Go Back   Starboard Forums > Ask Our Team

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 5th September 2007, 05:09 PM   #21
Ola_H
TEAM
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,191
Default

Van,

I definitely see your point about that not everyone can have stashes of similar sized boards - that was more an extreme example to show my point.

In your case, I still don't think the volumes per se is the problem. It's more that you would like a smaller board in the S-type (or futura) range, something like a Futura 80 or 85 that could build on the iS76. I still argue that you could shave the st93 down to a real 90 liters and not really affect the range much. If you want to get it to work better in high wind for your weight, you have to do more than shave of some volume.

That said, even my F101 definitely is a class "smaller" than the iS101 when it comes to high wind blasting. I don't know how it compares with ST, but in conditions when the iS101 is a real handful for me, the F101 is still as smooth as ever. In practice the F101 and iS101 are to close to justify owning them both, but in a three board blasting/freeride quiver, I think a F93 really would fit rather well between a 75-80 liter fsw (I have a Kombat 79 myself and its w wonderfully versatile board) and an iS101.

For me (70kg) the real solution for high and med wind blasting is the iS76, but while is a very easy riding board, its still a light slalom construction. My personal ideal 3 board blasting quiver would be iS101 (or 96), iS76 and then either a Pure Acid 74 or a Kombat 79.
Ola_H is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 5th September 2007, 05:21 PM   #22
van
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Greece
Posts: 94
Default

Ola H - Can You Please Confirm That The Futura 93 Is Actually 93 Liters Or Are We In For Any Surprises? If It Is 93 Liters I Would Definitely Consider Trading It In For The St '93'. I Don't Want To Get An Isonic For High Wind Blasting As I Like To Chop Hop Etc Etc And Prefer The Looser Fealing Of A Freeride Board. Don't Want To Get A Kombat Though Cause I Want To Race My Mates. So This Brings Us Back To The Original Question. How Does The Futura 93 Compare To The St 93 In Terms Of Speed/manouverbility.
van is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 5th September 2007, 07:07 PM   #23
qldsalty
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 33
Default

Wow three pages on and we still don't know if the volume of the 93 is virtual or real. The suspense is killing me.
qldsalty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 6th September 2007, 01:47 AM   #24
Erik Loots
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: The Netherlands, Alkmaar
Posts: 109
Send a message via MSN to Erik Loots
Default

Volume doesnt count that much! Look @ max width & tailwidth, those 2 count very much how long you can stay on the water. But even more important are fins and good (rigged) sail, if you are surfing in difficult conditions.

futura 93
l= 240cm
w= 61.5cm
t= >40cm

If I would use it... it would be my lightweather board

Stype 93
l= 242
w= 59.5
t=37.7

Just looking @ the 2 boards... My opinion: The S-type will be the better one if conditions get difficult, if you're skills getting bit better the s-type will be faster.
Erik Loots is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 6th September 2007, 02:07 AM   #25
steveC
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 639
Default

Hi van,

It seems that you're not as unhappy as you initially suggested, as the ST93 and iS101 appear to be fitting into non-conflicting categories of use, and each is apparently delivering in accordance with your original goals. Overall, that's a good thing. Yet, having heard many vent their annoyance with the virtual volume concept, you clearly aren't alone with your frustration. Yet, I sometimes wonder if the differing actual volumes were never discovered, whether folks would be unhappy with their choices.

In my situation, I have a 5 board quiver, and I can frankly say that I don't know the volumes of any of them. Of course, I have a general idea, but not the absolute numbers that so many unconditionally want. Sometimes I question whether too much detailed information is a good thing, because numbers often say so little about reality.
steveC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 6th September 2007, 08:48 PM   #26
van
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Greece
Posts: 94
Default

HI STEVE - LIKE I SAID I'M NOT UNHAPPY WITH WHAT I HAVE IT'S JUST THAT IF I WANTED TO BUY A 99 LITER BOARD THEN I WOULD HAVE GONE AND BOUGHT ONE. AS FOR YOUR QUOTE 'Sometimes I question whether too much detailed information is a good thing, because numbers often say so little about reality.' YOU ARE PROBABLY RIGHT BUT UNFORTUNATELY WE ARE USED TO HAVING ALL THAT INFO.

AS FOR 'Yet, I sometimes wonder if the differing actual volumes were never discovered, whether folks would be unhappy with their choices.' YOU ARE PROBABLY SPOT ON THERE AS WELL. BUT NOW I KNOW I THINK IT'S MORE PSYCHOLOGICAL MORE THAN ANYTHING.
van is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10th September 2007, 11:31 AM   #27
qldsalty
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 33
Talking

Van is right, we want to know the true volume. I have the Stype 93. The minute I unpacked it in the shop I was suspicious it was bigger than 93. When I'm powered in lumpy conditions the board jumps all over the place. It does behave more like 100ltrs than 90. I weigh 85 kgs. This for me has been a good thing because we mostly experience moderate conditions and the added volume gets me going quicker. It has made my 115 Stype a bit redundant. I resort to wave gear when I can't control the 93 anymore, but not everyone has the luxury of few boards and sails to choose from.
I can see your point as well Steve, but my friends who have ridden the 93 and I all said that board has got to be bigger than 93. We were right of course. So in our case the true volume is 99 and we felt it. Should we be in the dark as to it's true volume, the next board I bought would be smaller as our previous experience told us the 93 was a big feel. I would probably go to a 85ltr and then what would happen? I would be on aboard to small if it was true volume but just right if it was virtual.
I believe they need to be all virtual volume or all true volume. Not some of each. It makes it very hard to know what board to get next without that knowledge. We guess by width and tail width like you do but volume is still an important part of the equation for me. I used to upgrade my boards each year but now wait a season or two see what reports like this forum reveal.
__________________
Futura 111, Futura 93, JP FSW 111, Evo 92, and Go 155
NP Hellcat 7.7, Hellcat 6.7, Hellcat 5.7, Fusion 6.1, Combat 5.6, Combat 5.0, Zone 4.7.
qldsalty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10th September 2007, 11:47 AM   #28
Maximus
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 162
Default

I thought volume was the knob on my stereo?
Maximus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10th September 2007, 02:15 PM   #29
geo
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 327
Default

Ridicolous.
Starboard people: you are the #1 company; you are able to have a huge lineup of successful designs and deliver them all over the world in order to satisfy so many different tastes sailing in so many different conditions; construction is OK; competition shapes prove to be winning races and you are strongly in hold of top places; everybody has to reckon you are the top windsurfing company... so...
So please why don't you make that one more small effort and spare people all this headaches about volume?!? Did a doctor tell you that unveiling/using real volume figures is harmful for you?
geo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10th September 2007, 04:00 PM   #30
Ola_H
TEAM
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,191
Default

I'm a mathematician:
Attached Images
File Type: jpg futura_integral.jpg (3.7 KB, 22 views)
Ola_H is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not 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 03:04 PM.