Go Back   Starboard Forums > Free Forum

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 11th August 2014, 11:22 AM   #1
Unregistered
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Settings Isonic 127

Hi,
This is a response to Pelegrin on the Team forum. I am not a member and can only respond here.

I passed over 30 knot several times on the 2012 Isonic 127 with different set ups.

I used the footstrap positions all the way back. Sometimes in high wind I set the forward straps in forward position to better control the board from flying. However, on flat water all the way back is faster.
I sailed the board with 8.4, 7.6 and 7.0. Set up with the different sails:
8.4: 48cm Boss 4.31 S- , mast foot 3,5cm behind centre
7.6: 48cm (tip reduced 1cm) Drake Ready to Race, mast foot 3cm behind centre
7.0: 46cm Drake Ready to Race DW, mast foot 1cm behind centre

I am heavier than you, 93 kgs, height about 182cm. Keep that in mind when reading the settings above.
Play around with your boom height, length and placement of your harness lines (I use 32"), mast foot location so that you achieve a comfortable and balanced stance.

It is important to get the board up from the water. With this wide board you can really feel the drag every time it drops down and increases the wet surface.
Go slightly downwind and close the gap between the sail and the board.

I would continue testing with the Select fins you have, they should be quick enough.
Should you decide to buy a new one, I can recommend Boss fins for this board. Great upwind performance, great speed and no spin outs.

Good luck.
  Reply With Quote
Old 11th August 2014, 11:28 AM   #2
Unregistered
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Me again.
Important to add that the 48 cm Drake Ready to Race fin also suits this board very well.
The DW fin seemed to be slightly faster, but on this board I struggled to get good upwind performance (guess it is all the the name of the fin he he). However, with the 7.0 sail the DW fin worked fine as this small sail did not need that much lift.
  Reply With Quote
Old 11th August 2014, 06:27 PM   #3
Pelegrin
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 54
Default

I really would like to ThankYou a lot for giving me all this specific experience of Yours!!! Perfect! I promise to take all in and as You mentioned notice the difference i weight��!
Pelegrin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25th August 2014, 08:31 PM   #4
Unregistered
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Hi Pelegrin,
Any chance to test any of the settings ?
  Reply With Quote
Old 27th August 2014, 01:27 PM   #5
Unregistered
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Hi, I have a 2012 Is137. Whilst on holiday in Spain, I used the board most days for 3 weeks, often in conditions when I would normally be using my Is110, which self destructed early on in the holiday

Height 173cm, weight 88kg

Location Golf de Roses (large chop and small waves) wind 11 to 22 kts

I used the board with North WARP F2013 9.6, 8.6 and 7.8

I used a Select S12 47cm and Select VMAX 49cm

Board was setup with rear straps at back, front straps second position from back

With the 9.6 the board was perfect with the mast track 1cm back from centre, I used the Select VMAX 49 cm, but felt that a 52cm would have been better on light wind days. I was planing well in 11kts of wind - it was a great experience being one of the earliest to be planing. As the wind increased, the board was better with the track moved back another cm - on my GPS, I was getting to 27.5kts with the 9.6

With the 8.6 I still used the VMAX 49cm, I used this combination twice when it was really gusty very light in the lulls and I could have been using a 7.0 in the gusts. Mast track was best somewhere between centre and 1cm back. I was "fun racing" against a Fanatic Falcon 122 with a Warp 7.8 - at the top end there was no speed difference (the Falcon 122 possibly had a small advantage), however, through the gybes the Is137 with 8.6 was consistently faster, and I would gain at least 20m each time - even in the gusts I maintained a significant gybing advantage.

I only used the 7.8 once, I used the 49cm VMAX and 47cm S12, but the VMAX was way better. I didn't feel over finned, whilst the S12 I was spinning out on tight reaches or whilst sailing upwind. I played around with the mast track, ultimately I felt that it was best in the centre position with the 49cm VMAX and 2cm back with the 47cm S12

The biggest surprise was the 7.8m - I was fully maxed out, and should really have been sailing the Is87 with a 7.0m; My Is110 was perfect until it fell apart - I really couldn't be bothered to rig a different sail and the Is137 was ready to go, so I thought that I would give it a try with the 7.8. The Is137 was unbelievable - really big chop and waves roughly 50cm high. Lots of fun racing against guys with 7.8m sails and 100L to 110L slalom boards. Sailing into the chop, the IS137 was possibly quicker than smaller slalom boards, it seemed to float from crest to crest more effectively, riding the waves back the smaller boards were quicker, however, the Is137 was fast enough to defend a position - around the gybes the Is137 was unbeatable, anything I lost on the reaches I gained double on the gybes.... the only issue was needing to plan the gybe well ahead, on the Is110 you spot a wave and gybe instantly onto it, with the 137 you need to spot the wave, bear away then gybe as hard as possible onto the wave (the board doesn't do tight turns). get it wrong and the wave goes under you before the turn is complete
  Reply With Quote
Old 27th August 2014, 01:34 PM   #6
mcross19
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: UK
Posts: 233
Default

Hi unregistered, interesting report, can you tell us more on is110 destruction? Where did it break, what year it was?
__________________
2011 Neil Pryde Atlas 4.2, Fusion 4.9, 5.5, 6.1, 2015 Ryde 7.5m, 2014 Severne Overdrives 7.0, 7.8, 8.6 & 9.5

2015 Starboard Kode 86L Freewave, 2011 RRD 101 FSW, 2013 Fanatic Skate 109L, 2014 Starboard isonic 110, 2014 Starboard AtomIQ 110 & 2014 Starboard Ultrasonic 147
mcross19 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28th August 2014, 06:51 AM   #7
Unregistered
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Hi, to be fair to SB, I would like to deal with them first to resolve the issue. However, it looks like a quality control issue with the foam blank rather than an issue with the design or construction of the board - since SB use a third party to manufacture their boards (who also manufacture for most other brands), it is not a problem relating to SB or to the IS110 specifically.

I will report how good SB customer service is when dealing with the problem
  Reply With Quote
Old 28th August 2014, 10:55 AM   #8
mcross19
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: UK
Posts: 233
Default

So you cannot even say what part of the board broke? did it snap in half or just crack? Pictures??

I had an issue with the rear holes being out of line on my isonic 110, I am talking 10mm out from where they should have been, so much for super accurate cnc machines, probably done on a friday afternoon after a trip to the pub! haha
__________________
2011 Neil Pryde Atlas 4.2, Fusion 4.9, 5.5, 6.1, 2015 Ryde 7.5m, 2014 Severne Overdrives 7.0, 7.8, 8.6 & 9.5

2015 Starboard Kode 86L Freewave, 2011 RRD 101 FSW, 2013 Fanatic Skate 109L, 2014 Starboard isonic 110, 2014 Starboard AtomIQ 110 & 2014 Starboard Ultrasonic 147
mcross19 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29th August 2014, 09:01 AM   #9
mattsurf
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Strangely the rear holes fin holes on my board are about 3mm out of line

The foam blank had a defect, which extended down the left side of the deck from an area close to the mast track to an area between the rear straps. It looks like the factory knew about this as epoxy had been injected into it at 30cm intervals. This was not easilly spotted by looking at the board.

Whilst out sailing, a large section of the deck collapsed (roughly 30cm X 30cm) between the front an rear straps and a section of deck cracked along 10cm all the way, leaving a 5mm gap through to the foam exposed

Earlier this year, I had an issue with a section of the board above the rail, close to the mast track. At the time I assumed that it was impact damage from slalom training, however, it appears to be in the same area as the problem with the foam, so I suspect that its strength was significantly reduced

As the problem arouse a couple of days into a 24 day Holiday, I had the board repaired (I contacted Remi first and the UK supplier to confirm that this would be OK, and took lots of pictures). The Golf De Rosas is ideally suited to the Is110 with force 5 thermal winds daily. The Is137 was great as a stop gap, but the Is110 is much more fun and the gap between the Is137 and Is87 is too big. Also the Is110 is one of my all time favourite boards

The guy who repaired it gave me a section that he had taken out which shows pretty clearly what the issue is.

If you want to check if your board may have a similar issue, have a close look to see if you have small holes drilled at 30cm intervals. On my board there were 5 down the left side, they were very well hidden in the graphics and painted to match the graphics really well, as the board has aged, the white paint used has discoloured slightly making identification easier. The holes were done prior to non slip being applied which indicates that it was done in the factory

The board is now repaired and water tight (at significant cost), however, there is a fundamental underlying issue with the foam, which is likely to resurface. Also the board took in quite a bit of water, as the crack was very big and right through to the foam - I spent alot of time drying it out, however, in my experience, once you get significant water into a board it can never be completely dried

I should stress that I don't see this as problem related specifically to SB, it is clearly a manufacturing quality issue. However, I do expect SB to help to resolve the situation
  Reply With Quote
Old 1st September 2014, 08:38 AM   #10
mcross19
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: UK
Posts: 233
Default

Thanks Matt for the detailed report, I will check my board later but don't remember seeing any blemishes down the left or right side where holes could have been drilled, filled and painted. So this problem of the holes being out is not a one off then? Was it the right rear set that were out? The replacement board also had holes 2-3mm out of position, same set of holes, its obvioulsy a wrongly programmed CNC machine for this model.

I suppose the factory didnt want to just throw the board away and so tried to make good when it really should have gone in the bin. I work for a large car maker and if one of the cars recieves a dent then they just fill it or hammer it out and then fill it if its really bad!
__________________
2011 Neil Pryde Atlas 4.2, Fusion 4.9, 5.5, 6.1, 2015 Ryde 7.5m, 2014 Severne Overdrives 7.0, 7.8, 8.6 & 9.5

2015 Starboard Kode 86L Freewave, 2011 RRD 101 FSW, 2013 Fanatic Skate 109L, 2014 Starboard isonic 110, 2014 Starboard AtomIQ 110 & 2014 Starboard Ultrasonic 147
mcross19 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

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Settings - iSonic 127 Pelegrin Ask Our Team 19 6th September 2014 08:02 AM
Overdrive settings MOP Ask Our Team 1 9th June 2012 09:23 PM
isonic 122 (09) + 8.4 -> settings maetpad Kevin`s Corner 3 28th June 2010 09:49 PM
help with Kode 86 settings Cuesta Ask Our Team 1 17th November 2008 04:06 PM
early planing settings for iSonic 135 tiki171081 Ask Our Team 3 25th October 2006 08:33 PM


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