Finally had a good 7.0 (2007 Ezzy Infinity) day, could have rigged down to the 5.8 (2009 Ezzy Freewave) after the first hour but, it felt too good to finally be on the water and planning.

The 2014 Naish Starship 115, for the rougher ocean conditions is a most welcome improvement over my previous 2004 Starboard Carve 121.

- It was not as slap happy in the rough ocean chop as my Carve 121. The Starship is so much smoother.
- The Starship did nod get 'dragged' off a plane when the rails cut through the sides of swell and chop.
- When overpowered and moving really fast, I did not have any white-knuckle sense that I was going to be pitched over the handlebars. The board just went faster.
- The 115 Starship is only @ 1 cm narrower and, 15 cm shorter than the 121 Carve. Its bottom shape; continuous rocker, single to double concave, nice rounded rails and, tail V, is different than the Carve. Also, the Starships' bottom perimeter edge is beveled (almost like a subtle v). It all made the board feel smaller and, so much looser.
- But, when the wind died in a few lulls, bringing me to an out-of the straps dead-slow slog, there was plenty of float for me (165 lbs.) and the 7.0 cam sail.
- Even though the Starship is 15 cm shorter than the Carve, it got me through some rough shore break without pearling. I do not miss the extra length of the Carve.
- It was easier to pull the whole rig off the water (smooth jumps) when smacking a few breaking swells. This may have been partly due to the new MFC 36 cm (custom CNC, see attached photo below) Freewave/Freemove fin. The rig felt unified. The board kept pace with the sail and the fin.
- With the 121 Carve, using the 7.0 kept me limited to just blasting around but, this Starship board and MFC 36 cm FW fin has now opened a new dimension of fun (jumping) for me with the 7.0 in the ocean.

- Still trying to sense a preferred foot-strap placement (inboard or, out board). And, am anxious to try her with the 5.8. Maybe, with a fin change, she will work in gusty 5.2 conditions as well.... If it's steady 5.2 conditions or, stronger then, out comes the: 8'6", 86 liter, Hatteras-Sandwich/Donny Bowers Wave/B&J custom.
- It's still to be seen how well the Starship speed is for slalom performance on flat water (this is a legendary attribute of the Starboard Carve). I will need to do comparative speed assessments (i.e., toe-to-toe racing) when the opportunity avails itself........

doug

Great review. Look forward to more of your testing. I was thinking about a fin that size for my Ezzy Tiger 6.9. I was trying to find a photo of that beveled perimeter edge of the Naish Starship. Would like to see that.

I just spent a week sailing the Naish Starship 115 at cape Hatteras - OBX on the Pamlico Sound side (much - much flatter water than the ocean sail at Oak Island). The two sails used were an Ezzy 5.8 and 7.0 with a 34cm MFC Weedburner for both sails. When the wind picked up into the higher 20s with gusts into the mid 30s I switched to my B&J board and a 5.2 (the 4.7 would have been a better choice for that day). In short, my 2004 Starboard 121 liter Carve (Carbon and Wood) is now for sale.

The Starship is better suited to B&J, gybing, and is smoother in the rough chop. Plenty of acceleration onto a plane with marginal conditions. Although, the Carve may be be a touch faster on flat water, my primary sailing is done on the open ocean with significant chop, shore break, and deep ocean swells. To me the Starship is much more comfortable in those conditions. It jumps, and lands, better too.

Previously there was an interest in the @ 2 inch bevel about the outer perimeter of the Starship. I believe this allows the board to feel looser/smaller and while carving a gybe, leads into the rounded rails making for a very smooth transition with little to no skipping out in choppy conditions. Attached below are two photos; the first is taken under the mast track, the second is taken more to the nose where the beveled transition to the rounded rail is easily seen.

Great review. I would like to get a 115L b&j board and I think the Starship fits the bill. I have JP supercross 115L that is a fun B&J board but that is about 10 years old before they really started committing to wide style - and I share it with one of my brothers and dad so would be nice to have my own dedicated board.

As for the double concave in the front (bevels) - they eat chop and smooth out the ride. New free race boards (and even slalom race boards) incorporate this. I have the 2013 JP Supersport and it rides so much smoother and more controllable through chop than boards without the concaves in front. The free race boards move to a flat shape in the back of the board whereas b&j boards like the starship go to a V in in the back (V is not as fast but better for turns/transitions). Old boards use to have a lot of concave and through more length of the board - that is why they were such a dream to ride (but also made them slow). There has been a move back to putting concave in the front and flat//v in the back.

Even my longboard (Fantatic Megacat - the 270L version) has concave in the front and I like it much better for light upwind racing because the concaves glide through the water much better than my totally flat bottom SuperlightII/EquipeII (those boards slap/slow down as soon as there is any kind of chop).

Adam

Adam, your discussion on board concaves is right on the mark. One thing to consider with the newer, wider boards are their ability to carry a larger sail than an older, narrower board of the same volume. My 115L Starship has no problem carrying both me (165 pounds) and my 7.0 sail. I think it would have no problem carrying a 7.5 or possibly even larger sail. There's an old expression that sort of says it: "You sail the width of the board and slog the volume."

So, depending on the width of your older JP Supercross 115L, and your weight, you may want to consider a 100l liter Starship. They come in 90, 100, and 115 liters.

doug

I'm 220 pounds so 115L works well for me with the shorter wider boards. Even when it cranks it isn't unwieldy. 115L puts me right around staying on top fo the water or just getting my ankels wet. 100L wouldn't be bad but gusty conditions and cold weather (when I would typically sail something that small) make me steer towards bigger boards most of the time.

The 115L supercross handles a 7.8 for me so I htink the starship could carry a similar size no problem. Wider boards have great range. Older narrow boards did not have nearly as much range.

Adam

That's exactly why I chose the 115L. Being out on the open ocean when the wind shuts down makes a floatier board a very good thing.

BTW: I weigh 165 pounds (not 115 pounds) and have edited the entry above..........

Hi Douglass. Thank you for your review / report!

Can you tell me a bit more about the SS 115's upper wind range and limits please? Naish states a sailrange of 4.5 - 7.5.
Do you feel you can use the board in 4.5 conditions in rough choppy waters? Can this board be sailed in 25-30 knots (30-35 mph) without major issues?

I am in search for a medium / high wind board that has enough float and gives me the confidence to take me home in offshore conditions.
I am 78kg and my level is intermediate cracking first gybes and jumps.
I had a Tabou Rocket 125L for my winter conditions and even if I loved the board I sold it because it was lacking upper range, bumping around and loosing control in heavy chop.
So I bought a Tabou 3S 96L but it looks like I misjudged the 30L gap. I am having issues up-hauling and anything off the plane feels so insecure I have only be on it 2 times!

Do you believe this board could replace my 3S in a 2 board quiver with 4.7, 5.5 wave and 6.6, 7.8 freeride sails?
Should I keep my 96L 3S?

Hello Anton,
So far, I've sailed the SS 115 with a 7.0 Ezzy Infinity and a 5.8 M Ezzy Freewave. One day, I sailed them both with a 34 cm MFC Weedburner (the only PB weed fin I owned at the time). The board/fin combination worked extremely well with the 7.0 and later, when the wind picked up, with the 5.8 sail. The larger 34 cm fin and the 65.6 cm width of the board was a plus while sailing through a few holes with the 5.8 sail. Since that time, I've added a 28 cm PB MFC weedfin to my quiver that I expect will improve the rig balance with the 5.8 sail and may just work with a 5.2 sail.

Your 5.5 and 6.8 sail should be right in the SS 115 sweet spot and I have no doubt the board (with the right fin) would work well with either a larger or, smaller sail. How much larger or smaller a sail would be pure speculation for me at this time. So many variables including, of course, what you ate for breakfast.

Discussion:
The SS-115 is my largest board and 7.0s my largest sail. If conditions were a solid 5.2 or 4.5 I'd pull out my smaller 8'6" wave board rather than the SS 115. Fact is, the 8'6" wave board can handle a 5.8 sail. So, for me (at 165 pounds), the 5.8 sail is a board transition sail. But, it would be sweet if the SS 115 extra volume could handle 5.2 conditions, especially if the wind falls off. (Sail the width, slog the volume...) Your Tabou 3S is probably 61 cm wide and your Rocket is probably 69 cm wide. The SS-115 is 65.6 cm wide plus its shape is kinda wavy rather than slalom oriented........... So many details.......... What's your second board?

I will post an update once I sail lit with the 5.2 sail.

Hi Doug,
Great review of the Naish Starship!
Question for you from someone who is looking at that board.
Do you think I could sail it with a 8.0? (Ezzy Cheetah)- 7.5 is the max rec sail size).
I sail Lake Huron in similar conditions to you - long reaches in chop / rolling swell.
Plan to sail it with a 8.0 and 6.3.
Currently use a RRD Firemove 120 (which I really like) - but would switch / add a board for something better in chop.
185lbs fresh water.

PS I'd be interested t hear your updated review of the starship.
Thanks
Joe

I would recommend you keeping the Fieemove for the 8.0 and adding a ~100L Starship or any other brands FSW model for the 6.3. One board for both sails will be too much of a compromise between early planing/ stability and control/comfort. Even in a very flat water places-which the Great Lakes are not-you'll appreciate the better turning/jumping abbilities of a smaller board in 3 footstrap settup with the 6.3. As for your 8.0 a bigger volume, wider shortboard like the 120L Firemove is a must to get you going as early as possible and be stable when not planing.
PS: attaching this very educational article by Peter Hart
www.windsurf.co.uk/all-a-quiver/

Joe,
My sailing opportunities this past season were limited so; my update for the Naish Starship 115 this fall is also limited. I still have not had the opportunity to sail the SS-115 with a sail larger than the 7.0 Infinity (481 mast x 206 boom). However, at 165 lbs., I have no doubt the SS-115 can handle a larger than 7.0 sail. I’m just not sure how much larger?

Speculation:
That said, the Ezzy Cheetah 8.0 rigs with a 487 luff and a 213 to 220 boom. Biggest difference from my 7.0 Infinity would be the extra 14 cm boom length (@ 5.5 inches). But, it may just work. with the right fin.

Understand that the 120 RRD Firemove has a width of @ 79 cm where the SS-115 comes in at 65.6 cm. For a board, that is a ‘huge’ step down in plannable width. Ady is absolutely correct that the Firemove would carry the 8.0 better in those lighter winds. But, if it gets knarly (vs. flatwater), I find a Freewave board is a lot easier on the bones than a flatter, Freestyle/Wave board.

At 185 pounds, I believe the 6.3 would be great on the SS-115 (245 x 65.6). Also, if the wind falls off, the 115 lite volume will get you through the lulls a bit better than the SS-100 and, be easier to up haul.

One thought would be to call a few shops that rent the Naish Starship and ask their opinion on the SS-115 being able to carry an 8.0 Ezzy Cheetah (at 185 lbs). Two places to start would be: www.bigwinds.com/ and, www.windpowerwindsurfing.com/ .

doug