of threshold will make all
the difference. If there are many of those in your location it could be
money well spent.

Martin

 
 
 

Planing Threshold: Same Sailor/Sail: Starboard 120/131/144?

Post by wsurf » Tue, 02 Aug 2005 21:11:12

Quote:
> I know for a fact that I could go to a Formula or Free-Formula board and plane
> sooner with the same sail: I've tried it.

Face the reality Pete. If you want to plane in light wind, this plus
bigger rig and fin is your only ticket.

Quote:
> But I'm limiting my thoughts to Starboard's "Carve" line.     Starboard bc
> that's what my dealer sells and "Carve" because I find that as boards get wider
> and/or slalom-ier, the joy dissipates.

I hear you. I try to not sail my F175 whenever possible. I have had
some amazing success with a C145 Wood, 9.3 Nitro4, and a 52cm Tectonics
Mirage. This was in 15-18mph in fresh water. I seemed to blow by the
lightweights on freeride gear, Not Formula.

Quote:

> Are there any other borderline clydesdales out there have direct experience with
> planing using the same sail and different-sized boards in Starboard's "Carve"
> line?

I am not borderline. I weigh #245 now on a 6'6" frame. I can take my
C145 up to 30mph with a 6.0 Retro and feel totally in control in small
chop. I step on my C121 if the wind will sustain 25mph or greater.

For me, I would like to see what a Aero or Cross 117 would do in the
higher winds... but I really need a test drive, which is what I suggest
you do if at all possible.

Somebody on a different list talked about all the money he spent trying
to get his quiver right FOR HIM. I have to agree, what works for me,
generally is a lot different than for others. I may well be beyond
clydesdale ;)

 
 
 

Planing Threshold: Same Sailor/Sail: Starboard 120/131/144?

Post by (PeteCresswell » Wed, 03 Aug 2005 03:46:40

Per Martin Allen:

Quote:
>I assume the Aero 127 being a board that is (as I understand it) designed
>for waves and manoeuvres could well be similarly not good for early
>planning. I think a board of the same size or slightly larger, that focuses
>more on early planning will get going noticeably earlier. But as LeeD says
>not 5mph earlier unless you are going really big and wide.

I concur.   This thing is optimized towards turning, low-speed maneuvering, and
wave riding.   It's just not reasonable to expect it to plane as readily as,
say, a Carve of similar size.... and I accept that.

Quote:
>But there will be somedays where that extra 2mph of threshold will make all
>the difference. If there are many of those in your location it could be
>money well spent.

That's the judgement call.    Is the extra hassle of lugging 2 boards around
worth it?   Right now, I'm reverting to "No" - based partially on limited
brainpower.... i.e. the more time I spend on one board, the better chance I have
of progamming myself to step in the right spots at the right time.  

In fact, I just bought a 6.0 to use on those "No way Jose'" days when planing is
clearly out of the question.  The idea is improve my sense of where to step and
when by just fooling around - using the sail mainly for balance.

Maybe sometime we'll have a demo day where the wind is in that mystical range
and I can revisit that decision in light of a couple of other boards A/B'd
against the Aero.

--
PeteCresswell

 
 
 

Planing Threshold: Same Sailor/Sail: Starboard 120/131/144?

Post by (PeteCresswell » Wed, 03 Aug 2005 03:54:54

Per wsurfn:

Quote:
>but I really need a test drive, which is what I suggest
>you do if at all possible.

Been driving it for several weeks now.  I *think* it's my new one-board quiver.

OTOH, I'm a bay sailor who doesn't get much wind above 6.6 - although I'm
looking forward to a NE day when I can try it out at one of the local inlets.

My smallest sail is a 4.7 and when sailing it on my Carve 123 it's pretty
obvious that a small board would work a lot better.... but for something that
only happens once a year or so, I elected to stay with one board.

I've sailed the Aero briefly in 5.4 conditions and it seemed to work ok for me.
It definately gets bounced around by chop more than the Carve, but it's so
maneuverable that it's almost moot - I go slow enough to zig-zag between the
bumps, which to me seems like the whole point of sailing... sort of a Walter
Mitty wave sailor....
--
PeteCresswell

 
 
 

Planing Threshold: Same Sailor/Sail: Starboard 120/131/144?

Post by Will » Wed, 03 Aug 2005 01:01:30

Pete,

You pretty much saw what you need:  a wider board (especially in the tail)
will get you planing (and more importantly, planing thru the lulls) earlier.
The bigger board will pump off the wind better and allow for bigger fins,
which means slower planing threshold. (you can slow-plane for much longer).

I owned the C131 and it was an excellent board, but at my weight (250lbs)
and athletic pumping ability, it was not enough volume or width for the 7.5
underpowered.  I now own the MADD 165 (80cm wide) - and I can pump a 7.5
onto a plane and sustain it in fairly light winds.  I can also comfortably
sail the 9.0 Retro (which was not very comfortable on the C131) on the MADD
165.

Pete, the Aero is a slow-to-plane board (relative to free-ride/FW shapes) -
it's not an "early planer" - I don't think that board will make you happy
for flat-water/light-air sailing....you need a wider tail, which will handle
bigger, more efficient fins, especially if you are a heavyweight.

Sounds like the C131/C140 size *boards would be your ticket for pure
flat-water fun.  Good luck getting all dialed in...

-WillV-


Quote:
> Few days ago, we had one of those all-day teasers where me and my new 7.5
> were
> only planing intermittantly - yet lighter people on smaller sails and
> people my
> size on bigger boards were constantly flying past me.

> Got me thinking again about expanding my board quiver to 2 boards.

> But I'm not sure where ability to plane earlier with me and my 7.5 stops
> and
> capacity to take bigger sails than I'll ever own begins.

> Until earlier this summer, I thought the cutoff point was at my Carve 123.
> i.e.
> larger boards offer the ability to carry more sail and therefore plane
> sooner
> with the larger sail, but don't plane any sooner with the same weight
> sailor and
> the same sail.    But there's this one guy that looks to weigh just about
> what I
> do, has the same sail on a Carve 131 that is seems to be planing quite
> often
> when I'm not.

> I know for a fact that I could go to a Formula or Free-Formula board and
> plane
> sooner with the same sail: I've tried it.

> But I'm limiting my thoughts to Starboard's "Carve" line.     Starboard bc
> that's what my dealer sells and "Carve" because I find that as boards get
> wider
> and/or slalom-ier, the joy dissipates.

> Are there any other borderline clydesdales out there have direct
> experience with
> planing using the same sail and different-sized boards in Starboard's
> "Carve"
> line?

> --
> PeteCresswell

 
 
 

Planing Threshold: Same Sailor/Sail: Starboard 120/131/144?

Post by quadzill.. » Wed, 03 Aug 2005 01:02:21

Seems like since you already bought a 127, getting a 131 Carve would be
similar floatation and maybe ending up with two boads with similar
performance. So, a 145 Carve would have more floatation for sure and be
more forgiving in marginal wind. One thing I have found using bigger
boards is that putting a smallish sail like a 7.5 on a 145+ board
doesn't really increase the light air planability a huge amount as
compared to putting a bigger sail on. When I put my 7.5 on my FF157 the
board is a real dog and takes a bunch of wind to plane easially but
when I put a 9.0 on it it planes right up. Another factor is that a big
board would like to have the footstraps mounted outboard and it would
need to have two footstraps on the big wide tail to leverage the big
fin needed. I assume this is a issue to you? Anyway, big guys sailing
in marginal wind is a different ballgame than for small sailors and if
your goal is to plane as soon as they do, then a 121 or a 127 with a
7.5 won't cut it. A 7.5 on a 145 would give you maybe a couple of mph
and a easier platform to slog on but a board this size needs a meter+
bigger to get the performance you want. No free lunch for the over
200#ers.
 
 
 

Planing Threshold: Same Sailor/Sail: Starboard 120/131/144?

Post by Tom - Chicag » Wed, 03 Aug 2005 01:11:14

Pete:

Check me if  I'm wrong -  but you don't live in the Bay area where leaving
anything bigger than 94L and 5.7M in the garage is an option - right?

If you are like most of us *inlanders* then you have

1. limited sailing opportunities, and
2. inconsistent, unpredictable and mostly light wind
3. a job, family or other stuff that can get in the way when it does blow

If any or all of the above is true - then you can't do what LeeD does.  I
think you should consider a BIG board.  I went from racy slalom gear to a
Formula board for my big set-up a few years ago - and no matter what people
say about how boring it is sailing Formula boards - there is something
magical about getting that machete of a fin hooked up, your feet in the
straps, your weight*** on the booms as the Fboard begins to fly.
Apparent wind builds and it goes faster, and faster.

Someone in another thread mentioned the Formula-Centric concept of the sail,
the fin and me.  That is what it is.

As for e***ment - give it a go with your 9M rig and formula board in
20+kts.  Takes everything you have not to sheet out in the gust - because if
you do - it all goes airborne.

So yes.  This midwest sailor admits to LOVING his *board Formula and Retro
quiver.

My goal was a 2 board quiver - and I settled on a F175 and a 100L ProTech
ATC 270 .  Of course I eventually had to get a smaller board for those few
days when the stars align and I get to sail in big wind and waves - so I got

Many good arguments for not using Formula type gear - but if you are an
inland sailor who can't afford to be choosy - I think you should give it
serious consideration.

Tom - Chicago


Quote:
>  The elusive search for earlier planing never stops with any limits on
> EQ.
>  Even for 145lbs., you can search endlessly for the lowest mph limits
> for planing.
>  Somewhere along the line, you gotta decide for yourself what limit to
> set, go with it for a season, then re-evaluate.
>  Me, sailing mostly EastBay, SF Bay, biggest 94 liter and 5.7.
>  Sure, I own two 130 liter superlightweight slalom boards and sails up
> to 8.7 and all the 100% carbon parts for, but they never see the
> outside of my garage.....for this year, and the last 3.
>  Draw the line somewhere.

 
 
 

Planing Threshold: Same Sailor/Sail: Starboard 120/131/144?

Post by JimmySmitsLovesChocolateMil » Wed, 03 Aug 2005 00:52:51

I'm going to concur with Tom,

Wide boards are a tone of fun.
I have a f155 and just love being able to skim across  flat water at 11 mph
of wind.
no whitecaps, no chop,  just flat smooth quiet speed.

I use a 10.5 sail, it sounds HUGE,  but, I actually owned tom's old 9.5 and
this new 10.5 has a shorter luff length, and is much easier to control

different wind calls for different disciplines.  light wind windsurfing is
still windsurfing, and it is very much fun.

http://SportToday.org/|y05|r58|b178

while my older *board is now only available on the used market,
this AHD looks to have somewhat similar dimensions.



Quote:
> Pete:

> Check me if  I'm wrong -  but you don't live in the Bay area where leaving
> anything bigger than 94L and 5.7M in the garage is an option - right?

> If you are like most of us *inlanders* then you have

> 1. limited sailing opportunities, and
> 2. inconsistent, unpredictable and mostly light wind
> 3. a job, family or other stuff that can get in the way when it does blow

> If any or all of the above is true - then you can't do what LeeD does.  I
> think you should consider a BIG board.  I went from racy slalom gear to a
> Formula board for my big set-up a few years ago - and no matter what
> people say about how boring it is sailing Formula boards - there is
> something magical about getting that machete of a fin hooked up, your feet
> in the straps, your weight*** on the booms as the Fboard begins to
> fly. Apparent wind builds and it goes faster, and faster.

> Someone in another thread mentioned the Formula-Centric concept of the
> sail, the fin and me.  That is what it is.

> As for e***ment - give it a go with your 9M rig and formula board in
> 20+kts.  Takes everything you have not to sheet out in the gust - because
> if you do - it all goes airborne.

> So yes.  This midwest sailor admits to LOVING his *board Formula and Retro
> quiver.

> My goal was a 2 board quiver - and I settled on a F175 and a 100L ProTech
> ATC 270 .  Of course I eventually had to get a smaller board for those few
> days when the stars align and I get to sail in big wind and waves - so I

> Many good arguments for not using Formula type gear - but if you are an
> inland sailor who can't afford to be choosy - I think you should give it
> serious consideration.

> Tom - Chicago



>>  The elusive search for earlier planing never stops with any limits on
>> EQ.
>>  Even for 145lbs., you can search endlessly for the lowest mph limits
>> for planing.
>>  Somewhere along the line, you gotta decide for yourself what limit to
>> set, go with it for a season, then re-evaluate.
>>  Me, sailing mostly EastBay, SF Bay, biggest 94 liter and 5.7.
>>  Sure, I own two 130 liter superlightweight slalom boards and sails up
>> to 8.7 and all the 100% carbon parts for, but they never see the
>> outside of my garage.....for this year, and the last 3.
>>  Draw the line somewhere.