Go Back   Starboard Forums > Ask Our Team

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 18th August 2007, 10:56 AM   #1
TonyC
New Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 11
Talking ST93 vs Futura 93

You state in your new marketing material that the new Futura will be quicker and more manouvrable than the ST. Does this only apply to the larger boards - looking at the 93 I would have thought the ST93 would be quicker when fully powered than the Futura as the ST93 is narrower in the tail, slimmer outline, less V and in other respects is the same - rocker profile etc. I recently bought a ST93 for blasting, chop jumping etc in flattish water and open ocean - this is more along the lines of what I have previously had in a F2 Axxis 272 several years ago (a very fast controllable board in its day), although the ST93 should be a lot more manouvrable and even faster. Very happy so far with the ST93.

Thanks

Tony
TonyC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22nd August 2007, 04:02 AM   #2
Marko
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 82
Default

I would also like to know a little bit more about futura93 - stype 93 comparison.

Thanks
Marko
Marko is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24th August 2007, 02:53 PM   #3
van
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Greece
Posts: 94
Default

Hi Guys

I Have Sailed The St 93 And Found It Very Impressive. Was Just About To Order One When The 2008 Line Up Came Out. So I'm Also In A Bit Of A Dilemma St93 Or Futura 93. I'm 70 Kg And Will Use The Board For 6.2 Down To 4.7. So The Increased Wind Range Doesn't Really Interest Me As Both Boards Have A 'sweet Spot' In Those Sizes. I Just Want To Go Fast But Also Want To Jump Of Chops When Need Be. Help
van is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24th August 2007, 05:48 PM   #4
Marko
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 82
Default

I would also like to know the real volume of futura 93 (st93 was 99lts) and if it is going to be registered as a ISAF Approved Series Production Slalom/Speed Board (like s-type was)?

Thanks
Marko
Marko is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27th August 2007, 03:13 AM   #5
van
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Greece
Posts: 94
Default

Marko how do you know that the st 93 was actually 99 lts. Do you know off any other discrepancies?
van is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27th August 2007, 03:23 PM   #6
Marko
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 82
Default

It is registered as 99 liter board at ISAF. Here is the link...

http://www.sailing.org/default.asp?PID=13830

I wonder why there is no response from Starboard about futura 93...

Marko
Marko is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28th August 2007, 02:33 AM   #7
van
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Greece
Posts: 94
Default

Thanks Marko - me too
van is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28th August 2007, 03:16 AM   #8
o2bnme
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Maine & North Carolina
Posts: 230
Send a message via AIM to o2bnme Send a message via Yahoo to o2bnme
Default

You have a valid point.

Starboard posts that their board weights are within +/-5%. 99 liters is outside that variance... if my math is correct, it is close to 6.5% above the listed 93 liters.
__________________
Starboard [Gemini, F-Type 148, iSonic 105], AHD [Convert 60, GT Special 73], Windsurfer
Neil Pryde [v8 9.8], Sailworks [Retro 8.0; Hucker 6.6, 5.6, 4.8]


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
o2bnme is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28th August 2007, 12:02 PM   #9
van
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Greece
Posts: 94
Default

I can't believe that the volume of the st 93 is actually 99 liters. I'm actually gobsmacked. I think this is outrageous and totally missleading. The brochure clearly states that the st 93 is 93 ltrs. A friend of mine has bought both the st 93 and the st 104. Think he is going to go crazy when he finds out that he splashed out an extra 1200 euros just for 6 ltrs difference (the st 104 being 105 ltrs). Starboard can defenitely be liable for missrepresentation if this is really the case. I don't see why they can't name the boards with their exact volumes like jp and other brands do. It's not all that complecated to do. I'm not too happy either that my isonic 101 is actually 96 ltrs . I was seriously contemplating on buying an st 93 or futura 93 to complement my other 'so called +100 lts board' but now if really having second thoughts. I know the isonic is a totally different beast but I still think this is outrageous.

ps o2bnme think u are confusing weight with volume buddy
van is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28th August 2007, 12:04 PM   #10
van
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Greece
Posts: 94
Default

and please can someone from the team respond to the above issues.
van 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 03:39 PM.