great Review Hubert ... gives everyone a really good idea scope and float of the goya ranges ... keep reading REALLY great things re Custom thruster also - sounds like they absolutely nailed that design ... interesting also how the Quatro range has things the other way round - thruster for hardcore DTL , and the cubequad functioning as their side-on design ... I guess they have all avenues covered then !
Thanx for the reply Hubert (i guess we met 2 years ago in Marina delle Rose, Sardegna). Never been to Sardegna since then, because of other holiday plans.
Regarding Custom Thruster you allready mentioned the very good test of the 86 in german SURF mag, describing it as the perfect Allrounder.
I got my CT 99 3 weeks ago and could try it last week in Tuscany, doing a personal storm chase there (but also feeling with all the victims of the storm in italy). I can fully confirm the test write up.
This board is so amazing, you can't feel the volume in any negative way, only positively supporting when not planing and slogging.
It turns like my former Quad 96, especially when changing the stock 20cm centerfin to a 18 cm. The 18 had no spinout issues even with my 90 kg and a 5.0 Banzai. I guess the good turning is an effect of the width being 0,4 cm narrower than the Quad 96 and also the narrower nose/ front outline.
One day i had it out in a big Scirocco storm with a 4.0, being totally overpowered in the 45+ gusts, control was easy, much smoother ride than the former, monoconcave Quad 96 due to the V-bottom of the CT.
Before i ordered the CT i was afraid of getting a less radical board than my Quad 96, but now i'm really blown away by the CT as an allround board. Nevertheless one day i'd like to compare it to a 104 Quad, to try how much more radical the Quad is (and maybe more demanding to ride).
My big board atm is the One 116, also a nice waveriding board esp. using a 21 centerfin, but after having tested the 99 CT i think a 110 - 115 CT would be a perfect big waveboard for me (don't know if the 118 Quad could be replaced by a big CT in the Goya range).
Alex
Select to expand quoteAlexF said..
My big board atm is the One 116, also a nice waveriding board esp. using a 21 centerfin,
Hi Alex, please write more about the Goya One 116 L, looks like a great FSW shape. How does it compare to a big waveboard (e.g. 2017 Goya Quad 116 L or prior version of Goya Quad 118, or prior version of Quatro Cube in 110 L)?
local unofficial impression i get is that the new Goya quad design ethos (narrower, thicker) is more technical and less useful in tricky gusty conditions...i see people (who love) the 2016/17....and i know some of those people who demo'd the 2018/19 one....and didnt buy it. i reckon the thruster has more worldwide appeal....but personally im not convinced the narrower/thicker design idea makes sense.,..albeit i know 0.0001% of what goya, teboul etc know
Select to expand quotephiln said..AlexF said..
My big board atm is the One 116, also a nice waveriding board esp. using a 21 centerfin,
Hi Alex, please write more about the Goya One 116 L, looks like a great FSW shape. How does it compare to a big waveboard (e.g. 2017 Goya Quad 116 L or prior version of Goya Quad 118, or prior version of Quatro Cube in 110 L)?
I did write already a little bit on the page before, and what i wrote there got repeatedly confirmed.
More power and better planing than my former Quad 116 and only a little stiffer in turns on a wave when equipped with a 21 Centerfin instead of the 25 stock. The fin really makes a difference on the wave.
The V-Bottom feels better for me in choppy conditions since it delivers more comfort than the monoconcave Quad 116.
Alex
to "northy1": "i see people (who love) the 2016/17....and i know some of those people who demo'd the 2018/19 one....and didnt buy it. "
Yes, I also think you are right, that making the boards narrower and thicker makes them more tricky in gusty conditions, - especially if you ride the same or similar volumes as the years before.
What I (after using my boards in totally different conditions) really can say is, that in the sizes I could compare (84 "old shape" vs. 89 and 94 "new shape") the "trick" was to go with the width! The 94 isn?t very "technical in the bad sense", it does not need a much better or radical rider than my former 84, and it works very well even in gusty conditions, - but for me it is more "technical in the best sense", because it is even livelier, easier and more radical (if wanted) to turn on the wave. Other sizes I did not ride, so ...
If I compare the "big boards" (104/106 and two types of 118) I had/have:
The first 104 CQ (2012/13?) was exciting for me, better than hoped, the follower, the first 118 CQ (2014/15?) was not better in gliding and going upwind, but - as I felt - even a little better turning than the former 104 (!) , and very easy crossing the white water. After I sold it to a German Porto Pollo windsurfing instructor Peter, whom I met on the ferry, who told me that he would need a 110+ waveboard because of his weight (more than 100kg) I myself went with the next 106 (2016/17) as big board again. I was very happy with it, and Peter (the 100kg-Porto-Pollo-man) is still riding this board as his one-and-only waveboard in Cala Pischina, Capo Mannu, Alghero, Capo Comino ... all the big wave spots of Northern Sardegna, was stoked from the first ride in Alghero on the water in April 12, masthigh south-storm-dream-day). He told me, that the only thing to make this board even better would be to shape it with a little more rocker, making it a little more radical. (But he still is so happy, he will ride it till once it cannot be repaired after having put it on the rocks again and again.) For Peter now the new 118 CQ would be perfect I think. He has the weight for it (see my first post).
For the heavy guys, who need a big-big-board just for light wind days only, I would hope, that Goya will widen the CT-range up to a 115l - board, because if it works to make this super all-round-wave-shape bigger, this could be a highlight for the 100kg - community (for many 90kg-men the 105 could still be perfect I guess).
Let?s see, what 2020 will bring!! 2018/19 for me it was a 10l more 94 in CQ and a super allrounder CT 105 as my easy-going all-in-one board, - both exciting developments.
Thanks! The 2016/17 CQ 106 was 63.2cm wide....comparing widths in the current 2018/19 CQ line up, the nearest equivalent is the 118...which is still narrower at 62.5! The current 104 is almost 3cm narrower (60.3) than the 2016/17 CQ 106
The Goya CT Thruster 105 = 62.7cm and the One = 63.5cm (and as way of a ramdom reference the Simmer quantum 105 is 63cm wide...typically boards of this volume are 62-63cm wide?)
Northy - yr comment re "not convinced narrower / thicker concept" - I think this style of shaping comes more and more to the fore in better groundswell spots and higher period waves ... and maybe euro/uk even dtl (wales etc) the waves are too soft to appreciate this aspect - ie needing more width for more power on slacker waves ... For hardcore DTL waves - there's a need for lots of float but smaller footprint that doesn't create excessive compound lift on fast 'walling' waves ... the trick is combining the float with control through clever rockers and rail shapes with these 'thicker' shapes ...
Select to expand quoteSardegnaHubert said..
Hi, I?m Hubert, German, 80-85kgs, enthusiastic windsurfer for more than 30 years, preferring wavesailing in Sardegna, where I go about 5 times a year (spring and autumn). Sardegna offers all kind of windsurfing, with different wind-directions, all kind of waves, on good days even big and long running down-the-line beauties.
Reading your experiences always has been very interesting for me, thanks for this!
Bought my first Goya Quad 104 in 2012/13, because I needed a bigger waveboard for the wonderful light wind wave days after the storms. Was more than happy with this first 100l-waveboard I could get in Germany, it even worked very good with higher winds, perfect for that gusty conditions I often have to surf in Sardegna.
Since 2013 I go with Goya (sold all my other gear), always using just two different Custom Quads, one smaller (84) and one bigger (104, 106, two different 118?s). Last year I replaced my gear by the new quads, first had the 89 and 118, than (after two spine-surjeries and a few terrible months without any sports) I changed to 94 and 118, now have a perfect combination for me: 94 Custom Quad + 105 Custom Thruster.
So, - I can give a lot of informations, actually coming back after about 5 weeks at the sea and some very interesting wave-days, added to a couple of very different wave-days I had last spring:
I could not believe what Francisco had said in the video, that we could even go 10 liters more as in the years before. That?s why I first bought the 89, - really great toy, wonderful turning, perfect with stormy 3.7 to 5.0 days, - but really needing a bit more efforts, when not gliding. That?s why, after my surgeries, having a lot of time thinking and comparing the shapes, I decided to change to 94, which really has almost the same width as my (be-loved) 84 (2015), whilst the new 89 has about 2.5 cm (!!!) less. (By the way, almost same width and length as the new 84 !!). A friend of mine (also about 83kgs) in that time had used the new 94 Custom Quad more than 100 days in every conditions Tarifa and Sardegna had to offer, even on German lakes, - he was soo happy with it, said it would be better in all disciplines than his older JP quad.
And really: My experiences with the 94 CQ are exactly confirming Francisco: This board has 10l more, is gliding super easy, but its turning capability is better than the older 84 I had before, much livelier. Even and especially on some masthigh Alghero down-the-line waves with south-storm and fully blowing 4.2 it was a dream, automatically reacting on every impulse without any effort. And - not to forget - when suddenly the wind turned and almost stopped out there (the reef is about 2kms out at a small island) I was very very happy to have ten liters more under my feet to come back to the beach without swimming.
Experiences with the new 118: Turning like a small board, livelier than I had thought such a big board could be, carrying 6.3 Fringe with ease, working very good even with stronger winds, - but because of the thickness more tricky for my weight, when the wind had gone. I think for the big guys (10-20kgs more than me) it would be a perfect waveboard, - I with my weight cannot really have the profit of the volume, because I?m standing "too high".
That?s why I changed to the 105 Custom Thruster in September, especially after having seen an Austrian friend on it in May. What a wonderful and versatile board!!! Even as a quad-fan I must say, that the middle-fin option offers so many different qualities, - unbelievable! I went out with 6.3 and 28(!) freewave fin for freeriding, great early and constant planing, with 5.7 and 5.0, using 25 or 23 cms, depending on the conditions, with 4.2 (big waves, smaller fin) and even 3.7 (small wind-waves, just for trying, if there would be the end for this board) it worked, - a few years ago no-one would have believed, that it would be possible to shape an as versatile board as this CT 105.
So, for me, my weight and my different spots and wind-conditions, I have the best possible combination now: 94 CQ from 3.7 to 5.0, best waveboard I ever had, much easier than the 89! (If you compare: Between 84 and 89 there are 5l, but almost no difference in width and length, - between 89 and 94 there are 5 l, too, - but the 94 is 2.7cm(!!) wider than the 89!)
If I would live on a place of the world, where there are almost only wave conditions, maybe I would take the 104 CQ as my big board (did not try yet), - but after having tried the different options with my CT 105 I nearly cannot imagine a better board for me in Sardegna. Last week I again was staying out on the Reef La Maddalena Alghero, beautiful waves, 4.2 and CQ 94, the wind became less for an hour, I went to the beach, took my CT 105, same sail, and was the one with the smallest sail, but always gliding, taking one wave after the other, whilst most locals had to fight to get to the peak with 5.0 because of their small boards.
In fact: Goya should have informed the customers much more exactly and intensively about the change from 2017 to 2018 Custom Quads, then the German SURF test would have been another. With 94 Custom Quad or 86 Custom Thruster the Goya would have been a absolute favorite like the years before - and like now with the new 2019 test, where they describe the 86 CT.
If I would take a smaller board again, I would take the 84, because I believe (never tried), that this size is gliding almost like 89, but is more stable because of the less of thickness (same width and length).
But with my actual gear (in combination with my be-loved Fringes), I?m more than happy.
So, sorry for the long story, but I thought that I could add my experiences, maybe they could help someone.
Very interesting insights, Hubert
I recently have bought a CT 105. Just sailed once. Wind was not very strong so I rigged my 6.4 Elite. Despite I went with a 23 center fin I have to say the board started planing before I expected. And no spinouts. Incredible! Nevethelees I think it would be better getting a bigger fin for marginal wind and flat water
When you talk about sailing with the 6.3 Fringe, do you go with the 28 freewave in single or do you keep the side fins?
when I sailed my 102 JP freewave with 6.4 I usually took a 31 single fin but maybe it is a little too much for this board
Hello Sirocco, sorry for the late response, didn't read your question yet, have been in Sardegna for some weeks.
I always let the sidefins in the board, because I'm too lacy to put them out.
For all kind of wave I use smaller middle fins, even in light wind conditions.
With my CT 99 i can honestly recommend using a 18 centerfin instead of the stock 20. Makes the Board turn tighter without loosing significantly in planing or upwind. Me, 90 kg, 5.0 sail
Really good - after all these years - to FINALLY see a manufacturer (quatro/goya 2020) - putting hull depth figures on the bloody board , its an overlooked aspect by the industry imo that hasn't helped consumers get a feel for how critical this measurement is ... a 58 wide at 10.5 cm with foiled rails feels totally different float wise from a chunky 13.5 or 13.8 cm thick 58 wide . Starboard to their credit used to put it in their brochure - but it flabergasts me no other manufacturers ever thought to fwd on that critical useful piece of info .Ive always kept a record on depth measurments of my boards - then you learn how useful a board is going to be around the break ... When a 78 ltr board has 13cm of chunk through it - I know its going to get me around the break in lulls like an 81 ltr and be quite useful / wide ranging .... but if that same stickered as a 78 .... is a skinny 10.5 - you know its going to feel every bit a 75 ltr and be just for powered steady wind days , and when you factor in how we try and fit boards into our quiver between other volumes - its even more critical , the 78 situation above suddenly changes how big a jump you have to that next size up or down .... Look at the surf industry , EVERY surfboard worldwide - it has length , width AND depth written on it to help the consumer get to the float / meat or lack of that they need .... Good move Quatro Goya
