Starboard Forums

Starboard Forums (
-   Free Forum (
-   -   Please quote real volume - To Starboard . (

Ronny 2nd May 2008 08:14 PM

Please quote real volume - To Starboard .
I would like to suggest Starboard quote the REAL volume of their board , not virtual volume . Because the virtual volume is subjective .That would help the buyer to choose the right board easier . Thanks .

Del Carpenter 3rd May 2008 10:03 AM

I may be mistaken, but I believe Starboard's quoted volumes and real volumes are the same, except for a few boards in 2002 and maybe 2003. I have a 2002 X-186 which was openly marketed as "virtual volume". In my opinion its a great board.

Which board(s) do you think don't meet their stated volume?

Ronny 4th May 2008 10:05 PM

Real volume of board .
All the isonic board has a few litre less than the quoted volume .

PG 5th May 2008 02:30 PM

I do BELIEVE that Starboard, and other manufacturers, nowdays do TRY to quote the correct volume. However, the board names are often locked before the final prototype has been made and the volume may sometimes be off by quite a number of liters.

Annoying? YES! But I do think that we can just ask for "best effort" also going forward.

qldsalty 6th May 2008 09:35 AM

Also Stype 2006 93 litre, Real Volume 99. You can tell the difference the second you step onto it. 6 litres is very noticable on smaller boards. Put beside a Futura 93 it is way bigger.

Screamer 6th May 2008 03:06 PM

Well it wouldn't look very good if you saw TWO 96 lit iSonics in the brochure, would it? I know these two (96 and 101) sail/feel different, and the racers don't worry about it, they are interested in sail carrying capability at full speed. But for a recreational sailor, if it's his largest board, used not strictly for racing, it may be important. For example, I've ordered iSonic122 (which is 114 lit actually). I know from experience that i need 110-114 lit for me + 9.0 rig on top of it, to feel comfortable. I've used hyper105 in the past (real 102 lit), it was a good combo well powered, but when slogging in dying wind, it was a real pain, almost impossible.

I accept that isn't always possible to quote exact volume down to one litre, but it should be stated somewhere on the website/brochure (fine print).

geo 7th May 2008 10:12 PM

Old story.
No starboard won't name their boards after real volume; and no, they won't even quote "real" volume on tech charts. And yes, they are probably 100% aware of real volumes, since the real volumes we read on the ISAF charts are provided by the manufacturers.
Reason for this is that "real" volume is not an accurate indicator of how a board will SAIL, since as we know width has a big importance too. So some customers (intermediates, heavyweights...) will be misguided in their choice, because "real" volume still is THE indicator of how a board will FLOAT. What I don't see, at this point, is why they don't name boards after width instead.
As I said many times before, to me, to provide a "wrong" tech data is a total nonsense.

davide 7th May 2008 10:27 PM


Originally Posted by Screamer (Post 21638)

I accept that isn't always possible to quote exact volume down to one litre, but it should be stated somewhere on the website/brochure (fine print).

Most likely all the designs of production boards are stored and tweaked in a CAD program. And a CAD program will give the volume down to the cubic millimeter. So, it is possible to quote the exact volume.

All times are GMT +7. The time now is 03:19 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2016, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.