Go Back   Starboard Forums > Free Forum

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 20th August 2008, 02:16 AM   #31
Ola_H
TEAM
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,191
Default

It looks like there is carbon all over on both sides, the paint has that semi see through quality.

But I don't know the details of the construction. For some info on the general construction, click on tech under "products".
Ola_H is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20th August 2008, 04:04 AM   #32
steveC
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 639
Default

Not to be difficult Ola, but the wood carbon construction seems to be available on only a limited number of models. I think the focus here was on iSonics, so it's a bit unclear about that construction in that model line. However, maybe I've got things wrong.

The merits of full carbon layups have been mined for some time by many, and I was wondering about the use of carbon in the iSonics. A fair question really. Again, if I'm pushing the proprietary boundaries, I will understand, as Starboard may not not want to reveal such details to their competition. Like I mentioned earlier, I was curious.
steveC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20th August 2008, 05:29 AM   #33
Unregistered
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Of course wood construction makes perfect sense if you have a 3 year supply of wood veneer purchased in advance.

But joking aside, any small slalom board in the range +/- 6Kg is light, in the winds of intended use, whether itís 5.8kg or 6.2kg, it matters not. The fastest sailor will win irrespective of the minute weight differences, wood, carbon/wood or full carbon construction or surprisingly the colour.

Any one who really thinks that in 20 knots a board that weighs 5.8kg will be faster than the same board that weighs 6.2kg had better stop smoking the happy stuff.

Of course each particular construction has its own feel on the water.

Now if you want to talk construction differences and weights in boards, get real and start talking about the differences for big slalom boards at the marginal end of the wind spectrum, as here weight does make a big difference.
  Reply With Quote
Old 20th August 2008, 06:24 AM   #34
steveC
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 639
Default

Frankly, I wasn't really focusing on overall weight, although real light weight can have distinct advantages for lighter weight sailors. My thought was more in line with performance issues, comfort, stiffness of shape, control, and in addition, overall durability.

Still though, big fluctuation in weights (up to a 10-12% difference) aren't necessarily a confidence builder, especially when it becomes to structural integrity or performance issues, because they don't imply that ultimum build construction criteria was met. Shear weight doesn't necessarily mean better.

Also, we're talking tolerances here, and we can't necessarily make liberal assumptions about a given product. From my experience, it's the subtleties of shape, rocker and tuning can have more influence over board weight. Needless to say, we need to think about design integrity too (what are the tolerances there?). Others can disagree to some degree, but overall we need to be practical.
steveC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20th August 2008, 01:21 PM   #35
geo
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 327
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Unregistered View Post
... any small slalom board in the range +/- 6Kg is light, in the winds of intended use, whether it’s 5.8kg or 6.2kg, it matters not.
...
Any one who really thinks that in 20 knots a board that weighs 5.8kg will be faster than the same board that weighs 6.2kg had better stop smoking the happy stuff.

...
Hi unregistered,
just in case you are referring to my posts: I hope it is clear I do agree with you 100%! My point is about the fact that a small/middle sized iSonic bought in shop can be expected to weight up to 6.3 + 6% = just short of 6.7 kg. Usually you can't sort your board out of the production run, but rather you (not a pro rider, I assume) will order in advance and get what will come. Now, you see it's not just 5.8 instead of 6.2. It's rather about handing out the about 1.3K+ € asked in shop for a nice medium wind slalom board, and getting something that may range from about 5 kg (with competition AND if you are lucky) to about 6.7 kg (iS101 at the +6% end). In my view, the latter is unacceptable; this is why I am surprised Starboard didn't introduce wood carbon iS's. Oh well, by the way, I don't think those would be still costing 1.3K+... and wood iSonics already bear a premium price tag compared to competitors... maybe this is the reason.

Still thinking about this (well, free forums are useful for this): in my view the REAL BIG problem is not the stated average weight (I think about 6.0 for an iS94/101 would be OK, if not optimal), but rather the +/- 6% tolerance. If I was Starboard, I would not search for new materials recipes (I think Davide and SteveC are spot on about materials and relative weights), but rather for more accurate manufacturing in order to get tighter tolerances.

Last edited by geo; 20th August 2008 at 01:31 PM.
geo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20th August 2008, 02:43 PM   #36
Svein Rasmussen
NOR-1 Dream Team - President
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 12
Default

Hi all.

1/ Carbon versus wood.
Itís been a long experimental road and most years we build Race boards in wood and also in carbon to see the potential.
I first tried a wood sandwich board in New Caledonia back in 1986 and have been a fan ever after.
This year again we built from the very same Isonic mold , one board in 160 Gr carbon, one in 80 Gr carbon and one in Honey comb sandwich.
The result came out as in previous years, the carbon boards and the honey comb are lighter but not quite as fast as our wood sandwich boards.
In very light winds the materials provide similar potential, but as soon as we got up to speed , wood was a tiny bit faster.
We will keep on cross checking into the future as well, in case some new future carbon technologies prove to be faster.
In wave jumping and freestyle, its probably not so much about speed , but about the ability to jump and move the board in different positions while airborne, and here weight has been found to be important. We found that when we changed the lay up on race boards from wood to carbon we could save 150-300 grams, whereas in wave and freestyle, the boards were 500-800 grams lighter, this quite likely as the Race boards had less reinforcements to be reduced.
An exciting derivate of the wood usage is the dynamic shape stability, and you can read more about that here:
http://www.star-board.com/2009/pages...technology.php

I further think that keeping closer to the shape specifications in the production is a very important goal,
and we have put a couple of new measurement stations in place for that.


2/ Production boards for all riders.
All Starboard riders get boards from normal shipments every time.
Last example was Bjoern. He requested boards a couple of days before he traveled to Turkey
and they were again taken straight from the warehouse at APM in Germany,
no extra checking of rocker lines or such. In the future we would want to see if we somehow
could find a way to select the best production boards for our dream team.
Racing is their job and provides their income, thus they at least should be able to receive boards
that are as identical to the master shape as possible.

Thanks for your support
Svein
Svein Rasmussen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20th August 2008, 03:22 PM   #37
Unregistered
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Yes Sven, thanks for the clarification.

However, we as the customer pay the bills for Starboard and we also want to buy boards that are as close to the master as possible and the same as team riders get.
  Reply With Quote
Old 20th August 2008, 03:56 PM   #38
Svein Rasmussen
NOR-1 Dream Team - President
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 12
Default

Hi unregistered,
So far the chances for you and Antoine to get the board that is closest to the master board have been equal, so over the last 14 years we have indeed met your request.
In the future, we want as explained include a few extra QC stations , and that will help our standard improve even further, and that for everyone.
Svein Rasmussen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20th August 2008, 04:00 PM   #39
geo
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 327
Default

No less than the big boss...

Svein, thank you very much for your direct intervention and clarification. After reading your post, here is what I think.

1) My reserves about "corporate" outings still hold, even more so in your case, of course.
2) I can believe that a wood carbon iSonic would be just 150 - 300 gms. lighter than a standard wood one. Still I am curious to know how much your test protos do really weight. IF they are spot on the "average production" stated weight, or close to, as I already said (i. e.: iS101 6.3 kg) in my view they have a nice weight. Unfortunately I happened to order a Sonic95 in '06. When it arrived I was able to compare its weight with a Falcon90 that was in the shop. Finally I carefully weighted it at 6.6 kg, which is not that much more than the stated 6.3 after all and well within tolerances, but... (I used to purchase RRD's in older times, probably when Cobra was not the undisputed market leader yet, and those were spot on, so I assumed the Sonic would have been spot on too). Be assured nothing the like will happen to me once again.
3) If I was in your shoes I would introduce lighter manufacturing, be it wood carbon or else, at no extra cost for iSonics; eventually, not even claiming it; since now iSonics are about the heaviest slalom boards available AND the most expensive ones.
4) Whatever you say or swear, I will NEVER believe that dream team riders are on boards similar to those I can buy in shop. I am sure that, at very least, they are handed a few selected samples to choose from by direct testing. As for BD, I remember pictures of the Canaries '07 leg with him jumping and showing the bottom of his board; not the usual white painted bottom, but one showing very clearly traces of substantial reshaping/fairing. He didn't even bother to put some fresh white on it. Should I believe he rode Alacati on boards bought blind out of the shop? Not even if he himself tells me.
5) "However, we as the customer pay the bills...": +1. Bad idea to state that intention of yours.
geo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20th August 2008, 04:07 PM   #40
geo
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 327
Default

To complete my above post.
I admit that the feel of riding a wood racer is a very nice one. I also trust that adding "geometrical" stability by means of the thick wood veneer adds to the boards' shape stability, and that is a very good thing in my view. And, above all, I would have to be crazy to deny that iSonics are probably the most successfully competitive racers ever (which does not imply their build standard is the best around).
geo is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Tags
None

Thread Tools
Display Modes

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

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +7. The time now is 07:25 PM.