Go Back   Starboard Forums > Ask Our Team

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 4th May 2010, 01:21 AM   #21
Ken
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Dallas, Texas USA
Posts: 799
Default

ChrisN,

I don't believe the JP SLW will plane as early as a formula board with the same sail and same sailor. Board width, volume, tail width, stiffness, weight, rail sharpness and fin length determine the planing threshold and the JP doesn't measure up (just guessing since I don't have all the comparable stats). However, the difference will be very small between the boards (1-2 knots?).

If not formula racing, the JP, iS150 or other "high performance" giant slalom board may be the best option for light wind slalom or freeriding. However, the JP will still not point as high or run as deep as a formula board.
__________________
Toys:
Formula 160; iSonic 111; HiFly Move 105; Tiga 263; '85 Mistral Superlight.
Maui Sails TR 11.0; 9.2; 8.4; 7.6; 6.6; Maui Sails Switch 6.0; 5.2; Maui Sails Global 4.5; 4.0.
Ken is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 4th May 2010, 02:40 AM   #22
ChrisN
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 70
Cool

Ken, I think that we all agree

I also believe that the iS150 as well as the JP SLW 90 will not point as well upwind or run downwind as fast as a Formula board, but on reach it will certainly be able to compete.

Yet, given the broader OFO and rounded Square tail of JP's SLW 90, I think that it will plan earlier than the iS150. Moreover, given the lightweight construction variants, it will also be more rigid than the iS150 Wood, so having the potential of planning earlier again.

In summary, unless SB bring other facts /parameters at play, it seems that the JP will beat the iS150 on most of parameters (as outlined in earlier posts and tested in SURF's article). I think we are done...
ChrisN is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 4th May 2010, 02:41 AM   #23
BelSkorpio
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Belgium
Posts: 482
Default

ChrisN,

I go along with Ken.

From what I've heard so far from you, concerning your needs/desires, I still think that the IS150 is your best bet. I think that if only this board would have been made out of WC in stead of W, your choice would have already been made.

You said that you want the "slalom feeling".
Just by looking at the JP SLW and the IS150, I think that you will find it more in the IS150 than in the JP SLW. The jibe will be more pleasant on the IS150 because of its narrower tail and the drag in light chop, when the wind picks up a bit, will be better also because of the shorter length.
If reaching, is all you're interested in, I would go for the IS150

On the other hand if you really want to make sharp pointing angles or go deep, the formula is the best choice.
Again, I dont want to push you into formula, but did you already consider the fact that in light wind conditions when the wind is not too stable, it often varies from 6 to 12 knots (very common with us). In these kind of conditions I'm often adjusting my sailing course in this way that I point when the wind is strong enough (closer to 12 knots) and I go deep when the wind is weaker (closer to 6 knots). I rarely have problems to come back to my starting point with a formula, while I often see other guys blasting on their big slalom equipment, as happy as can be, and then suddenly run into problems to come back, shlogging like a dog.
Just thought I'd mention this as well.
BelSkorpio is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 4th May 2010, 03:53 AM   #24
Ken
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Dallas, Texas USA
Posts: 799
Default

Chris,

You say......."What I then assume is that for my weight (90kgs), advanced sailor (that can waterstart, jibe, pump large sails), on a 62 cm fin on a 11 m2 freerace sail, SB & JP Formula boards will plan from 8 knots while JP's SLW90 from 9 knots and iS150 from 11 knots (given that it is made in WOOD)...".

You are giving the JP a 2 knot advantage over the iS because the 150 is made of wood and the tail shape. I have had three Starboard formula boards and one iS, all wood and they are not the least bit soft or flexible. They are all very rigid with no precipitable flex or softness. I also have a HiFly 105 Move that is carbon and there is no noticeable difference between it and my iS 111.

I think you are buying into the carbon construction hype too much. Most of this is marketing. I would guess that only the top slalom sailors (PWA) could tell the difference between wood and wood/carbon construction, and even then, the additional stiffness may or may not convert to better performance for mortals like us.

I don't know which board would be best for you and the most fun to sail, but I suspect that it has more to do with the shape than carbon or wood.
__________________
Toys:
Formula 160; iSonic 111; HiFly Move 105; Tiga 263; '85 Mistral Superlight.
Maui Sails TR 11.0; 9.2; 8.4; 7.6; 6.6; Maui Sails Switch 6.0; 5.2; Maui Sails Global 4.5; 4.0.
Ken is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 4th May 2010, 03:03 PM   #25
ChrisN
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 70
Cool

Bel, I do agree with your recommendations, that's why I've been asking so many questions that only you folks answered. It is challenging to sail in offshore locations where the chop is heavy out in the sea, while close to shore you end up slogging. Not in love with the Formula boards as I did try a ride one day, and I have to admit it was not fun on the open sea, while it was a dream on flat water close to shore. I probabaly don't have the necessary Formula sailing skills. Further, I am not interested in racing - rather recreational blasting. If only SB made the iS150 on WC then it would be easy. But they do not, so I might be forced to go for the rigid & light HWR WC. That's why I saw an option with the JP

Ken, so what you are saying is that SB's statements on the WC's on "earlier planning" in light winds is all marketing? Yet, I think that tests from SURF showed that people like you and me will "feel" the difference between Wood and Carbon constructions.
As mentioned ALL new Formulas from all manufacturers are in lightweight carbon releases, so there must be a reason or it's just empty words. We as customers do invest a lot of money in our toys; If I am buying the Wood model - why not pay the extra 2-300$ for the carbon model! That's why we requested some sort of justification.

On the Shape, you are spot on! The conversation we have had so far has been very enlightening - no doubt that I should go for a board that is as wide as possible and with a wide tail (i.e. widest OFO/One Foot Off). On OFO, JP SLW90 is 70,1 cm while SB's iS150 is 65,3 cm - compare that to the Formula HWR which is 81,1 cm wide. On Width, the JP is 90 cm, SB iS150 is 93,5 cm - compare that with the HWR's 100,2 cm. Interesting that the iS 150L Wood weights nearly the same as the Formula HWR 162L in WC! So, HWR wins on "shape" followed by the JP and then the iS150...

I found JP's Super Light Wind preview test by PlanceMag from May'10. It is really a blend between the 2 worlds. As Planchemag states (my translation): "The Super Light Wind is longer than Formula boards, which makes the board much more stable in non planing conditions...One can easily gain 1-2 knots in planing compared to a slalom 85 cm ... What one gains compared to the XL slalom in upwind and in wind lulls, it looses on reaching top speed and especially in jibes. Very wide until the rear end, the JP necessitates a jibe of a formula. "

I would very much like to know what SB thinks about this - is iS150 just as good in early planning; they have experimented through the years with wide boards and Formula-like more recreational boards. Moreover, I could imagine that SB will respond with a similar board in 2010/11; we could at least get an indication from them or anyone else...

In the meanwhile, has anyone seen a proper test of iS150?

Regards
Chris
ChrisN is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 4th May 2010, 03:33 PM   #26
agrelon
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 421
Default

Your translation is spot on, Chris It seems they've done quite a good job with the board.

I'm just wondering whether the 8 knots planing ability they claimed was on the stock fin... I think from the photo the board uses a Tuttle box, which may allow you to pimp the board out with a >60cm fin... I don't see how a Powerbox could hold that size...

It will be interesting to see what SB does.... I think the 2011 lines are announced sometime in August.

The marketing manager of NP told me they release their 2011 models on the 15th of August.
__________________
JP Super-X 106l, North F8 Ram: 5.8m,
175cm, 54kg
agrelon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 4th May 2010, 07:01 PM   #27
BelSkorpio
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Belgium
Posts: 482
Default

This is what Rasmussen said in August 2008 about W <-> WC

http://www.star-board.com/forum/show...?t=4305&page=4

That was of course almost 2 years ago.
BelSkorpio is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 4th May 2010, 09:40 PM   #28
Ken
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Dallas, Texas USA
Posts: 799
Default

All this speculation is fun and interesting. The JP looks to be a "mini" formula board and will probably plane earlier than the iS 150, but not because of carbon layup, but because of the wider tail if you go to a longer fin equal to the iS.

On the other hand, the iS is designed to be a giant slalom board that probably is faster and smoother on the reaches (fully powered) and jibes better (as Rasmussen said - wood is faster than carbon).

Carbon has been around for a long time in it's high performance board use, with weight and stiffness being the selling point. No doubt that in light winds, carbon offers some benefit, with the question being - How much? In heavy winds and chop, I speculate that it's just the opposite unless you are a top PWA racer.

For me, my wood iS 111 is fast, but it is a rough ride in chop when the wind goes over 18knots. If someone wanted to trade me an identical carbon model, I would not take it. Anything that would potentially make the ride rougher, I would reject. Speed for me on the iS means control and comfort.
__________________
Toys:
Formula 160; iSonic 111; HiFly Move 105; Tiga 263; '85 Mistral Superlight.
Maui Sails TR 11.0; 9.2; 8.4; 7.6; 6.6; Maui Sails Switch 6.0; 5.2; Maui Sails Global 4.5; 4.0.
Ken is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 5th May 2010, 01:53 AM   #29
ChrisN
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 70
Angry

Quote:
Originally Posted by BelSkorpio View Post
This is what Rasmussen said in August 2008 about W <-> WC

http://www.star-board.com/forum/show...?t=4305&page=4

That was of course almost 2 years ago.
I've never heard of this before, and to hear it from Svein makes it even more puzzling. Reading that "wood is faster than carbon" is really counterintuitive!

If this was true, then all the Formula 1 cars should be using Wood laminates, as well as the SuperG Skis, mountain + racing bikes, tennis bats, as well as BMW Oracle Americas Cup Trimaran, etc. etc. etc. Have you ever tried to compare an SUP Carbon versus a Wood-based paddle? What about windmill wings - are they build out of wood? Wood is fine but we should certainly NOT overblow its potential. As many from that thread remarked, I also feel that Svein's statements sounded too "corporate" and biased - show me the numbers and then I'll listen. I would not be that doubtfull if everyone in the business of sport vessel/equipment manufacturing stood up and confirmed such statements together with independent testers, yet that is NOT the case...

My brother is still writing a PhD on Composite Materials and there is definitely a difference between the geometric properties of wood and for example Nomex honeycomb - an open cell honeycomb material used in the sandwich laminate which delivers a superior high Strength to Weight ratio, perfect for the large surface areas. SB could build 5 protos and then let SURF or other magazines give it a shot and compare performance from a consumer perspective...

Ken, I agree that in high-winds, a smoother ride might be the fastest, but as you write, in light winds, large(r) boards would most probably profit from higher rigidity/ stiffness. If someone doubts that better read about the construction choices in the USA 17/ BMW Oracle 90x90foot trimaran that can plan from 4 knots and sails at nearly 3,5 times the speed of the wind! It's certainly NOT build out of wood. Moreover, even SURF magazine's 2009 material test shows that lightweight constructions plan faster and stay on through lulls longer. The only advantage I've been reading about Wood is its elasticity which in many cases is viewed as a comforting attribute in rough rides, yet have you ever spoken to any downhill skier about "Speed wobble" - no doubts why all of these folks are looking into even stiffer materials!

Why don't we speak more honestly, that the actual problem of lightweight construction is its complicated manufacturing process, which requires improved precision and more expensive machinery. I could imagine that an even stiffer, lighter Formula build on the best materials would be able to carry bigger fins thus bigger sails thus most probably faster. Same for an iS150...

Our conversation here was quite simple, yet we don't get any answers.
ChrisN is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 5th May 2010, 10:02 AM   #30
agrelon
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 421
Default

The SB team seems to have started hibernating... not long ago they were still contributing a lot more to the forum. Anyways, they're probably really busy with something else (maybe a light wind board, haha).

Now I really want to try some formula kit! Imagine the difference for me going from a Futura 93l, smallest board in the freeride range to a Formula. The planing performance would probably come as a huge surprise to me, given what I'm used to

Let's see if I can find some benevolent soul at my local spot willing to give a shot on his.
__________________
JP Super-X 106l, North F8 Ram: 5.8m,
175cm, 54kg
agrelon 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

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Is isonic earlier planner than Futura?? MOP Free Forum 4 8th March 2010 09:01 PM
Go 155/175, which one planes earlier? zion Ask Our Team 1 24th September 2009 07:02 AM
is133 vs. is144 malenki Kevin`s Corner 3 23rd March 2009 02:57 PM
Fin for IS144 AJ Ask Our Team 4 8th January 2008 11:00 PM
iS144 mark h Ask Our Team 1 15th October 2007 06:07 PM


All times are GMT +7. The time now is 11:27 PM.