Carbon Isonics

[Fast]

I was expecting to see carbon Isonics, would be super..

[nonopr]

Originally Posted by Fast

I was expecting to see carbon Isonics, would be super..

Yeah, that is one thing I ever wonder why there are no carbon isonics. Since this is the ultimate slalom and speed machines why not full carbon. Is it the price or is it the durability.
I would love to have a super light weight iSonic in my gun rack 6.5 kilos is too heavy still. The light weight will give the iSonic less swing weight and will be more quicker to react to gust.

[Ola_H]

From what I heard, the carbon protos of the iSonics didn't get lighter than the wood versions, so it was decided to stay with wood.

[geo]

???
Similar volume Kodes, that are supposed to be more jump-worthy than iSonics, show nice lighter weights and about 700 gms. weight advantage for wood carbon: iSonic94 is stated at 6.2 (which is a nice weight for a production slalom board in my view, supposed it's for real), Kode94 woodcarbon at 5.7, Kode94 wood at 6.45. Which leaves one thinking a wood carbon iS94 would be about 5.5. Must be more complicated than just that.

[560]

Hi Ola H,

After test fiSonic in carbon who was ligther, we didn't notice any avantage on water. Carbon is event less confortable and you can't finaly go fast as wood.

Any way the iSonics 2009 will be ligther than the 2008

carbon holds its shape for too long

[frigobox]

Maybe *board keeps a tech surprise for us....? I say this because real slalom boards are the ones that need the most high-tech and light construction...

[geo]

In my view, too much can be too much. Super stiff, super light slalom boards can be excessively demanding to ride for common people.
That said, in my view and experience at least, Starboard slalom boards are a bit behind that line dividing a fast yet comfortable ride from a bone shattering one. As I said, 6.2 (supposed it's for real) is a "nice" weight for a 94 lts. slalom board, but still falls far from the best figures from the competition. My slalom board in that volume range is 5.6 (for real: measured on a scale, actual weight, not a +/- 6% figure), and rides unreproachably comfortable and controllable. Reasons given so far for not introducing lighter woodcarbon iSonics still sound fake.

[LK]

Stupid discussions over and over again. As “560” stated above, there were tested lighter “carbon” iSonics and conclusion was, wood was still faster.
Why not discuss why these stupid other brands can’t figure out that wood construction and a bit more weight in the right parts of a slalom board make the best board.
The board is winning everything for years but it’s not good enough for you Einstein’s.
Last proof, Bjorn in Alacati !!!
“THE BEST FOR THE BEST”, AND “THE BEST FOR THE REST” , is not good enough for you !! ????
Never thought about, that the final result could be a product of INTERACTIONS of the different parameters.

Cheers

[geo]

Originally Posted by LK

Stupid discussions over and over again.

LK,
it seems I need to make my message more clear.

Originally Posted by LK

As “560” stated above, there were tested lighter “carbon” iSonics and conclusion was, wood was still faster.

560 said that, but this does not mean it is true, expecially if, as it seems (had opportunity to test protos and take part in decision making) 560 is somehow related to the brand. What 560 said seems to me a perfect typical statement from a brand representative.

Originally Posted by LK

Why not discuss why these stupid other brands can’t figure out that wood construction and a bit more weight in the right parts of a slalom board make the best board.

Personally, I rode sandwich slalom boards made in different ways: custom, glass, carbon (more and less), nomex, wood... So far in my experience my wood Sonic95 had a nice stiffness but excessive weight (6.6) when compared to about 100 lts. RRD281 (5.6), RRD278 (5.7), old Drops276 in full carbon (5.8) and Nomex (5.3), and today's "brand X" (5.6). In my view and feel, performance of my Sonic95 was affected by excessive weight.
As a consequence, I don't think any extra weight in the right places makes a better board in absolute terms. I think that "right" weight makes a better board, that "right" does not mean necessarily "as low as possible" (my old Drops276 in full carbon rode better than its Nomex version), nor "a bit more is better", and that what is right for AA or BD is not necessarily the best for me and you.

Originally Posted by LK

The board is winning everything for years but it’s not good enough for you Einstein’s.

Starboard is winning everything since long, but this may depend as well by boards' performances or by financial power to afford the best riders. By the way, I refuse to believe that the iSonic I can buy from the shop is just like the ones that KP and AA ride.

Originally Posted by LK

Last proof, Bjorn in Alacati !!!

Bjorn in Alacati won for many reasons, probably some of which are to be found in AA's mistakes.

Originally Posted by LK

“THE BEST FOR THE BEST”, AND “THE BEST FOR THE REST” , is not good enough for you !! ????

Again, AA winning everything on Starboard does not mean the same board is the best for me.

Originally Posted by LK

Never thought about, that the final result could be a product of INTERACTIONS of the different parameters.

Right, I do agree 100%. Always thought about.