Go Back   Starboard Forums > Free Forum > Isonic 133

Thread: Isonic 133 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)
28th May 2012 08:52 AM
BelSkorpio Yes, I understand that the PWA guys just cannot afford to loose any time in the jibes.

I think that we recreational surfers - who also want to go fast of course - sometimes are reflecting ourselves too much to the PWA guys.

Like you, mcross19, I'm also convinced now that I don't need anything between US147 and IS107.
It took me a few years to figure it out, but next season I will definitely reduce my gear, i.e. replace the IS101 and IS122 by the newer IS107.
27th May 2012 10:25 PM
Gyurmo hi mcross19,

general you right, you can have fun on boards even more than 20 cm width gap too. but unregistered wrote, he wants to use this two boards for slalom racing.

in slalom racing when you swich from iSonic 133 (85 wide) to the falcon 102 (63 wide), because the 133 is over powered and slowing down, in this condition with the 102 you will stop after every jibes at the marks. in this area at the leeward side of the marks are wind holes and difficult to keep the board in planning (around you other 7 hungry guys). so if the board is not enough wide you cannot pump into planning fast.

for slalom racing 22 cm board width different is too big to cover a homogene wind range.

21st May 2012 08:34 AM
mcross19 Gyurmo, why is it that I have 23.5cm between my biggest two boards but don't have a problem?

Ultrasonic - isonic 111 ???????

In fact before I got my isonic I had a JP All Ride 116 which was 65.5cm wide and there still wasn't a problem changing down from my Ultrasonic and that gap is nearly 30 cm!!!!!!!!!
20th May 2012 12:55 PM
Gyurmo hi,

the iSonic 133 is a very nice board, you wont have any problem because relatively shorter than the newer models. what you should think again is the gap between your iSonic 133 and the falcon 102.

my experience is if more than 12-15 cm different between two boards' width, you will get a windrange gap, where the big board is already is too big and the small is still not enough big. your iSonic/falcon has more than 20 cm width different - what is far too big.

with your weight i would take minimum around 70 cm wide board under the iSonic 133 - if you planning to have two boards. for three boards 85/75/65.

17th May 2012 03:33 PM
mcross19 It works well with anything from an 8m to 9m.

As for fin size that will all depend on your weight but I used a 48 or 50 with sails of that ilk.
17th May 2012 09:56 AM
Unregistered How does the Isonic 133 (85cm) work with an 8.0. What size fins are recommended?
15th May 2012 08:44 PM
mark h Hi

Dont worry about the shorter length of the 09 model. I have had the the older models and whilst each model improves, the improvements are gradual each year , not massive. In some ways, the shorter nose gave great high wind control (like the iS117w). My mate is still on the 09 iS133 and is still competitive.
15th May 2012 02:31 PM
Isonic 133

I am considering buying a 2009 Isonic 133 to replace my 2006 Isonic 115 - The board will be used for slalom racing with 8.0 and 9.0 North WARPs

I am a little concerned that the 133 takes the short wide format to the extreme 222cm X 85cm and that kit in 2010 - 2012 has gone longer and narrower. What are other people's view of the Isonic 133

My next board down is a Fanatic Falcon 102 and I weigh 95 KGs

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 10:39 PM.