laurentnc a écrit:
Première nav aujourd'hui de la 58 2011.
Conclusion:
-Pour moi la 7.0 est la surface maxi sur cette planche.
- Ma 6.4 lui ira comme un gant!
- Au vu du premier test, c'est une planche qui demande un aileron puissant.
- Plus le vent monte plus le plan d'eau devient difficile, plus vous ferez la difference avec d'autres boards!
Pour finir, super board très saine à toutes les allures, trés bon confort/controle et cerise sur le gateau, un reélle plaisir d'attaquer fort les jibes! Ne pas oublier aussi un e construction vraiment sérieuse!!!!
Seems very close to my CA 58 2009 that I use regularly with a 6.6 and 34/36 Talon. My 7.3 is too big if powered up and a 6.0 is too small for the board. The quoted volume is indeed optimistic: it does not matter, you are supposed to sail the thing overpowered anyway, but the board does not float me at 72Kg. In general I am much less enthusiastic about the board: only plus I can see is that it is relatively easy to sail ... like most modern slaloms
. I said relatively, because I found it twitchy and unstable at speed compared to wider tailed boards of similar size. It is an old-style (mid-2000-design) Maui-high-wind slalom board good for a medium/high weight sailor.
PS Construction wise my CAs proved to be very fragile. Paint scratches, chips, filler coming off (in little chunks!). I needed to refinish and repaint after one year: treat it with care!
.g.e.o. a écrit:
... I would expect a 7.3 to be too large for a small board when underpowered, not when powered up (like you say); powered up it gets when there is good wind, so more easily into the board's wind range. Can you please explain your point?
You are thinking about sailing underpowered that is rather meaningless for a slalom board. Think powered up: the problem is that the board is too small, especially with the narrow tail, to deal with a lit 7.3/7.5: it is overwhelmed when going across the wind and upwind. Nothing strange here, all boards have an upper (and lower) limit size-wise; CA indicates a 6.5 as the optimal size and they are right on the money. Want to use a bigger sail? get a bigger board. BTW, as far as I can tell the 2009 board is almost identical to the 2011 but somehow the board is supposed to be so much better? what exactly has changed? From the published specs I can see tiny changes, mostly few mm in the tail: how can that make the board so much better of what was already supposed to be the best and greatest?
Really, bros, a minimum of objectivity would be nice. I own CAs, they are good boards, but they have their limitations. It does not help to keep screaming to the world that nothing else come close. I personally think CAs need a serious update, the design is old conceptually, and compared side by side to more modern designs the performance gap shows.
Connexion
M’enregistrer
FAQ
Rechercher
</HS>
