View Full Version : iSonic 122 for Ian
6th July 2007, 09:30 PM
I have been reading a lot of your opinions about the iSonics and I tend to think that iSonic 122 would be a good board for me as you mentioned that it is great board for heavyweights (I am 96kg, 190cm).
The sails I intend to use are 8,2 and 6,8 NS Warp. I am confident that with 8,2 the iS122 would be a great board to put the hammer down and run it in windspeeds up to 20knots. But how about the 6,8?
I am not interested to participate in slalom comps but more for GPS runs (lake, open sea).
(iS133+iS111 might be a better combo but if I could stick 6,8 and 8,2 on one board I could afford formula for light wind days).
7th July 2007, 11:22 AM
The real decider here will be how much you really want to chase after the GPS speeds (vs regular sailing) - and in turn what % of time you will be in the best of those peak conditions.
Assuming a general mix of 8.2+6.8m conditions for a 190cm/96kg rider, for allround slalom (powered hi speed "flat" water blasting) board, you will stuggle to find a better single board choice than the iS122, or the iS111 if you were significantly towards the powered end of that range more often.
However, as soon as someone starts saying they are " not interested to participate in slalom comps but more for GPS runs (lake, open sea)", it's definitely worth to consider that for GPS speeds ( basically "peak" speed runs, most riders seriously tuning (and selecting equipment) for such runs take a more radical approach than normal "slalom". Here the compromise thickens.. The "best board" for the conditions, or the "fastest board". Initially, it may be the same thing, but like every compromise that makes up our sport, it depends on how far you want to take it...
In iS terms, the best GPS results for a 190cm/96kg rider on a powered 6.8m on flatter water would almost certainly come from iS87, however that combo certainly would NOT be the best allround one, and would lag significantly in general sailing versatility, "early" planing, acceleration, upwind, lulls and overall range etc..Generally not ideal, but if big numbers on the display are your main reason for getting wet, then that is the way to start thinking.
No doubt that is an extreme example, but thrown in to highlight the "compromise" factor required to be balanced between selecting boards for general "slalom" (where versatile speed is king) - and the more dedicated GPS/speed tuning (where versatility and practicality is often compromised - and sometimes significantly - all in the chase for those good few seconds).
So, back to where we started to decipher the compromise % ...
"The real decider here will be how much you really want to chase after the GPS speeds (vs regular sailing) - and in turn what % of time you will be in the best of those peak conditions."
Cheers ~ Ian
7th July 2007, 03:39 PM
Thanks a lot for the ideas! It will really come down to balancing things as you they - compromising.
My most often conditions for slaloming are 12-14 up to 20 knots (80-90%) and then 20-30 knots (gusts up to 35 knots) (10-20%). But then I haven' t included the days with winds below 12-14 knots which are most of the days in the area I live in (like 75-80%).
Taking into account the fact that I don' t want to swim back shore, I would probably take iSonic101 as my smallest board. I don' t see myself on iS87 in lake conditions. iS101 should be sweet with 6.8.
Then iS122 could be the best bet for 8.2 and 12-20 knot range, as I would probably get wet with iS111 from time to time at the lower side of that windrange (lots of whole in the wind especially at the other side of the lake). I don' t think I can uphaul 8.2 on iS111. I would be at least knee deep in the water. And if the water is 10-15 degrees Celsius (sometimes 6 degrees) - I wanna uphaul rather than wait for the wind to waterstart.
And then there seems to be space for Formula and 11.x for winds below 12 knots. Or alternatively I could choose iSonic 133 + 9.8 sail.
Is iSonic133 fun to sail with 9.8? Does it feel balanced?
vBulletin® v3.8.6, Copyright ©2000-2016, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.