PDA

View Full Version : ST93 vs Futura 93


TonyC
18th August 2007, 10:56 AM
You state in your new marketing material that the new Futura will be quicker and more manouvrable than the ST. Does this only apply to the larger boards - looking at the 93 I would have thought the ST93 would be quicker when fully powered than the Futura as the ST93 is narrower in the tail, slimmer outline, less V and in other respects is the same - rocker profile etc. I recently bought a ST93 for blasting, chop jumping etc in flattish water and open ocean - this is more along the lines of what I have previously had in a F2 Axxis 272 several years ago (a very fast controllable board in its day), although the ST93 should be a lot more manouvrable and even faster. Very happy so far with the ST93.

Thanks

Tony

Marko
22nd August 2007, 04:02 AM
I would also like to know a little bit more about futura93 - stype 93 comparison.

Thanks
Marko

van
24th August 2007, 02:53 PM
Hi Guys

I Have Sailed The St 93 And Found It Very Impressive. Was Just About To Order One When The 2008 Line Up Came Out. So I'm Also In A Bit Of A Dilemma St93 Or Futura 93. I'm 70 Kg And Will Use The Board For 6.2 Down To 4.7. So The Increased Wind Range Doesn't Really Interest Me As Both Boards Have A 'sweet Spot' In Those Sizes. I Just Want To Go Fast But Also Want To Jump Of Chops When Need Be. Help

Marko
24th August 2007, 05:48 PM
I would also like to know the real volume of futura 93 (st93 was 99lts) and if it is going to be registered as a ISAF Approved Series Production Slalom/Speed Board (like s-type was)?

Thanks
Marko

van
27th August 2007, 03:13 AM
Marko how do you know that the st 93 was actually 99 lts. Do you know off any other discrepancies?

Marko
27th August 2007, 03:23 PM
It is registered as 99 liter board at ISAF. Here is the link...

http://www.sailing.org/default.asp?PID=13830

I wonder why there is no response from Starboard about futura 93...

Marko

van
28th August 2007, 02:33 AM
Thanks Marko - me too

o2bnme
28th August 2007, 03:16 AM
You have a valid point.

Starboard posts that their board weights are within +/-5%. 99 liters is outside that variance... if my math is correct, it is close to 6.5% above the listed 93 liters.

van
28th August 2007, 12:02 PM
I can't believe that the volume of the st 93 is actually 99 liters. I'm actually gobsmacked. I think this is outrageous and totally missleading. The brochure clearly states that the st 93 is 93 ltrs. A friend of mine has bought both the st 93 and the st 104. Think he is going to go crazy when he finds out that he splashed out an extra 1200 euros just for 6 ltrs difference (the st 104 being 105 ltrs). Starboard can defenitely be liable for missrepresentation if this is really the case. I don't see why they can't name the boards with their exact volumes like jp and other brands do. It's not all that complecated to do. I'm not too happy either that my isonic 101 is actually 96 ltrs . I was seriously contemplating on buying an st 93 or futura 93 to complement my other 'so called +100 lts board' but now if really having second thoughts. I know the isonic is a totally different beast but I still think this is outrageous.

ps o2bnme think u are confusing weight with volume buddy

van
28th August 2007, 12:04 PM
and please can someone from the team respond to the above issues.

Marko
30th August 2007, 01:23 PM
Does anyone know what are differences between s-type 93 2006 and 2007?

Thanks
Marko

Ola_H
30th August 2007, 02:31 PM
and please can someone from the team respond to the above issues.

Ian has promised to write something about this but his very busy at the moment. Hang on...

Personally I don't know. The only Futura I have (and have seen) is the 101.

Max72
3rd September 2007, 12:07 AM
Hy, I ask excuse for my terrible English. I must replace my Carve101 2007 (destroyed in airport) with the new noticed Futura.Ho that the measures and the range of the Futura93 is identical to Carve 101, for having the usual range of the which Future C.101 must take, the 93 or the 101? Thanks Max.

Duracell
4th September 2007, 10:31 PM
they (almost) always state the volumnes wrong, big deal.
It's only really important if your concern is "floating" home.

Volumne == "static" float
Outline (widths (widest AND tail)) == "dynamic" float (as soon a you move a knot or two your sinker turns into a floater (if the ratio is not too far off like 100Kg and 60ltr board))

Both together are important!

Wanting to buy e.g. a 120 liter board to fill the gap in your 140, -gap-, 100, 80 line up is not the best (sole) guidance.

van
4th September 2007, 10:49 PM
So you think that volume is not a big deal - If that is the case why quote volume at all. Just state length and width and we should all be fine.

Volume is the single most important factor in a board. Volume = control and power is nothing without control. So when someone looks to buy 2-3 different boards he will buy different volumes in order to combine them with the respective sail/fin sizes. So if starboard quote that the st93 is 93 liters and the isonic 101 is 101 liters and they happen to be 99 and 96 liters respectively that is a huge problem to someone like me who has both. I'm 70 kg and didn't want a board more than 105 liters so went for the isonic 101 - i also wanted the fastest none slalom board which I could jump off so went for an st93. Guess what I now have 2 boards with 3 liters apart and deffenitely not too happy about it. I'm actually so anoyed with the whole matter that I'm thinking of selling them both and looking elsewhere to buy something which I know exactly what I'm getting.

steveC
4th September 2007, 11:59 PM
Hi van,

Just curious about how you like the ST93 and the iS101 and whether they both met your expectations, especially since they are both very similar sized boards that really don't differ that much in concept, despite the virtual volume thing. Many folks will buy boards with similar volumes, yet the focus point and intent are usually quite a bit different. Like slalom versus wave or slalom versus freestyle.

I'm the same weight as you, and I think that both the ST93 and iS101 offer sufficient float to slog in should the wind fall off. So, your concerns here aren't really like those of the heavyweight sailors who need to be keenly attentive about sufficient volumes. While you might be unhappy now with the lack of difference in your two boards, I'm having a hard time seeing how Starboard has done you a disservice and annoyed you to the point of looking elsewhere.

Ola_H
5th September 2007, 02:05 AM
Van, I'm sorry you feel that way and I for one think it would be easiest if all volumes matched specs. That said, volume actually only does tell you two things. 1. Volume decides how well the board will float at an absolute standstill. 2. Volume is a good size indicator _within a given board range_.
When you move between ranges with different shaping concepts, volume actually does not say so much (except the standstill thing). Sometimes even within the same range, volume tells "too little" (cf iS101 and 96 or EVO 70 and 75). I happen to have four boards in my garage between 99 and 101 liters (iS, Futura, Flare and EVO) and they are all very different. I have them mainly for testing purposes, but in an extreme case I could actually imagine a "regular customer" (with enough time and money, living in a place with steady winds and with many different interests within the sport) having all these four boards. Another example come from the pro wave scene where many of the guys that are on prototype gear actually have a whole quiver of boards that are virtually the same size (differ a few liters maybe).

So, while I can see situations where the wrong quoted volume would cause problems, I think that when choosing your quiver you should look at the intended area of use and if in doubts ask people who has sailed the boards (for example here). It is easy to shave a few liters here on one board and add a few there on another board and in practice keep the almost the exact same performance (except for the standstill thing). So even with perfect quoted volumes, it would still be a bit of hit and miss if you only go by that criteria as an indicator of performance spectrum.

Duracell
5th September 2007, 03:57 PM
So you think that volume is not a big deal - If that is the case why quote volume at all. Just state length and width and we should all be fine.
Read, understand and then make educated assumptions.

Guess what I now have 2 boards with 3 liters apart and deffenitely not too happy about it. I'm actually so anoyed with the whole matter that I'm thinking of selling them both and looking elsewhere to buy something which I know exactly what I'm getting.

You aren't happy with the boards?
You aren't happy with your perception of the boards (they should be xxx but I thought they would be yyy. They are both great boards, but I just don't want to be happy)?

van
5th September 2007, 04:30 PM
Hi Steve - To Answer Your Question I Mainly Use The Isonic 101 With Np Rs Slalom 6.7 & 6.2 For Mega Blasting And I Use The St 93 With Np Saber 5.7 And Gaastra Manic 5.2 For Freeride And Jumping Off Chop. On The Isonic I Use Techtonic Goldwing Fins 36 Cm For The 6.7 And 34 For The 6.2 - And On The St 93 I Use 32cm For The 5.7 And 30cm For The 5.2. Have Also Used The St 93 With A 4.7 But I Prefer To Use My Jp Freestyle Wave 77 For 4.7 Down In Choppy Conditions As It's More Fun As You Can Understand.

Hi Ola H - Thanks For Your Responce And I Have To Say That I Wrote That Message In The Heat Ofthe Moment. Didn't Mean To Take That Tone. Never The Less My Argument Is As Follows. I Understand What You Are Saying But You Also Have To Understand That For Those Of Us Who Are Not Team Members Have To Buy Say 2-3 Boards That Will Maximise Our Time On The Water Depending On Everone's Individual Preferance. So Had I Know The Isonic 101 Was Infact 96 Liters And The St 93 Was 99 Liters I Would Have Chosen To Buy A F2 Sx Medium 105 Liters To Be Used With The Sails I Mendioned Above And Probably A Fanatic Hawk Which Is 93 Liters For Higher Wind Blasting. That Would Have Made More Sence In My Book. Don't Forget That I'm Light And Prefer To Have Less Volume Under My Feet When Its Windy. Prefer To Have A Loose Board To Throw Around And Jump On. Having Said That I Am 100% Satisfied With The Isonic. The Board Really Rocks But Like I Said Had I Known My Choise Would Have Been Different. After All The Isonic And The St Are Not Miles Apart In Character. The Isonic Is By Far A More Dedicated Board No Question About It But They Are Both Fast Boards. We Are Not Comparing A Slalom Board With A Freestyle Board With A Wave Board To Justify Having Similar Volumes For Different Characteristics.

van
5th September 2007, 04:43 PM
Duracell Read Above And You Might Get The Picture - Volume Also Defines How Loose A Board Is When Comparing Boards With Similar Characteristics - I Would Have Personally Prefered To Have Had A Freeride Board Closer To 90 Liters Rather Than Closer To 100 Liters - As For Am I Happy Yes - Could I Be Happier - Yes.

Ola_H
5th September 2007, 05:09 PM
Van,

I definitely see your point about that not everyone can have stashes of similar sized boards - that was more an extreme example to show my point.

In your case, I still don't think the volumes per se is the problem. It's more that you would like a smaller board in the S-type (or futura) range, something like a Futura 80 or 85 that could build on the iS76. I still argue that you could shave the st93 down to a real 90 liters and not really affect the range much. If you want to get it to work better in high wind for your weight, you have to do more than shave of some volume.

That said, even my F101 definitely is a class "smaller" than the iS101 when it comes to high wind blasting. I don't know how it compares with ST, but in conditions when the iS101 is a real handful for me, the F101 is still as smooth as ever. In practice the F101 and iS101 are to close to justify owning them both, but in a three board blasting/freeride quiver, I think a F93 really would fit rather well between a 75-80 liter fsw (I have a Kombat 79 myself and its w wonderfully versatile board) and an iS101.

For me (70kg) the real solution for high and med wind blasting is the iS76, but while is a very easy riding board, its still a light slalom construction. My personal ideal 3 board blasting quiver would be iS101 (or 96), iS76 and then either a Pure Acid 74 or a Kombat 79.

van
5th September 2007, 05:21 PM
Ola H - Can You Please Confirm That The Futura 93 Is Actually 93 Liters Or Are We In For Any Surprises? If It Is 93 Liters I Would Definitely Consider Trading It In For The St '93'. I Don't Want To Get An Isonic For High Wind Blasting As I Like To Chop Hop Etc Etc And Prefer The Looser Fealing Of A Freeride Board. Don't Want To Get A Kombat Though Cause I Want To Race My Mates. So This Brings Us Back To The Original Question. How Does The Futura 93 Compare To The St 93 In Terms Of Speed/manouverbility.

qldsalty
5th September 2007, 07:07 PM
Wow three pages on and we still don't know if the volume of the 93 is virtual or real. The suspense is killing me.

Erik Loots
6th September 2007, 01:47 AM
Volume doesnt count that much! Look @ max width & tailwidth, those 2 count very much how long you can stay on the water. But even more important are fins and good (rigged) sail, if you are surfing in difficult conditions.

futura 93
l= 240cm
w= 61.5cm
t= >40cm

If I would use it... it would be my lightweather board

Stype 93
l= 242
w= 59.5
t=37.7

Just looking @ the 2 boards... My opinion: The S-type will be the better one if conditions get difficult, if you're skills getting bit better the s-type will be faster.

steveC
6th September 2007, 02:07 AM
Hi van,

It seems that you're not as unhappy as you initially suggested, as the ST93 and iS101 appear to be fitting into non-conflicting categories of use, and each is apparently delivering in accordance with your original goals. Overall, that's a good thing. Yet, having heard many vent their annoyance with the virtual volume concept, you clearly aren't alone with your frustration. Yet, I sometimes wonder if the differing actual volumes were never discovered, whether folks would be unhappy with their choices.

In my situation, I have a 5 board quiver, and I can frankly say that I don't know the volumes of any of them. Of course, I have a general idea, but not the absolute numbers that so many unconditionally want. Sometimes I question whether too much detailed information is a good thing, because numbers often say so little about reality.

van
6th September 2007, 08:48 PM
HI STEVE - LIKE I SAID I'M NOT UNHAPPY WITH WHAT I HAVE IT'S JUST THAT IF I WANTED TO BUY A 99 LITER BOARD THEN I WOULD HAVE GONE AND BOUGHT ONE. AS FOR YOUR QUOTE 'Sometimes I question whether too much detailed information is a good thing, because numbers often say so little about reality.' YOU ARE PROBABLY RIGHT BUT UNFORTUNATELY WE ARE USED TO HAVING ALL THAT INFO.

AS FOR 'Yet, I sometimes wonder if the differing actual volumes were never discovered, whether folks would be unhappy with their choices.' YOU ARE PROBABLY SPOT ON THERE AS WELL. BUT NOW I KNOW I THINK IT'S MORE PSYCHOLOGICAL MORE THAN ANYTHING.

qldsalty
10th September 2007, 11:31 AM
Van is right, we want to know the true volume. I have the Stype 93. The minute I unpacked it in the shop I was suspicious it was bigger than 93. When I'm powered in lumpy conditions the board jumps all over the place. It does behave more like 100ltrs than 90. I weigh 85 kgs. This for me has been a good thing because we mostly experience moderate conditions and the added volume gets me going quicker. It has made my 115 Stype a bit redundant. I resort to wave gear when I can't control the 93 anymore, but not everyone has the luxury of few boards and sails to choose from.
I can see your point as well Steve, but my friends who have ridden the 93 and I all said that board has got to be bigger than 93. We were right of course. So in our case the true volume is 99 and we felt it. Should we be in the dark as to it's true volume, the next board I bought would be smaller as our previous experience told us the 93 was a big feel. I would probably go to a 85ltr and then what would happen? I would be on aboard to small if it was true volume but just right if it was virtual.
I believe they need to be all virtual volume or all true volume. Not some of each. It makes it very hard to know what board to get next without that knowledge. We guess by width and tail width like you do but volume is still an important part of the equation for me. I used to upgrade my boards each year but now wait a season or two see what reports like this forum reveal.

Maximus
10th September 2007, 11:47 AM
I thought volume was the knob on my stereo?

geo
10th September 2007, 02:15 PM
Ridicolous.
Starboard people: you are the #1 company; you are able to have a huge lineup of successful designs and deliver them all over the world in order to satisfy so many different tastes sailing in so many different conditions; construction is OK; competition shapes prove to be winning races and you are strongly in hold of top places; everybody has to reckon you are the top windsurfing company... so...
So please why don't you make that one more small effort and spare people all this headaches about volume?!? Did a doctor tell you that unveiling/using real volume figures is harmful for you?

Ola_H
10th September 2007, 04:00 PM
I'm a mathematician:

van
10th September 2007, 08:47 PM
What I Find Sad At The End Of The Day Is That Here We Have A Brand New Exciting Model In The Starboard Line Up To Which We All Have A Lot Of Questions About And It's Been Almost 25 Days And Counting Since The Beginning Of The Post And We Have No Official Answer From Anyone. And No Answer On The Volume Issue Either.

Ola_H
11th September 2007, 07:57 PM
Tiesda confirmed my triple integral calculation in the thread in the Free Forum. Measured volume of F93 is 94 liters. Measured volume of the F101 is 103 liters.

van
11th September 2007, 09:26 PM
Wehey Hi Ola - Thanks For Getting Us An Answer As Far As The Volume Goes. How About We Now Tackle The Original Question That Tony C Made - If The St 93 Is Quicker Than The F93 Especially In Windy Conditions As It Is Thinner? What Do You Think?

Ola_H
11th September 2007, 10:50 PM
The only thing I know is that when developing the Futuras, one of the main criterias was that they should be faster than the S-types. As for thickness, less of it will not automatically mean more speed, but it almost always automatically mean better handling at speed (which usually lead to more speed).

But this is really only speculation. I have not ridden the boards so I can not say for sure.

gorgeracer
12th September 2007, 04:25 AM
I too own both the 93 st and the 101 I sonic from 2007. Although liters do provide float, planing surface, width, tail width and volume distribution have soo much more to do with a board usable range. I use the 101 with a 6.6 and 7.2 and have used it on the 8.5. I use my 93 st with a 4.8 and a 5.6. I've tried the 5.6 with the 101 and the 6.6 with the st93 and although the st 93 may actually have a few liters of volume it sails like a lot smaller than it is, and the 101 sails alot bigger than it is. The 101 works for me over 6 meters and the 93 under 6 meters. despite their actual volume. I must admit i was surprised to learn of the descrepancies but the boards performance and feel matter much more to me. I'm very happy to have both boards and would not sell them even for what I bought them for.

Volume is the single most important factor in a board. Volume = control and power is nothing without control. So when someone looks to buy 2-3 different boards he will buy different volumes in order to combine them with the respective sail/fin sizes. So if starboard quote that the st93 is 93 liters and the isonic 101 is 101 liters and they happen to be 99 and 96 liters respectively that is a huge problem to someone like me who has both. I'm 70 kg and didn't want a board more than 105 liters so went for the isonic 101 - i also wanted the fastest none slalom board which I could jump off so went for an st93. Guess what I now have 2 boards with 3 liters apart and deffenitely not too happy about it. I'm actually so anoyed with the whole matter that I'm thinking of selling them both and looking elsewhere to buy something which I know exactly what I'm getting.[/QUOTE]

steveC
12th September 2007, 05:09 AM
Hi gorgeracer,

Your post kind of threw me a bit, because of the totally different character of the second paragraph, but then I realized that you were quoting van's much earlier comments. It's interesting that you both like the boards, but van is much more concerned about absolute values in the product specifications.

I've commented a few times under this thread, but all of a sudden I got a bit curious about something. So many folks (like myself) do not live in an area where retail shops exist, and I'm beginning to think that fact may play an interesting role in their quest for information, and more importantly, the accuracy of that data.

Speaking for myself, seeing before buying says so much about a product and whether it's suitable for one's needs, irrespective of a wealth of detail specifications. Most of the time I don't have that luxury, so I have come to depend on past history, product familiarity and a certain degree of faith overall in the designer/builder. Not always easy, but it has worked well for me over time.

I guess I'm getting to my point of my curiosity here. Did you have the opportunity to see, or maybe even try, the two boards before you bought them?

gorgeracer
12th September 2007, 01:00 PM
I did not see the 101 before I bought it. I did see the 93 before I bought it. I replaced a 2006 jp 96, super x with the 93 st. My complaints about the jp were solved in the st. the tail is narrower and the footstraps are further inboard more suitable to my waist harness sailing. It also handles MUCH better. The top end gps speeds are about two knots less but I've not got the board competely dialed in yet. I believe if they deliberitly misled a consumer in stating volume that their intentions were to show that the board sailed as a smaller board. find starboards sail ranges listed with there boards much more accurate than other t. I like to go by that other than just volume the shapers and testers know alot more about it than I do. On the other hand, I was planning on using my 101 with a 5.6 meter sail but it wont worki well for me, perhaps I sail a 5.6 in more wind than the testers given my 215 lb frame. the 93 st has filled into that slot very well and does great with a 4.8 as well.

van
12th September 2007, 04:29 PM
Hi Gorgeracer - We Seem To Be Using The Boards For The Same Sail Sizes Although I'm A Lot Lighter Than You. I Weigh 70 Kg And If My Calcs Are Right At 215 Lb Your Weight Is 98 Kg. So As We Sail The Boards Useing The Same Sail Sizes You Can Imagine That When Using The St93 On Say A 4.7 I Don't Have The Same Control As You Would And This Is Clearly Down To Volume. I Have Said It Before And I'll Say It Again. The St93 Is A Wonderful Board And Yes For It's Actual Volume It Handles Remarkably Well. My Point Is Had I Known That The St93 Was 99 Liters I Would Have Definitely Bought Something Smaller In Volume For 5.7 - 4.7 Conditions. At My Weight Better Being Underpowered On A 5.7 Than Over Powered On A 4.7 And 99 Liters Under My Feet.

As For The Isonic 101 I Bought It Cause I Wanted To Have A +100 Board To Use For +6.2. I Also Tried It Useing A 5.7 But I Don't Like It In So Far That When I'm On A 5.7 I Like To Duck Jybe, Jump Do 360's Etc Etc And So I Prefer To Have A Freeride Board Rather Than A Pure Slalom Board. Again Had I Known That It Is 96 Liters Again I Would Have Prefered To Have Gone For An F2 Sx M At 105 Liters. I Prefered To Have A Starboard I Sonic '101 Liters' Board (not A 96 Liter) Rather Than A F2 Sx 105 Liters.

So Although Both Boards Are Great For What They Are Made For My Personal Choises Would Have Been Different. I Have Been Windsurfing For 20 Yrs Both Competitively And Casually And I Have Been Through A Fair Share Of Boards In This Time. I Always Buy My Boards With Volume Being The No 1 Criteria And It Has Worked For Me Up To Now So Call Me Old Fashioned But I Don't Intend To Start Changing Now. So From Now If I'm Going To Buy Another Starboard Board I'll Make Damn Sure I Know What The Exact Volume Of The Board Is Before I Do. Don't Want Any More Surprises.

Floyd
13th September 2007, 12:26 AM
Windsurfers seem to have accepted these discrepencies ; infact the attitudes of many actually encourages it.

We have disputed volumes; sail sizes;weights; widths and even lengths .We all know what the manufacturers will say;

" ah well thats not the entire story; lots of variables need to be considered for the overall board ; sail; mast (or what ever) performance to be measured"

We should not only have the obvious parameters (Length;volume ; area ) etc; there is no reason why we shouldnt know things like minimum planing speed (with a given load). Minimum stall speed (with a given load) Board and fin (and rig) lift to drag ratios.
Whilst we do not have these objective measures (especially the simple ones)we are all at the mercy of Hype and marketing.(*B even named a board after it Hypersonic.

I have yet to buy a board thats as light as claimed. My NP Alphas are at least 2cm out on DH measurements.My F2 board is 3cm shorter than claimed.My *B (ST126) has (IMO) 5 litres less volume than advertised.My Gun 5.4 is exactly same size as mates NP 5.8 Search. My after market Tuttle fins do not fit in box.My MK boom is 2cm longer than it says it is.(the Amex is fine) If I set my mast extension to 5cm it gives 7cm.
Aquaputty claimed to be white is grey.I have two 460 masts.Both have same IMCS; (well they have same number on them anyway)One feels like a scaffold pipe(stiffness)Other could be used for pole vaulting.The lightest one has 1.55kg stamped on it.Amazingly it weighs 1.65kg !

Perhaps the whole industry spent too much time sailing (or smoking pot.)
In some areas it is obviously genuine mistakes but in others I`m not sure.

Come on lads. Just measure the damned things.
Accidental or not it can be viewed as misleading and cynical marketing.

Floyd

Ola_H
13th September 2007, 02:09 AM
Perhaps the whole industry spent too much time sailing ...



That's an interesting perspective.

steveC
13th September 2007, 07:14 AM
While Ola H's post says so much, it was the original "(or smoking pot)" part that I really found a bit humorous. It's funny sometimes what some folks think about, or how they categorize things, particularly if they rationalize a final viewpoint (certainly here, in an arguable vacuum of reality).

Floyd
13th September 2007, 02:38 PM
Not sure of your point there Steve ?!
Why cant manufacrurers simply state the volume of the boards ???
Nobody has explained this at all?
Wether its important or not is not really the point.
Consumers have the right to decide for themselves wether its important or not and have the right to expect accuracy when its quoted.
IMO it is more about marketing and putting the boards in nice orderly rankings.
The marketeers say a 100 litre board is required; so they give us one ! (Even if it happens to be anything from 95 to 105)

van
13th September 2007, 06:18 PM
Honestly I Don't Really See What The Big Deal Is Stating What The Exact Dimensions/volume/characteristics Of A Board Are, Like Jp Do. If The Manufactureres Tell Us Exactly What They Are Selling Then It's Up To Us To Make The Right Choice According To Our Needs. It Is Our Right As Consumers To Know What We Are Buying. They Owe That To Us.

van
13th September 2007, 08:17 PM
Having Said That I Would Like To Point Something Out Here. I Would Like To Thank Starboard For Having A Forum Like This Available In Which Windsurfers From All Over Can Voice Their Opinion Good Or Bad. Starboard Are The Only Manufacturer That Is Brave Enough To Stick Their Neck Out And Take On Critisism. At The End Of The Day We Can All Gain Out Of It. For That I Take My Hat Off To Starboard.

Now As You Are So Kind To Provide This Fantastic Service To Us All Can Someone Please Answer The Original Question. It's Been Almost A Month Since The Original Posting And By The View Count It Is By Far The Most Popular Topic. Surely There Must Be Someone Available To Give Us An Answer In Which So Many People Have Shown Interest In.

Screamer
13th September 2007, 09:51 PM
Hey Van

What's with the capital letters everywhere?

On a serious note, what was the original question you need answered (in post #32, it's confirmed that volume of Futura 93 is 94 l)?

I find it interesting that in the beginning of this thread you've found stype93 "very impressive", and later you were "gobsmacked" to learn the actual volume. So I can conclude that you were unable to tell there were any performance problems with the board until you were told the volume.

Wrt your comments to Gorgeracer, he will use a 4.7 in much more wind than you - so control would be comparable. In the same wind/same sail/same board combo, a 100 kg rider will ALWAYS have more control on a 4.7 when it's howling than a 70kg rider - on ANY board.

The most popular topic doesn't neccesarily mean that is something terribly important/clever/interesting etc going on (such as arm long threads with LeeD, or Swiftsailor/Wsguy) :D

And to finish this ramble, I don't like it any more than you do. I agree with Floyd, there's rarely a thing in WS that is measured and quoted correctly. Manufacturers put numbers that look good in brochures wrt board spacing (105, 115, 125 etc). If you're still unhappy, simply buy a different board. That's what I did, in case of iS115 (actual 105 lit, a sinker with a big rig).

Fair winds

van
13th September 2007, 10:21 PM
Hi Screamer

Sorry about the capital letters - didn't know your eyes were that sensitive ha ha.

As for the original question if you flick back to page 1 you'll find that the question was whether the st 93 was quicker than the futura 93.

Moving to your next comment - yes the st 93 is a great performer and yes now I know psycologiacally I want to change it and I'm already considering in buying a different board.

As for the heavier guy having more control I agree with you 100% but the lighter guy will defenitely be better off on a board with less volume without a doubt.

Finally who wants fair winds?? Let the winds howl and the waves roll ha ha.

steveC
14th September 2007, 01:23 AM
Hi Floyd,

Actually, most all of the points that you made were very telling overall, and I can't disagree with you about wanting accurate specifications. Many folks don't have retailers close to home, and the more accurate published specifications are really helps in a quest to find the right products.

With that said, I still had to find the reference to smoking pot humorous. I don't know what you really think about smoking pot, but the fact that mentioned it was kind of "off the wall" as part of the ongoing discussions. When folks go off that way, one has to wonder what's the story and how did that show up on the scene.

Of course, maybe you have some actual facts here to share.

Floyd
14th September 2007, 03:35 AM
Hi Steve

I see.Probably it was me who smoked too much pot.

The referance was more to do with the apparenent laid back attitude towards objectivity and standardisation ; qualities which seem in decline within WS.

Perhaps I am too cynical but I am pretty sure a company as ingenious as Starboard know exactly what the volume is of all their boards; just as Tushingham and NP know exactly the area of their sails.

Take care.

PS
I wonder how we would feel if every time we bought 93 litres of petrol it could be anywhere between 90 and 98 litres. (Depending who measured it; oh and how much they had smoked !!!) The oil companies could always say " Well its not just the volume that matters; there are othwer variables involved too !)

I`m not buying it. Sorry.

*B know exactly whats going on !

And my ST 126 feels more like 110. I would love to have it measured.
But its fantastic ; especially in strong winds. Wonder why ????

steveC
14th September 2007, 04:29 AM
Hi Floyd,

Ah indulgence! It can be readily recognized after having a few beers after a particularly good session windsurfing, especially with friends who scored too.

Talking about product, I have to admit that that the only thing that totally turns me off is a dud one. After one of those, a brand is history in my book. So, really, it's the folks making the best stuff that make us happy, even if their stories are buffed up a bit.

Floyd
15th September 2007, 04:36 PM
Hi Steve
Its a bit short sighted to assume one dud board writes off a manufacturer or that one good board makes one.
Starboard make some fantastic boards and have pushed boundaries in many areas.
Then again F2 and Mistral also have (as have many others)
I was amased first time I sailed a Carve but then again I was when I first sailed a Bic Astro Rock. !!!(Both marked watersheds)
Recent boards that have really impressed were Goya FXR and RRD FSW. (Kombats with PB ???!!!)
Really do think for benefit of sport it helps to keep an open mind to all manufacturers and a cynical approach to their claims especially in mags/adverts and to a lesser extent on here.
We are still in infancy of sport; a board has to be tried/tested before purchase in order to know its volume and characteristics.

Which brings me back to the point.If we cant rely on what should be factual measurements how on earth can we hold any store by claims of "fast" or "early planing" which are by nature subjective. It throws all the lot into dispute when volume cant be given accurately.
(By all manufacturers at various times)

veedot
15th September 2007, 08:20 PM
Why cant manufacrurers simply state the volume of the boards ???
Nobody has explained this at all?


Hi all
As we probably all know (but some may have forgotten), this confusion with volume started with the first formula *boards in 2000. These wide, short and thin *boards had much less volume than the boards from other manufacturers, but were performing much better even in marginal winds. So fearing the people might get scared off it they stated the true volume (which was much less a person would expect or was used to), starboard introduced the so called “virtual volume” – a volume a traditional board would need to have, to be able to perform the way the new starboard formulas were performing.
As that was the time when the most important board spec was the volume alone, I found that policy to be ok. But that was then.

And now is now. Most brands have the same concept (short, wide and much less volume for the given width compared to 10 years ago) and everybody is aware of the width importance – so why still insist on the virtual volume?
If you, for any reason, insist on using the virtual volume, why not state both virtual and real volume, so one can decide for himself which value means more to him?

And one more thing which I don’t really understand…
When people ask which sail, which fin, which whatever for this and this many knots, you (completely rightfully) reply that you cannot answer to this accurately, as it all depends on the rider’s weight, on his expertise, riding stile, ability to pump… So in the case of “virtual” volumes (which is, as you state yourself, not really a measurable value but more a feeling how the board behaves), who decides what the virtual volume is? Doesn’t it again all depend on the rider’s weight, on his expertise, riding stile, ability to pump…? And, do you have different criteria for deciding “virtual” volume for e.g. race boards and free ride boards, where the expected level of the riders differs?
Or, if I were to take it to the extreme, how do you know the user will use the board only in planning conditions (where virtual volume might make sense) and not just for schlogging on a small lake in the neighborhood (where real volume is the only thing that matters)? Is there a foot note in fine print with such a warning?

And please don’t get me wrong. I love starboard and after 7 years and more than 15 different *boards, I still think this is a great brand and the volume issue will surely not make me change my mind (or change the brand). But I just I don’t like when things are illogical (at least to me) and unnecessary :)

Cheers, v.

steveC
16th September 2007, 12:51 AM
Hi Floyd,

I guess I could be viewed as too strict in my judgments sometimes. Much has to do with the fact that boards are quite expensive, and that there are little or no opportunities to sell a product should it prove unsatisfactory. I still have an unacceptable number of those hanging around (even one or two is too many in my book).

However, for the most part, I have been extremely lucky with the majority of my boards. Also, I'm of the philosophy that if I'm happy with a designer/builder, I remain quite dedicated over time. On top of that, I'm looking to use a board for many years (usually 5-6 minimum), and I still have most every board I've bought since 1992. My museum of old stuff is quite interesting.

Of course, there's a lot of temptation out there, but I just don't have the money to spend like many folks seem to be able to do, particularly getting into yearly cycle of buying and flipping. Nevertheless, I'm quite happy not being frantic about everything new. I will say this though, I'm pretty excited about buying a new Starboard Serenity, especially since it will represent a much different path that I would like to tap into. The one factor that's making the effort somewhat trying is that it has to come with the taylored Starboard bag. Yet, if the procurement comes to fruition (and I'm really hoping it does), the Serenity will be a part of my quiver forever.

Floyd
16th September 2007, 06:17 AM
Hi Steve
A philosophy I totally agree with.My most used board was bought in 03. I will change it when I find something that IS better ; ie not claimed to be.
Good luck with serenity. I`ve thought about it but to be honest I already spend more time than I should sailing.
An element of cynicism is healthy but not so much it stops you trying new developments.
Like they say is our sport subject to evolution or revolution.

Take care.
Good sailing.

TonyC
23rd September 2007, 09:26 PM
Original Question still seems unanswered:

You state in your new marketing material that the new Futura will be quicker and more manouvrable than the ST. Does this only apply to the larger boards - looking at the 93 I would have thought the ST93 would be quicker when fully powered than the Futura as the ST93 is narrower in the tail, slimmer outline, less V and in other respects is the same - rocker profile etc. I recently bought a ST93 for blasting, chop jumping etc in flattish water and open ocean - this is more along the lines of what I have previously had in a F2 Axxis 272 several years ago (a very fast controllable board in its day), although the ST93 should be a lot more manouvrable and even faster. Very happy so far with the ST93.

Thanks

Tony

TonyC
26th September 2007, 07:29 PM
Bump back to top

Ken
27th September 2007, 02:00 AM
Volume counts -

For us inland sailors, on a 10 to 20 knot day, we may hit holes or shadows where it's 0 to 5 knots. VOLUME MAKES A DIFFERENCE. Tell it like it is, especially when we are talking boards that may or may not be sinkers or floaters.

Personally for me, I know that in fresh water at 0-3 knots, 105 liters will keep my feet dry & at 95 liters and they are getting wet.

Ian Fox
29th September 2007, 11:11 AM
Hi Tony (and many others who have participated in this extensive discussion :) ...)

On the original question ~ and commenting as nudged by a couple of viewers..

TC : You state in your new marketing material that the new Futura will be quicker and more manoeuvrable than the ST. Does this only apply to the larger boards - looking at the 93 ?
IF : No, this applies to the smaller boards (FU101/ FU93) as well.

TC : I would have thought the ST93 would be quicker when fully powered than the Futura as the ST93 is narrower in the tail, slimmer outline, less V and in other respects is the same - rocker profile etc.
IF : FU93 and ST93 are similar in overview but significantly different in detail; Compared to ST93, FU93 draws significantly on established iSonic principles of higher aspect ratio plan shape (more efficient l/d ratio - and thus potentially faster ), a much thinner deck area (nearly 2 cm thinner at mast track (adds to hi wind/hi speed control), tail cutouts (more top speed), a concave V bottom shape ahead of the planing flat (compared to flat V ST) and (significantly) FU93 uses the Double Flat concept rockerline (significant tail kick in FU (extra top end speed plus top end control and manoeuvrability) c/w dead flat in ST.

... Not exactly the "same in other respects" and certainly not in "rocker profile"...

Traditionally some of these changes (wider overall, wider tail, tail kick) might have been considered as contributors towards a generally "slower" design at a given size (range/volume, etc) either directly, or as a result of reduced control, which in turn lowered the overall performance. However in the current range of contemporary designs, delivered in carefully measured doses these factors (wider overall, wider tail, tail kick) can be shown to clearly demonstrate a performance / range advantage and (maybe strangely, by traditional thinking or benchmarks) even with improved control or rideability.

ST93 is far from obsolete and remains proof positive of a well refined concept. FU93 challenges recent conventional thinking/development and while not delivering a quantum knockout advantage over ST93, FU93 certainly redefines the previous benchmark/s in this area - and in a market more currently focussed on speed and range, but reluctant to accept compromise on handling or manoeuvrability, these are worthwhile gains to many owners.

Impossible Engineering ? Maybe. Try it.

Cheers ~ Ian

TonyC
29th September 2007, 06:13 PM
Thanks Ian - great explanation, I appreciate design aspects are vastly different to my old days.

Regards

Tony

namreh
14th October 2007, 06:19 PM
to get a nice compairison between s-type 2007 en futura.

My old s-type 115 vs. my new futura 111

http://www.dailybits.be/media/1/20071013-futura-stype.jpg

van
15th October 2007, 10:02 PM
Hi Namreh

As you are one of the first to get your hands on the new Futura can youy please tell us the advantageas and disadvantages between the two.

namreh
16th October 2007, 08:36 PM
Hi Namreh

As you are one of the first to get your hands on the new Futura can youy please tell us the advantageas and disadvantages between the two.

In belgium/the netherlands we haven't had "surfable" wind in the weekend for some weeks...

I'm a normal, s-type recreational gps-windsurfer (I had the s-type 115 2005-2006-2007) and the main advantages for me:

some cm's longer and wider -> faster planning
wider tail -> longer fin and bigger sails possible

I always already using a 7.5m˛ sail and 40cm fin on the s-type 115, but it was not recommended by star-board. Now everything is recommended... :-)

1 main disadvantage already discovered! I found the stockfin from 2007 very good and I was happy to knwo that it was nog changed for 2008, but now it's covered by a blue paint. I think it's for marketing and sales purpose, but I will recommend every friend the 2007 fin instead of the heavier 2008-fin with some blue "make-up" on it.

Jan
26th June 2009, 02:30 AM
Hi Tony (and many others who have participated in this extensive discussion :) ...)

On the original question ~ and commenting as nudged by a couple of viewers..

TC : You state in your new marketing material that the new Futura will be quicker and more manoeuvrable than the ST. Does this only apply to the larger boards - looking at the 93 ?
IF : No, this applies to the smaller boards (FU101/ FU93) as well.

TC : I would have thought the ST93 would be quicker when fully powered than the Futura as the ST93 is narrower in the tail, slimmer outline, less V and in other respects is the same - rocker profile etc.
IF : FU93 and ST93 are similar in overview but significantly different in detail; Compared to ST93, FU93 draws significantly on established iSonic principles of higher aspect ratio plan shape (more efficient l/d ratio - and thus potentially faster ), a much thinner deck area (nearly 2 cm thinner at mast track (adds to hi wind/hi speed control), tail cutouts (more top speed), a concave V bottom shape ahead of the planing flat (compared to flat V ST) and (significantly) FU93 uses the Double Flat concept rockerline (significant tail kick in FU (extra top end speed plus top end control and manoeuvrability) c/w dead flat in ST.

... Not exactly the "same in other respects" and certainly not in "rocker profile"...

Traditionally some of these changes (wider overall, wider tail, tail kick) might have been considered as contributors towards a generally "slower" design at a given size (range/volume, etc) either directly, or as a result of reduced control, which in turn lowered the overall performance. However in the current range of contemporary designs, delivered in carefully measured doses these factors (wider overall, wider tail, tail kick) can be shown to clearly demonstrate a performance / range advantage and (maybe strangely, by traditional thinking or benchmarks) even with improved control or rideability.

ST93 is far from obsolete and remains proof positive of a well refined concept. FU93 challenges recent conventional thinking/development and while not delivering a quantum knockout advantage over ST93, FU93 certainly redefines the previous benchmark/s in this area - and in a market more currently focussed on speed and range, but reluctant to accept compromise on handling or manoeuvrability, these are worthwhile gains to many owners.

Impossible Engineering ? Maybe. Try it.

Cheers ~ Ian

Hi Ian,
Interesting these discussions about ST93 and FU93...
I bought 2 weeks ago a new FU93 model 2008. Wenn upc brought it i saw that the specs where 240x59,5 tailwidth 37,9!!?? Just like the ST93!! It seems like a ST93 with Futura print... What do you say about that? Btw serialnr st08fu9307100005..