View Full Version : Early planning sail size for 73kg?

16th January 2007, 06:18 PM
Hi Roger and friends,

I have a F-Type 158 for light wind, and I am using a Gaastra Swift 11.0 for it. This sail is focussed on the low-end side. 5 battens/2 cambers for 11.0 is not usual isn't it?
I rig it on 520 90% mast and 250-300 alum boom.

The issue is that provided that I am only 73kg, I think that:
- I could get about the same early planning power with a smaller sail, always talking about free-race sails. (Retro, NP V8, Gaastra GTX..)
- These sails would give me more top end speed, and more range of use

So, which size would you recomend, focussing on the early planning side of things? (I consider about 9.8 to 9.0)

I have special interest in the Retro (becouse it is no-cams), the GTX (8 battens, 3 cams), and the V8 (7 battens/2 cams)

Will I get from the Retro similar low end performance as with the other 2 sails listed?


17th January 2007, 01:15 PM
Hello Han,
For a 73 Kg. (161 Lbs.) sailor, the 11.0 Swift may not be the optimum.
I've sailed some Gaastra Swifts (although in the 8.5 m2 size range) and I did not find them to be particularly "grunty" on the low end (at least how they had been rigged).
So, I think the Retro in a 9.0 might give you almost the same "grunt" (low wind "power to get going early") as you 11.0 m2 Swift.
The V8 is another sail that's been pretty "legendary" for it's light wind "grunt" and could be a good choice also.
The Severne Gator is another sail with good low wind power as well as good top speed and may compare favorably with the Retro if you find you want to go with the "no-cam".
They are simpler to rig, for sure, and the Retros definitely have an immense tuning range.
It's up to you (the sailor) to take advantage of that wide tuning range.
This applies to almost any sail, but some, like the Retro, seem to allow you to have super early planing, but they can be tuned with additional downhaul and outhaul to give really good top end speed and stability.
The cambered sails may have a slight advantage in overpowered stability, but not in the 2 cam models. Fantastic overpowered stability is normally found in 3 or 4 cam race sails.
I'd rate the Retro and the V8 as being about equal in low end power (size for size) and the GTX slightly less.
The Retro should also provide the best durability of these 3 sails.
And, whatever sail you choose, get an "on the fly" adjustable outhaul system so you can get the full power to get going, then flatten the lower part of the foil to give you better top speed and control.
Hope this helps,

22nd January 2007, 05:00 AM
Hi again Roger.
Going a little bit further with my question.
Let's say that I buy a Retro 9.5 or even a 10.0
Would I improve something? (We said "no" for early planning power, but maybe beeter top end speed? or better upwind pointing?)
At what price? I guess high end range, maniouverbility..

Thanks for your advise!

24th January 2007, 11:33 PM
Hello Han,
Sorry for the delay here.
I was traveling to Bonaire and getting some sailing in.
I would not say "NO" emphatically to the Retro having better low wind "get going" power than your Gaastra Swift. I have not sailed (or rigged) a Swift that large so I really cannot comment on the 11.0 Swift's light wind planinig capabilities.
If you want to go upwind better, then a more complex Formula race sail would be the best choice, but on the F-Type 158 you may not get the kind of upwind performance that you would get on a true Formula race board. With the F-Type 158, and for sure with the stock fin, you are trading alot of upwind pointing ability for a board that's alot easier to sail, jibes better, and has a better overall range without becoming very technical to sail.
Better top end on the F-Type 158...with an adjustable outhaul setup, yes, you could easily trim a big Retro from being very "grunty on the low end (outhaul slacked off almost all the way) to very good top end speed and stability (outhauled and flattened quite a bit.
Different sailors prefer different features in their rigs, so the best way to check this out is to come to a demo and sail the big Retro.
That's the only way you can really tell.
Hope this helps,

24th January 2007, 11:42 PM
Hi Roger,

thanks for your post, I hope you enjoyed your windsurfing trip!

Let me start again my question to make myself more clear. (Sorry english is not my native language and sometimes my little mistakes make big missunderstandings)
Let's forget about the Swift. Provided de FT158, which retro would you recomend, focusing on the early planning side of things, for a 73kg sailor? I am looking for the "turning point" sail size where i will not get any more low end power if I go any bigger.


25th January 2007, 07:39 AM
If I were you I'd goo with Retro 9.5 because it still rigs on 490 mast.

25th January 2007, 08:35 PM
I'd love to see how the Retro 9.5 compares to my V8 9.8. I love the V8, but am always curious if a lighter, easier to rig option would be just as good.

Team Roper
26th January 2007, 05:43 AM
Roger, I'm curious to your reply to Han's post # 5. You let me sail your demo equipment in the gorge summer 05 so last year i bought a GO 185 with Retro 8.5. I'm 200lbs sailor, i was interested in get an 11.0m Retro but my local dealer said that it will not get me planning any sooner than my 8.5m. Do you agree with this opinion? (which is similar to the question Han posed)

26th January 2007, 10:00 PM
Hi Team Roper,
At 200 lbs sailor weight (90.7 Kg.) I think there would be a major early planing advantage with a 9.5 or larger rig.
Depends if you want to spend the money for a 520 mast and a big boom.
Yes, the 11.0 will definitely get you going earlier than an 8.5 at your weight.
How much advantage there would be over say a 9.5or 10.0 m2 Retro is a bit more diffucult to predict.
Much of my inability to be specific to Han is based on the fact that I don't know anything about an 11.0 m2 Gaastra Swift.
So, bottom line, I do not agree with your dealer at all.
8.5 m2 is really a "mid size" sail these days.
9.5 is starting to get "big", over 10.0 is where you really have to go to get the best marginal planing at your weight.
Hope this helps,