X-OldHeader: From cindoll@earthlink.net-DeleteThis.com Mon Jun 2 22:33:35 2003 Return-Path: <cindoll@earthlink.net-DeleteThis.com> Received: from opus.labs.agilent.com (root@opus.labs.agilent.com-DeleteThis.com [130.29.244.179]) by jr.labs.agilent.com (8.9.3 (PHNE_25183+JAGae58098)/8.9.3 AgilentLabs Workstation) with ESMTP id WAA20573 for <wind_talk_ls@jr.labs.agilent.com-DeleteThis.com>; Mon, 2 Jun 2003 22:33:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from msgbas2x.net.asiapac.com (msgbas2.sgp.agilent.com [192.168.216.27]) by opus.labs.agilent.com (8.9.3 (PHNE_25183+JAGae58098)/8.9.3 AgilentLabs Workstation) with ESMTP id WAA10354 for <wind_talk@opus.labs.agilent.com-DeleteThis.com>; Mon, 2 Jun 2003 22:33:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from scaup.mail.pas.earthlink.net (scaup.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.49]) by msgbas2x.net.asiapac.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0749873B for <wind_talk@opus.labs.agilent.com-DeleteThis.com>; Tue, 3 Jun 2003 13:33:33 +0800 (SGP) Received: from sdn-ar-001casfrmp226.dialsprint.net ([158.252.208.228] helo=wrossc) by scaup.mail.pas.earthlink.net with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 19N4QH-0002pB-00 for wind_talk@opus.labs.agilent.com-DeleteThis.com; Mon, 02 Jun 2003 22:33:25 -0700 Message-ID: <001901c32992$2840b840$e4d0fc9e@wrossc> From: "cindoll" <cindoll@earthlink.net-DeleteThis.com> To: <wind_talk@opus.labs.agilent.com-DeleteThis.com> References: <20030602130912.85569.qmail@web41011.mail.yahoo.com-DeleteThis.com> Subject: Re: Boom Question Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2003 22:37:00 -0700 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200
Hey, Lev, thanks for your information, that in using HPL they seemed
stiffer than FS--maybe my little biceps test isn't the best.
I'm a weenie weight (a whopping 135 pounds today) and I'm using
these booms for lock-n-load and bump-n-jump, not in the waves.
(When you go down to booms that fit sails for us little people, you
get wave booms. And hey, I've actually been in waves and had a good
time, but I'm kind of chicken. Maybe a trip to Maui is in order.
Anyone want to take me?)
I find the adjustable outhaul, even on a 3.7, increases my water
time. Plus, I can set my harness lines for maximum power and change
the outhaul when the wind changes instead of move my harness lines.
No calluses on this girl! (I'm lying, I have calluses.)
Which brings me to the question: What was NP thinking when they put
a non-capture fitting on the end of a wave boom? By "non-capture" I
mean that the line goes around a horn, so that it might escape in a
thrashing. When you get pounded, the last thing you need is your
clew line coming undone.
Cindoll
----- Original Message ----- From: Lev Brouk To: Multiple
recipients of list WIND_TALK Sent: Monday, June 02, 2003 6:12 AM
Subject: Re: Boom Question
As someone who owned both Fiberspar and HPL in the wave size (used
it with 3.5 to 5.8 wave sails) I can attest that HPL is a MUCH MUCH
MUCH nicer boom. The sails rigged on HPL felt more solid, rigid if
you will, like a wing.
Durability-wise, I broke the Fiberspar within a few months and the
HPL just after slightly over a year. So, HPL scored better, even if
not perfect :-) But then I am 200+ lbs and sailed some rather
hardcore conditions here in Europe. And if it makes any difference,
the Fiberspar just broke by itself, whereas the HPL broke after a
superhard impact on the nose (caught sand sailing onshore and got
launched forward really hard :-(
Just out of curiosity, why do you care about an adjustable outhaul
on a wave boom? Seems like it would be a yet-another-thing that can
break in the waves...
Also, after having carbon booms for a while, I switched back to
alluminum. They all break pretty quickly, so I\\302'm going to
stick with the cheaper ones. Sure they don\\302't feel as nice, but
I don\\302't think it\\302's affecting my performance in any
noticeable way.
Writing this from Guincho, Portugal. It\\302's sunny, windy, nice
waves, the best espresso in the world, paradise...
Keep shredding!
- Lev
--- JM <fukitsnukin@hotmail.com-DeleteThis.com> wrote: > > HPL's not as stiff as
Fiberspar's?? Yeah right... Who told you > that? In > any case,
check out the new Windsurfing Hawaii Makai: >
http://www.windsurfinghawaii.com/boom.asp > These are stiff and bomb
proof. > JM > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "cindoll"
<cindoll@earthlink.net-DeleteThis.com> > To: "Multiple recipients of list
WIND_TALK" > <wind_talk@opus.labs.agilent.com-DeleteThis.com> > Sent: Friday, May
30, 2003 8:57 PM > Subject: Boom Question > > > > I want to buy new
carbon booms that go from 140cm to 190. > > > > A requirement is
that they have an adjustment locker different from > > the twisty
kind on fiberspar. (These are too easy to undo during a > > duck
jibe.) > > > > I looked at Hawaiian ProLine, but they are not as
stiff as > fiberspar > > and they are narrower. Not as stiff is a
deal breaker. > > > > Neil Pryde has a 145 to 195, better for
slightly bigger sails, but > > the back end is funky. There is no
place where your clew line is > > captured (except the knot and the
cleat) so if you run any > purchase, > > the line might pop out.
(This is especially critical if you're > > using an adjustable
outhaul, because the line is sometimes slack.) > > I would like to
replace the back end hardware with two simple > > pulleys. > > > >
Has anyone popped off this plastic piece? It looks like just one >
> rivet is holding it on. > > > > Or maybe someone knows of another
brand of little carbon booms . . > > .. > > > > Cindoll > > > >
[HTML file part2 deleted by listprocessor] > > > >
[HTML file part2 deleted by listprocessor]
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Mar 26 2005 - 11:56:51 PST