View Full Version : Correct volume calculation for new board buyers

23rd January 2009, 04:28 PM
I recently bought a Starboard Futura 122 ,but have found with my weight (100kg) that it's actually a "sinker" once the sail is uphauled (aka Titanic....). My skill level is such that I have been a confident rider of all the boards that I have owned previously over a period of about 18 years.
I would like to see some sort of calculator on the Starboard web site of correct board volume for new purchasers of boards to ensure that the correct one is selected(for the sailors skill level). At the moment I can ride the board but only if I uphaul real quick before the board slowly sinks(once the sail is lifted)which isn't really much fun and could be dangerous if the wind drops and currents unfavourable (Southern Ocean nearby....). Apart from shedding 15 or 20 kg or learning real quick how to waterstart, I think I maybe should have got the 133 or 144 litre board, as this would have given me that extra flotation and made the experience a bit more relaxing and fun. My point really is though,there is nothing to help calculate the correct size of a board which takes into account a riders skill level(I was FINE on my previous board..)and weight.... any thoughts on this ?

23rd January 2009, 07:21 PM
1l=1kg of flotation, so hypotheticaly speaking if your board is the exact same volume as ur wieght plus the wieght of ur kit wet, then it would sink all the way untill ir is fully submerged and then stop, but if u push down (as u do when you uphaul) the board will start sinking again. if you are planning on uphauling on it regularly with a decent size rig, 122l is for sure smaller then comfterble size. how big was your last board that you where comfy on it..? and how much does your full kit wiegh aprox? 144 would have probly made your life allot easier.... my sudjestion is to eather learn how to waterstart fast (very good skill to have regardles) or find yourself another board if it worries you, because it wont get any better over time unless you cut back in wieghgt on components of your gear, but 22kg for a full kit is cutting it quite close alread you want to have about 10-15 or even 20l extra after your biggest rig that your gona use on the board if you plan on uphauling on it allot comfy like...
anyways, my 2 cents for now,

23rd January 2009, 08:18 PM
Hi Alpina57,
I kind of agree with Tom here.
What was the volume; width, and length of your previous board.
I do not weigh 100 lg. (220.5 Lbs) so I cannot tell from first hand experience, but
I weigh 75-80 Kg and can comfortably uphaul 90-100 liter boards.
Perhaps your rig is quite heavy (mine tend to be very light, even in the larger sizes as I use 100% carbon masts and carbon booms in the larger rigs) and this is somehow adding enough weight to put you over the balance point between weight and volume.
Perhaps its a little bit of a technique (or adjustment) situation.
What part of your board is sinking? The tail.... The nose... or the whole board goes down level?
Are you sailing in freshwater or saltwater. The difference in buoyancy could make a significant difference.
Often with smaller lower volume boards the sailor has to make some technique adjustments to get their weight centered over the fore and aft center of flotation of the board (which may be in a different place than on your previous boards.
Do you put your front foot in front of the mast when uphauling?
If you are "centered" over the mast foot on your Futura 122 and the nose sinks, move your back foot back a little and slide your front foot back closer to the mast foot.
If, as you pull your rig up out of the water the fore/ aft balance is changing, you may need to change your technique to shift your weight a little to the rear as the weight of the rig is applied to the mast foot.
I agree, you are right near the "sinker" point, but there may be some things you can do with technique that will enable you to comfortably uphaul the Futura 122 that are a bit different that what you were accustomed to doing on your older board.
And, is the board simply sinking to the bottom when you beach start or is it simply sinking a little until most of the deck is awash?
Many sailors comfortably ride boards that float them, but most of the deck is underwater before they start moving.
Hope this helps,

24th January 2009, 12:31 AM
I'm really amazed that you have been windsurfing for 18 years and haven't learnt how to waterstart. Waterstarting is a very valuable core technique that is actually quite easy to learn (and I was in my late 30s when learned to do it).

In fact, I learned how to waterstart the first day I attempted it, and I had no difficulty doing it on either tack. It was like a miracle when I first did it, and it was so easy. However, I had been sailing a longboard for about a year and a half, so I had developed reasonably decent skills. It was only after I bought my first short board did I try to waterstart.

Do yourself a favor and learn to waterstart ASAP. Ultimately you won't regret it, especially since you'll be able to readily take advantage of your new Futura 122.

24th January 2009, 05:04 AM
Roger,the old board was a South Pacific II Bombora which was 292cm long and around 135 litres "REAL" volume. Having a look around on the Net it's become apparent that my idea of going to a shorter board (shorter is better ? ) was not such a wise move especially since real volume (ie. 1 litre displaces 1kg of fresh water or 1.025kg of salt water) is apparently different to "virtual volume" which seems to be some kind of nonsense marketing term that doesn't really help a lot with correct board selection. I would be interested to know if the Futura is a "real" 122 litres displacement or something less. The board DOES sink once the sail comes out of the water,so the sail,mast,boom,and myself with a WET wetsuit must be just tipping things past the "neutral" bouyancy point.

SteveC , The 18 years is on and off sailing due to living in a cold weather location,so most of this was concentrated over the 3 warm months we have here....so its a very on/off 18years. But yes your right,maybe I need to learn to waterstart,and probably more important, lose some weight.....!

p.s. some relevant links....
http://www.extremeforum.net/q-starboard-formulas-real-volume-5661012.html (bad English ! ! )

24th January 2009, 09:59 AM
this is actualy very interesting, ive heard of the "virtual volume" concept, but have never realy explored the topic much, im interested is there some sort of formula you can use to figure out the actual volume of starboard's currrent and past models...?

24th January 2009, 10:12 AM
Hi Alpina57,
OK, now your dilemma makes alot more sense.
I'm pretty sure that the Futura 122 is pretty close to 122 liters, but the "volume
distribution" will be significanly different than your SP II Bombora.
The Bombora is 292 cm long and the Futura is 244 cm long and 76 cm wide.
So, you will indeed need to make some "adjustments" to your uphauling technique.
The volume in the Futura 122 is going to be significantly further back in the board, so
if you use the same "positioning" (relative to the mast foot) the Futura is going to sink by the nose pretty quickly.
If you adjust your "positioning" further back on the board to get your center of mass over the center of actual volume, you may find the Futura doesn't sink on you.
Also, longer narrower boards were/are not nearly as sensitive to fore and aft sailor positioning as the modern wider/volume further back boards like the Futura.
I would encourage you to sail the Futura a bit more and see if you don't find that once you make the technique change to get your weight back over the fore/aft center of volume, you will find the Futura does indeed have enough volume for a fellow of your weight.
Once you get the positioning sorted, I think you will find the Futura does everything your Bombora did, only more easily.
It's really OK for the board to sink so that just the tip of the nose and tail are out of the water.
The additional width should make uphauling far easier once you get the fore/aft position
I found exactly the same thing with really short boards like the Hypersonic 96 and the Compact.
They felt terrible and wanted to sink out from under me (even though both had plenty of volume) until I made the adjustment and figured out that fore/aft "balance"/positioning was actually more critical on these boards than side to side (athwarships) trim and positioning.
Once you get the rig up and the board moving forward I think you will find that there are no volume issues and will most likely find the Futura to be a really nice, fast, easy to jibe and easy to sail board.
Just try to change your "focus" from "side to side trim" to focusing on fore and aft trim.
Hope this helps,

24th January 2009, 10:18 AM
The "virtual volume" concept was used for a few seasons when boards became wider. It was used to estimate how much volume a narrow board would have to have in order to give the same feeling of float.

The fact that some boards have less, or more, volume than indicated by its model number comes from first deciding what models there should be in a line, and then developing them. And it seems that in some cases the initial guestimates did not really match the actual board that became approved for prodution. Thus, no "virtual volume" anymore...

John Kemsley
24th January 2009, 01:47 PM
Im with Roger here, at approx 95kg naked I could uphaul a 110 HS once i sorted the for/aft trim. Practice in shallow water so you know you can when you need to.
However as stated by others waterstarting is an invaluable skill.

24th January 2009, 02:50 PM
is 122- 113ltr
is 144- 137ltr
Why not to write the real volume on the board? Don"t understand! This is 2009 edition.

24th January 2009, 04:43 PM
what is the "real" volume of a 101L Futura 2009?

Can't wait to get it out again!!! Still need 6° more (+- 4°) now. Gggrrrrrrrrrr

24th January 2009, 07:31 PM
I am 95 kg dry...no experience with futura, but I can tell you I can uphaul 8.5 2-cam sail on my Aero 117...this is really short, only 237cm...and what Roger says is very right. My front foot is almost touching mast foot and the back foot is at least on a half way between straps.

PS: and my sails is not fully carbon-equiped!

Go and try it, when it is not working, try harder. The same with waterstarting.
Ciao Michal.

24th January 2009, 10:36 PM
Even if the 122L is accurate at 100Kg it would seem that you are borderline for floating with no worries ...

100 (weight) + 7-9 (board+fin+straps) + 3-4 (mast+mastfoot+extension) + 3-4 (boom+uphaul+ropes) + 4-5 (sail) + harness (3-4) + wetsuit (2-5) + booties/gloves/helmet (0-1) safetey-pack (0-3) = 100 + 22-34 = 122-135 Kg

In general I think that to be VERY comfortable one needs somewhat more volume then the total weight ... in your case the Futura 133 would seem a better choice ...

25th January 2009, 02:48 AM
Thanks guys for all the feedback,I didn't expect to generate such interest:eek:. From what has been said it seems I should be ok with this size board but the consensus is that I could have maybe gone for the 133 for a larger flotation margin for uphauling..... I will also try the standing back further technique as maybe the slow forward movement when first uphauling was causing some of the submarining effect especially if the board was inclined downwards at the front. The sinking problem was apparent in very light wind and made me concerned that I had
a./ chosen the wrong board
b./ not much hope of self rescue if things went pear shaped(unless I ditched the rig.)
I'm thinking to just lose some weight, practise the water starts,and stick with it and I will start to enjoy the board given a little bit of time. I'd also be interested in any others who are a similar weight, similar board size and have had the same steep learning curve and succeeded with it. :o Thanks again.

25th January 2009, 07:04 AM

You're right on thinking about learning the waterstart skill.

I'll be frank with you, I recently got a Serenity, that requires a necessary uphauling capabilty. I have to honestly say, I've been so dependent on waterstarting (I haven't used an uphaul in over 18 years), that I'm finding that uphauling is way more taxing and difficult at my age. I'm going to need to steel up a bit to become viable in building my uphauling skills, if my back can handle it (that's my dilemma).

It's almost funny, but I can easy handle an off the top 4.2 open ocean day on a 65 liter board with 10-12' rolling swell easier than a super light wind day on the Serenity.

25th January 2009, 10:01 AM
yeah, alpina57, i think your best bet is to A) practice uphauling in shallow water untill you get your foot work sorted out, if you still have trouble perhaps a bit of tape to mark where you think each foot should go according to the former attepts. this may look a litle funy, but it will help you get to the right possition faster in the start, and then later on when you are more acustomed to the board you can take it off...always nice to have a safety net ;) and to B) learn how to water start because it is so much easier to water start then uphaul once you know how and if you ever want to get inot smaller boards (sinkers) it is essential. by the way, big board freeride might be fun, but nothing beets a sinker on a big day, lots and lots of good memories ;p
p.s. just out of nowhere, anybody know the actual volume on a 04 hypersonic "111"? thanks :p:D

25th January 2009, 03:44 PM
Hey SteveC

The answer to your troubles is:
Never drop the rig ;-)

Seriously though, how do you like sailing (and gybing!) the Serenity?

25th January 2009, 03:57 PM

I've used a hyper (103 lit real volume) over a period of 3 years. I'm 86+kg and with a large rig it was next to impossible to uphaul, especially in swell. I remember a few very long swims from that period.
Waterstarting will not help if the wind drops to 2 knots and you're in the water. So if you're slogging and the wind is dying (watch it carefully while sailing), do everything you can NOT to drop the rig. You will become more comfortable with experience, but for your largest board + largest rig, it's always a good idea to have some extra volume.

26th January 2009, 12:29 AM
Hi Screamer,

So far I've only tried the Serenity one time so far, and unfortunately for me the wind totally shut off. I really went out too late in the day, so the session amounted to just a run out and back in (I actually had to swim it in the last 50 yards). From my run out, the Serenity seemed to move well in light wind, but I ultimately found that it really doesn't work so well in an absence of wind. However, I learned an important lesson in the effort. My next attempt will be much earlier in the day where I can depend on the wind holding up. Also, I'll use a smaller sail (a 7.1 instead of an 8.3) to initially get a better handle on things.

26th January 2009, 09:19 AM

I've used a hyper (103 lit real volume) over a period of 3 years. I'm 86+kg and with a large rig it was next to impossible to uphaul, especially in swell.

wich hyper was this screamer? the "105" or "111"??

26th January 2009, 12:26 PM
This has come up time and time agian. The Stype 93 I owned turned out to be 99 ltrs. It made the board very hard in really choppy and windy conditions. It limited my use of that board.
Starboard are well know for bull&%$# volume quotes. They think everyone is better off with virtual volumes. It doesn't matter so much until the volume is 10ltrs over your weight or under. Then it is truelly dissapointing. I've been caught on this a couple of times.
How hard is it to quote on the web site. Virtual Volume due to our advanced changes is Bla bla, and real Volume is Bla Bla.
I've ridden Starboard ( over 23 boards since 2000 ) and find this issue one of the most frustrating. When my dealer rings and asks for orders in April/ May I have to guess what to get as they arrive just as the season starts in September. August 16 ( ahead of US on the dateline)release is to late and still doesn't give the correct volumes.
I love starboards but need to get them one year later because of this issue. It cost them this year. I bought three new boards from another brand and only one Starboard. I got what I wanted this time with no surprises.
There is one other issue for me in the 90-100 ltrs Kodes but other than these two things Starboard would have an excellent range.
It is increadible that such a simple addition to the website is left out year after year.
For race boards look ISAF to get correct volumes. unfortunately it doesn't have wave or freeride boards.

26th January 2009, 01:35 PM
I agree with you, they can call their models any way it suits marketing purposes (101-111-122-133 sounds good, eh), but they should also quote real volumes in the specs. It's not always the most important aspect but sometimes is.

It was 105 hyper, found that on isaf site, I think 111 was right on (but I'm not sure). Go see if they keep archives from 2004.

26th January 2009, 02:48 PM

Here, go to season 2004/05 pdf

27th January 2009, 07:44 AM
great sudjestion for the isaf site, according to it the volume for this time is dead on, great resource in my openion as it should be by far the most acurate information you are going to get short of actualy figureing it all out by yourself... thanks for the comment on the other thread btw to check out for the around and between the strap area on wide boards as such, its been a great help ;p

31st January 2009, 01:51 PM
So would the Starboard website folks consider putting some sort of a guide to the correct volume taking into account a riders experience level? this could be in a chart form with questions on whether the potential buyer can uphaul, waterstart, gybe, tack or whatever and from this and their body weight (taking into account whether a wetsuit is worn,whether a carbon mast,boom etc for rig weight) a guide to the correct volume board could be given within an educated guess of 5 litres or so ? Even in a downloadable spreadsheet form ? This would ensure more new board buyers,especially newbies would pick the right board and enjoy the sport ? The present "guide" simply asks what sort of sailing will you do(type of board) and leaves volume calculation completely up in the air......

1st February 2009, 01:58 AM
sounds like a good plan, but you also have to consider what the conditions are gona be like, because the same sailor with the same set up might have allot of fun in say flat water but then when it gets choppy (about the same wind speed) then alterations must be made to the rig and depending what kind of board your on, maybe the straps and fin.. very diffucult to give an acurate volume calculation without taking all of these factors into acount, the only real way to do it is go to a test center and try out the boards, personal experiance is the nly way you can actualy know if the board will behave how you want it to or wont...

5th February 2009, 02:44 PM
Well well, it turns out that I actually DID order a 133 board,which I discovered for sure when I finally dug out the original receipt for the deposit which showed as a Futura 133 .
Somehow the wrong board(122) was sent from the national supplier to the local agent. They have sorted it now and I'm now getting a 133 sent ! the question remains WHY didn't I notice before...? It might sound strange but the agent didn't notice either, and on delivery of the 122 I wasn't quite sure what size I HAD ordered as I had been undecided between 133,144 or MAYBE a 122.... I also didn't have sails, boom or other rig components to go sailing until at least a month later so it was just sitting in the garage in bubble wrap !!!! That and being preoccupied with a divorce, moving house, Christmas and a heap of other stuff meant I wasn't really paying that much attention.....:o It's all good now though.... Just carefully check your rig and body weight,the type of sailing and where,and get the appropriate size volume board when buying..(which was the whole point of my original post ! )

22nd February 2009, 03:49 AM
Hi Alpina,
I bought a Kode 122, very similar to futura 122 measures, and I have to say you that it is very very sinking with my 92kg, especially during tack transitions and static floating...
Using sails less than 7 meters it is not a problem, but over 7 it is less enjoyable.... for sure thinking to ride with an 8.5-9 I have to buy another one!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
This was not my first purpose...... I think the main problem is the volume distribution.... to much shifthed backward..... and the mast track a little bit much forward......
Henry (Garda Lake)

22nd February 2009, 11:20 PM
Kode122 is a manoeuvre oriented board and I believe a Futura of the same volume will "feel" a bit bigger. A lake board for 92kg rider and 9m rig ........ you surely need bigger or more importantly different type of board. I hope you didn't buy it solely on website recommended sail range ;-)

23rd February 2009, 07:06 PM
for sure I bought the kode 122 in order to use mainly with 6.7 and 5.7 (Simmer Iron 2009), but I also thought to a sail of 8-8.2 without cambers... and this possibility is really uncomfortable on that board....
On the other hand it is true that kode 122 is a very amazing board and I will not sell it before longtime.....
so I think I will look for an used slalom board and a sail very very big .... perhaps 9.5-10...

25th February 2009, 02:09 AM
I`ve come a bit late to this thread but for what its worth ;

Reserve volume calculations are an absolute waste of time for heavier sailors especially.

At a rider weight of say 60 kg a reserve volume of 20 litres would be loads. At a rider weight of 100k it would not !!

What we should look at is the RATIO of volume available to rider weight.

ie I summise a ratio of 1.3 will give the volume of board uphaulable.
(ie for 60 k rider volume reqd would be 60 x 1.3 litres. (ie 78 litres)(reserve 18)
and for a 100k rider it would be 130 litres to have equal flotation !!!!(reserve 30 !!!)

In other words a 100k rider to have same reserve buoyancy would need 30 litres reserve whereas his 60k sailing partner would only need 18 litres.

Imagine a yacht with 100 litres reserve.It would be almost sinking.
A board with 100 litres reserve would be easily buoyant.

Reserve volume measurements should be despatched to the same place as wooden booms !

Forget them !!!

Look at floation ratios.

25th February 2009, 11:44 PM

Regardless of floation ratios, I want to see volumes. I know exactly what volume I need to slog home in less than 5 knots and not have the board under water. The last two small boards I purchased, I specifically chose a volumes so I wouldn't have to struggle in no wind situations. A Hi Fly Move 105 (105 liters). 2008 iS 111 (108 liters).

In my opinion, it is just plain stupid for a manufacturer to not include actual volumes in their promotional materials and on their boards.

My favorite lake sailing spot has prevailing south winds and a big wind shadow for about
50 meters from shore. It can be blowing 25 knots outside the shadow and 5 knots inside. I have an 80 liter board that I won't use at this sailing location because I prefer not to sail with it 10 - 20 cm underwater.

For some of us, REAL volumes are important to know.

26th February 2009, 06:49 AM
I`ve come a bit late to this thread but for what its worth ;

Reserve volume calculations are an absolute waste of time for heavier sailors especially.

At a rider weight of say 60 kg a reserve volume of 20 litres would be loads. At a rider weight of 100k it would not !!

What we should look at is the RATIO of volume available to rider weight.

ie I summise a ratio of 1.3 will give the volume of board uphaulable.
(ie for 60 k rider volume reqd would be 60 x 1.3 litres. (ie 78 litres)(reserve 18)
and for a 100k rider it would be 130 litres to have equal flotation !!!!(reserve 30 !!!)

In other words a 100k rider to have same reserve buoyancy would need 30 litres reserve whereas his 60k sailing partner would only need 18 litres.

Imagine a yacht with 100 litres reserve.It would be almost sinking.
A board with 100 litres reserve would be easily buoyant.

Reserve volume measurements should be despatched to the same place as wooden booms !

Forget them !!!

Look at floation ratios.

the ratio idea is nice, but you have to realise that unless your sailing on the dead sea, a 60 kg sailor would never be able to uphaul on a 78l board! you must add the wieght of the board and the rig (everything being wet) and then your wieght with your harnais and watever other clothing you wear wet. after you add that all together, then you aply your formula. for the average jo, i would say that you should add about 20kg to your wieght, so for a 60kg sailor, it would actualy take 80 x 1.3= 104l wich makes a lot more sense then 78l!! anyways just thought that somebody should point that out...;)

fair winds!

26th February 2009, 04:34 PM
You are obviously correct about adding weight of rig and board and suit etc. Idea is to use ratio on all up weight.Its not a definitive answer but way more accurate for different weights of riders than adding reserve volume.(ie a arbitary constant)
Agree actual volumes should be quoted.

I reckon there are quite a few 60k riders who can uphaul a 78 litre board.(I know of one definitely)

Point is that lighter sailors with 20litres reserve have way more chance of uphauling than a 100k rider with same.

Not sure uphauling should be acid test.Its getting back in virtually nothing AND being able to uphaul if you drop rig. (They can be mutually exclusive; ie uphaul rig and slowly sink to have to start again)

Erik Loots
26th February 2009, 10:29 PM
Volume is very handy for:

---Amateur sailors, gybing, uphauling sail, learning new stuff
---Real world wind, wind going from 20kn back to 10kn in just a few minutes

Volume isn't handy (from a speedsurfers point of view):

---When you want to go fast on a tight course (90 till 115 degrees)

So I would NEVER publish a lower volume on a board ment for freeriding, freeracing, etc. A design could work real fine, and plane real fast, but volume can't be lower than stated.

Volume is something that every surfer reconizes really quick. Be smart you guys @ starboard, and I know you guys are smart enough to solve this one for the future ;)

http://feeds2.feedburner.com/SpeedsurfingBlog.1.gif (http://www.speedsurfingblog.com/)

27th February 2009, 04:23 AM
I reckon there are quite a few 60k riders who can uphaul a 78 litre board.(I know of one definitely)

let me rephrase that, uphaul in nothing! im sure a 60kg sailor could find a way to uphaul on a 78l board if he was using a relitively small sail, like say a 4.5 coupled with a lite carbond boom and lite carbon mast in a fair bit of wind, so you just pull up the sail and grab the boom right away putting most of your wieght on the sail. in that scenario, yes, technicaly you did uphaul the sail, but i think what we are talking about here is when you are underpowered so you cant realy put much wieght on the sail... a board that you uphaul on is in most cases your light wind board, havent seen many people over 45kgs with a 80l board as their light wind board!!!

p.s. totaly agree with you ken, the real volume should deffinately be stated on the board call it what you like for marketing sake, but at least give the real volume in the little specs area... just something to think about *board!!

27th February 2009, 12:51 PM
Come on guys, uphauling a 78 liter board? You have to be kidding.

If you lose the wind, and can't waterstart, you simply have to swim everything in. The idea that you can just uphaul your way out of reality is simply not practical.

27th February 2009, 05:10 PM
Dont think anyone is saying low volume boards can be uphauled out of trouble at all; and its not really the issue.
Point is for heavier sailors that impossibility to get going arrives loads earlier than for lighter sailors if we insist on using "reserve" volume as a guide.
You see it as bordering on impossible for a 60k sailor to uphaul 78 litres but probably would not question a 100k sailor claiming to uphaul 125 litres who would actually have relatively less real reserve volume. (A 60k rider on 78 litres has exactly same flotation available as a 100k rider on 130 litres)

PS Both examples are possible. I can just uphaul 125 litres.My daughter at 60k +( not saying how much + she`d kick me) can (just) uphaul 80 litres. (seen her do it) BUT neither situation are advisable.( And neither possible in chop/swell etc etc)
A lot also depends on width of board obviuosly. (and your ability to keep uphauling in knee deep water)
Seen Nico Reynes (French Wave champion) uphaul a tiny board (sub 70) without an uphaul ! Doesnt mean it is common practice/advised.

Time to forget constant reserve volume. We should talk float ratios.(ie Ratio of 0.8 for speed ?;1 for wave sailors ?; perhaps 1.2 slalom; 1.3 freeride and 1.6 beginners.
Think you get idea. (All ???)

28th February 2009, 09:03 PM
i can see the 1.2 for slalom, 1.3 for freeride and 1,6 for begginers working but the 1.0 for wave and 0.8 for speed, hmmm these calculations only help you out to figure out how much volume you need to uphaul, once you can waterstart, its watever the wind is doing and the water conditions that dictate what size board your gona be using.... since i dont think that realisticly tou can uphaul at a 1/1 effictively or at a 0.8/1 ratio effectively, those two might be a little off, but the are three make total sense ;p

1st March 2009, 02:26 AM
I see your point but dont forget I`m only talking guide figures not absolutes. (Starting points ?)
Generally speaking well powered up wavesailors will be on around their own weight in kg in lires (if you get my drift) but I accept there are huge exceptions to this whch suit riders fine.
I remeber years ago looking at Bjorn Dunkerbecks lightwind waveboard.It was 97 litres !!! His weight ? Around 97kg . At time my weight was also 97 kg. No way could I get going in winds he got that going. (He was on it when I would have needed 120 ish and a bigger sail)
Perhaps a wavesailor/speedsailor doesnt need a guide anyhow though ???

Good winds

1st March 2009, 12:12 PM
I started this thread and can't believe the response it has churned up !
Now if someone(I'm THINKING Starboard ....hint...who maybe has a LOT to gain here ) can find a way to get all the data into one place (maybe via an online questionnaire?) to make a "calculator" or spreadsheet of the different variables which could work out volume for type of sailing, experience level, the type of components (carbon, alloy or whatever)the intended normal wind range and maybe factor in those float ratios as well, would be REAL handy.......obviously it would still only be a guide and not infallable, but it would help prospective purchasers of equipment to get it right first time and enhance the sailing right from the word go.........

2nd March 2009, 05:43 AM
Perhaps a wavesailor/speedsailor doesnt need a guide anyhow though ???

bingo, lol, after a couple of seasons, you start knowing what you need and what you dont and the sizeof everything, not to mention pros! anyways, i think Alpina hit the nail rite on head, offering information like this in a realy good marketing idea to offer this information as little program where you enter your wieght, level, average sail size used, water conditions and deciplin, and from that you are sudjested the best fit board or a choice of 3-4 boards as a guideline to what you are looking for, something like this could be tremendiously helpfull for peopl entering our complicated sport... i know for a fact that a program like this exists for fin size calculations....granted startboard does have this idea somewhat, but the one thing it doesnt tell you is how much volume you need, which is arguably the most important part of your first board and probobly the hardest to figure out corectly...

2nd March 2009, 03:12 PM
I have not followed this thread, but one comment is that except for uphauling "dry" and when not moving forwards _at all_ on the board, rather fine details of the shape can easily be more important than 10 liters + or minus. Also, even with uphauling and such things, how quick a learner you are and how light you are on you feet (ie how sensitive you are to putting you feet i the right place) matters a whole lot when we talk volume requirements. All these things makes it very, very complicated to make a _good_ volume calculator. Especially since nowadays, really good information, specified for you and the requirements you have, is available on the internet forums, like this one. Post a question, get some questions back, give some answers and get a personalized recommendation - much better than any "calculator" if you ask me (and I'm a mathematician, so its not that I don't believe in number crunching...).

2nd March 2009, 10:11 PM
I agree about subject been complicated and all your points re width etc etc (there`s always a but ???) BUT the problem is that some of the numbers we already crunch (especially when learning) are seriously flawed.

Reserve volume is a totally flawed concept. We should scrap it !!!!

Manufacturers should be honest and accurate with volume .(And all other objective measures)

If we did these two things the situation would be far clearer for everyone; numbercrunchers or not !

Think you will agree manufacturers have in the past (some still do???) used volume details not as an objective measure but as a marketing tool.It really isn`t difficult to give real volumes. Why cant real (and accurate) volume just be given ???

I dont want to know what somebody thinks the volume is; or what its equivalent to; or that if board is wider its worth 10 litres more etc etc. I just want the volume. Plain and simple.
Its actually the manufacturers complicating the issue ???

Last week I sailed a Naish board. (quoted Volume 110 litres) I reckon it was nearer 100.
I`ve got an S type 126. Reckon its volume is nearer 115.
(Assuming my old F2 style at 109 litres and PG at 130 litres are accurate; which nobody knows !!)
Its actually quite ridiculous.

People do buy boards according to volume. Its still the most important measurement for flotation.

There should be an industry standard.

3rd March 2009, 12:13 AM
i completely agree with you Floyd,if for nothing more then safety's sake, as board manufactorer, especialy if your a big, well known and internationaly recognized company such as starboard, you realy do have to provide the buyer with this kind of information. call the board whatever sells more, that doesnt concern me at all, but in the little area where mesurement specifications are given on the board and on the web site, you realy do have to give the real volume, not realy any way around it... if you are a custom board maker selling your boards for fairly cheap, a wrong volume calculation is understandable, but since startboard is obvously not that, and the boards are far from cheap, im not arguing with the pricing, i think a good board is well worth that amount of money but you kind of have to know what your buying when your spending that much... most sailors cant afford to buy a new kit every year, and in many cases buy a new board expecting it to last for 3-4 years, if you buy a board that you cant use or doesnt suite your needs because the manufactorer misguided you with the volume specification, i think that it is just low... i think that a company as inovative and progressive as startboard can set a maket benchmark by raising the bar, and providing the buyer with a real, acurate volume specification, and since the equivilent volume is very important to, provide the two of them! personaly, i think that putting in another line saying the real volume cant cost much, even if i had to pay another 5-10$ for the board, but knew exactly what i was buying, i think that would for sure be worth it!

3rd March 2009, 01:06 AM
Floyd: I agree real volume should be published. But what normally happens is that volume might drift a bit during prototyping stages (ie 5 versions of a "70" might be shaped and the best one happens to be 72l). It will still be called a "70" because it in fact was the best "70". It would also be strange to call it a 72 when there is already a 74 in the lineup that in fact sails a fair bit bigger in every respect (despite being exactly 74).

The problem is as I see it not only the manufacturers not being honest. It is also the TOTALLY overrated belief on what a few liter more or less do. Some people actually believe that a perceived high wind control problem with a board is a result of 3-4 extra liters of volume, ie that a "94" can never be a good high wind board for them while a "90" can. Because of such hangups, if a "big sailing" slalom board was labelled with less volume than a "small sailing" one none of them would be very easy to sell. The labeled volume would be used against the both of them. This is not a defense of not publishing correct volume, just my interpretation of the phenomena.

And going one step deeper. Since volume for so long has been the label of size, the volume _label_ in fact _becomes_ the tell tale of size. Everybody knows what a 100l slalom board does. Or a 70 liter wave board. Shapers produce boards to fulfil these exact requirements. Each year, the shape as a whole, is the best possible interpretation of the commonly accepted concept of a 100l slalom board or 70 liter wave board. But then again, the actual volume might not be right in the end. IN other words, the "concept of the 100l slalom board" can be something different some a slalom board that actually has 100 liters of volume.

So, its a kind of (negative) symbiosis that leads to this volume paradox. Buyers believe in volume as a sizing tool. Manufacturers use volume as label, but shape to fulfil the actual sizing requirements. But then buyers _also_ want to use the volume to know floatation, which is something totally different from "size".

BTW, On Maui ha had many chats with a friend (who is the same weight as I am, around 70kg). He mentioned he believed a light wind wave board needed a lot of volume. He was on a 90l trad wave while I was on the ET70 (actual 72l). In the end he tried my 70/72 and found that (at least i some types of light wind sailing - and we're talking sub planing except when on a wave here) the 70 was actually more effective. And it's not as simple as a width thing. In this case, it is rather nose outline and rail shape, particularly in the nose, that give that little 70/72 so good upwind when schlogging and the (flat) deck shape that gives it so good stability when schlogging. Of course, cometh time of uphauling, the 70 will sink half a meter more than the trad 90, but if you're doing this type of sailing that is normally something you can handle. The thing not mentioned here though, is that this Maui type sailing, were super underpowered 4.7 och 5.0 is the norm. In European type conditions, most people would instead put on a 6.0, which would make the 90 l trad into a fast planing rocket whereas the 70l would be a total dog with a 6.0 and have to settle for a (Still underpowered, non planing) 5.3 at most. So what is the conclusion again? Say after me: "It depends".

BTW2: (Kind of a side note, not meant as a replacement for correct volumes, just an idea). In those rare, rare cases when 100% floatablity is in fact a safety issue, a cool little thing would be some inflatable add on. Such a thing could easy fit in the mast pad of the sail, and still add 5-10 liters of float.

3rd March 2009, 01:14 AM
Not that I disagree about the need for actual dimensions and specifications in marketing, I just don't think the windsurfing industry is inclined to adhere to such a stringent policy. I've noticed over the years that most all windsurfing products exhibit a certain degree of subjectivity when it comes to dimensions and specifications. Some products adhere a bit closer to objective reality, but boards and sails have been notorious for being all over the map. If the past is any indication, nothing is going to really change in the future.

3rd March 2009, 03:36 AM
Its impossible to dissagree with anything Ola says but none of it changes the fact that real volumes should be published.
Its kind of like saying because a particular 2 litre car engine outperforms another the manufacturer can alter its published volume. He cant. A 2 itre engine is just that wether it produces 85BHP or 285 BHP (Quite possible variation)
Ola is justifying continued innaccuracy; which I do not understand. We all know that boards of equal volume can have totally different qualities but that does not make it right for the manufacturer to publish a different volume for one of them. Promote the board`s qualities by all means.
Fair enough with prototype to production discrepencies but the end product will have volume varying by at most 1 litre ??? (I`m guessing) So publish that ??? Why not ???

Are we saying Starboard do not know the exact volume of boards produced ??
They dont want to tell them to us ?
They vary that much there is no point ??

Its not a good reflection on #B for any one of them ??!!!

3rd March 2009, 05:22 AM
i think the bottom line is this, both actual volume and verual volume (ie if the board performs like its volume or not) are very important and can deffinately help out the buyer to figure out what board is the best fit for them. as everybody knows, a happy buyer will buy more and/ or recomend the product to friends, so far where in favour of posting the two volumes.

furthermore, putting the actual volume plus the virtual volume could be a great sales gimic. just think your buying a, for example, 105l board that performs like a 95-100l board, now, the manufactorer can play on that with the exact same people that think 5l makes a big differance, and look what you got... the customer thinks that he is buying a board that not only has enough wieght to uhaul on, in some case, BUT, since it performs like a board that to them, is much smaller, its almost like buying two boards in one!! hows that for a sales pitch?! and, on top of all this, the manufactorer looks like a genuis because they have done the impossible they created a "lightwind" board that has all the volume advantages of one AND it performs like their mid range board, what more could you ask for? starboard is still only gaining from putting the two volumes on...

finaly, you have those guys that want to sail the smallest board possible for the wind, so they do need an acurate volume specification. if you post the real volume as well, its gona make their life easier and therefore will encourage them to buy your boards. as you can see, starboard is still only profiting from a developement as such..
so why not make this step to improve your reputation, your # of clients adn your customer service all in one, and basicly for free, how much could it realy cost to put one more line in? id be willing to wager that it would be a miniscule cost for such an improvement...

the ball is on your side of the court startboard, your move ;)

3rd March 2009, 12:28 PM
Hey Floyd, I'm not justifying it, just explaining why I think it is like it is. I start my previous message by expressing my view that I indeed do think real volumes should be published.

Wiindz. Again, I think real volumes should be published. But I dislike the term virtual volume altogether since it only manifests the paradox I describe above. And the statement "guys that want to sail the smallest board possible for the wind, so they do need an accurate volume specification" is also a testament for that same paradox. IN real life, for a given sailor weigh, min wind strengt, sail size etc, there is no such thing as a "smallast board (volume) possible". Such a "smallest volume" will to a large degree be a function of the rest of the shape.

Another interesting note: In the german SURF very comprehensive wave board test this year. They mention in many places that a certain board feel bigger than quoted when schlogging or smaller than quoted when schlogging. And in every case the boards that feel smalla and unstable has doomed decks, where maybe 5 liters of extra volume is packed i the middle of the board. The "classic" way of thinking is that by putting volume there, it does not hurt the performance of the board, just add some light wind security. But in my opinion this is wrong. For virtually all practical purposes, adding volume like this will in fact make light wind schlogging worse.

3rd March 2009, 06:47 PM
Hey Ola I know !!!
But it does seem your explanation of current situation complicates issue.
Its very simple.
Manufacturers should (and always should have) quoted ACTUAL volumes.
Anything over that is complicating issue.(or as perfectly explained by windZ leads to manufacturers (or their marketing departments) playing with the figures .
Starboard have used volume measurements to identify year of manufacture !!! (In K range)
(ie K 106 was an 06; whereas K105 was an o5) How can that be justified if measurements are accurate !!! Are #B saying an 06 had 1 litre more than 05 ???

Obviously volume placement is important but you should be comparing like with like.
One 100 litre board ca be made uphaulable (or whatever your criteria) and another might not;but so what ????

All board measurement should be objective !!!

Cant see what the problem is !

A board either displaces 100 litres or it does not !!!

Why all the heartache ???

3rd March 2009, 07:52 PM
No heartache from my side. And for the record, I have no influence over Starboards volume quotations.

But I don't see why my post complicates the issue. It is just an analysis of why things are like they are and why there is kind of a paradox involved in the whole thing. My views of how it should be (in an ideal world) is just as clear as yours.

(On the kombats: they really did grow a little from 05->06->07, if I recall. And 2008, the last digit was all over the place (86, 105 etc). There has not been a case when a board name/volume quote changed but the actual board did not.)

There was a question on wether Starboard actually knows the real volumes or not. Afaik, not all protos sent for moulding are tank measured. Production samples generally are tank measured, but my info is that the measuring at Cobra is not that exact, ie +- a liter or so. Already there we can have a certain discrepancy. So it can be with volumes as it is with weights (web site weight represent a statistical sample of a number of real production boards), the real data may not even be known when the catalogue is printed. Again, not an excuse for not publishing it later, but still a part of the complicated state of things.


4th March 2009, 01:04 AM
Just wanna add my view, as this topic changed a lot my mind about boards.
I started windsurfing 2,5 years ago, with SB FW 147.
I raced a lot with my mates who were always using the 160...
Well, I just sold this old board and I am trying to get a 160... reading this topic and discovered that my old 147 has actually 137 litres of volume, and I was racing guys using 162 litres boards!!!! 25 litres of difference.
I always new that my board was a lot different then theirs, but I dont know if I am right but I was all the time caring about fins, sails, technique, tactics... when I should just change the board straight away.
I canīt see a good reason why the name of the board is so much different then the actual volume.

4th March 2009, 02:09 AM
i think that one point more should be made, the volume of the board is only a meens of comparison when comparing two bords of the same modle same year or two boards with similar outlines, otherwise, as Ola logicly said, the shape of the board will do much much more towards its performance then a few litres here and there... therefore, when you are comparing two boards from the same modle and year (they should have very simmilar shapes in exception of the kodes and some slalom boards) and are trying to decide between say an evo 100l and 90l (very commonly the lasy decision a sailor makes b4 buying their board and also one of the most important) and you know you are okay on your old 105l but want to try something a litle smaller so maybe the 90l, but then it turns out that your "90l" board is actualy a 83l and now its too big of a step and the new board is not practical for them, then what?? you kinda just wasted 1,500-2,0004 on something u may never use...
i duno, i think its so much easier to provide both, instead of just a very rough estimate as is given now...

4th March 2009, 04:17 AM
If we have virtual volumes because of the performance characteristics, why not virtual lengths and widths? Remember, many boards in the past were identified by their length, but now that we are on much shorter boards, why not an:

"iS 111/60/250 that performs like a 60cm wide speed board but planes exceptionally fast"

Real volume is 108 L. Real width is 68.5 cm. Real length is 234 cm

Or name the board the "iSonic SUPERFAST M". (M=medium since it is the middle sized board in the iS lineup) Name it anything you like, just give us the facts about dimensions, weight and volume.

4th March 2009, 10:15 AM
Or name the board the "iSonic SUPERFAST M". (M=medium since it is the middle sized board in the iS lineup) Name it anything you like, just give us the facts about dimensions, weight and volume.

nice name idea ken, but to touch up on that point, many manufactorers simply call their boards by size in the lineup, and then give you the real volume and dimentions afterwards, it looks great for marketing having a board names xxs, sounds fast;p anyways, i realy dont see what the big deal is, the manufactorer wants to make the buyer hppy, this is wut will make a lot of buyers happy and for very cheap, why not just do it?

5th March 2009, 05:30 PM
6 pages, It's about time SR or Tiesda popped up for comment.
Come on guys what can you do or why can't you do it????:)

5th March 2009, 07:40 PM

Exactly my point. The iS111 claims 111 liters so they name the board the 111. However, it isn't 111 liters, they just say that because it performs like it has 111 liters. False advertising at the least.

Starboard - Call it an iS 111 if you like, just don't print that it has 111 liters of volume. Print that it has 108 (which I have read is the real volume).

6th March 2009, 10:20 PM
Must be two firsts. Everyone agreeing on a thread and me agreeing with Ken ! Surely #B must do something !!!

Just off topic; think sailors are themselves partly to blame over charade with volume. Last time I was sailng a sailor (lighter and younger; both quite easy these days) came over and said
" bet you are bouncing about on that " (I wasnt)
It was a 105 litre board (62 wide); I weigh 102k (at moment)
Enquired his weight. 72k. He was on 80 litres !!!
Perhaps I look light !!!

We do have preconceived ideas about a boards performance irrespective of the load on it.
Leaves us at mercy of "manufacturers" to play marketing games with quoted volumes.

Its good advice for any sailor to try a board before s/he buys it and preferably in conditions s/he expects to use it .(in or be caught out in ?) Its essential for heavier sailors.

Windy down here. We`ve just had 54 knot gusts !(Yes knots) Calming down tomorrow !

7th March 2009, 06:02 AM
YOU ARE WAITING FOR IT TO CALM DOWN?!!! get out there!!!lol now back to the topic, solely based on wieght to vol ratio, that sailor should have been bouncing around a hell of a lot more then you, and if that was your wieght on that size board, it should take quite a bit of wind to make you bounce around, what sails where in use and how windy about? and back to the real topic, personaly i would realy like to hear from a starboard rep that can actualy get real vols printed on the boards so he or she could tell us all why this hasnt happend so far, why it cant happen (if it cant) or that it will happen (if it can)... but thats just my openion!;)

7th March 2009, 11:04 PM
I know its completely off topic but for a windy place have a look at

http://www.neway-leucate.com/fr/meteo/meteo_leucate?PHPSESSID=7feb765da2c76ea259deec01ee 37ba28

It calmed down to 51 knots today. Couldn`t have sailed anyway. Bad neck.(Took loads of photos)

I`ve not come accross anywhere as regularly windy as Leucate area (all year too, March is unbelievable) (Regularly too windy !!!) Not many waves though !!!

8th March 2009, 08:51 AM
I know its completely off topic but for a windy place have a look at

http://www.neway-leucate.com/fr/meteo/meteo_leucate?PHPSESSID=7feb765da2c76ea259deec01ee 37ba28

It calmed down to 51 knots today. Couldn`t have sailed anyway. Bad neck.(Took loads of photos)

I`ve not come accross anywhere as regularly windy as Leucate area (all year too, March is unbelievable) (Regularly too windy !!!) Not many waves though !!!

haha, no such thing as to windy if there arent many waves is it mostly flatwater? if you, youve got yourself world speed record breaking winds mate!! ;p

eli villalabeitia
8th March 2009, 11:11 PM
hi, I have been following this thread, and it lokks fair to have a definitive answer from Starboad, lots years buying their boards deserve an explanation.

9th March 2009, 01:01 AM
If it never gets too windy for you perhaps you are sailing at wrong place !!

Folk were struggling walking with kit let alone sailing it on Saturday. There were some trying to sail but trying was operative word. There were perhaps 20 on water (On Etang;inland sea) and at any one time probably 2 actually sailing. Nobody was gybing. Couple of massive jumps though. (It did gust to 53 knots ; constant 42 knot most afternoon) Not really smooth.

Sunday was calmer. !!! (Max gust 43 knots) Averaged 33 knots or so through day. Loads out with 4 metres and less. (One sailor using a 3 metre and going fine !!) Loads less wind than saturday !!

9th March 2009, 01:49 AM
If it never gets too windy for you perhaps you are sailing at wrong place !!

Folk were struggling walking with kit let alone sailing it on Saturday. There were some trying to sail but trying was operative word. There were perhaps 20 on water (On Etang;inland sea) and at any one time probably 2 actually sailing. Nobody was gybing. Couple of massive jumps though. (It did gust to 53 knots ; constant 42 knot most afternoon) Not really smooth.

Sunday was calmer. !!! (Max gust 43 knots) Averaged 33 knots or so through day. Loads out with 4 metres and less. (One sailor using a 3 metre and going fine !!) Loads less wind than saturday !!

there is absolutely no doubt in my mind that i am sailing the wrong place!!!! haha, montreal is far from an ideal windsurfing location!!! but as for too windy, i still dont buy that, just get a smaller rig!! take a look at this guy, and then tell me saturday was too windy;p


haha no, but i agree with you, that much wind is super scetchy!!!!!the most ive been out in is sumwhat like your sunday, but i was on a 4.8 wayyy over, should have pulled out the 3.5, still had a hell of a time however!!! the belt on the adjustable head was vidbrating so much from the wind that it sounded like an airplane taking off over my head, great memories;p

9th March 2009, 02:37 AM
Its not ideal here either. Wind can double or half in minutes. (literally) and it can be very regional.(Its unwise to sail anything you couldnt get back in sub planing which makes the strong wind bit harder to deal with)Believe it or not St Marie just 3 miles away had biggest gust of 12 knots today;whereas Leucate had 43 max gust to.
Very rarely any waves and tends to be offshore on coast and still choppy.
Good sailing when you get dialed in.My neck`s still bad though !!Good winds.

21st February 2011, 10:41 AM
I have been reading this post and have come to the conclusion that the GO 171L should be able to handle my 122kg body. I am planning to learn water start this summer but from what I've read, I should be able to uphaul it when the wind is not strong enough. Does everyone agree?