Carbon Isonics

[LK]

Dear Geo, most content in your post #8, is in line with my post, so is a good part of your last post. So whats the problem you actually agree in almost everything I write.

"As a consequence, I don't think any extra weight in the right places makes a better board in absolute terms. I think that "right" weight makes a better board, that "right" does not mean necessarily "as low as possible"

This is just what I say. If the actual weight distribution and total weight is the best, so why change it.
If someone wants to buy a lighter carbon board which sails worth than a heavyer iSonic so let them do it.

I have spoken with testriders personally, so I know "560" is spot on.



Cheers
:-))

[Ola_H]

Well, I think Björns recent results on iSonics and maybe even more the fact that he choose to race on iSonics instead of his sponsor brands board says a lot. Together with Antoines results and what KP is doing I think we can safely say the boards are very very fast. Fast enough to win. And if prototype testing shows carbon boards are not faster, why would anyone want to pay more for a non-upgrade in performance?

[steveC]

Just curious, are the carbon iSonics full carbon layups top and bottom, or are they a combination of partial carbon fabrics and wood integrated together? Often the amount of carbon used in boards in years past has been a long way from full carbon layups, and as a result, claims could literally be considered to be almost false advertising. Full carbon layups top and bottom, to include practical carbon re-enforcements, are arguably the stiffest/lightest construction available, and that doesn't necessarily mean that the ride is unfriendly and rough. I'm not inferring that Starboard is offering less than the real thing, but I'm thinking that the the carbon thing needs to be properly characterized and referenced to have real meaning.

I own a Carbon board(well thats what it's marketed as) and have also spent some time on a *board isonic86.
The 86 is a great board "but" i like the crispness of my carbon board it feels lighter under foot in saying that when the conditions get really rough the 86 gave a more forgiving ride.

Starboard should market a complete wood setup...Board...teak boom...teak mast....and wooden fin

[geo]

LK,
it's not strange that we agree on obvious concepts.
Where our views differ is in your faith in Starboard proposing the best possible construction; despite the obvious facts that the competition proposes lighter boards with larger use of carbon laminates and wood technology being readily available to them by the very same manufacturing facility.
My view insted is that Starboard's slalom boards are .5 - 1 kg heavier than optimal, or at least those available to common customers are.
Please, please, please, open your eyes, what top heavyweight pro riders like AA or BD successfully ride in competition means just nothing to us common mortals! They will use their 'given size' boards and sails in conditions that are at least 5 or 10 knots more than those we would be riding a similar kit in! They use in 20 or 25 knots the same kit we would be using in 15, and in 30 knots the kit we'd be using in 20! This is the same as saying they are on completely different boards. Even provided the iSonics they ride are actually comparable to those we can actually buy.

Originally Posted by geo

...My view insted is that Starboard's slalom boards are .5 - 1 kg heavier than optimal, or at least those available to common customers are...

Debating about performance differences because a board is heavier of 0.5 - 1 kg than another is just a foolishness !!!

[viking]

"why would anyone want to pay more for a non-upgrade in performance?"

There is something I do not understand. What is the purpose of this carbon line if you admit that it does not bring any upgarde in performance?

Anyway, the answer to your question is easy: it is called marketing!

[geo]

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Debating about performance differences because a board is heavier of 0.5 - 1 kg than another is just a foolishness !!!

Tell this to the brands offering those 0.7 kg lighter WoodCarbon boards...

Ive looked at some of the other brands that use full Carbon Sandwich construction and dont really see much difference in weight compare to the Isonics ,at most it was 0.4 difference which is bugger all really, some brands are actually heavier eg Exocet even with there new full carbon range boards. I perfer having a board that is 0.4 heavier than replacing a board every season IMO.

[Ola_H]

Originally Posted by viking

"why would anyone want to pay more for a non-upgrade in performance?"

There is something I do not understand. What is the purpose of this carbon line if you admit that it does not bring any upgarde in performance?

Anyway, the answer to your question is easy: it is called marketing!

Because in slalom racing, its largely about measurable performance. If tests show carbon is not faster, then it isn't better either, despite that light always _feel_ nice.

But in wave and freestyle boards some other things come into play. Also here, to some degree have the deceiving feel that it must be better if it feels lighter. But you also move the board around much, much more in off the lips, cutbacks, some jumps and in most freestyle tricks. Here board weight will matter more, but it is not measurable as easily. And even in manoeuvres, some of the difference will inevitably be psychological.