Ultimate Light Wind Board Recommendations?

Originally Posted by sergio k

'Much' is a relative term, I think I131 in wood carbon with a proper fin would be an ultimate light wind
machine for 8.5 sail, I121 would still work well comparing to hypersonic, cleaner bottom with sharper rail
will create better release to plain yearly. That deep double in hypersonic made it sticky to be an early plainer...

Sergio K,
Please clarify here for everybody if you have ever:
- SEEN the boards you offered advice on,
- TOUCHED the boards you offered advice on
- SAILED the boards you offered advice on (if you sailed them, please indicate which boards you sailed, what level sailor you are, and how much sailing time you had on those exact boards).
My impression is that you are making up answers based on word of mouth , reading , etc but have not sailed for a single minute an iSonic I131 , or Lorch .Let alone know what fin works best with these boards .

So let's keep it real.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Sergio K,
Please clarify here for everybody if you have ever:
- SEEN the boards you offered advice on,
- TOUCHED the boards you offered advice on
- SAILED the boards you offered advice on (if you sailed them, please indicate which boards you sailed, what level sailor you are, and how much sailing time you had on those exact boards).
My impression is that you are making up answers based on word of mouth , reading , etc but have not sailed for a single minute an iSonic I131 , or Lorch .Let alone know what fin works best with these boards .

So let's keep it real.

Mr. Unregistered
I did ride I133 few time, have touched I131 and bunch of other slalom and free-slalom boards,
never laid my eyes on Lorch though. I've windsurfed for 15+ years, 110+ days a year,
formula, slalom mainly, living in light wind local, I have plenty of experience with the concept of early
planing and very good at it... I participate in local races, so I have excess and input from others,
plus, I like to experiment with custom boards, fins, etc,... currently custom shaper and myself are designing a slalom board for light/mid wind for me...
Of couse my advise is just my opinion...

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Thanks for clarifying it!

I just had a chance to do a little experiment with my friend's iSonic133 and my Hypersonic 125 with my 6.5 & 8.5 Ezzy Freeride in 10 - 17 mph (Ave.13mph) flat water condition. Here's my two cents!

For my 120lbs.body, iS133 accerelated balistically after a couple of pumps and it seems to want to go as fast as I can push it. It is definitely a great board for even lighter winds, which is the norm around here. Although I felt I could get by with iS121 quite fine with little more pumps, since I like narrower boards in general. As for my Hypersonic 125, it was not as early planing and the accerelation was not as balistic as iS133, but it felt more nimble under my feet and more fun to jibe. When I used a chop caused by boats to unstick the board with a big pump, it came extremely alive and acceralated into plane like a bullet and surprised me too. Is it possible that the big double concave of this board make it possible to unstick itself more efficiently than a flat bottomed boards when used correctly at the right moment as it hit the chop?

As for the sails, 6.5 and 8.5 was both quite effective for these boards at a given time, however 8.5 was clearly the optimum of the two I have tested at the time.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

I just had a chance to do a little experiment with my friend's iSonic133 and my Hypersonic 125 with my 6.5 & 8.5 Ezzy Freeride in 10 - 17 mph (Ave.13mph) flat water condition. Here's my two cents!

For my 120lbs.body, iS133 accerelated balistically after a couple of pumps and it seems to want to go as fast as I can push it. It is definitely a great board for even lighter winds, which is the norm around here. Although I felt I could get by with iS121 quite fine with little more pumps, since I like narrower boards in general. As for my Hypersonic 125, it was not as early planing and the accerelation was not as balistic as iS133, but it felt more nimble under my feet and more fun to jibe. When I used a chop caused by boats to unstick the board with a big pump, it came extremely alive and acceralated into plane like a bullet and surprised me too. Is it possible that the big double concave of this board make it possible to unstick itself more efficiently than a flat bottomed boards when used correctly at the right moment as it hit the chop?

As for the sails, 6.5 and 8.5 was both quite effective for these boards at a given time, however 8.5 was clearly the optimum of the two I have tested at the time.

My guess with Hypersonic using the chop: the analogy would be using the power and smooth face of the wave to get on the plane, doesn't mean that wave board planes yearly, just that you use elements other than wind power.

Originally Posted by sergio k

My guess with Hypersonic using the chop: the analogy would be using the power and smooth face of the wave to get on the plane, doesn't mean that wave board planes yearly, just that you use elements other than wind power.

Thanks for your comments. BTW, I read that Futura is using deeper double concave too. Do you think that would make the ride smoother than iSonic? Is there any advantage to that? Does the double concave make it easier to use the elements other than wind power you've mentioned?

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Thanks for your comments. BTW, I read that Futura is using deeper double concave too. Do you think that would make the ride smoother than iSonic? Is there any advantage to that? Does the double concave make it easier to use the elements other than wind power you've mentioned?

deeper double concave should make ride smoother, Futura is an easier less technical ride than Isonic,
don't need me to tell you that, that's in star-board board description,
basically, more shape, softer rails, etc.. softer, easier ride, on the downside, response, early planning and speed sacrificed if you're more advance, aggressive windsurfer. As for surf-ability of double concave vs. flatter shapes, not sure... I would think if that was the case surfboards would utilize it heavily.

[QUOTE=sergio k;42770]deeper double concave should make ride smoother, Futura is an easier less technical ride than Isonic,
don't need me to tell you that, that's in star-board board description,
basically, more shape, softer rails, etc.. softer, easier ride, on the downside, response, early planning and speed sacrificed if you're more advance, aggressive windsurfer. As for surf-ability of double concave vs. flatter shapes, not sure... I would think if that was the case surfboards would utilize it heavily.[/QUOTE
] Thanks again for your comments. Yes, I am aware of that Futura being a less technical ride compared to iSonic, however I have also read that in smaller sizes, there were very close to isonic performance, so my musing came about the use of double concaves. I will test that one of these days, if I get an opportunity. Thanks!

[ChrisN]

Originally Posted by PG

According to the German Surf the Futura 155 in WC planned earlier (easier, without pumping) than the iSonic 150 (and the Manta FR 85). I get the impression that the F155 is about equal with the JP in early planing. But the Lorch Birds are slightly better...

The F155 also gets praise for ease of riding and jibing.

Hey PG, check out the latest post on our earlier thread on Light Wind Blasters. I translated the full Test of the SURF magazine and attached it as PDF.
Hope that the subsequent analysis would help to clarify which board fits into which need. I

I'll definitely go for the JP SLW 90 Gold edition OR for the SB iSonic 150 (if SB finally releases this one in WoodCarbon/ other Lightweight construction)...