Hello, welcome to Boardseeker Windsurfing Magazine please use the links below to jump to a specific section.

Navigation Search Content Other Mpora Sites

Quatro LS 95 quad vs Tempo 92

Posted by Oregonjeff 
Re: Quatro LS 95 quad vs Tempo 92
19 June '11 | 8:16pm
i haven't tried the LS 95 but got the 75:
this is NOT the right board for ONSHORE conditions: neither for frontside rides nor for getting out.
i'd consider the tempo (all test are equivocal about this).
the 75 L LS quads "shines" in DTL conditions and bigger waves.
jjrc
Re: Quatro LS 95 quad vs Tempo 92
30 October '11 | 12:31pm
At 75kg's I am considering replacing my board quiver with some multi fins.

Currently ride JP FSW 98L, JP RWW 83 - both 2005's. For hi winds, 2000 Naish 8'4". 4.2/4.7/5.2/6.0 Ezzy Wave Panthers.

I am an advanced sailor trying to get more proficient in the waves. I mostly encounter side-on, less than optimal wave conditions.

Most reports are indicate using quads 5L larger. Most reports also indicate quads are better than twins.
I was strongly considering the Tempo 92 in the quiver but now may exclude it and go bigger:

Q FSW 105 and Q Quad 95. If the budget allowed, and the Q Quad 95 works out, round out the quiver with a Q Quad 85 at a later date.

Thx in advance for any and all thoughts.
Jan
Re: Quatro LS 95 quad vs Tempo 92
30 October '11 | 1:15pm
The quad 95 will for sure be a better board, it actually feels smaller but has the volume to serve You all the time, it's also very lively riding board. Definitely a good choice. However a Twin 92 is also a good choice, especially for euro conditions. The choice is up to You but I think that quad 95 is a good choice!
Re: Quatro LS 95 quad vs Tempo 92
31 October '11 | 6:20pm
I'm 82 kg

Sail in south wales - average wave sailor - happy DTL - trying back loops but not sailing away from them etc.

No industry ties or brand allegancies.

Tried a few boards (fanatic twin and quad, starboards, witchcraft, mistral twin) and read up on alot.

Have the Quattro LS 95 and Twin 84.

The LS 95 quad - I chose because it is a wave board that will happily take my largest sail 6.2M - for those light wind days. It is not the fastest to get going but is great when going. As a guide I had the RRD Freestyle Wave 95 (2000) before hand - tried the Quad in exactly the same conditions as the RRD ie 20 mins on each - compare contrast etc. The Quad got on the plane just as quick - very easy to sail. What the Quad does is steam up wind which in South/West Wales is great as often you have to sail up wind to breaks, often against strong tides.

Great as a bump and jump.

But it really wins on the wave - No other board I have tried of this size has the combination of getting you up wind to catch the waves and then gives you great tight turns and great speed riding the wave. As a big wave board and/or for onshore conditions I find it ideal.

It seems to work much better with the mast track close to the back last 1/3rd - planes quicker and much looser.

It is again great with a 5.3 when not enough power for a smaller board.

If I'm well powered up on a 5.3m - then move to the 84 Twin - looser, lively, faster again a superb board.

But after 6 months - with gusty UK conditions and strong tides in our area - I get alot more time on the Quad probably 4 to 1.

Would genuinely not change either.

Both great jumpers. Both great getting out over white water etc

If you want fastest on the plane then another board may be your choice but if you want to get out through the breakers in marginal wind on a 5.3 and want to get up wind to the breaks and want a waveboard that will take 6/6.3 in those light wind conditions to complement a smaller wave board (so you don't have to have a 3rd board) I have found the LS 95 the ideal fit.

But always worth seeing if you can try one before buying - as everyone has different tastes..

Good luck with whatever you buy
Author:

Your Email:


Subject:


Attachments:
  • Valid attachments: gif, jpg, jpeg, png
  • No file can be larger than 400 KB
  • 5 more file(s) can be attached to this message

Message: