Old 17th August 2008, 08:20 PM   #11
LK
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 104
Default

Dear Geo, most content in your post #8, is in line with my post, so is a good part of your last post. So whats the problem you actually agree in almost everything I write.

"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"

This is just what I say. If the actual weight distribution and total weight is the best, so why change it.
If someone wants to buy a lighter carbon board which sails worth than a heavyer iSonic so let them do it.

I have spoken with testriders personally, so I know "560" is spot on.



Cheers
:-))
LK is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18th August 2008, 01:19 AM   #12
Ola_H
TEAM
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,191
Default

Well, I think Björns recent results on iSonics and maybe even more the fact that he choose to race on iSonics instead of his sponsor brands board says a lot. Together with Antoines results and what KP is doing I think we can safely say the boards are very very fast. Fast enough to win. And if prototype testing shows carbon boards are not faster, why would anyone want to pay more for a non-upgrade in performance?
Ola_H is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18th August 2008, 08:53 AM   #13
steveC
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 639
Default

Just curious, are the carbon iSonics full carbon layups top and bottom, or are they a combination of partial carbon fabrics and wood integrated together? Often the amount of carbon used in boards in years past has been a long way from full carbon layups, and as a result, claims could literally be considered to be almost false advertising. Full carbon layups top and bottom, to include practical carbon re-enforcements, are arguably the stiffest/lightest construction available, and that doesn't necessarily mean that the ride is unfriendly and rough. I'm not inferring that Starboard is offering less than the real thing, but I'm thinking that the the carbon thing needs to be properly characterized and referenced to have real meaning.
steveC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18th August 2008, 10:14 AM   #14
Unregistered
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Smile

I own a Carbon board(well thats what it's marketed as) and have also spent some time on a *board isonic86.
The 86 is a great board "but" i like the crispness of my carbon board it feels lighter under foot in saying that when the conditions get really rough the 86 gave a more forgiving ride.

Starboard should market a complete wood setup...Board...teak boom...teak mast....and wooden fin
  Reply With Quote
Old 18th August 2008, 01:07 PM   #15
geo
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 327
Default

LK,
it's not strange that we agree on obvious concepts.
Where our views differ is in your faith in Starboard proposing the best possible construction; despite the obvious facts that the competition proposes lighter boards with larger use of carbon laminates and wood technology being readily available to them by the very same manufacturing facility.
My view insted is that Starboard's slalom boards are .5 - 1 kg heavier than optimal, or at least those available to common customers are.
Please, please, please, open your eyes, what top heavyweight pro riders like AA or BD successfully ride in competition means just nothing to us common mortals! They will use their 'given size' boards and sails in conditions that are at least 5 or 10 knots more than those we would be riding a similar kit in! They use in 20 or 25 knots the same kit we would be using in 15, and in 30 knots the kit we'd be using in 20! This is the same as saying they are on completely different boards. Even provided the iSonics they ride are actually comparable to those we can actually buy.

Last edited by geo; 18th August 2008 at 02:03 PM.
geo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18th August 2008, 03:54 PM   #16
Unregistered
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by geo View Post

...My view insted is that Starboard's slalom boards are .5 - 1 kg heavier than optimal, or at least those available to common customers are...

Debating about performance differences because a board is heavier of 0.5 - 1 kg than another is just a foolishness !!!
  Reply With Quote
Old 18th August 2008, 05:02 PM   #17
viking
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Thailand, France
Posts: 148
Default

"why would anyone want to pay more for a non-upgrade in performance?"

There is something I do not understand. What is the purpose of this carbon line if you admit that it does not bring any upgarde in performance?

Anyway, the answer to your question is easy: it is called marketing!
viking is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18th August 2008, 05:12 PM   #18
geo
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 327
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Unregistered View Post
Debating about performance differences because a board is heavier of 0.5 - 1 kg than another is just a foolishness !!!
Tell this to the brands offering those 0.7 kg lighter WoodCarbon boards...

Last edited by geo; 18th August 2008 at 05:18 PM.
geo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18th August 2008, 06:57 PM   #19
ACE
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Ive looked at some of the other brands that use full Carbon Sandwich construction and dont really see much difference in weight compare to the Isonics ,at most it was 0.4 difference which is bugger all really, some brands are actually heavier eg Exocet even with there new full carbon range boards. I perfer having a board that is 0.4 heavier than replacing a board every season IMO.
  Reply With Quote
Old 18th August 2008, 07:32 PM   #20
Ola_H
TEAM
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,191
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by viking View Post
"why would anyone want to pay more for a non-upgrade in performance?"

There is something I do not understand. What is the purpose of this carbon line if you admit that it does not bring any upgarde in performance?

Anyway, the answer to your question is easy: it is called marketing!
Because in slalom racing, its largely about measurable performance. If tests show carbon is not faster, then it isn't better either, despite that light always _feel_ nice.

But in wave and freestyle boards some other things come into play. Also here, to some degree have the deceiving feel that it must be better if it feels lighter. But you also move the board around much, much more in off the lips, cutbacks, some jumps and in most freestyle tricks. Here board weight will matter more, but it is not measurable as easily. And even in manoeuvres, some of the difference will inevitably be psychological.
Ola_H 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


All times are GMT +7. The time now is 07:19 AM.