PDA

View Full Version : Isonic 09 double wingers


Unregistered
12th September 2008, 07:27 AM
Question for Ian or SB team,

Can u give us some insight on the double wingers for 09 isonics, as in what purpose it serves? It looks like the tail section after the double wingers is narrower.

Thanks.

NWF
12th September 2008, 12:38 PM
My undetsanding is that the said max width of the board is mainly to creat lift to get the board initially plaining. The wingers at the back ensure's the board has less width ie contact with the water so greater speed potential and with the possibility of slightly eaier gybing.

Rgds

Al,

geo
12th September 2008, 09:46 PM
Double wingers are just a way to have a specific width distribution over the board's length. Can do that with double wingers, like Aquata was doing in the '80s, or with a nicely tapered outline. Double wingers have one specific advantage over a smooth looking outline: they look weird and technologic. Great for marketing.
The real news seems to be that the iSonics needed some width reduction in specific areas.

Just my view, of course. Ready to change it if someone provides good explanations. Current explanation in the iSonic page ("The theory behind the concept: ...") just says that boards work better when they are wider in the middle and narrower in the tail...

Unregistered
22nd September 2008, 11:14 AM
Guys,
Thanks for the reply.
Btw, what is the optimum sail and fin size for the Isonic 101 , for a 75kg guy ?

Chris Pressler
22nd September 2008, 09:45 PM
Hi,
sailsizes from 6,5 to 7,5 and fins in between 36 and 38 cm.
Chris

Philsurf
22nd September 2008, 11:02 PM
What about the Isonic 111?

Chris Pressler
22nd September 2008, 11:21 PM
Hi Philsurf,
I did not sail the 111 so much, but guess that the board works greta with sail from 7,0 to 8,5. I also sailed a 9,0 on while testing an it worked quite good. Antoine i susing the board with 7,8 a lot I think.
Concerning the finlength: it always depends which product you use, how powerful the fin is. I would suggest 40 -42 (44 with 9,0).
Perhaps someone else can come up with further notes.
All the best Phil,
Chris

nonopr
23rd September 2008, 12:48 AM
iSonic 111 2008 with 6.3m2 38cm fin. 6.6m2 with 40cm fin. 7.6m2 with 42cm fin and 8.4cm 44 cm fin. I have not sail this board with the 9.2m2 I have but I will use probably the 44cm fin.
All sails are MauiSails TR-3 and TR-4 and Vector Fins Canefire.

Chris Pressler
23rd September 2008, 12:56 AM
Nonopro,
thanks. That sounds excellent. The canfires from Vector work great on the Isonics.
Chris

Unregistered
23rd September 2008, 07:02 AM
Thanks Chris,

will be receiving my IS101 very soon, i'm planning to use it for 6.3 and 7.3 ...
for the 6.3, would 32 cm fin be too small?
for 7.3 , i'm using 36cm C3

cheers

nonopr
23rd September 2008, 08:58 AM
I will assume this is for speed trials right? I use 34 with 6.3 but with a very narrow cord.

Tiesda You
23rd September 2008, 10:26 AM
Hi Geo,

It's not only about the relationship between the max width and the tail width but also about the relationship between the maximum width of the planing surface and the tail width. The widest point of the planing surface is where the water first meets the board, typically just behind the front straps.

When we design and test the boards, we find that boards tend to be more efficient when we have a relatively wide width there, where the water meets the board, and a relatively narrow width in the tail (but still wide enough to generate plenty of overtaking and accelerating power).

Back in 2008, the boards evolved along this concept but we kept the lines clean. For 2009, to push that concept further, we had to use sharp transitions (i.e. wingers) and nevermind the looks, to really get the numbers we needed. To be honest, these wingers also give the board more release - it's just an impression but the boards to feel like they are less draggy with more release.

Come to think of it, I guess we should try to make boards that have their maximum overall width at the front footstraps. Mmm, back to the shaping room then.

Chris Pressler
23rd September 2008, 04:14 PM
Hi unregistered,
I would stay with both sailsizes on 36. But try the 32 out. Perhaps better to invest in a 38 for the 7,3.
Enjoy riding the iSonic 101,
Chris

nonopr
23rd September 2008, 04:48 PM
Hi Geo,

It's not only about the relationship between the max width and the tail width but also about the relationship between the maximum width of the planing surface and the tail width. The widest point of the planing surface is where the water first meets the board, typically just behind the front straps.

When we design and test the boards, we find that boards tend to be more efficient when we have a relatively wide width there, where the water meets the board, and a relatively narrow width in the tail (but still wide enough to generate plenty of overtaking and accelerating power).

Back in 2008, the boards evolved along this concept but we kept the lines clean. For 2009, to push that concept further, we had to use sharp transitions (i.e. wingers) and nevermind the looks, to really get the numbers we needed. To be honest, these wingers also give the board more release - it's just an impression but the boards to feel like they are less draggy with more release.

Come to think of it, I guess we should try to make boards that have their maximum overall width at the front footstraps. Mmm, back to the shaping room then.

Tiesda: In 1990 my shaper at that time used the wingers in one of my boards, but after testing and testing we figure that they did not do anything to the speed of the board, nor made better the starting planning speed and on the other side made worst to be able to jive smoothly. He was aleways trying to innovate in some way. At the end I ended using the same board with out any wingers. After that I change shapers and became a Mike's Lab fanatic until recent years that Starboard introduced the short nose boards with a cobination of great speed and control, making the boards feel and be faster, but until this day we still used for windy and choppy conditions a longer nose board, why we havent been able to produce a board that is in control in this kind of conditions. Looks like we still use shaped from the 80's and 90's for this conditions.???

geo
23rd September 2008, 06:44 PM
Tiesda,
nothing, really nothing, in the iSonic's outline makes one think that a sharp transition such as a winger is needed in order to have such width variation between front and back straps. Point is, iSonics have relatively wide tails, so you could easily have the needed width variation just adopting an outline taper similar to those of other boards.
As an example, comparing with another brand designs whose measures are available on the web:
iSonic76, max width 550, tail width 374; CA SL 55, max width 550, tail width 344;
iSonic111, max width 685, tail width 499; CA SL 70, max width 700, tail width 472.
I am sure similar comparisons hold with most other brands' designs. So, marketing still is my best guess for those wingers' reason...

In my view, iSonics' real design advantage is in the extreme "low nose" design, and I see that more and more other shapers are going that direction. As for the rest, I have to disagree. Most of all about the idea of iSonics being "high efficient" designs. I'd rather call those "high power": cutouts and tail wingers keep tail wetted surface relatively narrow, despite wide overall tails provide huge back foot leverage that allows use of large fins. In the end, it seems to me that iSonics let one use large sails and keep those locked in easier, and raise tall over water thanks to big fin lift, but at the expense of muscular fatigue: no surprise they are so popular among racers. But in my view wide bodies and complicated tail designs are no allies for efficiency: clean shapes, straight tail rockerlines and sharp rails are.
By the way: funny, I used to think that "the widest point of the planing surface", "where the water first meets the board", was NOT "typically just behind the front straps", but rather just in front of the back straps... and I am sure Ian will agree...

Ola_H
24th September 2008, 12:32 AM
Maybe you'll believe Kevin Pritchard (who is rather free spoken when it comes to gear)

"Well for me I went down to Thailand and tested out the new Double Wingers. I hated the idea of them, because I always like the old school classic shapes, but in every board we tried they were faster with then on there. Again and again we tested them over and over and in every board every size the boards were faster. "

http://www.star-board.com/forum/showthread.php?t=4344

Unregistered
24th September 2008, 12:43 AM
Sailed Carbon Art Slalom, compared with Starboard Isonic. If I look to the design the Carbon Art is a bit traditional design, starboard the new 'trend'.

The Carbon Art has more lenght, and is REALLY THICK. Combined with sharp rail, and no tailkick. What is happening with this board when you send it downwind in (1m??) chop, good power in sail, it breaks automatic. In my believing the board hit that brake a bit to early for most conditions. The thick tail combined with no tailkick give less freedom to kick the board over the edge. Personally I don't like this, I try to release the board between the front/rear strap, but flat water/ backside of waves just are BREAKING. When I go about 32kn on the CA it is over, I am pushing really a lot with my backfoot, while I know on another board I can take that load away... Also the masttrack is a bit much forward... Giving some problems if you like Deeep-downwind.

Yes I also managed speeds above 35kn, but *board is already at the next mark. (CA has slower acceleration)

The Starboard Isonic... Speeds are about the same, BUT this board has just a little mode to get to that edge, and those very fast sailors can FLY. Yes this is POWER SAILING, but the CA will never get to this point. Only thing that would make me sail CA is the precision... Saw a Isonic 2009 with on right side a concave, and left it was flat...

I haven't sailed the newest *board, but when I win a lottery I will definitly buy a few *boards to replace my current boards. The Isonic revolution is really good.

However I believe some Amateur sailors could really like the Carbon Art... most like a board with a BIG limiter in looseness and that is the CA. People that sail completly neutral... WON't be surprised.

@geo, tail(width) is not the limiter, broader tails accelerate faster. When possible to release the board further back, topspeed is higher than you can imagen. The new wingers will give that topspeed.

geo
24th September 2008, 01:09 PM
Ola,
no need... I don't dispute new iSonics are "better" than old ones, what I am saying is just that it's not necessarily in the wingers, meaning that wingers is just one possible means to change the outline. I'd easier understand the enhanced performances come from some subtle rockerline refinement. By the way: it all started from the successful and proficient Sonic100, was it '04? Then new models added more and more performances, each new release was "clearly faster" than the previous... so, since old Sonic100 are still capable of close to 40 knots, I expect '09 slalom boards (in the same size class) to make 45+.

Unregistered,
not disputing CA vs. iSonic qualities. By sure iSonics are among the most successful racing boards ever. No need for me, or you, to confirm that.
Not clear to me your ideas about CA's ride. By the way, CA's happen to have rockerline measures very close to those of iSonics, only maybe a tad lower up to the 120 cms. measure and slightly more towards the nose. Both have no kick. Tail thickness means nothing when you're flying, as the volume is completely out of the water. So what you experienced must not be in any of those. In my experience, when I ride my SL58 nicely powered, I see it's flying over the very last few inches of the tail, right under my back foot, keeping a nice level trim and never touching water between the straps. Yes of course I push the back foot then, because under my back foot is the ONLY place where the board touches water, but it's almost only vertical force. If you are talking about "pushing the fin", or applying lateral force with your back foot, then maybe you have tried the board with a very bad fin! I am using mostly Falcons on my SL58, and those just can't take any push on them, as anybody having tested one will confirm.
What surprised me the most is that I am able to do so, to ride that way, very easily and in sea conditions I'd never even dream to use a slalom board in before then, so much controllable the board is.
Can't tell about accelleration. Of course, wider tail iSonics can carry larger fins and push more powerfully at slow speeds and out of a jibe. I suspect those same large fins should act as limiters at higher speeds, and this is what I felt when sailing one. CA's sharp rail release lets one use smaller fins, in my view. I also found my CA is so easy to jibe, carries such high speed through the jibe and don't need that much power to accellerate out of it, as it comes out very fast already. Such designs are SO MUCH different. But, in my view, if you felt CA as having a "a BIG limiter in looseness", boy! your board must have been affected by some very serious hull damage, or maybe was fitted with some ugly fin, or just was "something else" with CA stickers on it!
For what I know, I can guess that a big fit top racer in a slalom race with marks close together might prefer an iSonic with larger sail and fin, while a less fit sailor with a more normal body frame and racing with marks far apart might prefer a CA: maybe. Oh but racing results by old man PMcG in Kanaha, no matter who he is sailing against be it local sailors or PWA pros, seem to tell a different story... pity, CA's small budget can't afford PWA sponsorship, so we will not see a direct comparison. As for me, by sure, when freesailing and aiming just at fun, doing those long reaches at full speed without any marks at all, CA is so much fast, fun, comfortable and nice to sail. I will not compare this to my experiences with other boards here, but my choice is obvious.
One more thing: now you have the burden to explain me how those wingers, placed up front, just behind the front straps, may have any influence on top speed...

Tjabo
24th September 2008, 02:33 PM
(sorry for stealing the thread) Geo, which Falcon sizes do you use for your SL58 - 30-34?

geo
24th September 2008, 03:01 PM
32 with 6.3 TR-4, 34 with 7.0.
34 is OK for well powered up 7.0 but a bit small for 7.0 in lighter winds, so I am going to get a 36 too.
32 seems to me just perfect for 6.3: I did not even experience the usually reported upwind limitations with that combo, I can just head up in whatever (reasonable) direction, still have perfect control in fast overpowered downwind. 30 is probably OK with a 5.9 at the extreme boundaries of the board's range, or for serious speed sailing in smoother waters.

Vincef
24th September 2008, 11:04 PM
Sailed Carbon Art Slalom, compared with Starboard Isonic. If I look to the design the Carbon Art is a bit traditional design, starboard the new 'trend'.

The Carbon Art has more lenght, and is REALLY THICK. Combined with sharp rail, and no tailkick. What is happening with this board when you send it downwind in (1m??) chop, good power in sail, it breaks automatic. In my believing the board hit that brake a bit to early for most conditions. The thick tail combined with no tailkick give less freedom to kick the board over the edge. Personally I don't like this, I try to release the board between the front/rear strap, but flat water/ backside of waves just are BREAKING. When I go about 32kn on the CA it is over, I am pushing really a lot with my backfoot, while I know on another board I can take that load away... Also the masttrack is a bit much forward... Giving some problems if you like Deeep-downwind.

Yes I also managed speeds above 35kn, but *board is already at the next mark. (CA has slower acceleration)

The Starboard Isonic... Speeds are about the same, BUT this board has just a little mode to get to that edge, and those very fast sailors can FLY. Yes this is POWER SAILING, but the CA will never get to this point. Only thing that would make me sail CA is the precision... Saw a Isonic 2009 with on right side a concave, and left it was flat...

I haven't sailed the newest *board, but when I win a lottery I will definitly buy a few *boards to replace my current boards. The Isonic revolution is really good.

However I believe some Amateur sailors could really like the Carbon Art... most like a board with a BIG limiter in looseness and that is the CA. People that sail completly neutral... WON't be surprised.

@geo, tail(width) is not the limiter, broader tails accelerate faster. When possible to release the board further back, topspeed is higher than you can imagen. The new wingers will give that topspeed.

Hi there,

What CA did you try ? What Isonic to compare with ? What sail and what fin ? As I've tried a lot both, i didn't feel what you felt at at all. Both are excellent boards. CA boards are bit smaller on the tail (a way much narrower) and the more it's choppy, the better they are.

Unregistered
25th September 2008, 12:08 AM
Geo,

I don't think you understand. I don't like to talk over internet, but to all readers I would like to comment:

Everybody has his own sailingskills /style, it is hard to define your own style. A sailor that is going about 28kn average will feel different things than someone that is on 34kn or even 40kn. Lucky most fast sailors know what to ride, amateur sailors are often stuck at a certain level due these quotes (giving them 'other' idea's)...

===each new release was "clearly faster" than the previous... so, since old Sonic100 are still capable of close to 40 knots, I expect '09 slalom boards (in the same size class) to make 45+.===
>>>Boards are not only about topspeed dude... Nobody wins PWA slalom on a speedboard.

===Tail thickness means nothing when you're flying, as the volume is completely out of the water===
>>>Board rolls over, backfoot pressure is a lot bigger, both giving less feeling/control. I also feel that the board simply doesnt respond fast.<<<

===because under my back foot is the ONLY place where the board touches water===
>>> You are releasing way to far back, it should be between front/rear strap at normal speed. Only release this far back if you know what your doing, I can imagen why you are using smaller fins. Releasing under your backfoot, I wouldn't recommend this on a no-tailkick board...<<<

===I suspect those same large fins should act as limiters at higher speeds===
>>>Fins are not ment as a limiter, they are for to give enough lift, to keep course/ acceleration. But also taillift is a thing fins deliver. Lenght has not much to do with topspeed (when you are sailing good fins...)<<<

===One more thing: now you have the burden to explain me how those wingers, placed up front, just behind the front straps, may have any influence on top speed...===
>>>Topspeed, is that factor only important??? I believe wingers give fast acceleration. In windlulls you will get a better glide when giving mastfoot-pressure (release-point goes forward), this will result in a wider glide surface giving stability/surface. In windgusts your sail/fin deliver more lift, taking your releasepoint back. When placing wingers exactly on the right release-spot (gusts/lulls) you simply get faster acceleration, combined with higher chance of planning thru lulls.Topspeed improved??? Most current SB isonics will still reach 40kn... no doubt<<<



Hangloose,

-mysterious speeder*
*I don't own any SB at this moment, I am a national sponsord sailor, I am into competition, did ++42kn on gps/ and 40kn++/500m. Maybe you guys can google my name, haha. Or do you need more hints?

Unregistered
25th September 2008, 12:44 AM
Hi there,

What CA did you try ? What Isonic to compare with ? What sail and what fin ? As I've tried a lot both, i didn't feel what you felt at at all. Both are excellent boards. CA boards are bit smaller on the tail (a way much narrower) and the more it's choppy, the better they are.

TRUE, I like the CA slalomboards. But only overpowered, at least 1m waves/chop, gusts/no lulls. For our national competition I would never entree with CA slalom because they are not made for our 'main' conditions. Just 1 out of 5 events is on salt water (read big chop)...

compared CA SL62 with 'old' Is105, I got now 2 CA speedboards which are excellent. Especially the CA SP44 is such a nice design. My ID is easy click below...

Hangloose,

-mysterious speeder*
*just found myself to quick on google.com, click for the link ;) (http://erikloots.blogspot.com/)

geo
25th September 2008, 01:14 AM
Geo,

I don't think you understand. I don't like to talk over internet, but to all readers I would like to comment:

Everybody has his own sailingskills /style, it is hard to define your own style. A sailor that is going about 28kn average will feel different things than someone that is on 34kn or even 40kn. Lucky most fast sailors know what to ride, amateur sailors are often stuck at a certain level due these quotes (giving them 'other' idea's)...

===each new release was "clearly faster" than the previous... so, since old Sonic100 are still capable of close to 40 knots, I expect '09 slalom boards (in the same size class) to make 45+.===
>>>Boards are not only about topspeed dude... Nobody wins PWA slalom on a speedboard.

===Tail thickness means nothing when you're flying, as the volume is completely out of the water===
>>>Board rolls over, backfoot pressure is a lot bigger, both giving less feeling/control. I also feel that the board simply doesnt respond fast.<<<

===because under my back foot is the ONLY place where the board touches water===
>>> You are releasing way to far back, it should be between front/rear strap at normal speed. Only release this far back if you know what your doing, I can imagen why you are using smaller fins. Releasing under your backfoot, I wouldn't recommend this on a no-tailkick board...<<<

===I suspect those same large fins should act as limiters at higher speeds===
>>>Fins are not ment as a limiter, they are for to give enough lift, to keep course/ acceleration. But also taillift is a thing fins deliver. Lenght has not much to do with topspeed (when you are sailing good fins...)<<<

===One more thing: now you have the burden to explain me how those wingers, placed up front, just behind the front straps, may have any influence on top speed...===
>>>Topspeed, is that factor only important??? I believe wingers give fast acceleration. In windlulls you will get a better glide when giving mastfoot-pressure (release-point goes forward), this will result in a wider glide surface giving stability/surface. In windgusts your sail/fin deliver more lift, taking your releasepoint back. When placing wingers exactly on the right release-spot (gusts/lulls) you simply get faster acceleration, combined with higher chance of planning thru lulls.Topspeed improved??? Most current SB isonics will still reach 40kn... no doubt<<<



Hangloose,

-mysterious speeder*
*I don't own any SB at this moment, I am a national sponsord sailor, I am into competition, did ++42kn on gps/ and 40kn++/500m. Maybe you guys can google my name, haha. Or do you need more hints?

Hi mysterious,
don't think I am going to give up logic or physics just because you say you are so fast...
By the way, considering my age and the time I was able to spend sailing, I am perfectly happy with my skills, even though I know I will never hold against any PWA competitor. As for national level racers, well, we might see...
Now, about those quotes. Maybe I am not understanding, but nevertheless it seems I should better explain you more clearly what I said.
1) I know it's not all about top speed, nevertheless usually manufacturers refer to "more speed" at each new release... OK, make it more simple for you: I was trying to be hironic. Got it, now?
2) Apart from the fact that my thick tail CA is BY FAR the best controllable, more responsive and less affected by backfoot pressure board I ever tested or rode in my pathetic 30 years windsurfing career, please explain me how physically volume may affect any board behaviour once you are planing at speed. If the concept is clear, it should be easy to do so clearly.
3) Again when at speed my CA touches water only in the tail. Funny:
http://gallery.star-board.com/share_gallery/2009sb/photogallery_web/isonic/JC_Starboard_08_dy2_disc1a_1336.jpg
http://gallery.star-board.com/share_gallery/2009sb/photogallery_web/isonic/JC_Starboard_08_dy2_disc3a_3142.jpg
http://gallery.star-board.com/share_gallery/2009sb/photogallery_web/isonic/JC_Starboard_08_dy2_disc3a_3243.jpg
tell them they are wrong...
4) Thanks for the hints! Probably my fluid dynamics professor did not know as much as you... he used to consider drag and lift both as a function of speed and size, the lesser the speed the more you need size. Go figure. Anyhow, funny how speedsters tend to use small fins, too.
5) Oh well... I was referring to post #17. Go read the last sentence. I thought you wrote that. Anyhow. I do agree with what you say, only it was possible to have that with wingers, or with a different outline taper. Again. My point is simply this. Do you want me to write it once again?
By the way: did you ever thought that by lowering the nose in lulls one also engages the central part of the rockerline, which is not flat but curved? Ever heard of the relationship between foil curvature, fluid change of direction and lift? Do you really think that a maybe 2 cms. wider outline where the wingers are is so important compared to the rockerline effects?

Well you might be surprised but I don't care who you are. Maybe you are the fast sailor you say, maybe not. Anyhow let me give you a suggestion. Don't think that being a good or fast sailor (if so) necessarily means one knows or understands how a board works, or anything at all, not even what he himself writes. An easy enough example? Just carefully read again the first line in point #5 here above.

Unregistered
25th September 2008, 02:04 PM
Geo,

Please I am not giving comment on your sailing style... But not everybody is the same, I really believe CA is a holy grail for you. Since I go speedsailing if the wind is above 18kn, I never got any circumstances that are really fun for a CA SL62. But I do have another sailingstyle (I think a bit more regular), and do feel most things are just otherwise than you explain (in my case). But still it could work for you!

BTW if you are focussing in improving your topspeed, I would really recommand that CA Speed, they are really 'easy' to start on (I think you can sail it right away). I am 80kg, and the CA SP50 + a NP RSR 6.7 is taking of @ 12kn of wind. This is really the best topspeed improvement advice I can give you. Also the SB speedboards loook very fast...

hangloose,

Erik

Vincef
25th September 2008, 02:27 PM
Hi Erik,

You should give another try to CA in slalom, especially VS the IS 105 which is out of the game now. You can go with very big fins on CA. No problem. For the 62, I mainly use it with 38 and 40 fins (C3 Venom) for 6.7 and 7.6. I use 32-36 on the 58 and 30-34 on the 55. I'm 85 kg. The more push you can have down the tail, the better you can handle some "backhand" when you are overpowered. Just a question of balance and leverage.

The CA beefy tail from 06 and 07 could be impressive at first glance and you don't really feel any problem while sailing. As you said, the board is even better when you need more control (Chop+gust).

The CA tail is thinner on 08 model and even thinner on 09 model. The rocker is lower and overall boards are faster and even easier to rid trough rough conditions. The philosophy is still the same, you don't want to thhink about your board if you you want to go gast.

As I said, both Isonic and CA are excellent boards. If you sail A LOT, you will find a subtle difference as the Sonic is a bit more free and the Ca is a bit more steady. You can change this just with settings.

Unregistered
26th September 2008, 09:49 PM
I just read Phil Mcgain doesn't use them in PWA sylt?

I am sure vince that CA is just fine, but for the edge high competion level/ PWA... I think it is just to safe. But still better than to dangerous, haha

nonopr
26th September 2008, 11:09 PM
Phil, Cant use Carbon Art because they are not approved by the PWA 2008 Rules

Vincef
27th September 2008, 12:56 PM
I just read Phil Mcgain doesn't use them in PWA sylt?

I am sure vince that CA is just fine, but for the edge high competion level/ PWA... I think it is just to safe. But still better than to dangerous, haha


CA boards are not PWA registred. As being the designer of CA, I couldn't imagine Mcgain riding anything else than CA boards.

Phil tried almost everything registred and available on the market and kept was the best for him besides CA, i.e Tabou boards.

Then, you could say that Tabou is second best choice after CA.

Josh Angulo did the same and finally choose Tabou boards.

It's interesting to see these great riders (Mcgain, Angulo or Dunkerbeck) choose their boards without being sponsored.

Unregistered
27th September 2008, 03:17 PM
from what I know he just hasn't had access to every brand so,maybe,Tabou was a safe choice because Angulo's given a huge amount of feedback and tuning info.
just my 2 cents

nonopr
27th September 2008, 11:54 PM
I am sure that McGain has chosen Tabou because he know they work for him.
As a fact in his first heat of the day he ended second and Bjorn third.

geo
28th September 2008, 03:09 AM
I don't think Phil needs feedback from Josh Angulo about tuning: rather the opposite. As far as I know, Phil tested on water and his last selection was Manta or iSonic. I guess Mantas are better fit for Maui Sails, as iSonics seem to work so nice with RS:R and Warps.

Vincef
28th September 2008, 02:18 PM
i'm afraid that Mcgain and Angulo have tested at least Mistral, Isonic and tabou boards.

Angulo is pretty clear when he explains why he choosed Tabou over Mistral and Starboard. See www.mauisails.com

Unregistered
28th September 2008, 03:34 PM
he tested also Fanatic and the finalists were Starboard and Tabou.He spent about 1 whole month daily testing before take his decision so,in the end,I assume he was pretty sure about his choice.

davide
6th January 2009, 01:40 AM
The Carbon Art has more lenght, and is REALLY THICK. Combined with sharp rail, and no tailkick. What is happening with this board when you send it downwind in (1m??) chop, good power in sail, it breaks automatic. In my believing the board hit that brake a bit to early for most conditions. The thick tail combined with no tailkick give less freedom to kick the board over the edge. Personally I don't like this, I try to release the board between the front/rear strap, but flat water/ backside of waves just are BREAKING. When I go about 32kn on the CA it is over, I am pushing really a lot with my backfoot, while I know on another board I can take that load away... Also the masttrack is a bit much forward... Giving some problems if you like Deeep-downwind.


It is probably apple and oranges to compare "Isonics" with "CA" as if they were a single board. I own a CA SL 52 and 58 and these design do not seem "that" different from a Isonic 76-86-94, but from the Isonic 101 up is a different story. But other then argue shape and thickness and rails, I just want to mention that I do not really run into a "wall" with my CAs.

My 52 (when I check my GPS) is regularly in the 28-34 range, and I peaked it at 38+. Note that I am a good sailor but very, very far from a PRO. That is: I see no reason why a pro should not bring the CA regularly close to 40 top speed, it is my target for the new season (good luck!). I think the 58 would be just behind.

The boards are easy to sail, so easy that it feels like cheating, but I do not detect any "breaks automatic" , nor any particular need to "push" on the tail. The jibe of the 52 takes some tender loving care (it is a small board, 32.6 tail, somewhere in between the Isonic 76 and Speedspecial W53) but I see no problem with the 58 ... again a PRO would jibe either with his/her eyes closed ...

Floyd
6th January 2009, 04:10 AM
Davise
You`ve probably mentioned it someplace; but what`s your weight.
Thanks

Floyd
6th January 2009, 04:11 AM
Sorry (typo) meant Davide

davide
6th January 2009, 04:45 AM
Davise
You`ve probably mentioned it someplace; but what`s your weight.
Thanks
70-73Kg depending on the amount of pasta I eat