Go Back   Starboard Forums > Ask Our Team

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 31st August 2009, 08:56 PM   #1
van
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Greece
Posts: 94
Default wood for more control woodcarbon for more lowend performance ????????

Hi guys,

I have been sailing iSonics and Futuras for 4 years now and apart for the straps being too big for me and the space of the straps too wide apart (on the iSonics) I have no complaints to write about as far as performance goes. Having said that, I was reading a thread the other day and came across the above comment (see title). Is that true? I mean the JP boards are the lightest boards on the market and I haven't heard anyone complain about less control. The JP boards weight is amazing. I remember comparing my 2009 futura 93 to a 2009 JP super sport 100 and although I prefered my futura over the super sport when I picked up the JP board my jaw just dropped. The difference in weight was huge. And my board was one size smaller as well.

Lastly can you please confirm that the Futura 93 2010 will not be made in wood carbon (any reason why) and if the red option is still available.
van is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 1st September 2009, 11:58 AM   #2
Ian Fox
STARBOARD
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 532
Default

Hi Van,

The Futuras (and iSonics) can definitely be made lighter in Wood+Carbon tech, which offers an advantage in earlier planing in lighter winds and on flatter water.
What might suprise some people to learn is that in more powered, choppy and rough conditions, the ride of the Wood option is generally the choice of all our testers, and notably faster across rougher water conditions in this range.

This is a function of what we are terming "Dynamic Shape Stability" (see product technology page) ; the board's ability to maintain its shape while sailing. Flying at high speeds over water, the board is subject to distortions in all directions: bending, twisting and compression. This distortion is greatest where you can't see while you're sailing: on the bottom of the board, in the area in front of the fin box. Shape distortions in that area reduce the efficiency of the planing surface.

Accordingly, for 2010, the Wood+Carbon option is offered in the models & sizes lighter winds and bigger boards (ie : calmer conditions use), where this construction will be most effective and/or beneficial to riders.

In smaller boards typically used more often used in higher winds, rougher water and with a strong performance emphasis from "control" (example Futura93), the Wood version has shown to maintain more efficency under higher loads and tested better than Wood+Carbon in real world use. In harsher, rougher conditions, the Wood+Carbon also gave a ride/feel/handling that (in the end) becomes too harsh, too direct and too "chattery" across chop at high speed, whereas the Wood ride provided the ideal mix of crispness plus "damping" of impact across chop, making it not only easier to ride across rough but also potentially faster in these conditions.

For 2010, the Futura range is offered only in blue (yes I agree it's not so good - as I want a new RED one too !)

Cheers ~ Ian
Ian Fox is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 1st September 2009, 10:03 PM   #3
Ray Timm
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 66
Default

I have a Kode 94-09 carbon-wood and my experience riding it in rough water is exactly as Ian says. In lighter winds and smooth water, flat or waves, I like the ride and the feel of the board, but sailing it in overpowered conditions in rough water it is tiring. The ride is too harsh and I find myself backing off on the power to get a respite.
Ray Timm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2nd September 2009, 09:25 AM   #4
davide
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 249
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by van View Post
Hi guys,

The difference in weight was huge. And my board was one size smaller as well.
Van, you might be surprised by how little board weight influences performance. There was an article on Boards UK about a year ago in which they compared identical boards in different constructions (the usual PRO vs STD) and failed to detect ANY difference due to weight for boards below 120L. Do a little experiment: attach 0.5-1-1.5 Kgs to your mast base and see if you can detect any difference (there will be no difference at all if you add weight to the back). In addition: my small CA slalom boards are very light, but I sure would have preferred an extra half-pound of weight and more strength!

Last edited by davide; 2nd September 2009 at 09:30 AM.
davide is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2nd September 2009, 06:09 PM   #5
van
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Greece
Posts: 94
Default

Hi Ian, Ray, Davide

Many thanks for clarifying that although I personally would prefer a lighter board as my experience over the years has shown that lighter boards are more responsive, have a better feal under the feat and of course plane earlier (planning issues of course don't come into play when talking about small boards which will be used in strong winds).

One more question I have for Iain is on a different note. On the iSonics and in particular the 101 which I have had a couple over the years and I think the board just rocks, personally I was never a fan of the square nose but when it was introduced Starboard wrote 'Innovation ! The low, square nose concept allows for an ultra- efficient rocker line that glides effortlessly through chop.' This year I see we have gone back to the normal rounded/pointier nose (which I might add looks great) but what happened to the 'Innovation' part. Has that now gone out the window? Also I have to say again on a personal note, not a big fan of the double winger concept. I understand the logic/theory behind it but Starboard introduced it last year no other company has gone along with it yet and unfortunately the results have not come (of course there are more reasons behind this than the double winger concept). I understand that Starboard has to stick with the concept now that they took the plunge last year but personally I don't think the concept is going to be here to stay and I think it's going to be yet another Innovation/Marketing gimmick which has been and will be gone.
van is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 3rd September 2009, 07:31 PM   #6
Ian Fox
STARBOARD
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 532
Default

Hi Van,

When you look at an overview lineup of the 2010 iSonics, it's easy to consider the square nose is not so prominent this season, but when you look a little closer the differences (while still there) are actually very subtle - especially on sizes 100Lt+.
- if you keep the smaller , narrower and pointier nose smaller iSonics out of view and look at the lineup (range) of 2010 shapes iS101 and larger, it isn't so hard to see the major DNA of that original "cut" (square) nose is still there and working like it did originally.


There were more than a couple of people who were not visual fans of the distinctive square, cut off nose look that featured on the earlier iSonics - most notably those above 100Lt - despite the fact that it was a very functional outline. The newer iSonics above 100Lts have a visual softening (rounding) of the square nose, but in actual area (outline) comparison (if you compare say a template overlay) the functional difference is in area/s is very small - yet many would suggest the visual improvement is great

On the smaller iSonics (both older and newer models ) below 100Lt the squared nose was never really so prominent (yes, we tested a lot , and no, it wasnt so dominant or successful on smaller sizes).

A lot of details that could be assessed as visual can be OK to some, and not so sweet to others. In the case of the iSonics, its very clear to say that the design of these is ALL about performance - and primarily nothing goes into those boards unless we are convinced that it provides the best option available in the current generation design/s. Thats' to say, iSonics's a race/performance design above all else, and an ugly fast board would always be the choice over a beautiful, slow one. Much nicer to have a beautiful, fast one - but you get the idea! (want fast, ugly? Look at 2009 F1 !)

Again on the winger concept, there were a couple of crew on the team who were also not so impressed with the concept - or even considered it could offer advantage. Kev who ? But again, this is one concept (like it or not - and not all of us do visually!) that has been proven in full head to head testing on a number of board versions to be a more competive solution with winger than without - and yes, even those negative to it on our side are now convinced (at least from performance perspective) that the winger gives a better overall result in the current design.
~ Whether it (or any other feature) remains in future development will be governed not by the value of any innovation or marketing claims, but by the results of relentless logical, clear and consistant testing showing whether one design works better than the other. If some of those designs feature new, or unconventional concepts, it should be logical for riders to want to understand why (and how) these features could present some advantage.

Cheers ~ Ian
Ian Fox is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 8th September 2009, 10:12 PM   #7
van
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Greece
Posts: 94
Default

Hi Ian

Thanks for your first class response. I was viewing your iSonic website and realized the photos and the video show a wood carbon 122 iSonic with a square nose. That puzzled me a bit as in 2010 you don't make the 122 iSonic any more, the iSonic 122 wasn't made in wood carbon and the square nose was been dropped. Is there a mistake somewhere there?
van is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 8th September 2009, 11:33 PM   #8
nonopr
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: San Juan, Puerto Rico
Posts: 573
Default

Typical Starboard they update their website every year and they never use the correct photos.
Not one Photo of the Formula, the iSonic or the other boards are final photos.
nonopr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 9th September 2009, 11:36 PM   #9
Floyd
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 459
Red face

From the man with the most useless website in the world !!!!
Whats that all about ????
Floyd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10th September 2009, 02:58 AM   #10
nonopr
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: San Juan, Puerto Rico
Posts: 573
Default

Having information in my website that does not have any purpose in your life does not mean is useless. Thanks Floyd for the Stupid Comment.
nonopr 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 01:59 PM.