PDA

View Full Version : Bring back the S-type and Carve


Muzza
25th January 2008, 09:18 AM
Why did the S-type and Carve get scrapped last season.
The S-type was the board modeled on the Super-X format which now doesn't exist in PWA events, but the Super-X style of sailing is probably the most accessible style of sailing worldwide. Fast fee-riding with the ability to launch off of small waves or chop, throw a loop or plane away from a carve gybe.
And the Carve was an easy sailing free-rider which was a dream to carve gybe.
We lose these 2 fantastic boards and they get replaced with a board that is a Starboard Go without the EVA deck and tufskin finish. Ie - a lightweight version of the Go, rebadged a Futura?
Not sure I can see this as innovative, just cost cutting. This is in addition to my earlier post re Starboard boards not getting any lighter while the other leading brands are (which has hit a wall of silence).
Criticism is feedback that should be welcomed... its how companies learn, improve and grow.
From someone who sells only Starboard boards, this gets frustrating and effects our competitive edge over other brands and dealers.

GEM
26th January 2008, 10:54 AM
Well, not to defend Starboard, they can do that themselves...but I disagree with you.

Had a Carve. Nice board, but I sold it. Didn't get to ride an S-type, but have a Futura on order. All reports (both in print and from riders I know) are glowing. So I don't think it's a shaved-down Go, but rather the Go is a beefed-up Futura. Probably a matter of perspective.

Have a couple superlight boards. I liked how light they were, great for jumping, speed...also have spent many days/hours repairing them. I'm not interested in that tradeoff. Have known a fair number of other sailors who got a JP and broke-'em. You got a wall of silence because not many people agree with you.

So I can see your point of view, I just think you're totally wrong. Of course, after you've broken your XXX, are you gonna get back on here and admit that you can appreciate the durability of a Starboard?

Ola_H
26th January 2008, 09:29 PM
Muzza: Have you sailed the Futura? Its a fast and exciting board, most tend to say its faster than the S-type. I wouldn't say it a "rebadged Go", rather its an amazing fact that such a high performance board can still do double duty as a entry level board.

I think most feedback the mast few years (from dealers), was that Starboard had to many different boards. The Futura can be seen as an answer to that critique and since it's already also a proven performer I think it was a good move to let S-type and Carve go.

Floyd
26th January 2008, 11:10 PM
Perhaps we could get Bic to reintroduce the Astro Rock and F2 the (original) Sunset Slalom.

Time moves on ; things develop and change.The Carve will be missed. It was a classic;but I`m pretty sure Futura will be better. Personally dont think S Type`s omission will cause any grief.Futura has to be better.
Carve always performed better than it had a right to but never thought S type quite lived up to expectations; which were probably just too high. (Remember all the hullabula about S type launch and it had to be better than an already exceptional board(Carve); it was always a hard call for S type) ( I was faster on my carve but perhaps I`m just rubbish but I wasn`t the only one)

Looking forward to trying Futura.

Futura is nothing like Go but even if they had similar profiles/rockers (which they dont)so what.??? A working formula ??? (Look at Fanatic range of boards;take names off you cant tell them apart (Hawk/Eagle)

Muzza
29th January 2008, 02:07 PM
Floyd,
You need to do some research on the subject before you get on a forum and make a fool of yourself through lack of knowledge.
The Futura and the Go's are identical boards as far as shape goes -length, width, rocker... everything except weight which is due to the variations in materials.
As for Fanatic Hawk and Eagle they are two different boards.
Ola_H
I've run demo days with the Futura to try and promote them along with other boards in the range and the feedback on them hasn't been anywhere near as good as it should be.
Gem,
Thanks for your feedback.
Silence isn't a reasonable response from a company to criticism from a person who buys and sells their products, whether they agree or not.
I've ridden many different brands including Starboard, RRD, Fanatic, F2, AHD and various customs and never broken any.
I can understand you wouldn't want to 'trade off' over 1 or 2 hundred grams but when you're talking a kilo (20% +) that's stretching it.
Your passionate support of Starboard is clouding your judgment perhaps?
Don't get me wrong, I think Starboard has some of the best boards on the market for their intended use... just not the Futura as a replacement for the Carve and S-Type.
The Start, Rio, Kombat, iSonic are all perfect examples of exceptional boards with no rival.
I'd hate to see a trend away from being the leading board brand due to 'trade offs'.
Muzza

Marko
29th January 2008, 02:45 PM
Hey Muzza, how do you like futura93 against stype93?

steveC
29th January 2008, 03:42 PM
Ouch!

Are Muzza's testers truly credible here? Is Starboard's "Impossible Engineering" marketing and development in question down under? Maybe more specific criticisms are warranted to support such "bad press" from a retailer.

Muzza
29th January 2008, 03:53 PM
Haven't had the chance to try the smallest of the Futura's, but if I had the chance to buy either board I'd grab the s-type without hesitation over the Futura.
I guess it depends on whether you'd like a board that is much wider (2cm) and stays wide through the tail or you want a board that is going to be faster and much more controllable when sailing fully powered.
Muzza

Muzza
29th January 2008, 04:15 PM
Hey Steve,
Is there any more credible tester than the consumer coming to a demo day to try before than potentially buy?
As I said in my post, there are many boards in the range which are market leaders, just not the Futura in my opinion.
Finally Stevo, I'm not a retailer, I'm a windsurfer who works for a retailer. Does that mean I'm gagged from having an opinion on the development of the sport I have been involved in for 27 years. I want to sell the best boards available and its much easier if they come from the manufacturer that my boss deals with, than bringing another brand into the shop to remain competetive.

Ola_H
29th January 2008, 05:58 PM
Muzza, I see your points and of course your entitled to you opinions. It is just that they don't seem to coincide with what I perceive as the general view on Futura so far.

Regarding:

I guess it depends on whether you'd like a board that is much wider (2cm) and stays wide through the tail or you want a board that is going to be faster and much more controllable when sailing fully powered.
Muzza

I would say that is no longer a general truth, ie that narrower is necessarily better for high wind control. You just have to look at a few successful modern slalom boards to see that. In fact, if you lessen width and want to keep volume, you need to go thicker and that has AT LEAST as big an effect on control as width. But all these details depend on the shape as a whole, no single detail mean much by itself. Its just that magazines have us to believe width is such a super important factor.

In my opinion, the Futura fits a very natural role in the program. Giving more easily accessible performance. The full on slalom boards have in my opinion become so easy to use nowadays, including smooth jibing and stuff. So, for anyone wanting something faster than the Futura, I think the most natural choice is an iS. I mean, even if you could design a board that fits in between, it will still be slower and less exciting than the iS, so such a board gets a very narrow appeal. I do some "fast freeridish" sailing on my iS76 and it fill that role rather well.

Marko
29th January 2008, 07:09 PM
Ola, I have the feeling that starboards R&D department forgot one VERY important characteristic of a board - "windsurfing sensation" or FUN!

I believe that futura is faster, more controlable and have a wider range then stype, but what about fun factor?

If I compare Sonic100 and is101 (both boards that I owned and sailed a LOT), is101 is faster in a wider range of conditions, it is way easier in chop and gybes better in difficult conditions...But I enjoyed S100 so much more in "ideal slalom" conditions and gybing this board in nice flat path was such a pleasure. For me, s100 in 20-25 knots with 6.6 slalom sail and nice waves was such a great windsurfing experience. You could really fell the thrill and excitement. With is101, it is so unexciting. Control is so good that you don't feel like you are windsurfing at all.

In fact, I enjoy is101 only while racing. This is the main reason why I wanted to get st93, to bring back that Sonic100 feeling.
When I wanted to order st93, I found that it is sold out and that the new board replaces it.
When I saw the specs of futura93, I could feel that this is not the board for me.
Yes, it is fast (probably), it is easy but does it have fun factor of stype??? I guess not (based on what I learned from S100/is101 comparison).

I agree that new smaller isonics are very easy and fun to ride, but I would like to have a board like isonics that I could use with small no-cam sails and that I could jump without worries. Stype was perfect for this.

Please, bring back st93! I want a board with less range and harder to control then futura but with more windsurfing thrill.

P.S. Anyone have st93 for sale in EU?

Ola_H
29th January 2008, 09:41 PM
I see your point. Its like with skiing. With the new super wide skis (some two times as wide as classic skis) even super light bottomless powder skiing becomes very easy. You can say unexciting. But in the other hand you can go much faster and hence get back the excitement (but it does make the run last a shorter time - or makes the mountain smaller if you like). So maybe the solution in windsurfing is also to push harder and get the excitement from the actual speed rather than from controlling the board. Personally I think fx the iS76 is a very exciting ride, but maybe that's because I'm a wave rider and scared to go that fast...

But seriously, the same argument exists in the wave boards world. EVOs are sometimes accused of not offering this kind of "high" and exciting ride, but once on a wave you can get a more exciting experience in my opinion since you can easier go where you want on the wave (hit the lip etc). Probably the kind of "soft" or "damped" ride on the EVO is the key to this board both being an excellent wave sailing beginners board as well as the board of choice for former WC champion Scott McKercher.
But still many people prefer that classical feel (ala Acid). It's in the end probably a matter of taste and f you have your mind set at one particular style it hard change.

Remi
29th January 2008, 11:04 PM
Hi Marko,

Did you try the Futura 93?

With the complete new shape of the iSonic compare to the Sonic, you must compare in this case the Sonic 100 with iSonic 87. For me the iSonic 101 is much more beter and have a better wind range particulary in low wind.

All the best

Floyd
30th January 2008, 12:17 AM
Muzza
Fair point I should have included Futura is nothing like "07" GO.(I`d not seen new Go`s)
Eagle and Hawk are different boards but share identical rocker profiles and very very similar planshapes.
Perhaps you should start a company !!!

You could reintro allsorts of kit. Alpha (for a while) built old Fanatic designs.Worked for them. Most folk bought the new new kit though !!

GEM
30th January 2008, 09:19 AM
Gem,
Silence isn't a reasonable response from a company to criticism from a person who buys and sells their products, whether they agree or not.
Perhaps, but if you are important *B as a retailer, then this is not the best place to get their attention - it's too public and thus not sufficiently diplomatic. That's one businessman's opinion (I don't sell sailboards).

I've ridden many different brands including Starboard, RRD, Fanatic, F2, AHD and various customs and never broken any.
Myself, I've only dinged noses, mostly from just falling off of sinkers when schlogging, not from getting launched (which is a rare occasion). But I know people who have. I tend to break rig components, instead.

I can understand you wouldn't want to 'trade off' over 1 or 2 hundred grams but when you're talking a kilo (20% +) that's stretching it.
When I compare numbers I end up with more like 0.5 kg (comparing wood to wood, etc.). Technora to wood / carbon-kevlar, more like 1 kg, but my point is that this is not a fair comparison on durability.

Your passionate support of Starboard is clouding your judgment perhaps?
Boards I currently own: Berky 295, Naish 8'7", Fanatic Skate 112, and *B Aero 117, Kombat 96, Rio M (for teaching) and a F133 on order. Prior to release of the Futura, I was planning to get an ST136. Alternate choices for the F133 were iS122 or JP SS 137, and until it comes it ain't over yet.

The Start, Rio, Kombat, iSonic are all perfect examples of exceptional boards with no rival.
On this we agree! BTW, I chose the Futura 133 > iS122 because I will use this for some old school freestyle (planing and non-planing), and don't think the iS would do as well.

GEM

Marko
30th January 2008, 02:03 PM
Ola,

with skiing, you can always go faster and push harder, but in windsurfing, you are limited to wind strenght. I am pretty experienced slalom racer and I used and raced is101 in 40knots with 5.5 sail - that was fun. But those days are so rare... :( With Sonic 100, which was harder to control and more agressive, I could feel adrenalin pumping in 20 knots of wind. With is101, I need 10 knots more to be "on the edge".
But this is not a problem. Isonic is made for racing, and in racing you need control so that you can focus on other things. So for racing, I prefer isonic.
But when freeriding, I do not care how fast I really am. I just want a FEELING that I am fast.
I hope this is not to confusing.

Remi,

I did not try futura93 (but I would like to). You say that I should compare Sonic100 to is87... Why??? is87 is narrower then s100...Futura93 is much wider then st93.
I do not see the point.

My conclusion is that newer wide/thin boards are faster in a wider range of conditions, are easier to control but do not offer more pleasure of windsurfing to experienced rider.
I can see that this futura concept is better for 90% of freeriders, but for someone who is comfortable with old narrow slalom boards, and who want to have fun in the strong wind and jump and loop, I think that stype is better choice.

But, I may be wrong because I did not try futura...

Remi
30th January 2008, 08:44 PM
Hi Marko,

I said that you must compare this 2 boards because they have the same wind range and have the the same width in tail.

Between the 2 boards S-Type 93 and Futura 93, their is only 0,8 cm in the tail, so when you plane you have only this part on the water and the rest is for plaining ability and control. So you may try the board before and you will see how much the board are fun. You can use it as a S-Type with for exemple jump.

All the best

steveC
31st January 2008, 01:22 AM
Muzza,

I think you missed the point about what I was trying to communicate earlier. Frankly, I tend to agree with GEM's thought that there are often better ways to communicate your criticisms to Starboard. Don't get me wrong, criticism is a valuable tool to voice your concerns, but it is important to craft it in a way that's meaningful and useful in nature.

It's important to note that the Futura line consists of 7 different models, but your comments don't even note which models that didn't measure up. You suggest that testers weren't attracted to the Futura, but you really haven't offered anything concrete to make your point. The question has to be asked whether your testers would have preferred the Stypes or Carves instead. Did you have some of these older models available for a contrast at the demos? How were the Futuras set up for the demo, and did testers have the opportunity to change the straps positions, modify mast track positioning or possibly try some different fins?

In my opinion, the comments about the GO and Futura being the same was a cheap shot. I think most folks here realize that the GO line was completely revised for 2008 probably representing significant design improvement, but I get the feeling you were trying to mislead by not making that clear. In effect, suggesting that the Futura was just an old GO design.

The fact that the Australian market is undoubtedly one of the first ones to see the 2008 models, it could be a crucial point of feedback, and I'm sure Starboard is interested in valid and sound criticisms. I would suggest that you put bit more time into your response, as I'm sure that would be better accepted and appreciated.

Muzza
31st January 2008, 05:31 PM
Steve,
I wouldn't have thought that asking a question like 'why the S-Type and Carve get scraped' was such a bad thing.
My comparisons of the Futura to the Go are correct and I can't see how you get that I suggested that the Futura is an old Go design???
I also can't see why I would have a "cheap shot" or "try to mislead" anyone, when I ride Starboard myself and I sell them.
Obviously the interpretation of my comments has gotten lost somewhere!
I haven't got a problem with Futura as a progressive freeride option that sits one step up from the Go, but if it's the same design then why not call them 'Go Tufskin', 'Go Technora' and 'Go Wood' and keep the S-Type and/or Carve.
As far as where and how I communicate my criticism goes, this forum is titled 'Ask the Team', sounds like the perfect place to ask the questions to me.
I don't waste my time beating around the bush and if that pisses people off so be it.
My original question has been answered to a certain extent. If I read between the lines, Starboard is decreasing the number of boards in the lineup so something has to go.
Hopefully they will introduce another model soon that fills the void that has been created.
Considering the number of views of this post there's obviously alot of others wanting to know the same thing.
Good sailing to everyone.
Muzza

Floyd
1st February 2008, 12:08 AM
But surely Muzza the whole issue is a little futile when you consider the final carve was actually miles away fom its original carnation.
SB could have kept name and just altered the board !!!The "Futura" would have been the 08 Carve.
Only thing that has been dropped is the name ?? (And probably the S Type which to be fair never quite captured mass buying public`s imagintion like expected.)(Yes I know it went well in right hands in right conditions but it wasn`t an early planer for its volume.)

I suspect its been quite clever marketing to rationalise board line up and quietly drop the S type.
You couldn`t really improve Carve without stealing more sales from S type; which would have made it even less feasible to produce.

How could SB advertise a new faster Carve ??? And leave S type in line up ???

Its actually been very clever.

Good sailing.

steveC
1st February 2008, 01:48 AM
Muzza,

I don't want to belabor this thing, but I wanted to clarify my "cheap shot" take on your initial comments. You made the following statement in your first post:

"We lose these 2 fantastic boards and they get replaced with a board that is a Starboard Go without the EVA deck and tufskin finish. Ie - a lightweight version of the Go, rebadged a Futura?"

I think that it's readily clear that the Futura and GO lines are brand new shapes. My take on the situation is that Starboard wanted to retire the S-Type and Carve lines, and replace them with a single line that represented a performance improvement over its predecessors. So I think it's safe to say that the Futura was the primary focus point offering a slightly detuned, more accessible version of the iSonic line.

To suggest that the Futura is a rebadged lighter version of the GO line is way off the mark. I think that you would have to agree that the GO line has always been considered kind of a durable entry level shortboard at a price point. That's not a bad thing, but on the performance scale of things, it fell far short for a more discriminating sailor. As I saw it, you were in effect trying to suggest that a Futura was just a lighter weight entry level shortboard.

I think that Starboard's decision to raise the bar of their GO line by offering a more durable and less expensive version of the Futura line was an excellent move on their part. In reality, I feel that the new GO line is no longer just an entry level shortboard anymore.

So overall, looking at things from a more positive, and I think a more accurate perspective changes everything.

doe818
1st February 2008, 11:44 AM
Interesting thread, and to be honest Mazza'a the first person I've come across who had a bad word for the futura. I got myself an F111 and the bang for your buck from this board is outstanding. It simply does almost everything extremely well. A lot of my mates, some who are exceptional sailors and other who are beginners, have sailed the board and it put a grin on all their faces. It took them all to the limit of their skills whenever they wanted to so can't see how it could be boring if it lets you try new things. For example, one of the beginners who sailed it had never nailed a gybe, he did on his first run on the F. Why is that meaningfull, well it is because it does loads for his confidence and all of a sudden he is setting his sights on higher goals. Interestingly, the same guy then jumped back on his own board, a carve, and could suddenly gybe it too, something had just tweaked in his head when sailing the F and he took that with him. In fact most of the folks who have ridden it now have their sights on one now. It certainly is not a go, regardless what the numbers say. As a previous poster mentioned, it would be interesting to hear what the conditions were (straps, rigs, wind etc) for the demo you did. One thing I've found on the futura is it is a completely different beast when you move the straps out and back. My point is, the board has a big range of uses compared to the go, a beginner can slog it and a pro can go nuts on it...that can't be a bad thing for a single product so in fact your life as a salesman should actually be easier with the arrival of the F.

GEM
3rd February 2008, 08:43 AM
From what I've read about the Futura, what I intend to do is rig it with the straps full out and back, find the sweet spot for the mast base, and hold on to as much sail as I can. Everyone, save Muzza, has said that it REALLY lights up the afterburners when it is well overpowered - just shy of an iSonic. May take a bit of experimentation to find the optimal sail / fin combo, but this surely is how to ride it. I look forward to trying it, but envision two basic setups - light wind / big fin / big sail, and overpowered sail / smallest fin that will work.