24 May 2006 15:22:54
geekboy
freesex 110 vs. kombat 105

hi all;

something actually on topic for you bored folks to
ponder. i need to expand my board quiver downward,
and i'm looking at starboard's 2005 closeout inventory.

trying to decide between a kombat or a freesex, in the
105-110 liter sizes. i'm leaning toward the freesex as
it's less of a hardcore wave board, and they changed
the name in 2006, and i can't pass up the chance to own
a board with such a neat name. not kidding : > it also
matches my riding style at this point.

location: erie (freshwater)
skill level: beginner/intermediate
rider weight: 75 kg
typical conditions: bump and jump, washing machine,
occasional rollers w. short interval when wind
is consistent enough.

current quiver consists of:
199 liter mistral n-trance
145 liter starboard carve

i think a 110-105 liter board is a logical next step
downward, with a proper low-volume board in the future.

so: kombat owners, riders, any comments? people who sail
on the great lakes in particular would be nice to hear
from. freesex riders? i know of only one person in the
area who has a freesex, and nobody with a kombat. for
what it's worth, he seems to love his 'sexy' board. you
know who you are :)

TIA
geekboy



24 May 2006 14:18:26
tim_nitram_junk@yahoo.com
Re: freesex 110 vs. kombat 105

Hi there,

I have a Freesex 97 and a JP FSW 84, you do NOT want to use the Freesex
as a wave machine. It totally sucks for any type of hard carving
maneuver; it's easy to stall out when pushing too hard on a carve. It
is a sweet board for freestyle and getting the most out of a light wind
day. The FSW is also a great board for early planing but it carves
much nicer then the Freesex--although I've heard the first year's model
of FSW is a much better carving machine. I am not a wave sailor but I
would think that neither of these boards would be that great for wave
riding (especially the Freesex).

Just my 2-cents.

-Tim



24 May 2006 17:30:53
Ellen Faller
Re: freesex 110 vs. kombat 105

I know someone who has a 2003 Freesex 107 liter board that he istrying
to sell. Circumstances worked against his progression in freestyle, and
he moved on.
Ellen

geekboy wrote:

> hi all;
>
> something actually on topic for you bored folks to
> ponder. i need to expand my board quiver downward,
> and i'm looking at starboard's 2005 closeout inventory.
>
> trying to decide between a kombat or a freesex, in the
> 105-110 liter sizes. i'm leaning toward the freesex as
> it's less of a hardcore wave board, and they changed
> the name in 2006, and i can't pass up the chance to own
> a board with such a neat name. not kidding :> it also
> matches my riding style at this point.
>
> location: erie (freshwater)
> skill level: beginner/intermediate
> rider weight: 75 kg
> typical conditions: bump and jump, washing machine,
> occasional rollers w. short interval when wind
> is consistent enough.
>
> current quiver consists of:
> 199 liter mistral n-trance
> 145 liter starboard carve
>
> i think a 110-105 liter board is a logical next step
> downward, with a proper low-volume board in the future.
>
> so: kombat owners, riders, any comments? people who sail
> on the great lakes in particular would be nice to hear
> from. freesex riders? i know of only one person in the
> area who has a freesex, and nobody with a kombat. for
> what it's worth, he seems to love his 'sexy' board. you
> know who you are :)
>
> TIA
> geekboy
>


24 May 2006 14:50:31
nikita
Re: freesex 110 vs. kombat 105

I would second the suggestion of a freestyle wave board (JP or SB
Kombat). If you are not going to do jumping freestyle (Vulcans etc) and
sail in waves, a FSW board will be a much better option for you. I
personally own a JP FSW 98 and really like it for B&J sailing. The only
advantage of a FreeSex is the name...

Also, make sure you are comfortable with waterstarts before you get
yourself a 100-liter board. Uphauling them is a challenge, especially
in waves.



24 May 2006 19:11:45
(PeteCresswell)
Re: freesex 110 vs. kombat 105

Per geekboy:
>so: kombat owners, riders, any comments? people who sail
> on the great lakes in particular would be nice to hear
> from. freesex riders? i know of only one person in the
> area who has a freesex, and nobody with a kombat.

You know one now. Not only that, but I had an FX 110 last year.

I had fun with the FX, but it did not do what I wanted it to do - which was to
be my 5.5-4.7 board in heavy chop. I weigh about 220#.

The characteristics that make the FX work for free styling seem somehow to
conflict with what I wanted for my use. Sorry I can't get any more specific...
but it just never felt right - like I always had the straps in the wrong place
or something. It's as if it were designed to let somebody pump up on to a
plane ASAP, do their thing, and then serve as a platform for the landing...
period.

I spent quite a few hours on it with a no-cam 6.0 just fooling around - sailing
sideways, backwards.... doing ridiculously-tight low-speed jibes... it was
definitely fun.... but once I got powered up, it just never felt right.

Also, never could quite get over the swimming sperm logo and the name...-)

OTOH, I know at least one person that uses an FX as their primary board and
loves it.

I threw myself on the mercy of the dealer, who let me trade the FX back in for
what I paid for it (demo leftover last year...) against a new Kombat 106.

Picked up the Kombat yesterday. If tomorrow's iWindsurf forecast for Lakes
Bay is as radically understated as they have been so far this season - and I can
rationalize bagging another day of work - maybe I'll get a chance to try it out.
--
PeteCresswell


25 May 2006 12:29:22
geekboy
Re: freesex 110 vs. kombat 105

geekboy wrote:
> hi all;
>
> something actually on topic for you bored folks to
> ponder. i need to expand my board quiver downward,
> and i'm looking at starboard's 2005 closeout inventory.
>
> trying to decide between a kombat or a freesex, in the
> 105-110 liter sizes. i'm leaning toward the freesex as
> it's less of a hardcore wave board, and they changed
> the name in 2006, and i can't pass up the chance to own
> a board with such a neat name. not kidding :> it also
> matches my riding style at this point.
>
well, i'm glad i asked.

it sounds like i'll maybe be ready for the freesex in
oh, god knows how many years as a specialty board as
an adjunct to a similarly sized wave board. TOW is
precious here, and i need to make the most of it, in
any conditions. when the wind picks up, i want to be
sailing, and i need a board that will allow my skills
to catch up to it's abilities, so to speak.

so far my n-trance and carve have done that perfectly,
and from what people are saying, the kombat would too.
a softer, more forgiving ride and better carving
characteristics are all things that would help me sail
longer and progress faster.

my only concern is volume at this point. i did sail a
drops 110 last weekend, and could uphaul it, although
it wasn't exactly easy to do so.

the largest kombat is 105, which is just at the bottom
of the range i'm looking for. since the FX is out of
the picture, i'm thinking about the S-type 115. any
comments?

the EVO's are too small at this point. next time!

thanks for all the advice so far! glad i didn't throw
down $1000 for a board that looks like the wrong fit
for me right now.

geekboy


25 May 2006 21:08:29
(PeteCresswell)
Re: freesex 110 vs. kombat 105

Per quadzilla41@charter.net:
>The Kombat is much more fun to sail
>for what I like to do and has a more crisp ride and playful in the
>chop. It also sails very well overpowered and forgiving in harsh
>conditions.

That's what I wanted to hear!!!

Sailed mine today for the first time... and thoroughly confirmed it's
sloggability...-)
--
PeteCresswell


25 May 2006 21:12:49
(PeteCresswell)
Re: freesex 110 vs. kombat 105

Per geekboy:
>my only concern is volume at this point. i did sail a
> drops 110 last weekend, and could uphaul it, although
> it wasn't exactly easy to do so.
>
> the largest kombat is 105, which is just at the bottom
> of the range i'm looking for. since the FX is out of
> the picture, i'm thinking about the S-type 115. any
> comments?

How much do you weigh?

Also, volume is only part of what makes a board uphaulable.

I'm about 215#. I've got a RealWind that's 120L that I can barely uphaul on
flat water - and I'd better be having a really good day to do it. OTOH, I've
got a Carve 123 that I can uphaul anytime anywhere - no problem at all. The
diff is where the volume is...i.e. the shape.

I didn't try uphauling the Kombat today - want to wait until the non-skid gets a
little worn in... but it's about ankle-deep at a full stop.... and the shape
looks pretty forgiving... so my guess is that I should be able to uphaul it
fairly easily.
--
PeteCresswell


26 May 2006 07:26:53
kike
Re: freesex 110 vs. kombat 105

Pete,

I don't think it's technique. On my K96 I only use 5.5 and 4.6 sails, I
never tried a 6.5 sail, which would be max sail size recommended, for
the reasons quadzill mentioned above, the board likes high winds. When
I compare this board with others of simmilar volume it seems like the
Kombat takes a bit more of wind to get onto a plane. With the 5.5 sail
and my 78 kilos I would need solid 20-knot winds to plane. The board
really excels in winds over 25 knots, great control, forgiving, turny.
I always ride it with the single backstrap and fin near the freeride
mark in the finbox for jumps. However, I've been told that using 2
backstraps and freeride fin makes the board sit higher on the water and
get faster onto a plane, probably improving your planing threshold.



26 May 2006 22:10:45
(PeteCresswell)
Re: freesex 110 vs. kombat 105

Per quadzilla41@charter.net:
>Yes, if the wind is averaging 17 or so I would be planing comfortably
>and in both straps with my no cam 6.4. Averaging 17 is way windier than
>gusting to 17 and locally this average would mean that the wind is in
>the 15-22 range...

I think I found one fallacy in my thinking: I don't really know the on-water
wind speed. I'm going by iWindsurf's graphs. At this site, iWindsurf's sensor
is on top of a hotel - Waaaay up there....

>... I would think there
>might be a compatability issue running a 7.5 and the stock fin or a
>upgraded fin of similar size.

There is. I have to be really gentle with it when the 7.5 is up there... and
even with the 6.6 until I'm up to speed. My habit is to stomp on the fin
quite frequently - fin pumping, water starting, cutbacks on chop, and
so-forth... but it does work as long as I don't push it too hard. Actually,
this is the first stock fin I've ever found to work for me - albeit not all that
wonderfully... but it *does* work.

My real 7.5 board is an Aero 127 (and before that, a Carve 123). When there's
plenty of water, I run a 46 cm free ride fin, which makes all the diff in the
world. When the tide's out, I run WarDog's big weeder wave.... which works
well enough - especially considering it's a weed fin.


> I am not sure that bigger fin and
>big sail is going to a pathway to early planing with a Kombat without
>other negative issues. .

I'm not really looking for earlier planing - just fooling around with the board
to see what it will take. Intended use for me wouldn't begin until I had
powered-up 6.6 on my Aero 127.

Only time it will see 7.5 "for real" will be when I throw it in the car for CYA
purposes when I go surf kayaking and the wind picks up unexpectedly. My new
surf kayak (a "Wave Witch" by Hunt Johnson) seems tb a veritable wind
magnet...-) Last time I tried it in the ocean, I couldn't even take off -
there was so much wind I kept getting blown back up the waves and blinded by the
spindrift.


> So, if the wind is not there, bigger board.

As above... but I still don't think I can plane reliably in 17 mph on my Aero
127/7.5. OTOH, also as above, maybe I don't really know what the wind speeds
are when I'm sailing .... only that other sailors are constantly blowing past
me...

OTOOH, I figure that in the 6.0-8.0 range 20 pounds of body weight is good for
.6 or .7 meters of sail size - and when I extrapolate that against known body
weights/sail sizes of the people blowing past me, most of the time (but not
always) it seems to make sense that they're planing and I'm not.... but you're
17 mph got me going on the idea that I'm doing something wrong ... again...
--
PeteCresswell