I just found your 120L freeride test. The board that seems really interesting is the Futura. The board is by far the fastest, and also, by far the most difficult to control. It seems that Star-Board has mis-classified this board, maybe on purpose.

Designing the fastest AND most difficult board doesn't seem to be that hard to do. What if AHD's SL1, Tabou's Manta, Fanatic's Falcon, etc. had been labelled as freeride boards by their companies. If any of these had been in the test instead of the Futura, they probably would have been the fastest and most difficult to control. Conversely, Exocet could call the Cross a slalom board, and if a slalom board test was done, it would be the easiest slalom board to sail.

Am I off base here? When the testers found the Futura difficult to control, do y'all think it was as hard to control as other companys' slalom boards? Is the Futura more of a slalom board than a freeride board?

Hi joe

Cant speak for Adrian but i have been on the same test (120 l freeride) with another magazine.

We werent allowed to include the write up of the futura in the test due to other factors, but, along with JP's supersport, it was far faster and far more technical than most of the other boards.

The freeride category covers everything from beginner shortboards to quasi slalom boards. Fanatic for example make the eagle which is a classic 1st time shorty and the Hawk which is almost a full slalom board but you can throw some shapes on.

With the 2 Jp's we tested the x-cite ride was clearly a standout board for so many riders and so many reasons - good performance but really easy to do stuff on. The super sport was for the guy who didnt want a full on slalom board but still wanted very quick performance.

I guess with the boardseeker test they have nailed the futura pretty well. Starboard also offer the GO which is cheaper , easier and lower performance- so if you like starboard but are concerned that the futura is too demanding then try a GO.

On a personal note - the futura (and supersport) wasnt THAT much harder to sail than the others I'd seriously think about getting one cos with a 120 you are pretty much only going to be going quick and doing regular gybes anyway.

Good luck with your choice
stig

Thanks. So, is it safe to say that if you threw the Hawk, Futura, or Super Sport into a 120L SLALOM board test, it would most likely be the slowest, but most conrollable?

Yes - assuming all the other variables are matched as closely as possible.

If you are looking for max speed (in this board size) then a slalom board is going to be fastest.

Cheers
Stig

Thanks Stig! Did you also test the Tabou Rocket 125? What did you think?

I guess there IS no magic bullet that is easy to ride AND blisterring fast. I'll be sailing in very flat water. In reading the Star-Board forum, the general consensus is that their slalom board (iSonic) is quite a handful compared to their Futura. I'm guessing most slalom boards will be that way.

Hi Stig,
Lets say we put Top gear Stig on freeride and slalom boards in the same weather conditions, how much faster (%) are slalom boards compared to freeride board?

Yes, slalom board will obviously be faster, but with the same rig and same fin (a lot of people don't realize how important a fin is...) and similar volume on the same day with the same rider, the difference will most likely not be immense. If your trying to break records with a gps all day or are racing, yes go with a slalom board, but if your just out there to have fun and go fast then a fast freeride board is a much better bet. Chances are that the guy who is passing you on his slalom board is doing so because he is a better sailor not because he has a faster board. Id be willing to put big money on Antoine beating 99% of all windsurfers in straight line speed with a fsw board when everybody else is using a slalom board. bottom line, its more of who and whats on the board rather then the board itself for the average crowd.

And11 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Hi Stig,
> Lets say we put Top gear Stig on freeride and
> slalom boards in the same weather conditions, how
> much faster (%) are slalom boards compared to
> freeride board?

That's a question nobody seems to be able to answer... "a lot"... "not that much"... "can't compare"... It's amazing that in the GPS era we're still deciding over "feelings" (BTW usually the feeling of being fast is related to the fact that you're not controlling rather than pure speed...).

A test like this shouldn't have some GPS numbers? Can't we be, at least in this regard, objective? I don't want to buy a board that is 10% faster if it's 50% more complicated; but that's just me, of course an athlete has a different view...

I think there would be to many variable to make GPS speeds for different boards, outside of a tank in a lab as it were, comparable with each other. Between riders skill/weights going to be the biggest variable, if the same rider small changes in water state, wind speed, angle, what they had for dinner and how tired they happen to be etc will all affect results. A subjective it felt faster along with race results is probably the best you're likley to get.

TallJAmes Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I think there would be to many variable to make
> GPS speeds for different boards, outside of a tank
> in a lab as it were, comparable with each other.
> Between riders skill/weights going to be the
> biggest variable, if the same rider small changes
> in water state, wind speed, angle, what they had
> for dinner and how tired they happen to be etc
> will all affect results. A subjective it felt
> faster along with race results is probably the
> best you're likley to get.


Well, I wouldn't consider differences below 10% to be "true" or "objective": but if a board is, say on 3-4 runs, faster by 20% (based on an average per rider) I would call it "faster". It's the only thing that can be measured! Even if it's not 100% correct, it would still be something... every test says "this board planes earlier" "this one gibes better". Those are subjective feelings, and I accept them... but when it comes to speed, turn on your GPS and tell me the numbers you get...

Hello

I have just got a 2011 Futura 122

A great board, was out on it for the first time on Thursday last week. The third run I got to 28 knots (GPS) , it seems to be a great board still getting use to it though I think its got a lot more to go at yet. The 2011 is a big change from the 2010 board that I sailed at OTC the deck does take some getting us to. The instructions say to have your boom 2cm higher I would say at least 2cm if not 4cm higher.

But be were the importers in the UK are not going to currently bring in any wood versions, only Technora or Wood Carbon, the wood carbon is very very light but not cheep!

Looking forward to get a out again.

Trying to measure relative board speed with GPS is doomed to fail. Every run tends to be different, the wind strength can vary, the wind direction can vary, the chop changes, there may be great gusts in one run, lacking in another.

The only way to objectively test speed is side-by-side comparison. Two sailors (similar weight, similar skills) next to each other, register relative results. Then switch sailors between boards. See if the result changes. Switch rigs between boards, see if the result changes. At the end of the process there should be a conclusion. Then take the next pair of boards. And then mix differently and compare again. Lots of work...

A distance of 500 m is not that much. If one board pulls ahead some 20 m (about 8-9 boardlengths) every time it is about 4% faster. I would say that this is quite a substantial difference in speed (like average 25 knots vs 26 knots).

A 10% difference, 50 meters over 500, or 25 knots vs. 27.5 knots, is a huge difference!

On the other hand, a 10% difference in skill between sailors is not uncommon!

Ultimo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> And11 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Hi Stig,
> > Lets say we put Top gear Stig on freeride
> and
> > slalom boards in the same weather conditions,
> how
> > much faster (%) are slalom boards compared to
> > freeride board?
>
> That's a question nobody seems to be able to
> answer... "a lot"... "not that much"... "can't
> compare"... It's amazing that in the GPS era we're
> still deciding over "feelings" (BTW usually the
> feeling of being fast is related to the fact that
> you're not controlling rather than pure
> speed...).
>
> A test like this shouldn't have some GPS numbers?
> Can't we be, at least in this regard, objective? I
> don't want to buy a board that is 10% faster if
> it's 50% more complicated; but that's just me, of
> course an athlete has a different view...


I sail in choppy conditions, so not good for speed. A couple of mates are simlar standard to me but have faster boards (I have an old 135 Xcite so easy to sail Freeride) and in 8.5m weather I go 20-22 knots and they go more like 22-25. As wind increases and we go on smaller kit our poistions swap as my smaller kit is better than theirs in coinditions we experience. If we sailed in flatter water I would do 23/24 knots and slalom gear would be doing 28-30 knots.
As for dificulty, I get almost 100% gybes in in 8.5m weather and when I step onto faster boards, including having sailed iSonic they are not much more difficult to sail, just take a bit of getting used to e.g. iSonic has no nose volume so stay well behind mast foot even if bobbing along or stepping onto board. If you can't gybe I'd get that nailed on freeride first.