^^ +1. Tolerance isnt my strongpoint atm. Hows my SUP MASTRACK BS thread looking???
WE NEED WIND!!! Id be happy with only 15kt.
Select to expand quotedecrepit said..
Are we turning into grumpy old men?
Dude im not even 49yo!!! 
Lack of wind does strange things to sailors.
^^ Not entering into the wind strength debate. But the title sez NO PROBLEM. Hmmm ???
Lots of short editing going on there.
Just sayin.
Select to expand quoteImax1 said..
I'll go hee for tiggy if that's over 40 kts.
...yeah not even close. Not a hint of spindrift...
Select to expand quoteolskool said..
^^ Not entering into the wind strength debate. But the title sez NO PROBLEM. Hmmm ???
Lots of short editing going on there.
Just sayin.
Sailed for about an hour. Could basically only go upwind :D ! Was a novice back then but couldn't do much better today. 100kg/220lb guy was on 4.7 way overpowered. I was on 3.7 way overpowered as well. Well everyone was. We all had to walk back downwind as a reverse walk of shame :D !
This was more recent 15-45kts though: windsurfing.lepicture.com/storm-chase/
^ All good Manuel7. I follow your forward loop thread. Awesome dude! Dont think i will EVER be capable of that kind of sailing.
Select to expand quotesailquik said..Paducah said..
That's the Hawaiian way of measuring. Since they pretty much invented the sport, you can take it up with them.
Well maybe, but I very much doubt that BS was in use when surfing was 'invented'. That seems to be a more modern twist, and one could just as stongly argue that, for all practical purposes, Australia and the USA had just as much influence on the later development of surfing.
In any case, it is BS and we dont have to repeat BS if we choose not to. 
No surfer is interested in any way in the back side of a wave! 
Readers may have gathered that I dont have much tollerance for BS! 
Seriously? I've known about this for 25+ years. It's been done in Hawaii for a lot longer.
web.archive.org/web/20051014143651/http://www.hawaii.rr.com/leisure/reviews/neal_miyake/2003-05_hsmwhihawaii.htm
I have less tolerance for BS
Select to expand quoteolskool said..
Cmon now guys! Gtj101 video title sez 30-50kts. Pretty sure he doesnt say constant 50kts. His videos obviously show winds(30+) stronger than we have here in Oz at the moment.
Give the guy the credit he deserves. Great effort id say. He also posts wind skate vids. So is a super keen sailor id think.
Good on ya GTJ101!
DONT BOTHER WITH ALL THE KNOW IT ALL BS.
Youre out there doing it.
While we are sitting around waiting for some decent wind.
KUDOS TO YOU!! RIP IT UP...
Plenty of us who say it's not 50 have also said it's good sailing and they are good vids. So we are NOT dissing the OP. The fact is that it's not 50 knots.
Saying you can sail in 50 knots if you can't is a bit like saying you can do 60 knots if you can't, or saying you could beat AA and win the PWA if you can't. It's pretty close to bragging.
Select to expand quotePaducah said..sailquik said..Paducah said..
That's the Hawaiian way of measuring. Since they pretty much invented the sport, you can take it up with them.
Well maybe, but I very much doubt that BS was in use when surfing was 'invented'. That seems to be a more modern twist, and one could just as stongly argue that, for all practical purposes, Australia and the USA had just as much influence on the later development of surfing.
In any case, it is BS and we dont have to repeat BS if we choose not to.
No surfer is interested in any way in the back side of a wave!
Readers may have gathered that I dont have much tollerance for BS!
Seriously? I've known about this for 25+ years. It's been done in Hawaii for a lot longer.
web.archive.org/web/20051014143651/http://www.hawaii.rr.com/leisure/reviews/neal_miyake/2003-05_hsmwhihawaii.htm
I have less tolerance for BS
Yep, Seriously.
Historical sources suggest Pacific Island surfing existed for possibly many hundreds of years before Europeans arrived there and saw it, and it was another couple of hundred years before it becaame a pastime that took off in Australian and the USA. That is when modern surfing started.
And just because a whole group of people who take themseves too seriously subscribe to some crazy 'save face' folklaw distortion of science and reason, does not make it a fact. It is still BS of the utmost order.
That last graphic in the article illustrates that perfectly.
Woops I thought the thread was about posting videos with winds above 30 knots?
Definitely a few rolled over trucks that day. So many odd swirls lifting up debris, I was worried about my SUV at some point!
It's surprising how "easy" it is to sail overpowered conditions. It's just that it's impossible to head downwind or beam reach even and do much at all. Then, the wind can just rip the gear out of our hands and travel quite far away when waterstarting.
Normally one would have the right gear though. I debated getting a 2.9 for those rare days in Wyoming. 3.3 for larger guys.
But then the fin and the board will feel big...
It's fun once in a while though!
Wind gusts are measured as an average over 3 seconds. The actual windspeed is NOT the gust speed, but (as mentioned earlier) it is an average 10m above the surface. The actual windspeed is normally around 60% or so of the gusts. So you don't look at a small hand-held wind meter and see it flicking to 50+ and say it's a 50 knot wind; it's actually about 30.
Arguably, looking at a momentary flicker of a dial and calling that the windspeed is like measuring a wave from the peak of the spume flying off the lip, or measuring your speed as a bike from the highest flicker you see on your speedo at any time during the ride.
For another thing, when we sail racing yachts with America's Cup pros on board, we're very aware that even the instruments on a multi-million dollar yacht, which may cost in the six figures, need calibration. An un-calibrated meter can be subject to significant errors, as far as I know. I think the guy here who would have the most proven experience here in extreme winds would be Sailquik, who has lived at a famous speed-sailing spot and done very well in world speedsailing rankings. He has the runs on the board to make the call.
Select to expand quoteManuel7 said..
Good work on getting your looping going! I know what it's like trying to motivate yourself to go out and get slammed some more.
Select to expand quotesailquik said..Paducah said..sailquik said..Paducah said..
That's the Hawaiian way of measuring. Since they pretty much invented the sport, you can take it up with them.
Well maybe, but I very much doubt that BS was in use when surfing was 'invented'. That seems to be a more modern twist, and one could just as stongly argue that, for all practical purposes, Australia and the USA had just as much influence on the later development of surfing.
In any case, it is BS and we dont have to repeat BS if we choose not to.
No surfer is interested in any way in the back side of a wave!
Readers may have gathered that I dont have much tollerance for BS!
Seriously? I've known about this for 25+ years. It's been done in Hawaii for a lot longer.
web.archive.org/web/20051014143651/http://www.hawaii.rr.com/leisure/reviews/neal_miyake/2003-05_hsmwhihawaii.htm
I have less tolerance for BS
Yep, Seriously.
Historical sources suggest Pacific Island surfing existed for possibly many hundreds of years before Europeans arrived there and saw it, and it was another couple of hundred years before it becaame a pastime that took off in Australian and the USA. That is when modern surfing started.
And just because a whole group of people who take themseves too seriously subscribe to some crazy 'save face' folklaw distortion of science and reason, does not make it a fact. It is still BS of the utmost order.
That last graphic in the article illustrates that perfectly.
So, you are saying that the Hawaiians were doing it for a couple hundred years before "it becaame [sic] a pastime that took off in Australian and the USA". In that case, they can define waves anyway they see fit in my book. Just because you came along later and decided it needed to be described a different way doesn't make their description less valid. Their way still communicates the basic information needed. It works for them. Do you give people who use Force 2-3, etc the same crap? It's just as arbitrary or worse.
Now I see why the f* aboriginal peoples are so pissed off all the time.
Select to expand quotePaducah said..So, you are saying that the Hawaiians were doing it for a couple hundred years before "it becaame [sic] a pastime that took off in Australian and the USA". In that case, they can define waves anyway they see fit in my book. Just because you came along later and decided it needed to be described a different way doesn't make their description less valid. Their way still communicates the basic information needed. It works for them. Do you give people who use Force 2-3, etc the same crap? It's just as arbitrary or worse.
Now I see why the f* aboriginal peoples are so pissed off all the time.
Of course they can call it any way they like.
(Although I very much doubt that 'back of the wave' stuff predates the modern era.)
But any other way, especially if it is more relevant to those using it, in any other place, is just as valid also.
And no, I have a nice multi scale on my anemometer and can easily decode those other, very relevant and valid wind measuring scales.
Select to expand quoteJacko51 said..
Official BOM wind observations from automatic weather stations.
Wind Speed, knots = 10 minute average from the standard height of 10 metres.
Max Wind Gust, knots = Measured over 3 seconds from the standard height of 10 metres.
Based on these calculations at ground level, the wind speed would be hard to calculate in Sailquick's vid but it did peak at 40+
I think a lot of people over estimate the wind strength .
I have and use regularly a Kestrel 5500 anemometer it comes with a cert. of calibration and they are used by CASA and the bush fire guys so I trust its accurate. Its a bit of a fancy bit of kit. When I tell guys how LOW the wind actually is (at head height close to shore admittedly) they are almost to a man gob smacked! "man its honking must be 30 to 35 knots out there"...eh no its a steady 24, "its nice & steady 20 knots"...eh no its 16 tops" its a bit marginal maybe 12-15 knots" eh no its 8-10!! Gusts vs sustained average is a big difference. But its hard to argue with the machine. This toy measures average wind speed ass opposed to gusts (don't know exactly the way it does it) and shows max peek and more often than not max peek is 50-70% more. I guess we are all optimists when it comes to wind and hope!
www.instrumentchoice.com.au/instrument-choice/environment-meters/anemometers/heat-stress-anemometers/kestrel-5500-weather-meter-ic-0855?keyword_k=?device_d=c?campaign_c=1929368321&gclid=EAIaIQobChMIp9ie9Zn94gIVAQ4rCh0hZgBhEAQYAyABEgJtVfD_BwE
^^ That has often been my experience as well! 
The Kestral 5500 appears to be a very good instrument.
A disadvantage of this design type is that they usually need to be lined up quite precisely with the wind direction, as opposed to the horizontally spinning cup type. Have you noticed is this particular model is reasonably forgiving of alignment? Some cheap ones I have tested were very sensitive, but a quality device like this may have been designed to reduce that effect somewhat.
Select to expand quotesailquik said.. >>>Of course they can call it any way they like. (Although I very much doubt that 'back of the wave' stuff predates the modern era.)
But any other way, especially if it is more relevant to those using it, in any other place, is just as valid also.
And no, I have a nice multi scale on my anemometer and can easily decode those other, very relevant and valid wind measuring scales.
And I'm wondering how they do that, it's not easy judging the height of the back of the wave, there's nothing to compare it to. Methinks they judge the face of the wave against a rider, then halve it or whatever ratio they dream up. Then anybody receiving this info has to double it again to get actual face height.
I don't care how you call the height of a wave, what I'm interested in is the riderable face, and I don't see why double ended calculations should be involved, in order to get that.
And the other interesting thing, is the big wave challenge seems to be stated in face height, because they are judging the size of the wave from vids of the riders on it. You rarely see pictures of the back of the wave, let alone with any reference to judge their height.
