View Full Version : Apollo VS Formula 186X

8th November 2006, 06:57 PM
Hi Tiesda,

Wich differences between Apollo and Formula 186X in early planning (actually my board in lightest wind) ?

I'm 1,80 x 89 Kg
Usually my sail is Gaastra Vapor 10,5 or NP RC-5 11,6

Thank's and best regards,

10th November 2006, 06:53 AM
Hi Andrea,

Their is a huge differents between this 2 boards. You will plane much more earlier and go up wind and down wind with a better angle.
Same thing with the F161 execpt an advantage under 12 knots for the Apollo against the F161. Over 12 knots the F161 is much more faster.

All the best

10th November 2006, 10:49 PM

What is the ideal sail for the Apollo if you care only about early planning (not considering pointing ability or speed), a race sail like, NP RS6 or Code Red, or a sail with more low end like a NP V8


11th November 2006, 04:58 AM
Hi Luco,

We test the Apollo with the Code Red 11 and Overdrive 11, with both sails the board work really well, but with an anvantage for the Code Red.

All the best

13th November 2006, 06:50 PM
Tank's Remi

I'm just looking for an upgrade of my old 186x and the Apollo likes a good change.



Hugh Jarmes
19th November 2006, 08:13 PM
This is an interesting point and a dilema I have been considering since i heard about the appllo.

i too own a x-186 but also a 160. i just couldn't bring myself to sell the x-186 as it is such a great board!

SB had a great deal of success with the x-186. It is light and stiff and at 264x100 it is considerably longer than modern formula boards. nevertheless, this gives it a massive surface area. (it is also 155 litres - the volume quoted for the Apollo)

I have not conducted any scientific tests but having sailed the two boards under the same conditions it 'seems' to me that the x-186 planes much earlier and more easily (a lot less effort). however, the x-186 cannot match the 160s upwind and downwind angles and i suspect the 160 has a higher top speed - just what you want in a Forula board

there are alot of factors affecting early planing (width, aspect ratio, volume, fin size, weight etc) and I do not claim to be an expert but it seems to me that the apollo is returning to the x-186 concept but incorporating the 161s ability to go upwing and downwind.

i would be interested to hear from someone more knowledgeable on this and to clarify what exactly determines a boards early planing ability and whay the x-186 is so good.

PS I also have an old F2 Thommen XXL which also planes increadibly early and its only 80cm wide. It is also 281x80 and 179 litres and as I am 96kg, thismay have some bearing.

22nd November 2006, 04:07 AM
Hugh Jarmes wrote:

...i would be interested to hear from someone more knowledgeable on this and to clarify what exactly determines a boards early planing ability and whay the x-186 is so good...

In my opinion and following fundamental principles of fluid dynamics, what affects "early planing abilities" positively, is a larger board wetted surface... however this characteristic, due a higher friction resistance, influences board top speed negatively...

An empiric evidence is noticeable on annunced performances of new "Apollo", with much pronounced "early planing" qualities till 12 knots but slower than "161" in higher winds: as everybody knows, "Apollo" is longer than "161" and has, consequently, a wider wetted surface.

Another confirmation comes from Jarmes's old X-186 and F2 Thommen XXL, boards with characteristics similar to "Apollo".

In the second instance, Apollo "early planing" performances are certainly emphasized by a longer (75 cm) fin...

- Expander.