Go Back   Starboard Forums > Free Forum

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 23rd September 2008, 08:58 AM   #11
nonopr
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: San Juan, Puerto Rico
Posts: 573
Default

I will assume this is for speed trials right? I use 34 with 6.3 but with a very narrow cord.
nonopr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23rd September 2008, 10:26 AM   #12
Tiesda You
Dream Team Designer
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 38
Default

Hi Geo,

It's not only about the relationship between the max width and the tail width but also about the relationship between the maximum width of the planing surface and the tail width. The widest point of the planing surface is where the water first meets the board, typically just behind the front straps.

When we design and test the boards, we find that boards tend to be more efficient when we have a relatively wide width there, where the water meets the board, and a relatively narrow width in the tail (but still wide enough to generate plenty of overtaking and accelerating power).

Back in 2008, the boards evolved along this concept but we kept the lines clean. For 2009, to push that concept further, we had to use sharp transitions (i.e. wingers) and nevermind the looks, to really get the numbers we needed. To be honest, these wingers also give the board more release - it's just an impression but the boards to feel like they are less draggy with more release.

Come to think of it, I guess we should try to make boards that have their maximum overall width at the front footstraps. Mmm, back to the shaping room then.
Tiesda You is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23rd September 2008, 04:14 PM   #13
Chris Pressler
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: AUSTRIA, Lake Neusiedler
Posts: 314
Default

Hi unregistered,
I would stay with both sailsizes on 36. But try the 32 out. Perhaps better to invest in a 38 for the 7,3.
Enjoy riding the iSonic 101,
Chris
__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Chris Pressler is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23rd September 2008, 04:48 PM   #14
nonopr
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: San Juan, Puerto Rico
Posts: 573
Default Wingers

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tiesda You View Post
Hi Geo,

It's not only about the relationship between the max width and the tail width but also about the relationship between the maximum width of the planing surface and the tail width. The widest point of the planing surface is where the water first meets the board, typically just behind the front straps.

When we design and test the boards, we find that boards tend to be more efficient when we have a relatively wide width there, where the water meets the board, and a relatively narrow width in the tail (but still wide enough to generate plenty of overtaking and accelerating power).

Back in 2008, the boards evolved along this concept but we kept the lines clean. For 2009, to push that concept further, we had to use sharp transitions (i.e. wingers) and nevermind the looks, to really get the numbers we needed. To be honest, these wingers also give the board more release - it's just an impression but the boards to feel like they are less draggy with more release.

Come to think of it, I guess we should try to make boards that have their maximum overall width at the front footstraps. Mmm, back to the shaping room then.
Tiesda: In 1990 my shaper at that time used the wingers in one of my boards, but after testing and testing we figure that they did not do anything to the speed of the board, nor made better the starting planning speed and on the other side made worst to be able to jive smoothly. He was aleways trying to innovate in some way. At the end I ended using the same board with out any wingers. After that I change shapers and became a Mike's Lab fanatic until recent years that Starboard introduced the short nose boards with a cobination of great speed and control, making the boards feel and be faster, but until this day we still used for windy and choppy conditions a longer nose board, why we havent been able to produce a board that is in control in this kind of conditions. Looks like we still use shaped from the 80's and 90's for this conditions.???
nonopr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23rd September 2008, 06:44 PM   #15
geo
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 327
Default

Tiesda,
nothing, really nothing, in the iSonic's outline makes one think that a sharp transition such as a winger is needed in order to have such width variation between front and back straps. Point is, iSonics have relatively wide tails, so you could easily have the needed width variation just adopting an outline taper similar to those of other boards.
As an example, comparing with another brand designs whose measures are available on the web:
iSonic76, max width 550, tail width 374; CA SL 55, max width 550, tail width 344;
iSonic111, max width 685, tail width 499; CA SL 70, max width 700, tail width 472.
I am sure similar comparisons hold with most other brands' designs. So, marketing still is my best guess for those wingers' reason...

In my view, iSonics' real design advantage is in the extreme "low nose" design, and I see that more and more other shapers are going that direction. As for the rest, I have to disagree. Most of all about the idea of iSonics being "high efficient" designs. I'd rather call those "high power": cutouts and tail wingers keep tail wetted surface relatively narrow, despite wide overall tails provide huge back foot leverage that allows use of large fins. In the end, it seems to me that iSonics let one use large sails and keep those locked in easier, and raise tall over water thanks to big fin lift, but at the expense of muscular fatigue: no surprise they are so popular among racers. But in my view wide bodies and complicated tail designs are no allies for efficiency: clean shapes, straight tail rockerlines and sharp rails are.
By the way: funny, I used to think that "the widest point of the planing surface", "where the water first meets the board", was NOT "typically just behind the front straps", but rather just in front of the back straps... and I am sure Ian will agree...
geo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24th September 2008, 12:32 AM   #16
Ola_H
TEAM
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,191
Default

Maybe you'll believe Kevin Pritchard (who is rather free spoken when it comes to gear)

"Well for me I went down to Thailand and tested out the new Double Wingers. I hated the idea of them, because I always like the old school classic shapes, but in every board we tried they were faster with then on there. Again and again we tested them over and over and in every board every size the boards were faster. "

http://www.star-board.com/forum/showthread.php?t=4344
Ola_H is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24th September 2008, 12:43 AM   #17
Unregistered
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Sailed Carbon Art Slalom, compared with Starboard Isonic. If I look to the design the Carbon Art is a bit traditional design, starboard the new 'trend'.

The Carbon Art has more lenght, and is REALLY THICK. Combined with sharp rail, and no tailkick. What is happening with this board when you send it downwind in (1m??) chop, good power in sail, it breaks automatic. In my believing the board hit that brake a bit to early for most conditions. The thick tail combined with no tailkick give less freedom to kick the board over the edge. Personally I don't like this, I try to release the board between the front/rear strap, but flat water/ backside of waves just are BREAKING. When I go about 32kn on the CA it is over, I am pushing really a lot with my backfoot, while I know on another board I can take that load away... Also the masttrack is a bit much forward... Giving some problems if you like Deeep-downwind.

Yes I also managed speeds above 35kn, but *board is already at the next mark. (CA has slower acceleration)

The Starboard Isonic... Speeds are about the same, BUT this board has just a little mode to get to that edge, and those very fast sailors can FLY. Yes this is POWER SAILING, but the CA will never get to this point. Only thing that would make me sail CA is the precision... Saw a Isonic 2009 with on right side a concave, and left it was flat...

I haven't sailed the newest *board, but when I win a lottery I will definitly buy a few *boards to replace my current boards. The Isonic revolution is really good.

However I believe some Amateur sailors could really like the Carbon Art... most like a board with a BIG limiter in looseness and that is the CA. People that sail completly neutral... WON't be surprised.

@geo, tail(width) is not the limiter, broader tails accelerate faster. When possible to release the board further back, topspeed is higher than you can imagen. The new wingers will give that topspeed.
  Reply With Quote
Old 24th September 2008, 01:09 PM   #18
geo
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 327
Default

Ola,
no need... I don't dispute new iSonics are "better" than old ones, what I am saying is just that it's not necessarily in the wingers, meaning that wingers is just one possible means to change the outline. I'd easier understand the enhanced performances come from some subtle rockerline refinement. By the way: it all started from the successful and proficient Sonic100, was it '04? Then new models added more and more performances, each new release was "clearly faster" than the previous... so, since old Sonic100 are still capable of close to 40 knots, I expect '09 slalom boards (in the same size class) to make 45+.

Unregistered,
not disputing CA vs. iSonic qualities. By sure iSonics are among the most successful racing boards ever. No need for me, or you, to confirm that.
Not clear to me your ideas about CA's ride. By the way, CA's happen to have rockerline measures very close to those of iSonics, only maybe a tad lower up to the 120 cms. measure and slightly more towards the nose. Both have no kick. Tail thickness means nothing when you're flying, as the volume is completely out of the water. So what you experienced must not be in any of those. In my experience, when I ride my SL58 nicely powered, I see it's flying over the very last few inches of the tail, right under my back foot, keeping a nice level trim and never touching water between the straps. Yes of course I push the back foot then, because under my back foot is the ONLY place where the board touches water, but it's almost only vertical force. If you are talking about "pushing the fin", or applying lateral force with your back foot, then maybe you have tried the board with a very bad fin! I am using mostly Falcons on my SL58, and those just can't take any push on them, as anybody having tested one will confirm.
What surprised me the most is that I am able to do so, to ride that way, very easily and in sea conditions I'd never even dream to use a slalom board in before then, so much controllable the board is.
Can't tell about accelleration. Of course, wider tail iSonics can carry larger fins and push more powerfully at slow speeds and out of a jibe. I suspect those same large fins should act as limiters at higher speeds, and this is what I felt when sailing one. CA's sharp rail release lets one use smaller fins, in my view. I also found my CA is so easy to jibe, carries such high speed through the jibe and don't need that much power to accellerate out of it, as it comes out very fast already. Such designs are SO MUCH different. But, in my view, if you felt CA as having a "a BIG limiter in looseness", boy! your board must have been affected by some very serious hull damage, or maybe was fitted with some ugly fin, or just was "something else" with CA stickers on it!
For what I know, I can guess that a big fit top racer in a slalom race with marks close together might prefer an iSonic with larger sail and fin, while a less fit sailor with a more normal body frame and racing with marks far apart might prefer a CA: maybe. Oh but racing results by old man PMcG in Kanaha, no matter who he is sailing against be it local sailors or PWA pros, seem to tell a different story... pity, CA's small budget can't afford PWA sponsorship, so we will not see a direct comparison. As for me, by sure, when freesailing and aiming just at fun, doing those long reaches at full speed without any marks at all, CA is so much fast, fun, comfortable and nice to sail. I will not compare this to my experiences with other boards here, but my choice is obvious.
One more thing: now you have the burden to explain me how those wingers, placed up front, just behind the front straps, may have any influence on top speed...

Last edited by geo; 24th September 2008 at 01:35 PM.
geo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24th September 2008, 02:33 PM   #19
Tjabo
New Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 16
Default

(sorry for stealing the thread) Geo, which Falcon sizes do you use for your SL58 - 30-34?
Tjabo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24th September 2008, 03:01 PM   #20
geo
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 327
Default

32 with 6.3 TR-4, 34 with 7.0.
34 is OK for well powered up 7.0 but a bit small for 7.0 in lighter winds, so I am going to get a 36 too.
32 seems to me just perfect for 6.3: I did not even experience the usually reported upwind limitations with that combo, I can just head up in whatever (reasonable) direction, still have perfect control in fast overpowered downwind. 30 is probably OK with a 5.9 at the extreme boundaries of the board's range, or for serious speed sailing in smoother waters.

Last edited by geo; 24th September 2008 at 03:22 PM.
geo 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 03:50 PM.