PDA

View Full Version : Anybody try the Apollo Yet?


GeorgeUSA39
15th December 2006, 12:47 AM
Has anybody tried the Apollo yet? Does is it plane up in 2 knots less wind?

George

Expander
16th December 2006, 06:22 PM
--

Yes, we are anxious in waiting for some "hot" impressions about new Apollo, particularly regarding its "early planing" qualities...

No one has tested it apart Remi and Starboard team?

I'm curious about its performances just in that point (about 12-13 knots) when other Formula boards like 161 should be better than Apollo...

- Expander.

--

Expander
18th December 2006, 03:51 PM
--

Awaiting that some person with fine feeling will post his impressions about Apollo, I send a simple visual comparison between Apollo and 161.


Apollo - 161 upper deck comparison:

http://img140.imageshack.us/img140/2884/apollo161ae7.gif


Apollo - 161 tails comparison:

http://img90.imageshack.us/img90/3407/apollo161tailsua7.gif


All measures are in centimeters.


- Expander.

Remi
18th December 2006, 11:31 PM
Hi Expander,

I think their is a mistake on the web and in your post for the tail :

The Appolo is 84,5 and the F161 is 81cm.

All the best

Expander
19th December 2006, 04:14 AM
--

Taken from Starboard Apollo web page:

http://img147.imageshack.us/img147/1360/161specsha1.gif

Remi
19th December 2006, 05:01 AM
Hi Expander,

As I said you that their is a msitake also on the web site.

All the best.

Expander
20th December 2006, 05:33 AM
--

Hi Remi,

I hope they will correct the mistake on Apollo web page about its real tail width.

Anyway, it follows another comparison between Apollo and other brands Formula boards; all boards are drawn at same scale.


-- PLEASE, SEE COMPARISON IMAGE IN MY FURTHER LATEST POST --



Regards,

- Exp.

steveC
20th December 2006, 07:01 AM
Hi expander,

I like your focus and summary graphic detail. While I'm not a formula sailor, I really think that you've presented an insightful, and in my opinion, a interesting comparison of current outline shapes. A presentation that I'm sure that many insiders may take note of. Overall, if I could venture a request, I would also like to see Mike Zajicek's L6 and L7 designs represented too, if only because I respect him so much.

Of particular interest, the decidly parallel outline of the Starboards appears to highlight a different design concept from others the market. Being the leading designer brand with the top racing results, an unquestionably noteworthy point overall.

Any thoughts on this would might prove very enlightening. It would be interesting to hear your comments.

Expander
21st December 2006, 05:48 PM
--

Hi SteveC,

two new boards added: MikesLab L7 and new Exocet TF2007.


-- PLEASE, SEE COMPARISON IMAGE IN MY FURTHER LATEST POST --


- Expander.

steveC
22nd December 2006, 01:00 AM
Hi expander,

Thanks so much for the additions. Again, I'm very impressed with your graphic comparisons. Hopefully there will be interesting feedback coming in concerning the Apollo.

gl
27th December 2006, 09:23 PM
Hi expaner.
I think you made one mistake in your comparison.
According to the official F2 page:
"The FX V has a tail width of an impressive 83 cm measured 30 cm from the tail. "
So it is not 78.5 as you wrote.
Also I wonder in general if Starboard 'tail width' really means width at 'one foot off'. Likely it is, but I haven't heard confirmation about this.

Expander
28th December 2006, 06:48 PM
--

Hi All,

comparison image between several Formula boards has been updated with latest F2 FX-100 v deck design: see image below (dec 28 version).

http://img135.imageshack.us/img135/1508/boardscomparisoniiiob6.gif

All previous comparison images are been removed because some measure errors (i.e. Apollo was shown longest than in reality - so Remi was right: at O.F.O. lenght Apollo is about 85 cm and it seems that tail measure at Starboard Apollo web page is not correct).

Note: even I have drawn boards deck profiles with highest possible accuracy, using scanned images causes inevitably (in some case) a marginal error of some centimeters (i.e. when a board is originally photographed with a perspective distorsion); so, be indulgent about !

Cheers.

Expander
28th December 2006, 07:46 PM
GL...think you made one mistake in your comparison.
According to the official F2 page: "The FX V has a tail width of an impressive 83 cm measured 30 cm from the tail. " So it is not 78.5 as you wrote.

--

Hi GL,

in this drawing process, as I've described, there is a not trascurable marginal error (I think about 1-2 cm particulary in horizontal measures) due orginal photos perspective distorsion.

Anyway I've taken care to minimize this error as much as possible (vertical measures should be quite correct, instead).

About FX-100 v tail at O.F.O. lenght (30,48 cm), I've found it measures merely 79,1 cm; I could be wrong, but even if we assume a marginal error of 2 cm, FX-100 v tail should be 81 cm and not 83.

Regards.

gl
29th December 2006, 02:43 AM
Hi expander,
I understand that there could be some round off errors in fractions of cm.
But now let's compare official widths of 3 boards of different manufacturers (as mentioned above, Apollo has wrong numbers in webpage) against widths you calculated:
Board | official width cm | your width cm |
----------------------------------------
SB F160 | 81.1 | 81
F2 FxV | 83 | 79
E TF2007| 85 | 80.4

So what happens - officially SB F160 is with smallest width. But according your calculations it became widest. No rounding errors can explain this.
If you really calculated width from pictures (this is called re-engineering), than this is not good method - as far as I see pictures on manufacturers web sites are 'synthetic' and likely not precise enough. Or do you took pictures of boards you have physically available and made photos in the same environment?

P.S. I like what you did, just I simply want to know which board is widest O.F.O., which is longest, etc. :)

steveC
29th December 2006, 10:10 AM
Hi expander,

I'm very impressed with your graphic presentaion. From what I've seen, you're ahead of the traditional published sources in many respects. I really like the visual comparisons you've highlighted, but of course, that's only a part of the total design perspective. Nonetheless, you've offered a lot of food for thought that most haven't presented and summarized. I truly appreciate your focus.

Expander
29th December 2006, 07:21 PM
--

Hi SteveC,

thank you for your impressions; it's always a great satisfaction to know someone really appreciate your work !

Thank you again.

- Expander

Expander
29th December 2006, 07:53 PM
--

GL wrote: ...now let's compare official widths of 3 boards of different manufacturers...
...so what happens - officially SB F160 is with smallest width. But according your calculations it became widest. No rounding errors can explain this...



Hi GL,

thank you for your meticolous but constructive remarks.

About 160 tail question you refer, from Starboard 2006 web page ( http://2006.star-board.com/products/formula.asp ), at O.F.O. lenght it measures 77.9 cm while in my calculation it measures 78.5 cm: only 0.6 cm of difference but really inside of tollerance error of 1-2 cm described above.

Yes, I make drawings from pictures taken from manufactures web sites; I perfectly know this is not surely "the best way" to measure something, but I draw over original pictures using Autodesk Autocad, taking care to bring horizontal and vertical linear dimensions to declared values using images as "way points" in tracing process and correcting possible imperfections and distorsions as much as possible: final images are produced in vector Autocad DWG format and every boards may be easily measured (and compared) with Autocad "Dimension Function" (for those familiar with CAD software)

Anyway this process, as described, produces a "non trascurable" error (technically speaking: a tracing error) plus errors of perspective internal of photo itself (i.e. when camera is not placed perfectly in front of board).

But, as example of how I have worked, look at following image (new FX100-V) where I've traced (in red color) board deck profile over original picture (grey image) and where consequent variances are highlighted:

http://img135.imageshack.us/img135/1038/fx100vpp9.gif

As you can see, tracing errors are comprised in about 1 cm (thin dark area in right side of the board is a "shadow effect" made by F2 web graphic designers); so, all things considered, I think that even some (good) web images could give us some useful metric information about this (and other) Formula boards.

Cheers.

- Exp.

Starfarrel
7th January 2007, 05:38 PM
But, at the end, anyone has tried *board Apollo?

It doesn't seem to me.

Cheers

GeorgeUSA39
8th January 2007, 05:44 AM
I think the answer is no or that it doesn't live up to it's claims, hence the silence. I hope I'm wrong but if it did work, then I think we would be hearing more about it.

Expander
8th January 2007, 04:22 PM
--

Hi George,

I hope you are wrong and silence about Apollo is simply due by very low number of Apollo boards sold far now.

In Italy, for example, no dealer has yet received this board and estimated delivery time is about end of january.


- Expander.

Guest
8th January 2007, 07:48 PM
In miami we ride f2 v upwind 20 m/h and down wind 25 m/h with wind of 14 max m/h wind ??????????????
www.miamiwindsurfing.com

Guest
9th January 2007, 08:12 PM
Hi Guys:
Since mid of Dec I have my Apollo. Until now I did a view test rides with 11,8 11,0 and 10 SSR and R19 75 and 70cm. I found by the help of my GPS that the upwind average speed is 3 - 5 km/h less compared to the F161. So I can go higher in low winds. Finally that means the optimum planing design speed in upwind is 3-5km/h less than that of the F161. So overall this will result in a lower necessary windspeed for planing, app the posted 2kn. During my tests the wind speed was between 7-10kn. Testrials Apollo vs. F61 will follow.
Peter, AUT-84:)

steveC
10th January 2007, 12:21 AM
Hi Peter,

Just curious whether you find a noticable difference in the Apollo's performance using the 70 versus the 75cm fin. Although racing is currently limited to use of the 70cm maximum fin length, it would still be of interest to learn more about the speed and upwind advantages that could be gained with the larger fin in the lightest of winds.

Expander
10th January 2007, 02:54 PM
Guest...so overall this will result in a lower necessary windspeed for planing, app the posted 2kn. During my tests the wind speed was between 7-10kn...

--

Hi Peter,

tell us something about your weight and wind / sea condition: with 11,8 SSR were you really able to plane at 7 knots ?

What about Apollo water release at that wind speed ?


- Exp.

Guest
10th January 2007, 08:30 PM
tell us something about your weight and wind / sea condition: with 11,8 SSR were you really able to plane at 7 knots ?
What about Apollo water release at that wind speed ?

_____________
real windspeed: usually I masure on the land between my trials. To get more precise measures in this low winds I have orderd now a waterproof skywatch Xplorer anemometer for measurements on the water in short stops. Will see what it tells moreless online.
_____________
I am 184cm and 93kg. Most trials I am doing on lake Neusiedlersee, 50km south of Vienna/Austria. Choppy, very short and zoomimg waves.
_____________
Just curious whether you find a noticable difference in the Apollo's performance using the 70 versus the 75cm fin. Although racing is currently limited to use of the 70cm maximum fin length, it would still be of interest to learn more about the speed and upwind advantages that could be gained with the larger fin in the lightest of winds
_____________
immedeately you feel the 75cm fin, the move is leisurely. You can feel the speed limits in gusts. If you race in a two marks race I am sure you dont feel this limits, you will go as high and as deep as possible. Thats just true as long you have no real stronger gusts where your friends on the Formulas can accelarate much more.

:p peter

Expander
19th January 2007, 03:08 PM
--

For Peter, Vienna.

--

Hi Peter, some other APOLLO tests on Neusiedlersee ??

Did you take advantage of last week mild temperatures ?

I don't really know how wether is in Austria in this period but here, in Italy, wether was unusually mild...

I heard someone speaking about unpleasant Apollo tendency in thumping on water (due larger front board surface) in choppy condition... some confirmation?

Thank you.


- Expander.

Expander
25th January 2007, 04:50 PM
--

Since Peter from Vienna is vanished, some other "hot" impressions about Apollo ???

- Exp.

Starfarrel
26th January 2007, 05:29 AM
Come on you lucky owners, we are waiting for your precious reports !!

;)

Guest
27th January 2007, 06:28 AM
forget about the apollo, if is 9 knots of wind and up f2 formula will kill every formula board ever build. f2 V is the most complete board in the market you will see. don't be ?????????

Hugh Jarmes
4th February 2007, 03:19 PM
I will be getting my new Apollo next week.

I hope to be trying it out as soon as possible but it is currently pretty cold and windless in the UK

Nevertheless as soon as there is enough wind and the air temp gets close to 10 I will be out.

Testing will be against my current 160 and my old x-186 (still the best early-planing FW board made by SB in my opinion) I will be using 12.5 (Windwing) 11.6, 9.8 (RS5) and perhaps 9 or 8.5 (Neutrons).

I will also try and compare the 75cm stock fin with my 70cm Deb R13 +8

I am 185cm and 95kg (and feeling my age)

Watch this space

Expander
5th February 2007, 06:16 PM
Hugh Jarmes wrote:...I will be getting my new Apollo next week... I hope to be trying it out as soon as possible but it is currently pretty cold and windless in the UK...

--

Hi Hugh,

we are waiting your impressions about Apollo with extreme interest.

Cheers.


- Expander.

Hugh Jarmes
5th February 2007, 08:27 PM
Have just heard from the importer that the Apollo will not be here until 13th Feb. With any luck, by then the weather may have improved a little.

bensen
5th February 2007, 11:57 PM
Hi

l??ve just recieved my Apollo here in Denmark. Used it two times, but only very short runs due to hard wind and very low temp.

It is to early to state anything, but there is nearly no volume in the nose, your tacks has to be very, very fast.

I??ll keep you posted, or take a look at http://www.bensens.dk/artikler/Apollo%20er%20landet.htm for some photos (sorry but in danish)

Regards
Bensen

Expander
6th February 2007, 02:59 AM
--

Hi Bensen,

it's a REAL pity your web site is in danish... don't you know some danish / english web translator ???

- Exp.

bensen
6th February 2007, 03:35 AM
Hi

Try to Google, I found a lot, ex: www.translation-guide.com/free_online_translators.php?from=Danish&to=English - 11k -

The whole homepage consist of more than 350 articles about windsurfing, so you got a job translating.:p

When I know more about the board I will post my comments here and link to the photos on my hp. I will try to comment the photos in english as well.


Bensen
www.bensens.dk

Expander
7th February 2007, 03:40 AM
bensen wrote:...when I know more about the board I will post my comments here and link to the photos on my hp. I will try to comment the photos in english as well...

--

Hi Bensen,

I hope your articles will be translated in english, someday... it seems you have posted a lot of very interesting stuff; as I've already said, it's a REAL pity we can't enjoy of all sorts of your good things !! :)

- Exp.

barks
7th February 2007, 01:14 PM
Yes; Bensens site is a very very good resource for those who understand the language. He's doing a lot of pieces seen from a real-world sailors standpoint; which I believe is very relevant in many situations.

Having followed it since tha start all I can say is I hope he keeps it coming for a long time to come :)

bensen
7th February 2007, 09:32 PM
Today I have recieved some photos showing the Apollo ( and me) on the water.
I have made some comments to the photos ( in english) on my homepage:

http://www.bensens.dk



Regards
Bensen

steveC
7th February 2007, 11:57 PM
Hi Bensen,

I checked out your website, and although I can't read Danish, I really liked the different photos that you shot of your new Apollo. It's a real beauty! You presented quite a few interesting shots of the tail features that show much more than anything available on the Starboard website. The detail design features come off as very sculptural in nature. Another thing that was notable is just how far back and on the edge the rear straps are located. Overall, I think you got yourself a real precision hull that marries a lot of trick design engineering and very very good looks. No question in my mind, Starboard's offers some of the best graphic layout in the business. Very clean and sophisticated.

Guest
8th February 2007, 12:03 AM
too heavy to be impartial
.....

just my HO

Expander
8th February 2007, 04:31 AM
--

Bensen, I want to congratulate you for photographic work and for your bravery in windsurfing in so severe weather condition.

Anyway, from your photos, it seems Apollo really suffers for lacking of buoyancy at the bow:

http://www.bensens.dk/artikler/PICS/apollo,%20some%20comments/bensen-apollo02-beskaret.jpg


It will be interesting to understand if this could be interpreted as a positive quality in hi-speed condition (where board rises on water and it is supported only by tail surface), rather than a negative quality in low-wind / full-displacement board condition...

- Exp.

barks
9th February 2007, 01:01 PM
steveC wrote:
You presented quite a few interesting shots of the tail features that show much more than anything available on the Starboard website. The detail design features come off as very sculptural in nature.
In that regard I came across these pics of 161 to Apollo comparisons from a Swedish distributor: http://www.onwater.se/expo_apollo.html

Expander
9th February 2007, 03:40 PM
--

http://www.onwater.se/expo_apollo.html

GULP ! :o

Hugh Jarmes
9th February 2007, 04:08 PM
Very interesting

I had planned to do similar comparative photos (as per my last post)

On the face of it the Apollo is noticeably wider in the tail than the 161. (the 161 doesn't seem very different to my 160)

The cut-outs differ slightly as do the rear strap position and foot pad.

Taking into account the difference in tail width, the Apollo being longer and no perceivable difference in board thickness it is hard to see why the quoted volume of the apollo is less than the 161.

Still waiting for mine.

the weather is looking more favourable next week so I might get out.

Hugh Jarmes
14th February 2007, 01:34 AM
The Apollo has landed! I collected it from my dealer today. Unfortunately, it arrived in not quite the perfect condition I had hoped. A small imperfection has marred what looks like a fantastic design. (We couldn't see any courier damage to the packging so it appears that the damage was done during packing) Nevertheless, I have taken photos of the depression and we'll see what the importer (Tushingham) or SB have to say.

If you visit the blog page of www.windsurf.me.uk you will see a photo (more to follow) showing the Apollo alongside my old x-186 and my more recent 160. It certainly is an excellent example of evolution. What this photo doesn't show is how thin the Apollo is forward of the front footstrap and I can now understand Bensens comment that the Apollo lacks volume in the nose. This should prove interesting when my 94kg (yes I've lost 2kg!) tries to tack. Hopefully, watching "Pro Secrets" will have improved my racing tacks so that I won't be spending too much time sinking the nose.

Also of note is the size and rake of the Drake fin. It is big. I didn't believe 5cm would make that much difference. What is very noticeable is the upright nature of the fin which is even more dramatic than my +8 Deb.

I am planning to go out on Thursday. More after that.

steveC
14th February 2007, 08:42 AM
While both Bensen and Hugh Jarmes have noted that the Apollo has a thinner nose, I think that one must also recognize that the board is somewhat longer. This makes me wonder whether the Apollo is similarly thick in the area of the nose that would correspond with the length of the 160 or 161 (with the nose of the Apollo thinning out with the extra length). Maybe Hugh Jarmes could offer some input here through a comparison between his 160 and the Apollo. Of course, in this type of comparison, the position of the mast track relative to the tail must be considered too.

Expander
14th February 2007, 02:49 PM
Hugh Jarmes wrote:...Unfortunately, it arrived in not quite the perfect condition I had hoped. A small imperfection has marred what looks like a fantastic design. (We couldn't see any courier damage to the packging so it appears that the damage was done during packing) Nevertheless, I have taken photos of the depression and we'll see what the importer (Tushingham) or SB have to say...

--

I've received my 161 (yes, I have purchased a 161) with a small circular fissure (1-2 cm) too; this is located on bottom, near nose... nothing really worrying (it can be easily fix with a drop of putty and a hand of sanpaper) but very annoying.

Anyway through this small fissure I can see wood construction inside board... a way to understand how Starboard makes its boards but I liked better to rely on catalog informations instead ! :@

As Hugh said, I haven't seen any courier damage in packging so I 'm sure this damage has been done during packing.

What has Starboard to say about ?


- Expander.

Hugh Jarmes
14th February 2007, 03:21 PM
Steve C wrote Maybe Hugh Jarmes could offer some input here through a comparison between his 160 and the Apollo. Of course, in this type of comparison, the position of the mast track relative to the tail must be considered too.


If you look at the picture on the blog page of www.windsurf.me.uk you will see that the the position of the mast track relative to the tail is the same.

Hugh Jarmes
14th February 2007, 10:49 PM
I am posting some more pictures of the Apollo on the blog page of www.windsurf.me.uk. I would put them on this forum if I knew how.

These compare the rear, side and front views of all 3 boards. The side and front views confirm that the Apollo is much thinner in the nose than the 160 and is nearer the x-186. However, the Apollo is as thick as the 160 in the rear. The rear view shows just how wide the Apollo is.

I also took the opportunity to weigh the boards. They came out as follows:

x-186 = 9kg, 160 = 9.25kg. Apollo = 9kg.

steveC
15th February 2007, 12:09 AM
Hi Hugh,

Upon looking at your photo (I could only see the top view shot), it's certainly a clear indicator of the evolution between the boards, particularly from the x-186. Also, the close weight between the boards is quite interesting. Given the x-186s greater length, one would think it would weight more. Yet, the 160, being the shortest board, is unexpectedly the heaviest.

Regarding the thickness of the different boards, I'll check the blog back later for the added views. Thanks for sharing your photo comparison.

Hugh Jarmes
15th February 2007, 04:46 AM
It would appear the 2nd lot of pics didn't make it to the windsurf.me.uk blog but Phill very kindly told me how to upload these images so here goes
http://www.windsurf.me.uk/cpg133/albums/userpics/10028/normal_P1000230.JPG
http://www.windsurf.me.uk/cpg133/albums/userpics/10028/normal_P1000231.JPG
http://www.windsurf.me.uk/cpg133/albums/userpics/10028/normal_P1000233.JPG
http://www.windsurf.me.uk/cpg133/albums/userpics/10028/normal_P1000235.JPG
http://www.windsurf.me.uk/cpg133/albums/userpics/normal_Apollo.JPG
Larger images are available in the Gallery at www.windsurf.me.uk under Open Album 2007.

steveC
15th February 2007, 08:34 AM
Hi Hugh,

Boy, no question about the thinness of the Apollo, and it's much more than just the nose section. Your shots definitely show the differences in thought between the 160 and the Apollo. Really, only one year apart. While the 161 may be a bit different than the 160, I still have to think that the Apollo is a significantly different animal overall. From a presentation standpoint, you have done a terrific job of characterizing things, and frankly, offered a much clearer picture of the inherent differences between these two formula board concepts. I wonder why Starboard can't similarly highlight the differences between their two formula boards.

bensen
15th February 2007, 11:12 PM
Hi Hugh.
Thank you for your photos.

When the boards are compared as you show it, I now is afraid of breaking my Apollo.
It is very thin compared to the 161, and in my mind there is no longer question about the volumen. I belive that 150 liters, as statet is correct.

But a new question has rised, is the Apollo to thinn and will break in strong conditions?

Time will tell, but I hope not I will be the guy to tell about it;)

Hugh Jarmes
16th February 2007, 12:07 AM
Well I went out today with every intention of trying the Apollo Vs the 160 vs the x-186. Never let it be said that I ever complain about too much wind but when I arrived at the lake it was blowing Force 4 gusting 5. Actual windspeed varied from 18 -30 knots throughout the day (acurate weather station situated in the middle of the lake). I rigged an 8.1 4 cam race sail and decided to take the 160 out first as I am familiar with it (stock Drake 70cm R13 NR). Well, it was fine until the gusts hit and the wind freshened. So I'm afraid I went in, rigged a 6.8 and took my JP for a spin. Well the wind just kept strengthening and even the 6.8 became a bit of a handful at times. My GPS recorded a max speed of 32.1 mph - not my fastest but not bad. So I'm sorry everyone but it looks like we will have to wait until the week end to try out the Apollo. (almost anything would plane it F5 so little point in testing it's early planing characteristics)
P.S. Bensen's comments are valid as 2 or 3 people at the lake made exactly the same observation. (These were the same people who asked if it came with 4 legs and some chairs!). Well if it does break, I'm sure SB have it covered by warranty. I doubt if it will though as the strength isn't governed so much by the thickness of the core as by the material covering the core.

steveC
16th February 2007, 12:13 AM
Hi benson,

I really don't think you have anything to worry about, as the thickness of the ESP foam contributes virtually no strength at all to the overall structure. However, it does add to the illusion of greater substance. I believe my conclusion can be supported by an untold number of surfboards made over the last 45-50 years. They are much thinner than sailboards, and they have been traditionally made from polyester resin, a significantly weaker medium than epoxy. Also, I should point out that surfboards don't include near the amount of fiberglass and other composite fabrics as part of their structure. In addition, except for some of the more recent surfboards coming out of Cobra International, surfboards usually don't incorporate divinicell.

Notwithstanding my comments above, I could imagine that the thinner rails might serve to make the board a little more subject to dings from sharp blows, but this is quite arguable. Still, I believe that if you use the Apollo for its intended purpose (use in water), you will not experience any untoward weakness because of its thinner design.

Guest
16th February 2007, 03:04 PM
P.S. Bensen's comments are valid as 2 or 3 people at the lake made exactly the same observation. (These were the same people who asked if it came with 4 legs and some chairs!). Well if it does break, I'm sure SB have it covered by warranty. I doubt if it will though as the strength isn't governed so much by the thickness of the core as by the material covering the core.

LOL LOL LOL

- Apollo is a wood board
- Apollo even wider than FT138

FT138 disintegrated during use (< 15months time, <8 months of use). Warranty == non existent

Advice:
- don&#39;t step on board besides on pads (otherwise your foot might go right through the deck)
- don&#39;t gybe board (if your knee accidently should touch board == hole)
- don&#39;t magic carpet over chop (otherwise your footstraps will pull screws and carbon base right out of the board)
- sell the board after max. 4 months of use (wait longer, might not be anything left to sell)

otherwise for sure a good board, am thinking of gettiing one myself, but I will keep in mind that it is a VERY FRAGILE board (scrap the hype about impact resistance blablabla) that needs to be kissed to bed every night.

*b should think about making carbon boards with a wooden deck as shock.cover. something strong AND light and still nice to ride and most likely even cheaper than the pure wood design and not as dull as the technora stuff (might be strong but feels like lead under your feet).

Hugh Jarmes
16th February 2007, 03:53 PM
An interesting comment by "Guest" but one I am unable to agree with as yet. I speak with some experience as the x-186 pictured in my post above is a 2002 board. It is wood like the Apollo and my 160. The x-186 has been raced every season since 2002 with a vengance. In the last 3 years this has been every Thursday night in the season and most week ends. I don&#39;t treat my boards lightly. I am 185 and 93kg (In 2003 I was 104kg) My real name is not Hugh Jarmes but is a nickname that has stuck since my time in the military. I am also not the most skillful or light footed of sailors and rely on brute force and ignorance for my speed and the fact that I used to race dinghys for my tactics. It seems to work fine as has the x-186 which has taken everything I could give it. I have tried the F2 FX series but couldn&#39;t get on with it - Great board (my previous was a Thommen XXL) but very "dingable". I hope, being the same construction as the x-186 and a similar size and shape/thickness, the Apollo will be as durable.

o2bnme
16th February 2007, 09:52 PM
The "guest" comment sounds like some of the information Duracell has been sharing on the forum. I&#39;m just guessing it might be him.

I&#39;ve had a wood F-Type 148 that was Roger&#39;s demo board. So, Roger lets people try the board for a year...it survived that torture. Now, I&#39;ve had it for over a year. I have had to repair a few dime-sized dings I caused myself.

I&#39;ve taken the board out in 6.6 conditions and even chop hop the beast. I jibe it aggressively (granted I&#39;ve never landed on my knee)...and get catapulted. I jump around the board on and off the pads. I can tell wood is more fragile than dram or technora, but I have had zero issues with durability.

I don&#39;t know what really went on between starboard and &#39;guest.&#39; I won&#39;t say who is right. I would give starboard the benefit of the doubt with the information I&#39;ve read above and say that the person had a lemon and for some reason starboard didn&#39;t get enough information to determine this.

If there is a durability issue... I&#39;m a pretty light guy, so maybe that is a factor in how my F-Type has lasted so long.

Phill104
16th February 2007, 10:22 PM
steveC wrote:
Hi benson,

I really don&#39;t think you have anything to worry about, as the thickness of the ESP foam contributes virtually no strength at all to the overall structure. However, it does add to the illusion of greater substance. I believe my conclusion can be supported by an untold number of surfboards made over the last 45-50 years. They are much thinner than sailboards, and they have been traditionally made from polyester resin, a significantly weaker medium than epoxy.


On the strength point, the bulkiness does add to strength. This is not from the foam but simply from the shape.

As a very crude example take a toilet roll tube and try to bend it lengthways then compare it to how easy it is to bend if you squashed it flat. There must come a point where if a board was made too thin that it would easilly crease.

Having said that, impact damage is a totally different kettle of fish that on first sight of this board, seems very good. I&#39;m sure all the rest of your points are valid although I believe more flex is built into many surfboard designs.

bensen
16th February 2007, 11:00 PM
Hi all.

Just for the record: I have owned several *boards like 147, 175, 159, F-158 so the woodtechnologi is not new to me.

I am only concerned about how thinn the board is, espc. compared to the 160/161, not the wood or the deck itself.

Will the board (not the wood) break due to the thinn rails? That??s my worries........among others ( like is the water still cold.....)

steveC
17th February 2007, 02:03 AM
Hi Phill,

You&#39;re absolutely correct about different shapes having greater or lesser overall strength characteristics depending application and different stress factors. Yet, I guess one has to ask whether Starboard went too far in creating an inferior engineering design that wouldn&#39;t serve its intended purpose and offer reasonable serviceability over its expected life. Of course, if you go by what the Guest (post 318) said above, Starboard is already in the territory with their wood technology. While I&#39;m not agreeing with what that person said, I think you know what I&#39;m trying to say.

Based on my long experience with standard surfboards (arguably a less robust product), I feel fairly confident that the thinness of the Apollo shouldn&#39;t be a liability, if the board is used for its intended purpose. However, I&#39;m banking on the premise that Starboard engineered their lamination and material schedules well, and that the folks at Cobra International followed proper manufacturing processes and used the appropriate materials to ultimately execute the product. Really, folks like us often need to rely on warranty claims offered by the seller. From Starboards recent statistics posted in the last couple weeks, their product quality and integrity has been excellent overall. Formula boards didn&#39;t fair as well as some of their other products, but the results are still indicative of a well made product.

Phill104
17th February 2007, 02:23 AM
stevec,

Having seen Hugh&#39;s board and felt it&#39;s weight I&#39;m pretty sure it will be a great board and that he will be very competitive on it (I&#39;ll enter this year Hugh, I had better start dieting).

I have once had to deal with my local importers regarding a minor fault with a board. It was dealt with very quickly and the board replaced within a week. The "faulty" board is still going strong so it may have been just me being fussy about a small 2cm diameter bulge in the deck.

Apart from that I have had no cause to complain about any of the 10 other starboards I have owned over the years.


Looking at the Apollo the early planing is going to be superb with a little input but I bet it&#39;s a struggle in displacement mode. I&#39;m looking forward to seeing it get it&#39;s first outing, probably this weekend.

Guest
17th February 2007, 03:12 PM
Hugh Jarmes caught "Hoffing".

"Hoff" - To mercilessly show off with sails far too large for the conditions.

http://www.windsurf.me.uk/cpg133/albums/userpics/normal_Hoffing.JPG

Hugh Jarmes
17th February 2007, 05:58 PM
Thanks Guest!

I am fairly sure who you are as this picture has also appeared in the gallery of windsurf.me.uk. and access to such photos is strictly limited. I doubt it is a sponsor so "family" members are now strong suspects - although club members are not out of the frame.

Phill

Great news that you are finally going to race. As our most consistently fast sailor you will surely take some scalps. Carnage at the marks might cause you (or others) some problems. No need to diet with a 9.4!! ;)

Looking at the forecast (Northerly 5mph today and Easterly 8mph tomorrow) I don&#39;t think I fancy it this week end. I may telephone the Guru to see what is actually happening at the Lake though.

I&#39;ve been giving the Apollo some close inspection and in particular the footstrap anchorages. I cannot understand how these could possibly tear out if they are correctly tightened and with th K9s in place. I really give my straps hell (particularly the front ones when lifting to "rail") and these seem as good as the 160 and x-186.

The underside "race" finish seems to be much improved and sits somewhere between the 160 (not sanded enough) and my previous F2 FX III (wasn&#39;t worth putting any paint on). The non-slip is also evenly applied which wasn&#39;t the case on many of the 158s and 159s.

Hugh Jarmes
22nd February 2007, 01:06 AM
Today I tested the Apollo against my SB 160. I have sold my beloved X-186 but have sailed that for such a long time I think I can make a comparison from memory.

Boards: SB 160 with stock Drake 70cm fin and Apollo with stock Drake 75cm fin; I also used a Deboichet R13 70cm +8 (more on that later).
Sail: Gaastra Neutron 9m on carbon mast and boom
Accessories: GPS and Anemometer.
Venue: Brogborough Lake in Bedfordshire, UK. 220 Acres of open water with clean wind when blowing from the South or West.
Rider: 185cm and 93kg (this diet is working)
Conditions: Temp 10-11 degrees C. Wind SW Force 3-4 (Average wind speed 13.4 mph Maximum 19.3 mph)

Subjective assessment. The extra length of the Apollo&#39;s fin makes it difficult to launch (even in a deep clay pit) Up-hauling the Apollo was also a challenge compared to the 160. Bensen&#39;s comments about the lack of volume in the nose are very valid. The nose sinks easily and requires an adjustment to the foot positioning (more towards the back). I believe this would be even more noticeable with larger (heavier) sails. Once afloat, the phrase "it does exactly what it says on the tin" comes to mind because the Apollo planes effortlessly across the wind. There is no need to coax it on to the plane or pump the sail or fin (no more bumping over the bow wave for me). When it is planning the nose rides high and once in the straps you become very aware of the big fin. The Apollo points well and continues to hunt upwind as the fin provides lift and the leeward rails starts to bite. This is where the excitement stops however because once up to a certain speed, the Apollo seems like it won&#39;t go any faster - unlike the 160, which continues to accelerate. I suspect the size of the Apollo&#39;s fin is holding it back. The Apollo feels more stable and less "twitchy" going upwind than the 160 and I began to feel the extra width in the tail working with the bigger fin keeping the board very steady. It also appeared to be going upwind at a higher angle. This was borne out on a number of laps by the Apollo taking one less beat to get to the windward end of the lake (GPS recordings later confirmed this) However, the actual time taken to get to the windward mark was almost identical on 3 out of 4 beats. Tacking proved very difficult due to the lack of volume up front but I began to become accustomed to this and adjusted my technique accordingly - it was still difficult though and I think it will be a challenge in the heat of racing. (It also made me realize how forgiving the 160 is!) Downwind I was a little concerned, as on this point of sailing you become very aware of the shear size of the Apollo - particularly in the tail area. I used to have an FX III which was very scary downwind and I was worried the Apollo would be the same (both 250cm long). Nevertheless, the Apollo again rides high over the small chop and you can push it very low. Speed again becomes a limiting factor. Gybing requires a little more work than the 160 but the Apollo responds well to "effort". I detected no difference in gybing other than this. The Apollo points no lower than the 160 and took as many reaches to get to the leeward end of the lake. However, it felt slower. This lack of speed was NOT confirmed by GPS readings. So the Apollo and the 160 seem to be well matched down wind. The very big difference between the 2 boards is when going on to the plane and when coming off the plane. The Apollo planes smoothly and earlier than the 160 and it comes off the plane later. It doesn&#39;t "sludge" like the 160 and glides for longer between the gusts. It felt very like the x-186 going on to the plane but there the similarity ends as the Apollo points so much higher. In marginal conditions I find formula boards (SB, F2 etc) suffer from a "dead spot" which, when trying to get planning means you have to go upwind a little before resuming your reach. This was not so noticeable with the Apollo. Later I tried the Apollo with a Deboichet 70cm R13 +8; it felt like a different board but not for the better. It did not want to plane as early and going upwind, I was not able to take advantage of the sharp leeward rail, as the Apollo didn&#39;t appear to be railing as much. It appears to me that the bigger fin is instrumental in the Apollo&#39;s ability to plane early and is an absolute necessity to take advantage of the extra width in the tail. As a result the Apollo took longer to get to the windward mark than the 160. Downwind with the R13 seemed a little more "free" but the GPS did not confirm this. I hope the rules change to allow 75cm fins in the future!

Objective measurements. Upwind max: 160 = 23.7 mph - Apollo = 21.6 mph Downwind max: 160 = 28.2 - Apollo 25.8. GPS Track Log showed Apollo pointed noticeably higher than the 160 but that downwind they were very similar.

Conclusion: I&#39;m not selling my 160 just yet. In the gusts the Apollo became a bit of a handful. Even with the 70cm, you can feel just how big it is. Nevertheless, I suspect that in lighter winds and with larger sails the Apollo will come into it&#39;s own. I am very pleased I have one and am looking forward to becoming more familiar with it.

N.B. Despite opening the foot straps to their maximum width and using the widest screw holes, I still found it difficult to get into them with boots on. Race straps may be light but they are not as convenient as some other designs. Looking forward to getting back to barefoot sailing!

P.S. Bensen, where are you in Denmark? Do you know Jens Vindum? I have been Windsurfing with him in Svendborg and Jutland (some place - I can&#39;t remember the name). I think we will be visiting him this year in Bornholm - is it good there?

Expander
22nd February 2007, 03:19 AM
--

Hugh Jarmes wrote:
Today I tested the Apollo against my SB 160... Sail: Gaastra Neutron 9m on carbon mast and boom...
--

Hi Hugh,

good test, very analytic and really significant.

But I think real field of comparison will necessarily be to test both boards with their ideal sails, that are sizes of 11 m. and bigger.

- Expander.

Hugh Jarmes
22nd February 2007, 03:38 AM
The sail range of both boards is quoted as 7.5 to 12.5.

They were both planing with a 9. I doubt I will find anything else significant with a larger sail other than the Apollo&#39;s nose will sink further.

However, I will keep you posted about results on lighter wind days.

Guest
22nd February 2007, 10:40 AM
Hi, well, great comments.

Formula 161 or 160 are designed to be sailed 7knots or more and be sure that in 15 knots it works great. I guess you tested Apollo with a 9.0 in this kind of winds.

The deal now is to test the APOLLO to be sailed in the wind it was designed for. APOLLO will open a new window for sailing in between 6-12 knots with less effort.
Basiclly a bigger fin and wider tail go with a bigger sail. I guess, that the ideal test must be with a 11.0-12.5 sail in 5-10 knots wind.

If you sail in an area where the wind blows mostly 10 plus knots maybe a 161 is a better deal. But if you mostly have 5-14knots (a very big range anyway) you must consider and Apollo in your quiver.

Hey, continue with this tests and comment, they are great!

best luck!
Ricardo Guglielmino

bensen
22nd February 2007, 05:18 PM
Hello Hugh

Very interesting test, I am now looking forward to try/read how the Apollo is doing with, say 11m2 sail.

In Denmark (Aarhus, the capitol of Jutland) we at the moment have snowstorm, so I will not try the board for some time.

Interesting remarks conserning the 70cm finn, I used my Apollo with a Drake 70cm finn, at did not feel anything odd?

But as I told, I only tried it for 2 very short runs.

Phill104
22nd February 2007, 06:36 PM
Hugh (;))

When I first tried similar boards to this I also thought similar. The volume placement has changed a lot over the last year and this is especially noticabe in the larger iSonics. From the look of the Apollo the volume is also placed in a similar manner.

I found that it took a number of sessions to get anywhere near the best from this style of board with my stance and settings noticably different to previous boards. I&#39;m sure there will be a lot of difference between the 160 and the Apollo.

I think it will be interesting to perform this test again after a few more sessions and average data over a few sessions. We all know how much the wind changes at Brog.

I think it will also be fun to try many different fins from your quiver once you have a feel for the board.

Hugh Jarmes
27th February 2007, 06:45 PM
Expander wrote I&#39;ve received my 161 (yes, I have purchased a 161) with a small circular fissure (1-2 cm) too; this is located on bottom, near nose... nothing really worrying (it can be easily fix with a drop of putty and a hand of sanpaper) but very annoying.

Anyway through this small fissure I can see wood construction inside board... a way to understand how Starboard makes its boards but I liked better to rely on catalog informations instead !

As Hugh said, I haven&#39;t seen any courier damage in packging so I &#39;m sure this damage has been done during packing.

What has Starboard to say about ?

Regarding the damage to my Apollo the UK distributor Tushingham were very decent about it and gave a significant discount that should more than cover any repair costs which would be necessary to make the board cosmetically perfect:)

Hugh Jarmes
28th February 2007, 01:54 AM
Expander wrote: good test, very analytic and really significant.

But I think real field of comparison will necessarily be to test both boards with their ideal sails, that are sizes of 11 m. and bigger.

Wind is looking good for Saturday - 8mph (7knots). Should be out on the 11.6 but perhaps even the 12.5 if its not too gusty

Hugh Jarmes
1st March 2007, 04:40 PM
It would appear that news travels fast!

Perhaps Starboard needs an Italian forum

http://www.windsurf-roma.it/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=184&Itemid=59

steveC
1st March 2007, 11:27 PM
Hi Hugh and Bensen,

I think both of you did a great job of pictorially presenting the Apollo. I&#39;m glad that you both took the time to highlight and share your findings and thoughts. Regarding the word getting around, it doesn&#39;t surprise me. Interesting and insightful stuff is almost always noticed.

steveC
2nd March 2007, 04:14 AM
In looking back a bit, I&#39;ve failed to include the earlier contributions of Expander on this thread that were focused on the different Formula outline shapes that have been on the market over a period of time. Really, his posts kind of started the gel that Bensen and Hugh Jarmes got some added lift from.

The input from these folks made a difference here in my mind.

Hugh Jarmes
4th March 2007, 01:37 AM
The wind was good for testing the Apollo today. Average 10-12 mph initially (more in the gusts) dropping off to 8-10 mph later.

I rigged Neil Pryde RSs 9.8 and 11.6.

Over 4 hours of testing both the Apollo and SB160

It proved to be very interesting.

James
4th March 2007, 05:09 AM
Hugh,

Please elaborate on "interesting"! :)

GeorgeUSA39
4th March 2007, 07:04 AM
Dude your killing me please elaborate, inquiring minds want to know...

Hugh Jarmes
4th March 2007, 06:53 PM
Previous posts refer

Stock Drake fins (SB 160 70cm Apollo 75cm)

In non-planing conditions the Apollo sailed closer to the wind (I suspect this was due to a combination of its greater waterline length (creating more lateral resistance) and its larger fin. However, I can’t say I really like its tendency to ‘luff-up’ so easily. Perhaps I will overcome this as I become more familiar with it. I should also point out that at these lower wind speeds it was far more difficult to get into the Apollo’s rear foot straps and their more outboard position becomes very noticeable.

In planing conditions it was difficult to differentiate between the two boards at these lower wind speeds. However, it felt like the Apollo planed a little earlier and that it came off the plane a little later (as per the previous higher wind trial). But again, the Apollo felt slower and despite its ability to point slightly higher than the 160, it was no faster to the windward end of the lake. Even more noticeable was the 160s ability to accelerate once planning. The 160 also responded far better to a few short sharp pumps (enabling me to squeeze past some of the isonics that were out yesterday – much to their chagrin) Perhaps the claim that a softer rig would suit the Apollo is correct.

Much has been said about the Apollo “PLANING IN 2 KNOTS LOWER WIND THAN TODAY”. What does that mean and ‘2kts lower than what?’

I think it is important to differentiate between ‘wind speed required to get the board onto the plane’ and ‘the planning speed of the board’. The former was far more difficult to assess, as the wind speed was not constant (apart from visiting the shoreline to check the 10 minute average wind speed) However, the use of a GPS enabled the latter to be established.

Whilst, the planing speed of a board will be different for sailors of dissimilar weight and ability, for me the Apollo planed 2 mph (approx 1.75 knots) slower than the 160 and it was a very strange sensation to be planning at such a relatively slow speed.

I won’t go into facts and figures (I wouldn’t want to be accused of being “irrelevant” or of “trying to look very smart”);) but I imagine what you wanted to know is that, to me, the Apollo felt as though it planes at a much slower speed than the 160. It is also slower than the 160 as my sailing partner (x-186) made me very aware! (He took some &#39;Helmet Cam&#39; footage and some &#39;stills&#39; which should be available later)

GeorgeUSA39
4th March 2007, 11:34 PM
Hugh it seems logical that the Apollo would be slower once on the plane given the increased drag of the fin, but does the Apollo get planing earlier, in other words does it get planing in 6 knots of wind versus 8 knots of wind?

The Hoff
5th March 2007, 02:01 AM
GeorgeUSA39 wrote: but does the Apollo get planing earlier

previously

Hugh Jarmes wrote: the Apollo planed a little earlier

also

GeorgeUSA39 asked: in other words does it get planing in 6 knots of wind versus 8 knots of wind?

previously

Hugh Jarmes said:Whilst, the planing speed of a board will be different for sailors of dissimilar weight and ability, for me the Apollo planed 2 mph (approx 1.75 knots) slower than the 160

??????????????????????????????????
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

barks
5th March 2007, 02:25 AM
The Hoff wrote:
GeorgeUSA39 asked: in other words does it get planing in 6 knots of wind versus 8 knots of wind?

previously

Hugh Jarmes said:Whilst, the planing speed of a board will be different for sailors of dissimilar weight and ability, for me the Apollo planed 2 mph (approx 1.75 knots) slower than the 160


Wind speed required to plane (the question) and board speed when planing (the answer) is not the same. The way I understand this is that the Apollo had a board (or vindward?) speed (but not wind speed) 1.75 knot lower than the 160.

The Hoff
5th March 2007, 02:50 AM
Hugh jarmes wrote:The wind was good for testing the Apollo today. Average 10-12 mph initially (more in the gusts) dropping off to 8-10 mph later.


and

Hugh Jarmes said:Whilst, the planing speed of a board will be different for sailors of dissimilar weight and ability, for me the Apollo planed 2 mph (approx 1.75 knots) slower than the 160

Is GeorgeUSA39 the same weight and ability as Hugh Jarmes?

Basically, according to Hugh jarmes, the Apollo planed earlier than a 160 in the same windspeed (as best he could measure it)

If George can&#39;t understand what has been said, why doesn&#39;t he buy one (or if he can&#39;t afford it - ask hugh if he can borrow his)

Hugh Jarmes
5th March 2007, 03:38 AM
There appears to be some confusion between the wind speed required to plane and planing speed. I don’t mean to be patronising but it is clear some education is necessary. (Some poor soul is bound to jump down my throat for that)

I will not bore you with hydrodynamics (Bernoulli, the boundary layer and the like) but Starboard state that it is the board (hull) design, which makes it plane earlier.

I hope most will realize that without enough propulsion a body (boat or board) cannot plane. Think of a speedboat – if it doesn’t have enough hp, it won’t plane. Similarly, to plane on a windsurfer you need power. This power must be enough to overcome the resistance of the water (the frictional forces between the board and the water) to enable the transition from displacement to planing. The weight of the board, rig and sailor are all factors affecting the amount of power required to overcome this resistance.

For those of you that race Formula, you will know the frustration of a R.O.D. calling a start at or about minimum wind speed. Some guys (either lightweights, those with excellent pumping technique or those with bigger or more powerful sails (not always the same thing) will plane while the rest of us sludge around pumping for all we are worth and perhaps we might get planning for some of the race.

Therefore, all other things being equal (weight, sail size, wind speed and sailor ability) it is the hull shape that determines planning ability and my test had the above within the limits I stated (i.e. wind speed - which is always variable). I then quoted board speed as the differential factor between the planning ability of the Apollo and 160 by way of comparison (as this was easily measured - GPS - and fairly accurate)

If anyone has performed similar tests, I would be very interested.

I hope this helps

P.S. Please read previous posts before making comments that were answered in them.

P.P.S. It would have been fatuous to state whether or not the Apollo planed for me in 6 or 8 knots of wind because if it did, it may not have done for someone else. (I don&#39;t plane in 8!)

P.P.P.S. The original question was "has anyone tried the Apollo yet - Does is it plane up in 2 knots less wind?" I say again, 2 knots less than what? (What is good for George might not be good for anyone else)

steveC
5th March 2007, 08:53 AM
No offenses to anyone here, particularly regarding the insightful and honest posts by Hugh and George, but this Hoff thing really got to my funny bone. I&#39;ve got to admit that comments, with the picture of David H., the whole thing just took off in a humorous direction. No question, quite outlandish in nature, but nonetheless, quite camp. No harm in a good laugh every once and a while.

Hugh Jarmes
5th March 2007, 03:44 PM
Some more photos as promised
http://www.windsurf.me.uk/cpg133/albums/userpics/normal_Batman_Supermanlo.JPG
http://www.windsurf.me.uk/cpg133/albums/userpics/normal_Batman_Superman2_loJPG.jpg

Denis GER 189
5th March 2007, 05:15 PM
Tried the Apollo yesterday with an Deboichet R18S-- R+10.

It planes a lot earlier than any other board, haven&#39;t seen something like that before. But if the conditions get near to racing conditions, the 161 is faster....

mark h
5th March 2007, 08:57 PM
Hi Hugh
Thanks for sharing this info with the rest of us & the pictures are great, it&#39;s good info to most of us, as the majority would not be in a possition to try both boards side by side. My question is, on first impressions, which one are you going keep, Apollo or F160? I&#39;v been told the F161 planes even earlier than the F160, so maybe the F161 is a bit of a compromise!!!

Cheers

pfaffi
12th March 2007, 08:13 PM
Now I can share a view more details Apollo vs F161: Last testrides on our Lake Neusiedlersee/Austria showed that I can go down with my 93kg/184cm on my Apollo to the planing limit of 13km/h(7kn). I used my 11sqm and my friend who is with his 73kg/169cm usually much better in light wind as me used same sail size but the F161. Moreless we had same up/downwind angle and same planing limit. So with the Apollo I can comensate my 20kg+ in light wind. Over 11kn basic wind speed I will use my F161.
Have fun and go fast,
Peter, AUT-84, :D

Hugh Jarmes
13th March 2007, 01:49 AM
Peter

Thanks - it is great to get your view

But what fin were you using on the Apollo?

And what was the fin on the 161?

I think this is important information when making a comparison.

I found that the 75cm fin has a great deal to do with the early planing ability of the Apollo. Unfortunately, a 75cm fin is not legal for racing.

Roger
13th March 2007, 10:28 AM
Hi George,
Well, I finally have my Apollo back from the WS Mag board tests.
They seemed to like the Apollo, alot!
Since then I&#39;ve had the board out several times myself, and did a weekend demo with it.
To say the least, IT ROCKS!
One sailor was out in a measured 10 knots of wind yesterday and his GPS said he was doing over 20 knots.
I was out on it today, in < 10 knots (more like 7-9) with a 9.1 Sailworks NX fw and manged to pull away from a lighter sailor on a 10m2 + Ezzy and a Starboard F-147.
On a beam reach the boards were about even.
Upwind and off the wind Apollo (over a Formula board) the Apollo is a bit faster but the nice thing is that it&#39;s so darn easy to sail.
I did NOT say it&#39;s easy at first to get it planing, that takes a bit of figuring out, but once you get the magic combination, the Apollo takes off well before any other recreational board I&#39;ve ever sailed, and in < 12 knots, I think it&#39;s probably the fastest recreational board ever.
George, if you are racing, then your Lab or the F-161 are probably the best tools.
For being the first to plane on Mission Bay, try the Apollo and I think you will be absolutely astonished.
Put a big drafty free race sail on it (not your Pryde double luff) and you will almost for sure be the first to plane. Might be great with the big double luff as well, but I don&#39;t think FW sails are the best tools for
use at the absolute min. planing threshold.
Hope this helps,

bensen
13th March 2007, 01:26 PM
Hi Roger

When you used your Sailworks yesterday, what fin did you use?

Any hints to get the Apollo planing i very low wind conditions?

So far, I have been using my Apollo with a Drake 70 cm fin and a NP Rss 9,2, but if I can use the 75 cm fin in combo with a 9,2 sail, it´s getting interesting.

Pls tell us your secret.:)

pfaffi
13th March 2007, 02:55 PM
Hi Hugh
I was using my best racing fin F1 S- 70cm +8 which I use in my F161 with 11 and 11,8 in both, Apollo and F161, for clear comparison. Its a super super soft, slim but powerfull fat profile fin. This fin provides the F161 with super lift upwind and allows very free unproblematic and fast deep downwind. Because of the +7,5cm wider tail of the Apollo I have to ride this fin more sensible. I dont believe to much in the 75cm in our gusty conditions. In stronger Gusts its to slow because to large. Maybe a good choice in constant 7-11kn, not in 7-15kn.
I will use my Apollo in racing with 11 and 11,8 specially in gusty conditions with 7kn areas. Will report after first competitions of Formula Super Cup in May.
peter B)

Joe
13th March 2007, 07:35 PM
I&#39;m starting to think the wind is always blowing 10 knots plus!

Has anyone tried the apollo in 5-6 knots (windspeed)??

I would love to hear how it goes or doesn&#39;t go in this windspeed.

Roger
13th March 2007, 08:23 PM
Hi Bensen,
Sunday with the 10.0 Retro (which everyone who tried the board in 8-12 knots got going prettye easily was a True Ames Santa Barabara Weed 53 cm (20.8 ").
On Monday, I used a True Ames Santa Barbara Weed 58 cm with the 9.1 NX slm.
I have alot more finsx to try this week.
So far, the OEM 75 cm wide chord Drake seems to work to get planing, but I&#39;ve found that shorter fins are significantly faster, so I&#39;m working toward finding a fin/rig combination that&#39;s both fast and plaes super early.
Bruce P. gave me some suggestions to get more low end out of my sails yesterday , so I have a whole new spectrum of ideas to check out here.
I&#39;m yhinking that for my weight, a 70-72 is ultimately going to be the best race type fin size for me, and as I say, I have about 5 or 6 different weed fin designs to test as well.
So far, in "easy to get planing conditions (around 7 knots) my first choice of fins would be a Deboichet Concept 64 and the True Ames
SB Weed 53 cm.
Hope this helps,

Matthew
16th March 2007, 06:05 AM
Roger wrote:

Bruce P. gave me some suggestions to get more low end out of my sails yesterday , so I have a whole new spectrum of ideas to check out here.


I&#39;d love to hear those suggestions Roger.

Thanks,
Matthew

Roger
16th March 2007, 07:15 AM
Hi Matthew,
As soon as I get some new masts and mast pieces tomorrow, I hope to get on the water and try these new ideas out.
As you may (or may not) know, I don&#39;t tell people about new ideas like this until I actually try them out.
As soon as I determine how much more I can get from some of my new &#39;07 Sailworks rigs, I&#39;ll let you know.
I already have started using this same concept on the Hucker sails, but I need to check it out with a new 9.5 Retro and perhaps the &#39;06 Retro 10.0 m2 mentioned above.
I&#39;m also going to test this idea in some of my larger NX slm race sails.
I guess this is one of those "never say never" situations.
For years I&#39;ve been "preaching" for sailors to get the suggested "best" mast to get the most from their sails, but it looks like there may be some options here.
Having said this, it occurs to me that one needs to be a bit careful about mixing mast parts and having a really good idea of what you want to achieve by using other than the recommended best mast.
The basic concept here is to give the sail more panel and perimeter tension by selecting mast pieces (tops and bottoms) with different stiffness and bend characteristics to move more and less tension into areas where you want more draft and shape.
Hope this helps,

steveC
17th March 2007, 12:35 AM
Hi Roger,

I think that experimentation with different mast components is an interesting path. I&#39;ve done some mixing out of necessity, and I&#39;ve found the results can be quite acceptable if stiffness differences aren&#39;t that great. Yet, I think a lot depends on the focus of the mixing effort. I feel that concentration on different tops, as opposed to bottoms, will most likely lead to a more workable outcome overall.

Once you&#39;ve had the opportunity to test and validate your ideas, I&#39;d really like to hear more about what you learned.

Unregistered
5th May 2008, 05:10 PM
Old topic, perhaps no reason to post, but since I had the chance to ride Apollo(2007)
for about half an hour, and I thought to post some info in case it's of any help.

I am 98kg (1.93m tall), systematically training on formula boards during about the last 2 years. Wind was around 12knots having few lulls and gusts. Water a bit choppy but
nothing dramatic. Until now I was used to ride F2 FXII(I think 2003 model...).
I tried Apollo with a R19 Drake fin (taken from an old F160) and 11.0 sail (Aerotech VMG).

From the first ride it was obvious that the board planes really much quicker (than e.g.
from F2 FXII) without the need to pump hard.
The upwind pointing angle was really much better. Using the same
sail and fin on FXII, I was unable to reach such an upwind angle. However the board felt
slow and 'huge' - I guess this is the price to pay when you get a better angle(?).
But, this might be due to the R19 Drake fine, which is thick and cheap.

I think this board is a good choice for those who are heavy weight(>90kg) and really
strugle when racing in marginal wind conditions (10knots or less). But, in this case,
a second formula board is essential, in case the wind picks up more than 15knots....
It would be nice to have an Apollo board which has maybe better performance in
mid-wind range (I don't state 'high-wind' cause, I don't think it's easy to have a super
early planner board in 6-7knots and at the same time to be able to ride it in 20+knots).

Cheers.