Go Back   Starboard Forums > Free Forum > Actual volume of Isonics

Thread: Actual volume of Isonics Reply to Thread
Your Username: Click here to log in
Image Verification
Post Icons
You may choose an icon for your message from the following list:

Additional Options
Miscellaneous Options

Topic Review (Newest First)
27th December 2006 05:30 PM
RE: Actual volume of Isonics

Hi Bamburo,

I am 90 kgs too, and I am using :

iSonic 133 with 9 & 10
iSonic 101 with 6,7 & 7,7

So i recomand you the 101 also.

All the best
27th December 2006 05:20 PM
RE: Actual volume of Isonics


I've just back from Dahab(Egipt) with my Isonic 101. For my weight 97 kg, I feel wery comfortable on this board, I sailed on NP RS6 6.2 (17-32 knots) and 7.8 (15 - 20 knots). The board is very fast and has a lot of control. The best fin size I found was 34-36 cm.

26th December 2006 10:41 PM
RE: Actual volume of Isonics

Hi guys,

it seems taht this thread is quite popular as I have that very same doubt. I am considering getting an Isonic...but which????. I weight 90 kgs and sail in rather shifting conditions. I currently have a Proof custom SuperX 115 litres but want something faster. The sail I have is a 6.6 Nitro5 but want/need something like a 7 or 7.6 (my next sail is a Nitro5 8.5 and a Neutron 10 which I use with a 145 FType). So which one would you recomend for me, the isonic 101 or the 111 (to avoid an overlap with my Ftype 145)?.
22nd December 2006 01:48 PM
RE: Actual volume of Isonics

To add my reflections and (small) experience to Ian's answer.
Even when considering the very lower wind range end of a board, volume is not all, but rather "available volume" is. That is: remember that if part of a board's volume is not under water, then it is not contributing to buoyancy and it behaves the same as if it was not there at all. The center part of a much domed deck may not be contributing. The nose of an high-rise-rockerline board may not be contributing. As a result, a wide, thinnish, low nose rocker board - like an iSonic - must see almost all of its volume contributing to buoyancy when standing still and submerged. I have no iSonic experience, but I reckon that my (short, wide, straight, thin-nish) Evo 83 feels better (bigger) at schlogging than my previous 90 (stated) liters '00 RRD WaveCult 260. Once on the go, its real lesser volume makes it feel better again.
In the end, real phisical dimensions should be taken with some reasoning, rather than just taking them as they are. Just like we all know that a 5.8 race sails wind range is much different from a 5.8 freestyle sail's.
22nd December 2006 05:35 AM
RE: Actual volume of Isonics

Thanks Ian,

those kind of responses are what makes being on this forum really worthwhile.

My concern would be in to top end of the Is133, because I think that chop (rather than wind strength) will limit this quite a bit. Even at 95kg, I am sure you know, it becomes increasingly hard to keep an 80cm wide board on the water when it becomes choppy. The seastate on the British southcoast is short, steepish chop and it very quickly becomes a nightmare.

The real question then isn't what the board is capable off in ideal conditions, but in prevailing conditions, and I think the 101 won't get me planing by the time the 133 becomes a handful.
But I take your point, and will book a demo.

In response to Phil, I actually found the Is incredibly comfortable to sail from day one - that is, once I move the backstraps as far back as possible as the natural stance with is not that wide (not for 6'4" anyway)
22nd December 2006 04:27 AM
Ian Fox
RE: Actual volume of Isonics

Hi all,

As Mezza says at the outset of the discussion, I am sure it's been done before..

As Phill commented, the proof is on the water - and even if you don't have the opportunity to test or demo (which we are always strongly advocating), then the feedback is clearly positive about these boards ~ 101 being particularly common and popular.

I can't recall a single feedback saying "my 101 is too small for 101".
Does a (previous benchmark) Sonic 100 (100Lt) sail bigger than iS101 ? Hardly.

(Phill not sure the actual volumes vary by +/- 5%, but for sure the varoius methods used to measure/calculate/equate can (do) often vary by a small amount.) The iS101 is definitely NOT over 100lt but it is not significantly less either. 96 would be the lowest figure.

There are a number of 9x+ kg riders who comfortably use the iS101 as a light to mid wind slalom board (ie : above marginal slalom and above, or to equate to sail terms, once it's 7.5-8.0m for 9x kg).

Mezza, maybe define your "medium wind" (in your definition, - and everyone has their own) .
It could very well be -depending on your desired "sweetspot" range for the new board -that the iS111 is in fact the optimum choice for you in your conditions anyway. It is definitely a "safe" option - but the choice really depends where you anticipate the top end of the board should end (and how much % you will spend in each end of the wind range).

A lot of riders prefer a slightly larger board - and the "easier" planing to go with that, although (esp in slalom/speed) there is also a clear faction who prefer the "smaller" size option (for a given set of conditions) - thereby accepting to work a little harder in return for a little more performance potential when it's on. Both options are valid (but selecting boards for the individual rider in line with their style is important too).

For me (92-95 + wetsuit and on occasion weight jacket= 100) the 101 is most definitely a very practical medium wind slalom, with extra potential "below medium" and still well behaved into lower end of (typical) hi end slalom. Do not underestimate the effective range of this board, even for bigger guys. No dogma, but no dog either

If you are concernaed about planing performance at "marginal 100Lt range", then there will be few "100Lts +/-" out there that will be better in that range. If you are concerned about ability to sail home submerged, uphaul etc then the performance of the iS101 in this mode is very difficult to distinguish (in pure "volume" mode) from other "100lt"slaloms - and even here it is worth noting that a 100Lt plank performs differently to a 100Lt log.

Nope, width is not everything. But neither is volume alone. The essence of our sport is complex variables ~ and when it comes to detail (rather than macro level) it is important to consider the whole picture.

Beg, borrow or steal () a demo on these - or the previous iS105/115.
You'll see.

Cheers ~ Ian
22nd December 2006 02:49 AM
RE: Actual volume of Isonics

Mezza30 wrote:

Thanks for that. So the 101 is actually 96 liters, which is annoying because as a medium wind changedown from the 133 it wouldn't work for me, but at 68cm wide the Is 111 may be too wide at the top end.
Don't worry mezza30, it is the sail carrying capacity that you need to look at too. The 96 ltrs stated on the other site I would not really worry about. And remember that volumes vary by a tolerence of +- 5%
but width does not vary making that a very important measurement

I myself have a 115 iSonic and love it. It is suprisingly good at the top end, where on a 6.5 I have managed 42.3mph. I use it with 8.5-6.5 sails in chop and even though it is wide, behaves very well.

I have recently ordered an iS87 and have no doubts that it will complement the larger board well, even at my current 84kg.

If you have any doubts, demo the 101 and 111, I'm sure you will be nicely surprised. The iSonics do seem hard work at first if you are not used to this style of sailing. The first time I tried one I was knackered after 20mins, but I soon adjusted and now sail for hours.
22nd December 2006 12:53 AM
RE: Actual volume of Isonics

Hehe, thanx geo, i guess that was more confusing than helping...so 101 is actually 96?..
22nd December 2006 12:17 AM
RE: Actual volume of Isonics


Thanks for that. So the 101 is actually 96 liters, which is annoying because as a medium wind changedown from the 133 it wouldn't work for me, but at 68cm wide the Is 111 may be too wide at the top end.

I never really understand this complication. Last year we (could have) had a 105 / 115 / 125. If the 125 had actually been 125ltr (it was 120) and the 105 had actually been 105ltr (it was 100) that would have worked out great - instead we get strange reference 101/111/122/133 that make no sense in terms of actual volume.

I am presuming this is a marketing thing, which I would understand if these weren't high performance boards. Why the gimmicky stuff that makes no sense of actual volume anyway?
21st December 2006 08:31 PM
RE: Actual volume of Isonics

This thread has more than 10 replies. Click here to review the whole thread.

Posting Rules
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

All times are GMT +7. The time now is 11:16 AM.