PDA

View Full Version : iS144 WC plan earlier than a iS144 Wood - How many knots earlier?


ChrisN
26th April 2010, 04:36 AM
We have been debating this in another thread (see link (http://www.star-board.com/forum/showthread.php?t=8687)) for some time now, but have not received any answer from SB's Team!:mad:

Both in these Forums and Website, SB is marketing the new construction with a lot of statements about the "premium" WC construction. For example:

In a thread less than a Y ago, IAN FOX mentioned: "The Futuras (and iSonics) can definitely be made lighter in Wood+Carbon tech, which offers an advantage in earlier planing in lighter winds and on flatter water."
In the presentation of the iSonics and Futuras, here is the statement: "WoodCarbon offers the lightest weight of all with a stiffer construction that offers quicker acceleration in lighter winds.":eek:


What I've been asking is that if I use the same sailor (advanced skill) with the same sail (e.g. 10 m2 OverDrive/NP V8/etc.) and Fin (e.g. 520) in the same conditions (e.g. flatwater with chop), which of these 2 board will plan earlier? By which margin?:confused:

Please share some of your test results (even informal), as it then makes sense to invest the 200 difference on a WC board rather on the Wood one...

ChrisN
26th April 2010, 11:30 PM
On the WC vrs. Wood construction, many forum contributors well versed in light-wind planning, mentioned that such constructions have low/ secondary significance to Width and Fin length. Broader boards can "carry" longer fins which then may help to reach earlier planning!

While most of SB's previous Formulas were in Wood, the new ones are in WoodCarbon, because as SB states: "After thorough tests between pure wood technologies, pure carbon technologies and two variations of a new Wood Carbon hybrid technology across various wind, water and rider conditions, Starboard chose the hybrid WoodCarbon technology ..."

The competition is also moving towards Carbon-based construction in Formula boards, like JP's Formula 100 PRO. JP states: "The full Carbon Deck of the Formula 100 has already proven to be the best construction on the market for lightwind Slalom boards. Antoine believes that this construction gives the big JP Slalom boards the edge over competition boards.
This is the stiffest and most rigid construction available today and provides big advantages in early planing and staying on a plane around the marks"!!

Thus, SB and everyone else agrees that Carbon or WoodCarbon versions enable earlier planning! The same argument could be then be made for the iS144 and iS150 (latter only available in Wood :().

So, are there any documented effects of WoodCarbon construction in e.g. iS144 in earlier planning?

ChrisN
28th April 2010, 08:11 PM
To add some more facts on the table about these comparisons of Construction Effect on Performance, I am going to quote from the Test the respectable German SURF magazine conducted last year (july 2009). The article are available for free as a PDF File (http://www.dk-content.de/surf/pdf-archiv/tests//bauweisenvergleich-0709.pdf), so Ill just summarize here [my translation]. The boards tested were:

Fanatic Shark 145 LTD vs. HRS
JP-Australia X-Cite Ride 120 Pro vs. FWS vs. ES
Starboard Futura 122 Wood vs. GO-Tuffskin
Tabou Rocket 125 LTD vs. Normal version vs. GT

SURF tested the different constructions with identical rigging and found in spite of the same Shape there were significant performance differences between the light- to the heaviest-weight boards. One may not expect that the heavier Board feels as agile as the lighter Board. Rather it feels a bit slow-acting, more full, release slower, with less acceleration! These were matching results across all comparison tests. Not only professionals can gain from the lighter constructions, as intermediate sailors may profit from earlier planning abilities.
Lightweight constructions have a definite advantage on upwind, as they wobble less and with fully loaded fins tend to stay planning. In maneuvers there is almost no difference, yet the Lightweight versions of Tabou, JP-Australia and Fanatic ran quieter, planned earlier and steered easier through choppy conditions. See the comparison of the Fanatic Shark 145 - the differences are really evident in Planning through Lulls, and Speed in mid-winds (=reaching higher speed in lower winds):

http://www.surf-magazin.de/smo/surf_artikel/pspic/bildserievollFP/33/bildserievollFP1260357182_fanatic_sh4b1f863e29612. jpg

In summary, top construction brings a bit more fun not the very good surfers. Durability and also the controllability certainly do not suffer from the lower weight. In ALL tests the lightweight constructions outperform the heavier ones!

From the above our question to SB's Team still stands unanswered:
how much quicker does the iS144 WoodCarbon plan compared to iS144? Wood? :rolleyes:

Maximus
28th April 2010, 08:52 PM
Mate

I suggest you buy the wood, cause the carbon option wont make any difference for you!

agrelon
28th April 2010, 10:24 PM
I love how you've really taken this topic to heart, ChrisN. Maybe SB will reward you with an answer one of these days!

But I think what you're looking for is a documented proof that WC will plane fast than Wood. It's pretty obvious that WC will plane earlier (explained by basic physics), but by how much remains to tests to tell.

Basic physics, Newton's second law: Force = Mass x Acceleration

Force: Forward force of sail - drag (air resistance and board/fin skin friction in water)
Mass: Mass of total observed object (kit + rider)
Acceleration: Rate of change of speed

Keeping force constant, as mass decreases, acceleration must increase and mass will be decreased by using a WC board over a Wood board. This is quite far-fetched, as the mass being changed is very small relative to the total mass, but does remain true. On an even more far-fetched level, increased mass of board will decrease total forward force/increase drag as the board will sink further into the water, creating more skin friction.

Just thought I'd put this out there, and it's good revision for my exams in 2 weeks....

agrelon
28th April 2010, 11:37 PM
An extremely simplified example of just how insignificant the weight "advantage" is in a WC board over a Wood board could be:

Mass = iSonic 144 Wood (7.79kg) + Rig (let's say 9.0kgs) + Rider (70kgs) = 86.79kgs
Acceleration = 3m/s^2 or roughly 6knots/s^2

Obviously acceleration will be greatest in the beginning when the skin friction is lowest due to lowest velocity UNTIL the board starts planing at which point the total forward force increases due to less friction. Because of all these variables, we can just look at what happens in the first second, regardless of planing/not planing. The board goes from 0 - 6.0 knots in 1 second

This means that the force (ignore units as we are working in knots and not m/s) is
86.79 x 6.0 = 520.74 units of force

If we now take an iSonic 144 WC with the same rider, and same force, the mass has changed by 7.79 - 7.14 = 0.65kgs

The new total mass with a WC iSonic 144 is now 86.14kgs

So now, for the same forward force our acceleration must be

force/mass = 520.74/86.14 = 6.05 knots per second^2

I don't know how valid a reasoning this is to show that indeed weight gain between WC and Wood is not a very important factor in affecting acceleration/early planing (as both are very closely linked).

This somewhat reinforces what someone said in the earlier thread about stiffness/width playing a much more important role in early planing than weight.

Ken
28th April 2010, 11:47 PM
At .65 kg (1.4 lbs) difference between the WC and W 144, there will be no noticeable difference in planing threshold - In my opinion.

For the German tests to mean anything, we need to see the weight differences between boards to evaluate fairly. Also, the differences in stiffness is equally important and I suspect that the differences between the test boards is significantly greater than between the wood and wood/carbon Starboard boards.

No doubt that most advanced sailors will be able to tell that the wood boards will out perform the Tufskin boards, but it is because of the significant weight and stiffness differences.

For example. The Futura 141, the weight differences between the Wood and Tufskin models is 2.02 kg or 4.4 lbs. Include the greater stiffness of the wood model and you will find a somewhat higher level of performance for the wood board.

ChrisN
29th April 2010, 01:43 AM
Agrelon, this is really an interesting estimation formula! Even if as you state it is neither complete nor validated (I'll get my Naval Engineer brother to check), it proves that it's not Weight per say but rather the stiffness/rigidity of the same board shape in a lighter versions that get SURF's testers to give the Carbon-based constructions higher points in "Planning Ability" and "Planning through Lulls", "Top Speed", "Reaching Speed in lower winds" and "Upwind Ability". ALL tests have shown that the Light-weight constructions are faster and easier to control than their variants. If you see the Taboo and JP ones, the differences from heaviest to lightest constructions are very pronounced.

To summarize many of the posts so far, a formula for Light Wind Planning (LWP) potential should consist of at least the following parameters. As higher the LWP as lower the wind acceleration commencement point in Knots. Thus, a simplified version of our conversation in prioritized rank could be expressed as shown below (i.e. SKILL is more important than FIN for earlier planning):

LWP = SKILL*c1 + WIDTH*c2 + FIN*c3 + RIGIDITY*c4 + SURFACE_DRAG*c5 + VOLUME*c6 + (1/WEIGHT_BRS)*c7

Explanations:

WIDTH: this is the width of the board; More Width leads to higher LWP
FIN: Fin length - longer fin means more lift and higher LWP
RIGIDITY: lateral and lengthwise stiffness/rigidity of the shape, outline and edges translates in quicker release; More Stiffness leads to more LWP
VOLUME: As the Volume increases (to a point) as higher the LWP (not sure but it counteracts the WEIGHT parameter)
SKILL: More advanced sailors will pump more efficiently thus releasing the board earlier, so higher LWP.
WEIGHT_BRS: Overall weight of Board, Rig and Sailor which inversely affects LWP.
SURFACE_DRAG: Deep Double Concaves and other gimmicks to minimize the wetted area and tractions, contributes to quicker release or keeping the planning; Lower Drag leads to Higher LWP.
All Constants (C1-7) will have different thresholds, that should control the range parameters will be effective on LWP - e.g. beyond a certain stiffness there is no more effect on LWP.


Now we just need some DATA! Surely Jim Drake and Tieda You have made these kind of engineering experiments (and even tested some of them). They could enlighten us amateurs :rolleyes:

Our question presumed that beyond RIGIDITY and WEIGHT_BRS we were keeping all other parameters constant/same, and we were asking the effect on LWP (recalling the higher LWP meant lower knot-threshold for planning).

PS: Good luck with your exams :)

BelSkorpio
29th April 2010, 05:15 AM
Hey SB, what's up ?

Hibernation ? Ash clouds ?

You can't leave ChrisN out in the cold, especially after his wonderful analytical elucidation.

We all want an answer now.

davide
29th April 2010, 01:51 PM
[FONT="Tahoma"][SIZE="2"]To add some more facts on the table about these comparisons of Construction Effect on Performance, I am going to quote from the Test the respectable German SURF magazine conducted last year (july 2009).

There was actually a much more comprehensive test from BOARDS UK (in 2008 I believe) that failed to show any difference in performance between identical boards with different (standard vs LTD) construction. They compared JP, RRD, Mistral in the 75-85-100 and 125 categories, and found small differences only with the biggest boards, but those boards (mistral) turned out to have also a difference in rocker that gave an unfair advantage to the LTD construction.

If you consider that a slalom boards sails overpowered, I doubt you could tell any difference for 1-2 pounds of weight, maybe more. It is easy enough to check by putting an extra 1Kg at the mast base.

ChrisN
29th April 2010, 02:57 PM
Davide, yes I saw that article from Boards; SURF focused on the larger sizes, as I think that's where lighter construction should have an assumed impact. If you see the graphs in detail, SURF reported considerable effects of JP, Taboo and Fanatic heavy-to-lightweight constructions. So, from that perpective, both tests agree that in the larger sizes/volumes there is an effect in planning, sailing through lulls, top speed, and upwind ability.

However, as many people highlighted, beyond skill (which is elementary!), the most important factors affecting early planning are Width, Fin Length and Stiffness/Rigidity of the board. I think the formula I presented given Agrelon's excellent thinking on the the minimal effect of weight deltas btw. WC and W, compiles most of our experienced-based discussions.

Thus, the question in the end is not Weight per say, but rather Rigidity which then should explain what promotes earler planning the most in lightweight constructions. I think Anders Bringdal could speak of that, as he contributed to the Hydroptere (which sailed above 61 knots and broke the world speed record).
Moreover, Oracle's America Cup winning boat showed in Valencia a new concept of light wind sailing and reached phenomenal speeds for such a low winds speed! While Hydroptere's construction showed how low Surface Traction affect speed potential and planning ability, Oracle's Wing-rather-than-Sail showed that Sail Shape Rigidity (SSR) also has a grand effect on very low winds - this is one of my missing Parameters in the formula above. On the SSR check out the designers explanations (http://valenciasailing.blogspot.com/2010/01/bmw-oracle-racing-used-star-ccm-to.html)(NP, Gaastra, Severne, etc. will certainly been reading with interest)...

But we are still only speculating - as Belscorpio highlights we are all anxiously awaiting the SB "engineering" gurus with their public approach to innovation, to enlighten us. :rolleyes:


PS: If not we could pose the same question to Werner (JP), Pieter/Werner (Fanatic), FinnM (RRD), Fabien (from Taboo), and Anders (AB, now running Mistral). All market "lightweight" = more expensive constructions...

ChrisN
29th April 2010, 11:21 PM
...
ChrisN,
I've heard several years ago the following statement:

"For every 1 kg a board weighs less, a rider can weigh 10 kg more to obtain the same plan(n)ing capabilities."

I must admit that I cannot 100% explain it scientifically, nor do I know if this statement is right in the first place. If I still remember it well, it got something to do with the fact that you can't just add the full weight of the rider with the weight of the board to obtain a total weight of "mass" on wich you could apply the 2nd law of Newton (F=m*a) to calculate the acceleration an object gets when submitted to a constant force.
I think they explained it in a way that your body weight partly get's lifted up by the sail, reducing the actual body weight that can be added to the weight of the board. This is probably a little bit less true when you 're not in planing condition yet, because then your body weight is not really "suspended" to the sail yet that much.

I don't know if I make sense, but I thought I'd mention this as well, since we are dealing with this topic more and more theoretically :)

Any reactions are welcome.

BelSkorpio, this is really interesting! If your "rule-of-thump" is correct then an 80 Kg guy on an iS144 Wood (~ 7,79 kg) will plan as early as an 86 kg dude on an iS144 WoodCarbon (~7,14 kg). I think that you are absolutely right that part of our weight are expended to counteract the sail lateral forces while on planning (thus we "relax" in the trapez). Prior to planning it's a "fight" - imagine large sail in a gust! :D

Agrelon, I quoted Belscorpio's points above, given that you used Newton formula to estimate the effect of the board weight delta. If this is even partly true, then that delta have a LOT more effect on force than you estimated!

As mentioned though, Weight of Sailor and Equipment was only part of the LWP equation above, where Board Rigidity and Surface Drag together with our discussion on Sail Shape Rigidity (the Oracle Americas Cup example), have significant effect as you move from Wood to Carbon constructions. The Formula from above can then be rewritten to the following parameters in priority of importance/ effect:


LWP = SAILOR_SKILL*c1 + BOARD_WIDTH*c2 + FIN_LENGTH*c3 + BOARD_RIGIDITY*c4 + (1/BOARD_SURFACE_DRAG)*c5 + SAIL_RIGIDITY*c6 + SAIL_SIZE*c7 + (1/WEIGHT_SAILOR)*c8 + (1/WEIGHT_EQUIPM)*c9 + BOARD_VOLUME*c10


Each of the parameters are positively affecting LowWindPlanning (LWP) potential except Surface drag and Weight that have an inverse effect (i.e. more drag less LWP meaning more wind is needed). Recall that HIGH LWP potential translates into LESS wind in knots for planning.

For example, a light/70 kg advanced sailor riding a 100 cm, 168L Formula Lightweight/Carbon construction Board with a Stable 12m2 REFLEX sail on 70 cm fins in sailed by a will plan earlier. There is naturally an upper threshold for LWP or a lower limit in knots for any construction with a given surface drag, which for a Formula board must be around 6 knots (unless you use hydrofoils) :D

The last America's Cup race in Valencia was done on max. 6 knots of wind with Oracle-BMW covering the track at blistering speed. This massive boat (http://bmworacleracing.com/de/yacht/pdf/The_USA.pdf)with their 630m2 wing main-sail, is a super-rigid, super-wide trimaran that can carry monstrous sail areas (>2K m2) on its 55m mast and sail on a minimum drag 20m waterline of one its hulls, should be sufficient proof of the Width, Drag and Rigidity arguments. This winning concept was able to plan 1-2 knots earlier than the other boat which translated into 600 m on the finish line! Check out a picture showing Winner with the Wing on a training day sailing on max 5 knots of wind on one hull!

http://bmworacleracing.com/de/interactive/images_2008/gallery_training_2010/training_05.jpg

Hope that the parameters should be pretty obvious by now, yet you are welcome to comment, while we ALL still wait for Godot! :rolleyes:

davide
30th April 2010, 04:23 AM
[FONT="Tahoma"][SIZE="2"]

However, as many people highlighted, beyond skill (which is elementary!), the most important factors affecting early planning are Width, Fin Length and Stiffness/Rigidity of the board. I think the formula I presented given Agrelon's excellent thinking on the the minimal effect of weight deltas btw. WC and W, compiles most of our experienced-based discussions.



I completely agree, weight, within the limits we are discussing, is fairly irrelevant. What makes a difference between otherwise identical boards might be the Stiffness/Rigidity but even there it is unclear which type is "superior". We all know that a stiff board is fine in light air, but becomes very hard to manage (and possibly slower) in hard weather, and I am pretty sure that the weight of the sailor is a component: at 70Kg I might not need as stiff a board as a 120 Kg sailor ...

I really believe that most of the carbon-here-and-there is marketing, it is not even clear that a 100% carbon board is the way to go, and probably it is not... it would be much more useful for the general user to have a heavier but stronger construction, such has witchcraft (http://www.witchcraft.nu/) offers. Starboard is actually doing a fairly honest job, offering carbon-wood/lighter construction in moderation and only where the advantage (for a racer) might be more perceptible.

BelSkorpio
30th April 2010, 07:01 PM
Regarding the stiffnes and spoken from a practical point of view, I know that there was a lot difference between e.g. the old tiga/hifly "plastic" and the other epoxy sandwich boards of the nineties. The tiga/hifly plastic was great in "heavy weather" wave conditions. They felt like they were reforming so much that they seemed to adjust themselves almost completely to the rough water surface. Very solid, indestructable, great control, BUT much slower in planning. No doubt in my mind. Material that reforms, creates a larger wetted surface, so more drag. All very logic.

So, especially in flat water and low wind conditions, I am also convinced that stiffness is a very important factor. But the question remains, once you have obtained a certain level of stiffness, what will those few percentages of extra stiffnes, gained by using carbon, still matter ? How many knots earlier planning ?

agrelon
3rd May 2010, 01:55 PM
http://www.jp-australia.com/2010/index.php?id=574

Will be interesting to see what test results say about this board. I wonder if it planes even earlier than a formula? Interesting concept though, I guess the closest equivalent in the Naish Freewides, but as Ken pointed out their design may not be so good...

JP claims that it planes as earlier as a formula board, however, with a 56cm fin and 10cm less width this claim remains to be proved.

BelSkorpio
3rd May 2010, 05:34 PM
Yes, interesting indeed, agrelon.

It looks similar to the IS150.

10cm longer and a wider tail, though.

And what's more important, a carbon deck ! LOL :)

ChrisN
3rd May 2010, 06:45 PM
http://www.jp-australia.com/2010/index.php?id=574

Will be interesting to see what test results say about this board. I wonder if it planes even earlier than a formula? Interesting concept though, I guess the closest equivalent in the Naish Freewides, but as Ken pointed out their design may not be so good...

JP claims that it planes as earlier as a formula board, however, with a 56cm fin and 10cm less width this claim remains to be proved.

Agrelon, this is spot on with the comparison we were doing with iS150 which by the way is 93.5 cm wide, so very similar to JP's Super Light Wind (SLW)! The only difference is of course the AGE of the designs, as SB's iSonic 150 is more than 3.5Y old, while JP has a new "blend" design, where as they are writing on the site you mentioned, JP's "..approach was to develop a board which gets planing in minimal winds and allows totally relaxed blasting, and feeling the sensation of speed. We achieved this by simply merging the JP Formula, Slalom and Super Sport shape concept."
This is certainly NOT what SB did as the iS150 was borne from a "pure" slalom heritage of going "faster". I did an simple visual comparison between the 2 shapes - JP SLW and SB iS150 - and one thing is immediately evident beyond that JP is 10 cms longer and 3.5 cm narrower than the iSonic; the JP is wider OFO while iSonic's pintail is making the tail more narrow; the widest point of JB is further forward than on the iS; moreover, the rails are parallel in JP while more oval and narrowing in SB's iS. While not visible, it seems like JP's shape is more thick in the rails overall - see position of footstraps. Actually JP's outline looks a lot like the SB's Formula LWR, yet narrower and more "rounded".

http://webdisk.tdconline.dk/gate/download.php?id=46429184&ticket=78240b28fcd6f172966d76afaa6cd64c36c40ca3&browser=1

What is interesting is whether JP's SLW would be planning earlier than the iS150 given the details above - that is what the upcoming tests would show. JP is certainly focusing on stiffer/RIGID constructions for the SLW90, as it is only offered in GOLD (KevlarCarbon with Honeycomb) and PRO (Full Carbon); Both are lighweight constructions with the GOLD being the lightest and most rigid in the market!

In summary, while SB will NOT answer our question on the planning differences in various constructions, it seems that the industry is doing it for them. There must be a reason why JP is NOT offering their SLW in FWS (full wood sanwich construction), and why SB's new Formula's are both in WoodCarbon. So type of construction (which for Carbon-based ones equals to higher rigidity and lower weight) is important for early planning in light wind conditions.

While it seems reasonable that JP's SLW90 shape would provide better jibing capabilities and faster Reach speeds plus high-wind stability than comparable Formula Designs, what is interesting is that JP stresses the point that the SLW90 planes as early as a Formula board on a -10cm less width and -14cm shorter fin! :confused:
According to our earlier conversation and the "formula" we were developing, width and fin length are some of the most important factors after drag and sailor skill (of course!). Moreover, a WoodCarbon Formula would plan earlier than a Wood Formula right? What SB was not telling us was how much earlier...

So, per definition a SB Formula HSW or JP Formula 100 should plan "earlier" than a JP SLW90 or an SB iSonic 150, presuming the same fin length, sail size, sailor and conditions. For most of us it would be an est.1 knots delta between Formula and JP's new SLW90 and then another knot for iS150. If I sailed the same boards in Wood construction then I could add another knot (in alignment with BelScorpio's rule of thump)!

What I then assume is that for my weight (90kgs), advanced sailor (that can waterstart, jibe, pump large sails), on a 62 cm fin on a 11 m2 freerace sail, SB & JP Formula boards will plan from 8 knots while JP's SLW90 from 9 knots and iS150 from 11 knots (given that it is made in WOOD)...

agrelon
3rd May 2010, 08:04 PM
ChrisN,

Nice on you pointing out the construction restrictions on the new SLW. No doubt they've done this to "ensure" the promised early planing performance and subsequent consumer satisfaction.

I think though that it should be possible to run a fin pretty close to 70cm on the SLW and a sail > 10m2 due to the huge volume and width. At this point, especially in Gold construction, I think that the planing performance of the SLW would definitely be competitive with full on formula gear.

It'll be interesting to get some test results and to see if SB responds in the future with an early planing freeride board (though they may feel that the Serenity has filled that gap). Man I wish I had the budget to go out and try all these new toys!

Adrien

Ken
3rd May 2010, 10:55 PM
I guess all of this comes down to how you plan to use the board.

1. Light wind slalom racing - get a giant slalom board.
2. Formula racing - get a formula board.
3. Light wind free riding, earliest planing, highest pointing, deepest running - get a formula board.
4. Light wind free riding, best jibing and reaching comfort - get a giant slalom.

ChrisN
3rd May 2010, 11:11 PM
Ken did you see my earliest references on JP's Super Light Wind board above? It is definitely different than the iSonic 150! I think it does combine your 3+4 categories.

If anyone reads the test of the JP SLW 90 154L in PlancheMag May'10, can you please share the results??

And we're still waiting for our innovation SB gurus - funny how they have been avoiding to answer this particular question like a "hot patato", which in my view means they have not tested their own constructions! Else, they would have confidently answered back with a single REMI line - YES or NO...

From what you and everyone else has contributed so far though, we can infer that these constructions do matter A LOT. JP's Light Wind board is certainly only delivered on these.

I'll wait a bit longer, and then I'll ask some other manufacturers too, yet as it seems JP's SLW, which is not "pure" - neither Formula nor Slalom is probably the best answer to combine your 3+4 categories...

Ken
4th May 2010, 01:21 AM
ChrisN,

I don't believe the JP SLW will plane as early as a formula board with the same sail and same sailor. Board width, volume, tail width, stiffness, weight, rail sharpness and fin length determine the planing threshold and the JP doesn't measure up (just guessing since I don't have all the comparable stats). However, the difference will be very small between the boards (1-2 knots?).

If not formula racing, the JP, iS150 or other "high performance" giant slalom board may be the best option for light wind slalom or freeriding. However, the JP will still not point as high or run as deep as a formula board.

ChrisN
4th May 2010, 02:40 AM
Ken, I think that we all agree :D

I also believe that the iS150 as well as the JP SLW 90 (http://www.jp-australia.com/2010/index.php?id=574)will not point as well upwind or run downwind as fast as a Formula board, but on reach it will certainly be able to compete.;)

Yet, given the broader OFO and rounded Square tail of JP's SLW 90, I think that it will plan earlier than the iS150. Moreover, given the lightweight construction variants, it will also be more rigid than the iS150 Wood, so having the potential of planning earlier again.

In summary, unless SB bring other facts /parameters at play, it seems that the JP will beat the iS150 on most of parameters (as outlined in earlier posts and tested in SURF's article). I think we are done... :cool:

BelSkorpio
4th May 2010, 02:41 AM
ChrisN,

I go along with Ken.

From what I've heard so far from you, concerning your needs/desires, I still think that the IS150 is your best bet. I think that if only this board would have been made out of WC in stead of W, your choice would have already been made.

You said that you want the "slalom feeling".
Just by looking at the JP SLW and the IS150, I think that you will find it more in the IS150 than in the JP SLW. The jibe will be more pleasant on the IS150 because of its narrower tail and the drag in light chop, when the wind picks up a bit, will be better also because of the shorter length.
If reaching, is all you're interested in, I would go for the IS150

On the other hand if you really want to make sharp pointing angles or go deep, the formula is the best choice.
Again, I dont want to push you into formula, but did you already consider the fact that in light wind conditions when the wind is not too stable, it often varies from 6 to 12 knots (very common with us). In these kind of conditions I'm often adjusting my sailing course in this way that I point when the wind is strong enough (closer to 12 knots) and I go deep when the wind is weaker (closer to 6 knots). I rarely have problems to come back to my starting point with a formula, while I often see other guys blasting on their big slalom equipment, as happy as can be, and then suddenly run into problems to come back, shlogging like a dog.
Just thought I'd mention this as well. :)

Ken
4th May 2010, 03:53 AM
Chris,

You say......."What I then assume is that for my weight (90kgs), advanced sailor (that can waterstart, jibe, pump large sails), on a 62 cm fin on a 11 m2 freerace sail, SB & JP Formula boards will plan from 8 knots while JP's SLW90 from 9 knots and iS150 from 11 knots (given that it is made in WOOD)...".

You are giving the JP a 2 knot advantage over the iS because the 150 is made of wood and the tail shape. I have had three Starboard formula boards and one iS, all wood and they are not the least bit soft or flexible. They are all very rigid with no precipitable flex or softness. I also have a HiFly 105 Move that is carbon and there is no noticeable difference between it and my iS 111.

I think you are buying into the carbon construction hype too much. Most of this is marketing. I would guess that only the top slalom sailors (PWA) could tell the difference between wood and wood/carbon construction, and even then, the additional stiffness may or may not convert to better performance for mortals like us.

I don't know which board would be best for you and the most fun to sail, but I suspect that it has more to do with the shape than carbon or wood.

ChrisN
4th May 2010, 03:03 PM
Bel, I do agree with your recommendations, that's why I've been asking so many questions that only you folks answered. It is challenging to sail in offshore locations where the chop is heavy out in the sea, while close to shore you end up slogging. Not in love with the Formula boards as I did try a ride one day, and I have to admit it was not fun on the open sea, while it was a dream on flat water close to shore. I probabaly don't have the necessary Formula sailing skills. Further, I am not interested in racing - rather recreational blasting. If only SB made the iS150 on WC then it would be easy. But they do not, so I might be forced to go for the rigid & light HWR WC. That's why I saw an option with the JP :mad:

Ken, so what you are saying is that SB's statements on the WC's on "earlier planning" in light winds is all marketing? Yet, I think that tests from SURF showed that people like you and me will "feel" the difference between Wood and Carbon constructions.
As mentioned ALL new Formulas from all manufacturers are in lightweight carbon releases, so there must be a reason or it's just empty words. We as customers do invest a lot of money in our toys; If I am buying the Wood model - why not pay the extra 2-300$ for the carbon model! That's why we requested some sort of justification.

On the Shape, you are spot on! The conversation we have had so far has been very enlightening - no doubt that I should go for a board that is as wide as possible and with a wide tail (i.e. widest OFO/One Foot Off). On OFO, JP SLW90 is 70,1 cm while SB's iS150 is 65,3 cm - compare that to the Formula HWR which is 81,1 cm wide. On Width, the JP is 90 cm, SB iS150 is 93,5 cm - compare that with the HWR's 100,2 cm. Interesting that the iS 150L Wood weights nearly the same as the Formula HWR 162L in WC! So, HWR wins on "shape" followed by the JP and then the iS150...

I found JP's Super Light Wind preview test by PlanceMag (http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3410/4565266298_3dca347cf5_o.jpg)from May'10. It is really a blend between the 2 worlds. As Planchemag states (my translation): "The Super Light Wind is longer than Formula boards, which makes the board much more stable in non planing conditions...One can easily gain 1-2 knots in planing compared to a slalom 85 cm ... What one gains compared to the XL slalom in upwind and in wind lulls, it looses on reaching top speed and especially in jibes. Very wide until the rear end, the JP necessitates a jibe of a formula. " :D

I would very much like to know what SB thinks about this - is iS150 just as good in early planning; they have experimented through the years with wide boards and Formula-like more recreational boards. Moreover, I could imagine that SB will respond with a similar board in 2010/11; we could at least get an indication from them or anyone else... :confused:

In the meanwhile, has anyone seen a proper test of iS150?

Regards
Chris

agrelon
4th May 2010, 03:33 PM
Your translation is spot on, Chris ;) It seems they've done quite a good job with the board.

I'm just wondering whether the 8 knots planing ability they claimed was on the stock fin... I think from the photo the board uses a Tuttle box, which may allow you to pimp the board out with a >60cm fin... I don't see how a Powerbox could hold that size...

It will be interesting to see what SB does.... I think the 2011 lines are announced sometime in August.

The marketing manager of NP told me they release their 2011 models on the 15th of August.

BelSkorpio
4th May 2010, 07:01 PM
This is what Rasmussen said in August 2008 about W <-> WC

http://www.star-board.com/forum/showthread.php?t=4305&page=4

That was of course almost 2 years ago.

Ken
4th May 2010, 09:40 PM
All this speculation is fun and interesting. The JP looks to be a "mini" formula board and will probably plane earlier than the iS 150, but not because of carbon layup, but because of the wider tail if you go to a longer fin equal to the iS.

On the other hand, the iS is designed to be a giant slalom board that probably is faster and smoother on the reaches (fully powered) and jibes better (as Rasmussen said - wood is faster than carbon).

Carbon has been around for a long time in it's high performance board use, with weight and stiffness being the selling point. No doubt that in light winds, carbon offers some benefit, with the question being - How much? In heavy winds and chop, I speculate that it's just the opposite unless you are a top PWA racer.

For me, my wood iS 111 is fast, but it is a rough ride in chop when the wind goes over 18knots. If someone wanted to trade me an identical carbon model, I would not take it. Anything that would potentially make the ride rougher, I would reject. Speed for me on the iS means control and comfort.

ChrisN
5th May 2010, 01:53 AM
This is what Rasmussen said in August 2008 about W <-> WC

http://www.star-board.com/forum/showthread.php?t=4305&page=4

That was of course almost 2 years ago.

I've never heard of this before, and to hear it from Svein makes it even more puzzling. Reading that "wood is faster than carbon" is really counterintuitive! :eek:

If this was true, then all the Formula 1 cars should be using Wood laminates, as well as the SuperG Skis, mountain + racing bikes, tennis bats, as well as BMW Oracle Americas Cup Trimaran, etc. etc. etc. Have you ever tried to compare an SUP Carbon versus a Wood-based paddle? What about windmill wings - are they build out of wood? Wood is fine but we should certainly NOT overblow its potential. As many from that thread remarked, I also feel that Svein's statements sounded too "corporate" and biased - show me the numbers and then I'll listen. I would not be that doubtfull if everyone in the business of sport vessel/equipment manufacturing stood up and confirmed such statements together with independent testers, yet that is NOT the case...

My brother is still writing a PhD on Composite Materials and there is definitely a difference between the geometric properties of wood and for example Nomex honeycomb - an open cell honeycomb material used in the sandwich laminate which delivers a superior high Strength to Weight ratio, perfect for the large surface areas. SB could build 5 protos and then let SURF or other magazines give it a shot and compare performance from a consumer perspective...

Ken, I agree that in high-winds, a smoother ride might be the fastest, but as you write, in light winds, large(r) boards would most probably profit from higher rigidity/ stiffness. If someone doubts that better read about the construction choices in the USA 17/ BMW Oracle 90x90foot trimaran that can plan from 4 knots and sails at nearly 3,5 times the speed of the wind! It's certainly NOT build out of wood. Moreover, even SURF magazine's 2009 material test (http://www.surf-magazin.de/smo/surf_artikel/show.php3?id=4374&nodeid=4&subnav=test)shows that lightweight constructions plan faster and stay on through lulls longer. The only advantage I've been reading about Wood is its elasticity which in many cases is viewed as a comforting attribute in rough rides, yet have you ever spoken to any downhill skier about "Speed wobble" - no doubts why all of these folks are looking into even stiffer materials! :cool:

Why don't we speak more honestly, that the actual problem of lightweight construction is its complicated manufacturing process, which requires improved precision and more expensive machinery. I could imagine that an even stiffer, lighter Formula build on the best materials would be able to carry bigger fins thus bigger sails thus most probably faster. Same for an iS150...

Our conversation here was quite simple, yet we don't get any answers. :mad:

agrelon
5th May 2010, 10:02 AM
The SB team seems to have started hibernating... not long ago they were still contributing a lot more to the forum. Anyways, they're probably really busy with something else (maybe a light wind board, haha).

Now I really want to try some formula kit! Imagine the difference for me going from a Futura 93l, smallest board in the freeride range to a Formula. The planing performance would probably come as a huge surprise to me, given what I'm used to :)

Let's see if I can find some benevolent soul at my local spot willing to give a shot on his.

ChrisN
5th May 2010, 07:57 PM
ChrisN,

I don't believe the JP SLW will plane as early as a formula board with the same sail and same sailor. Board width, volume, tail width, stiffness, weight, rail sharpness and fin length determine the planing threshold and the JP doesn't measure up (just guessing since I don't have all the comparable stats). However, the difference will be very small between the boards (1-2 knots?).

If not formula racing, the JP, iS150 or other "high performance" giant slalom board may be the best option for light wind slalom or freeriding. However, the JP will still not point as high or run as deep as a formula board.

Ken, here is the latest preview of the JP SLW 90 from SURF magazine, May 2010.

http://webdisk.tdconline.dk/gate/download.php?id=46622327&ticket=f24001c5028e89c0dd24d85c758383e780647acb&browser=1

It seems that this lightweight (as JP's PRO is the same as SB's WC), lightwind concept is actually accelerating probably 1 knot after a typical Formula board. Here is my/BabelFish translation:

"This board category is the missing link in the chain. The powerful Early Planning Sails previously lacked a suitable base. Large Freeriders are often too heavy, Formulaboards too extreme. We had - unfortunately only very briefly, as the wind was then all gone - the opportunity to sail the new JP at about 7-14 knots.
Our impression: The Board with approximately Formula-dimensions is very stable and plans quickly with a bit of pumping. While planning, a decisive and really new sudden insight comes then: In contrast to Formula boards, one stands on the smart "Race deck" very comfortably. The feet are not overstretched, even though the straps are mounted very pleasantly further inside. Especially in the inner position, one can remain for a very long time relaxed in comparison to the the tiresome positions on a Formula.
The board has a very subjective nimble and quick feeling. We would recommend 8 to 10 m2 sails.
A complete Early Planning test against similar concepts follow as soon as possible."

Well, this is exactly as you predicted, as it plans a bit later, yet a bit more "agile", nimble, and comfortable than Formula boards.

It seems that I'll wait just a little bit longer to order my iS150 (which already seems old in comparison)! Latest I've read about LORCH going for a similar concept. :cool:

As we are awaiting some answers, SB is probably already cooking something here too (agree on that Agrelon) :D

agrelon
5th May 2010, 09:01 PM
Ken, here is the latest preview of the JP SLW 90 from SURF magazine, May 2010.

http://webdisk.tdconline.dk/gate/download.php?id=46622327&ticket=f24001c5028e89c0dd24d85c758383e780647acb&browser=1

It seems that this lightweight (as JP's PRO is the same as SB's WC), lightwind concept is actually accelerating probably 1 knot after a typical Formula board. Here is my/BabelFish translation:

"This board category is the missing link in the chain. The powerful Early Planning Sails previously lacked a suitable base. Large Freeriders are often too heavy, Formulaboards too extreme. We had - unfortunately only very briefly, as the wind was then all gone - the opportunity to sail the new JP at about 7-14 knots.
Our impression: The Board with approximately Formula-dimensions is very stable and plans quickly with a bit of pumping. While planning, a decisive and really new sudden insight comes then: In contrast to Formula boards, one stands on the smart "Race deck" very comfortably. The feet are not overstretched, even though the straps are mounted very pleasantly further inside. Especially in the inner position, one can remain for a very long time relaxed in comparison to the the tiresome positions on a Formula.
The board has a very subjective nimble and quick feeling. We would recommend 8 to 10 m2 sails.
A complete Early Planning test against similar concepts follow as soon as possible."

Well, this is exactly as you predicted, as it plans a bit later, yet a bit more "agile", nimble, and comfortable than Formula boards.

It seems that I'll wait just a little bit longer to order my iS150 (which already seems old in comparison)! Latest I've read about LORCH going for a similar concept. :cool:

As we are awaiting some answers, SB is probably already cooking something here too (agree on that Agrelon) :D

It'll be interesting to see what their fuller test yields, though it will probably be much of what we've already heard.

It's insane how many board lines Starboard has. Maybe they'll drop their not-so-marketed, and from what I can tell not so popular, Rio and replace it with a light-wind user friendly formula style board.

Also, the Serenity also serves a much smaller market. Let's be honest, the Serenity only makes sense until a certain point. If you're lucky enough to have a liveable cabin by a non-windy, super flat lake, where transporting the board isn't an issue, then you can afford a Serenity in your back yard. (That being said, I haven't tried one and therefore can't comment on how fun "non-planing" windsurfing can be with it)

For most people, though, it's a question of dropping the backseats of the car and chucking the board in to get to the local spot because a mate just called to tell you it's blowing! For what? For PLANING conditions.

Despite their many board lines, no board fills the gap in the Starboard lineup as the JP SLW does in their board lineup, and they have a lot less boards too.

It'll be interesting to see what happens.

ChrisN
12th May 2010, 06:13 AM
We should close this thread down as SB is not willing to take the "risk" and answer the question posed! :mad:

Final contribution from my side though! BOARDS magazine from April'10 tested the Carbon/Kevlar with Honeycomb version of the JP Super Sport 69 (see in link (http://boards.mpora.com/magazine/issue-260.html)) also called Gold versus the Full Wood Sandwich version (FWS). The Gold edition was nearly 1,5 kgs less static weight and the stiffest board construction available! :cool:

What they report was that: "the first thing the testers commented on was how much quicker it felt onto the plane! ... they felt they had more control due to the more direct feel though chop, which inevitably would lead to more speed. They also commented that it was easier to exit the gybe fully planning on the Gold Edition..." They highlight that Gold it was NOT necessarily faster than FWS, but it planned earlier...

So, bottom-line, the "lightest" and stiffest constructions plan earlier (yet no information how much earlier!). If iS150 was made in a similar construction as the GOLD version of the JP Super Light Wind 90 (http://www.rikswindsurfing.com/live/jp-super-light-wind-gold-edition-2011-2379-0.html)/154 Ltr, then it would have been an interesting comparison (looking forward to the upcoming SURF test).

What we have learned from the much appreciated forum contributions, is that if we are looking for the earliest planning, then we should just drop the Large Slalom boards! We should all go to the modern Formula equipment; for me it would be a 12,5 m2 racing sail with either SB's Wood Carbon HWR (http://www.star-board.com/2010/products/board_formula.php)version OR the JP Formula 100 (http://www.rikswindsurfing.com/live/jp-formula-boards-2010-2186-0.html)(Carbon); then I can move my 90kgs mass on planning by 8 knots :o

agrelon
12th May 2010, 02:57 PM
Hi Chris,

My last contribution too. I was sailing today with my Futura 93l, HSM Psyclone 5.6m (terribly rigged on my part but it was my first outing with it and I was in a rush to rig), Drake Freeslalom Swift.

My Kestrel 2000 told me the wind was between 6-13 knots. These readings were taken on the water sitting on the board, it's quite easy to recognize by looking at the water state if the size of the gust measured would get me planing or not. I could get the board planing in about 11-12 knots.

These conditions would've been IDEAL for a Formula board as the wind rarely dropped under 6 knots and the water state was super flat. I definitely think that planing in 6-7 knots for me with a 10m and a Formula board would be no problem at all.

Thanks to my Kestrel, I now have a better understanding of what 6 knots of wind is and how early my freeride kit can plane. I think I'm definitely gonna try to get some formula kit in the future to exploit this low windrange.

Duracell
14th May 2010, 03:53 AM
We have been debating this in another thread (see link (http://www.star-board.com/forum/showthread.php?t=8687)) for some time now, but have not received any answer from SB's Team!:mad:

Both in these Forums and Website, SB is marketing the new construction with a lot of statements about the "premium" WC construction. For example:

In a thread less than a Y ago, IAN FOX mentioned: "The Futuras (and iSonics) can definitely be made lighter in Wood+Carbon tech, which offers an advantage in earlier planing in lighter winds and on flatter water."
In the presentation of the iSonics and Futuras, here is the statement: "WoodCarbon offers the lightest weight of all with a stiffer construction that offers quicker acceleration in lighter winds.":eek:


What I've been asking is that if I use the same sailor (advanced skill) with the same sail (e.g. 10 m2 OverDrive/NP V8/etc.) and Fin (e.g. 520) in the same conditions (e.g. flatwater with chop), which of these 2 board will plan earlier? By which margin?:confused:

Please share some of your test results (even informal), as it then makes sense to invest the 200 difference on a WC board rather on the Wood one...

Woh Woh Woh,

I haven't been reading this forum since ages(OMG WTFHH).

The actual question was: Does it then makes sense to invest the 200 difference on a WC board rather on the Wood one.

Answer: YES IT DOES
Reasoning: Remeber: Wide wood boards -> drop a coin on it -> ding, drop two coins on it -> have it repaired. Carbon Deck == holy grail == best of both worlds: bottom stiff wood is really performant, got myself a Manta 85 to painfully prove the fact that the Manta was always slower than the iSonic 133 BUT I did have the one or other accidental wipeout (hit something hinden under the water surface (guess I surprised a fish) and Manta/Carbon survied without any problem, mast smashed on deck but deck didn't mind). Same thing on iS133Wood == new board. End of story.

Then there were still quite a few interesting unrelated questions to stiffness, weight, sailor input and planing threshold and lack of SB-response:
Well, what are they supposed to say?

- The above they denied for quite some time: carbon was useless in their eyes (I had ranted quite some time about wide wood boards and I still can't believe they let me. I'm happy though, that they found a good way out marrying their concepts with practical use and weight loss (bravo!)).

- as to lighter boards: they will always feel nimbler because your feet can shift them much easier from one side to another or lift the rail every little more when you're really pushing it (a 1.5 Kg lighter board will definitely make you feel that difference).

- weight -> early planing: if you just wait until you have enough wind to plane you can easily add your weight to the boards weight and realize it will only be significant if YOU lose some 50 Kg weight...

- weight -> early planing II: if you add sailor input (and if you surf a lot and try a lot you will learn more every year) a lighter board will make a bigger and bigger difference. (again: why tell someone it only planes earlier if you are really good...)

- weight -> early planing III: when adding sailor input you actually pump pressing the boom down and also hanging weight through the wind off the sail so the only thing you have to actually push forward (with your feet) is the board. 1.5 Kgs less directly translates into being much easier to push which translates into ... RIGHT! early planing...

So you want to know what difference (in knots) it would make for a world class surfer, well maybe 0.25 maybe 0.5 it really doesn't matter, the board will feel noticeably better see above.

Hope I didn't piss off too many people, but I forced myself to read the thread to the end and thought: maybe a diffent angle could provide some controversy not related to apples, pears and grizzly bears...

Ken
17th May 2010, 11:58 PM
Duracell,

I think you are a bit too critical of wood boards and their durability. I have had three wood formula boards and one wood iS 111. I have never made a repair on any of them.

My first two formula boards (175 and 147) took several mast slams to their noses while I was leaning to master the downwind runs. Yes, there were dents in the nose, but no repairs needed.

I have also gone over the nose at full speed (20+knots) on my formula boards after hitting submerged objects at least 6-8 times with never any damage to the bottom or fin box.

Sorry, but damage to the deck of a wood board with two coins is a bit of an exaggeration. Yes, carbon can be more durable, but they break too. It depends on how they were built.

Duracell
18th May 2010, 01:02 AM
Hi Ken,

I understand your point, I meant WIDE wood boards >= 80 cm.
My other wood board (K86) has no problems (except that the wood between the front and rear foot straps begins to look more woodish where as the area in front of the front foot straps still looks like new )...
And another reason to consider non wood decks:
Carbon much easier and better to repair, wood will ALWAYS look terrible after some real repair work so wood/wood-carbon argument still valid.

ChrisN
23rd May 2010, 07:36 PM
..............
Weight - Early planing III: when adding sailor input you actually pump pressing the boom down and also hanging weight through the wind off the sail so the only thing you have to actually push forward (with your feet) is the board. 1.5 Kgs less directly translates into being much easier to push which translates into ... RIGHT! early planing...

So you want to know what difference (in knots) it would make for a world class surfer, well maybe 0.25 maybe 0.5 it really doesn't matter, the board will feel noticeably better see above.


Duracell, that was certainly an entertaining entry in this winding-down thread. Reading the whole thread means that you are also interested in an answer, but given SB's lack of imaginative answers, you provided instead a much appreciated, animated one. :D

Regarding "durability", I've read similar stories from shops repairing Wood boards. My brother is against them too (long time pro /semi-pro). I am sure SB will NEVER share their stats on durability, yet their decision to go for WC is self-explanatory! Just check out the latest Formula boards...:cool:

On "Weight", if I did shed 5 to 10 kgs it would help a bunch, but the effort for reaching the latter is herculean and long-term (need to take on Marathons). If I can go down to 85 kgs (my weight at my 20th birthday), then I'll be fine, and will be able to plan a bit earlier. :)
More important is my technique; as you mention handling big sails in light conditions require more time in the water, and that's what I am aiming for wth buyng such a combo.

On Weignt for the Board, and to Agrelon's comments in our other thread (http://www.star-board.com/forum/showthread.php?t=8687&page=6), everyone here and the test of JP's SuperSport Gold is confirm that "lighter" boards are "feeling" faster, plan earlier and so forth. Even SB is marketing their WC construction as one that "plans earlier"! Beyond feelings, I did ask the simple question - "how much earlier?". In the end SB claims to be innovative engineers - not artists! :p

In your Delphian foresight, I certainly got no aswer from SB. It seems that your "0,5 knots earlier" is at least a statement; combining it with better Durability(?) and Ease of Handling (given lower weight), it makes it a good sense to invest in a Carbon-based board. Bad luck that the board I wanted iSonic 150 is only in Wood. In our case, there is a test of the new generation light-wind boards like the JP SLW90 (http://www.rikswindsurfing.com/live/jp-super-light-wind-gold-edition-2011-2379-0.html)and others in the German SURF in July'10. I'll share the results...

mark h
24th May 2010, 02:33 AM
Iv'e read a couple of GPSSS session for SLW, and was suprised how low the top speeds were?? I'd normally expect boards to be going quicker in the winds that were quoted. You can read the session details if you search the UK sessions.

Would be interesting to read the SURF mag test:)

mark h
24th May 2010, 07:16 AM
Sorry, the above post was short, had just got in after a super light wind (sub 8 knots) formula session and needed food:)

Just checked GPSSS.com for the "only" two SLW logged sessions. I know the guy who rides it, and he is a very talented light weight sailor and I'm sure he wont mind me posting his speeds here.

Speeds logged were:

7k to 12k winds: Max speed - 20 knots, Neilpryde Helium 7.5 sail, JP Slalom III 56 fin.

7k to 15k winds: Max speed - 23.2knots, Neilpryde Helium 7.5 sail, Select S10 Slalom XL 57 fin.

Decent enough speeds for light winds, but in gusts of 12k on Formula or XL slalom I would expect at least a 2:1 ratio for speeds I.E. 24 knots min. The SLW did 20 knots and would eaten alive by my Formula or iS144 or an iS150 in those winds. Being overtaken by some one doing 4 knots more is not good:)

In 15 knot gusts, again I'd expect a Formula, iS144 and iS150 to be getting 26k to 28k peaks, not 23k.

This intended to be negative against JP, just an observation. Last weekend, I had a quick go of my mates 2005 JP freerace 157 with my 11m in 15k winds, and I managed 28k peak speeds which was 1 knot faster than my formula 161 was doing, but it did have a much smaller 56cm fin c/w the 70cm fin that was on my F161 which would explain why it was faster "on that day".

My thoughts about the SLW now are that, I would rather give up 1 knot or so on wind minimums to gain much faster top end speeds.

I guess that until some one tries all these boards side by side, we will all just be speculating:) But so far, I'm pretty convinced that the iS150 (the SLW's main rival) will be faster in 9/10 knot winds.

Ken
25th May 2010, 11:27 PM
Concerning speeds on a Formula board. Here are five sailing secessions from last year on my board with an 11.0. 9.2 & 8.4 sails (last column).

After the date, the first numbers are top speed in knots, second and third are wind speed range in knots while I was on the water. I have recorded all sessions for the last 4.5 years with a gps and wind speeds from Iwindsurf. There is other data that I also record, but I haven't included it here.

21-Jun, 24, 7-16, 11.0
4-Jul, 25.5, 4-16, 11.0
9-Jul, 22.5, 7-13, 11.0
19-Aug, 23.2, 9-16, 9.2
16-Sep, 26.7, 9-19, 8.4

I could probably do better with top speeds if I weighed more. At 78kg, I find that I get overpowered pretty quick with the 11.0. My best ever top speed on a formula board was with a 9.2 sail in 2007 when I hit 28.3 knots in 9-17 knots of wind. I weighed about 82kg then.