Go Back   Starboard Forums > Ask Our Team

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 3rd March 2008, 01:37 PM   #21
Maximus
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 162
Default

We finally had the opportunity to line the ST93 & FU93 up.

Both on RSR 6.7's and 34cm slalom fins.

Wind was approx 18-20 knots ish.

We both sailed our own for a few runs and then swapped. My impression is that the FU93 planes up earlier and therefor acellerates a little quicker. As far a top speed goes, in that wind, there was nothing in it! Any real advantage would come down to rider input. We both felt that the Futura felt a lot more comfortable going through the chop ( at high speed), and was better going upwind.

You can really feel the double flat concept working on the Futura, just sit back a little and it takes off! Once you get used to it, its great fun.

I might be able to put up some footage from that day on Youtube.

Perhaps Old Salty will add his impressions.

Conclussion:

Having ridden the Isonics, Hypers etc - I believe you have 99.5% of the speed potential, however the futura is all about speed, handling & easy gybing, so the complete package for us weekend blasters. Having said that it would have to have solme race potential in choppy waters, and if your gybing wasn't 100% it would have to help there as well.
Maximus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 8th March 2008, 05:05 PM   #22
AlexWind
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 166
Default

Thanks for your accurate review..

So the question are:
- did they do a good board? It seams yes
- did they do a better board? It seams a bit improved in slalom set up (correct me if I'm going wrong..)

Another important aspect to me (even if I love the slalom inprint in s-type..) is: is the Futura as versatyle as the s-type?
I mean skilled rider could even do some tricks, s-type is a superb bump&jump board, and it's acceptable even in small waves..
What about futura? Can a "cut-out dual flat" board have the same "range of use" of its old daddy? :-)
AlexWind is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10th March 2008, 01:24 AM   #23
Screamer
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 433
Default

Maximus
Interesting (ongoing) review you've got there. You and Salty have done a great job, far more useful than usual tests.
I don't agree that F has 99% speed potential of slalom boards (if I understand you correctly). Yes, the uglier the conditions get, the closer it will get to iS. My experience is that in most normal conditions even weekend warriors will be faster on slalom gear (with a bit of commitment).
Screamer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11th March 2008, 11:49 AM   #24
Maximus
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 162
Default

I'm not sure if the futura has the same range of use as 'its old daddy'. Probably one for Ian. Haven ridden both with slalom gear, the Futura defineately retains some of the carve ease of use characteristics. I would guess it would do as good a job in B&J conditions. Infact I have a 5.6 combat and will try it soon and let you know.

Hey Screamer
I should perhaps qualify my comment in regards to the speed potential of the Furura against the Isonic. I am commenting mainly in with the F93 in mind, used in lakes, passages and sloppy onshore conditions. It seems that most of the footage I see of Slalom boards is in offshore conditions, presumably the entire Isonic range is faster in these conditions, however given real world conditions, I guess your faster on what ever your more confortable on.
Maximus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19th March 2008, 08:04 PM   #25
qldsalty
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 33
Default

I agree with Maximus on most of that. It is important to note that it was light wind for that board at 85kgs. I wonder how it be at 5.8 conditions. The big thing that I found a bit different is my toes drop into the bolt holes on that little futura. Each time I gybed and settled in it unsettled me again. After a bit I found I got used to it and gripped the board better going upwind.
Going side by side i couldn't pick which had an advantage in speed. I felt I could get up wind slightly better on the futura and it was a bit smoother in the chop.
I like the domed deck on the Stype better and felt better in the footstraps. Maybe that is because I'm used to it.
Either board in that size would be great. Stypes are a lot cheaper now so it would come down to cash flow.
__________________
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 26th March 2008, 12:55 PM   #26
Ola_H
TEAM
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,191
Default

Cool guys. Keep the feedback coming.
Ola_H is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26th March 2008, 08:20 PM   #27
qldsalty
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 33
Talking

Hi Ola,
That will be the end of that test from me now as I sold the Stype. Ordered a Kombat 96 to get back to waves and B&J. A trip to Western Aust renewed my interest. Unfortunately there are none left in wood. I'll have a long wait now till Aug when the new 9# kombat comes in. I'll set up beside Maxi for sure sometime on that and see how much I get flogged in a straight line. A fair bit I imagine as I'll be on a 6.2 Alpha. No match for the futura and RSR.
__________________
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 26th June 2009, 01:58 AM   #28
Jan
New Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Holland
Posts: 3
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Maximus View Post
I agree, it would be great to know what wind conditions these statements of a 'faster' board were made, along with sail size and rider weight.


Hi Alexwind

What sail sizes/types do you use on it, and how was the speed etc?

As soon as I sail mine with my GPS, I'll give some feedback.

As a point of interest I also have a friend who has the Stype93, same weight and sail exactly, so we will find out as soon as both of us are sailing!
Hi Maximus,
I ordered 2 weeks ago a FU93 model 2008. Same as you have? My board is 240x59,5 and has a tail width of 37,9!? Looks like the specs of the ST93... What are the specs of your board? I thought the FU93 was 237,5x61,5 and a tail width of 40,7.....
Thanks for the respons!
Jan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26th June 2009, 06:52 AM   #29
Maximus
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 162
Default

Yes mine arrived with the ST93 measurements printed on in as well. It was a factory error, if you measure the board yourself, you;ll find it is infact 61.5 wide etc.

Happy sailing is a great board!
Maximus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26th June 2009, 05:55 PM   #30
Jan
New Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Holland
Posts: 3
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Maximus View Post
Yes mine arrived with the ST93 measurements printed on in as well. It was a factory error, if you measure the board yourself, you;ll find it is infact 61.5 wide etc.

Happy sailing is a great board!
Hi,
Of course i measure the board myself. It's actually 59,5 width and one foot of 37,9. Quite a difference with 61,5 and 40... I built my own boards in the past so i know how to measure..
Odd don't you think? My board was the fifth in production (serialnr 07100005). Maybe they start with the old s-type? Strange..
What serialnr does your board have?
Thanks!
Jan 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 11:03 AM.