Forums > Windsurfing Gear Reviews

Starboard iSonic 2014

Reply
Created by sausage > 9 months ago, 22 Jul 2013
sausage
QLD, 4781 posts
22 Jul 2013 12:54PM
Thumbs Up

Extract from the SB catalogue posted in other thread. Looking good.....
chinookleucate.files.wordpress.com/2013/07/2014_starboard_catalog.pdf




I know I should let it go but their admission brought a wry smile to my face regarding weakness at the wingers on previous models "Secondary wingers are closed off on the deck side, eliminating the full step that can crack under exceptional stress" (yeah like hitting a fish )

Magnus8
QLD, 353 posts
22 Jul 2013 3:03PM
Thumbs Up

Good point Sausage.

How about everything getting wider again?? The I97 now 65.5 that's getting a bit wide on the hips for a 97L. I thought at 63.5 was about spot on, perhaps the tail could have lost a bit, which they have done....

sausage
QLD, 4781 posts
22 Jul 2013 4:46PM
Thumbs Up

Select to expand quote
Magnus8 said..

Good point Sausage.

How about everything getting wider again?? The I97 now 65.5 that's getting a bit wide on the hips for a 97L. I thought at 63.5 was about spot on, perhaps the tail could have lost a bit, which they have done....



Yeah the iS90 is now 63cm wide - only half a cm less than the 2012-13 iS97. Sailing in open ocean I'd prefer to have more volume in a narrower board rather than vice versa i.e. I'd be happy with a 60cm wide 95-99litre board (old school, I know )

vando
QLD, 3400 posts
22 Jul 2013 6:20PM
Thumbs Up

I was tossing up 90 or 97 but ended up with the 97, just love the 97 with the 7m.




Magnus8
QLD, 353 posts
22 Jul 2013 7:05PM
Thumbs Up

Select to expand quote
vando said..

I was tossing up 90 or 97 but ended up with the 97, just love the 97 with the 7m.






Agree, seems to be the kit I reach for every time. Does it all really.

Waiting4wind
NSW, 1822 posts
22 Jul 2013 7:21PM
Thumbs Up

I was looking at the specs and also noticed the width. They're not super short so they must be thin!

I'm looking at a new board in the 6.2 to 7.2m sail range, so I thought the 90 would have been a good option? Let me know how u go with the 97 Vando.

ULF
QLD, 244 posts
22 Jul 2013 8:54PM
Thumbs Up

Select to expand quote
Magnus8 said..

vando said..

I was tossing up 90 or 97 but ended up with the 97, just love the 97 with the 7m.






Agree, seems to be the kit I reach for every time. Does it all really.


It's the only kit you have LOL

firiebob
WA, 2842 posts
22 Jul 2013 7:41PM
Thumbs Up

Select to expand quote
sausage said..
I'd be happy with a 60cm wide 95-99litre board (old school, I know )


Snags I should have given you a go on my Carbon Art SL58, 95L and 58 wide

I also don't like wide boards but we seem to be swimming against the tide. My ex 111L Futura was a good board but I hated the width at 68, a 97L at 65.5

I guess it's a case of getting used to it but what is the advantage of wider, they say wider wind range and faster but speed boards are narrow. Does wider mean larger sail bigger fin, if so, the 65cm would be used as that width was before, but with less volume, am I making sense

Snags I'm surprised your looking at a SB catalogue, just saying

vando
QLD, 3400 posts
22 Jul 2013 10:05PM
Thumbs Up

Hey Bob maybe you should have had ago of my 80wide up at green now that's wide

shear tip
NSW, 1123 posts
22 Jul 2013 10:26PM
Thumbs Up

Don't forget, this is Starboard - iSonics are model numbers, not volume. My 2012 is90 is actually 94 litres (and 59.8 cm wide) It's a great size, but my old CA SL58 was just a little better (98l and 58cm)

Measured volumes can be found here:
www.sailing.org/tools/documents/ISAFListSlalom-[8370].pdf

Magnus8
QLD, 353 posts
22 Jul 2013 10:34PM
Thumbs Up

Select to expand quote
ULF said..

Magnus8 said..

vando said..

I was tossing up 90 or 97 but ended up with the 97, just love the 97 with the 7m.






Agree, seems to be the kit I reach for every time. Does it all really.


It's the only kit you have LOL


For a good reason

Toody
QLD, 73 posts
23 Jul 2013 10:41PM
Thumbs Up

"I guess it's a case of getting used to it but what is the advantage of wider, they say wider wind range and faster but speed boards are narrow. Does wider mean larger sail bigger fin, if so, the 65cm would be used as that width was before, but with less volume, am I making sense "

Isonics are built for slalom racing... so they have to be super quick in a range of conditions, but also need quick acceleration to plane and be able to carry speed through the gybes and I think thats where the extra width in the tail really helps - To win races.
Speed boards just need to go fast straight...

After this Hr session I had with Benny when we were both pushing pretty hard I really think the extra tail width my board had over his made a big difference, take a close look at bennys tracks exiting the gybes compared to mine.

gpsteamchallenge.com.au/sailor_session/show?team=20&date=2013-07-10

The 30 Volt I stole off him may have helped slightly to but Im putting it down to tail width.

I just had 5 new boards come in for GI so holding off on the new Isonics till we move some of the fleet on.
First real session on a pure freestlye board today, gotta say it was a load of fun!!

firiebob
WA, 2842 posts
24 Jul 2013 7:42AM
Thumbs Up

Thanks for that Toody, I was thinking the same after I posted, slalom boards are made for slalom racing, flat out with a few corners thrown in. I guess that's not what I do, I just cruise around the ocean with lots of downwinders, and maybe why I don't need a wide board

Ian K
NSW, 2820 posts
24 Jul 2013 5:16PM
Thumbs Up

You're all so volume-orientated saying "What's the advantage of width". I say what's the advantage of volume? My retired Falcon 110 (virtual volume) 72 cm wide, was registered for slalom racing as 96 litres. And even that was optimistic, it's a pretzel, it felt like 90 litres when the wind stopped. At all other times it felt like it was 72 wide.

firiebob
WA, 2842 posts
24 Jul 2013 3:28PM
Thumbs Up

When I sail my 58 wide board it feels like it's 58 wide, when the wind drops it feels like it's 95L, I guess cos it is

vando
QLD, 3400 posts
24 Jul 2013 10:10PM
Thumbs Up

Volume over rated It the width that gets you planing.
Bob its great going off the wind with a narrow board but don’t you have to come back .
It really depends on what type of sailing you do but I think generally most people sail across and back again and might do the odd bear off. I think the wide style boards does this very well.
gps has change this abit but for me i still like a good old drag race
my 2 cents

firiebob
WA, 2842 posts
25 Jul 2013 12:22PM
Thumbs Up

I think we're digressed from Snags OP

I seem to get back up wind as well as anyone and I don't even have those dangly things hanging off my boom that everyone keeps telling me I need

When you're a fit young man like me you just need a couple of pumps to get going, I need a little volume for when the wind switches off like yesterday. There I was as happy as could be zipping around when the wind buggered off with me about a K off shore. Ended up with board under water, a foot either side of the base and with more moves on the dance floor than John Travolta, trying to stay vertical for the long fight back to shore

I know the new wide style must have merit, as most production boards are like that, I'm just an old worn out bugger stuck in my ways, ignorance is bliss

And yep nothing beats a good old drag race, that's one of the GPS downsides, one of my best recent sails at Green Island was when it wasn't howling and the tide was wrong, guess what we sailed around together having fun, who would have thought of that

sausage
QLD, 4781 posts
25 Jul 2013 3:12PM
Thumbs Up

No problems Firie - the discussion narrow vs wide is very relevant.

Don't get me wrong I love everything a wide board offers in moderate conditions e.g. getting up on the plane, planing easily through gybes etc but sailing where I do, once conditions become favourable for a sub 100litre board and <7.0m sail, the extra width can make handling problematic. That said the 63.5cm wide iS97 performs brilliantly in the slop although at times I wish it could be just that bit narrower (60cm like an iS90). So if I was to get an iS90 2014 model I'd have two boards the same width but with different volumes.

Even though the width is really the critical factor as Vando mentioned, I'll be interested to see the actual volumes of the 2014 iS models on the ISAF board register - they may not have changed at all though since the boards are noted as being skinnier. What I'm trying to say is that it'll be interesting if SB's increased width effects how people select their quiver from 2013 to 2014 models.

Select to expand quote
firiebob said..

Snags I'm surprised your looking at a SB catalogue, just saying


Firie, past experiences still hasn't dampened my love affair with the iSonics



vando
QLD, 3400 posts
25 Jul 2013 9:38PM
Thumbs Up

Select to expand quote
firiebob said..

And yep nothing beats a good old drag race, that's one of the GPS downsides, one of my best recent sails at Green Island was when it wasn't howling and the tide was wrong, guess what we sailed around together having fun, who would have thought of that


Yer Bob sometimes we forget to just go out and have fun




mark62
278 posts
26 Jul 2013 7:48AM
Thumbs Up

Not wanting to sound like an arse here, but I reckon the extra 2cm average width will be hard to tell for most. The max width to OFO tail width ratio is totally new for 2013.

If we look at the iS97 for example, although the max width has increased by 2cm, the tail width has reduced by 2cm. The iS107 max width has increased by 1cm and tail width reduced by 2cm.

For most, this should feel comfier downwind, easier when overpowered and potentially faster top-end.I personally always felt that my 2011 iS107 would have been quicker/easier with a slightly narrower tail.

This max width to tail width ratio is one of the features that made the original iS117 wide a nice board, easy/quick down wind. I reckon SB have learned and applied this formula to the med/high wind models.

I noticed that on the iS110 and upwards, SB have gone the opposite way and closed the gap in max width to tail width ratio. This highlights a clear design difference between the iS110 and iS107 making choice easier.

The specs on paper kinda makes you understand what the design briefs are. iS107 and smaller = increased control in med/high winds. iS110 and bigger = more power etc.

SB state that the 2013 iSonics are thinner. Looking at the narrower tail, increased max width and shorter lengths, I guess that the thickness has only been reduced by two or three of mm. Probably hard to notice. I reckon we would notice more the difference in the new light weight foot pads than the reduced deck thickness.

I also noticed that the recommended fin sizes are unchanged, but I'm guessing that the iS110 upwards will need bigger or softer fins to compensate for the increased tail width. The iS107 and smaller will get away with same size stiffer fins or much smaller soft fins. Might even see the return of G10 fins on the PWA???

I hope your still awake:)

duzzi
57 posts
27 Jul 2013 12:09PM
Thumbs Up

Select to expand quote
sausage said..

Magnus8 said..

Good point Sausage.

How about everything getting wider again?? The I97 now 65.5 that's getting a bit wide on the hips for a 97L. I thought at 63.5 was about spot on, perhaps the tail could have lost a bit, which they have done....


Yeah the iS90 is now 63cm wide - only half a cm less than the 2012-13 iS97. Sailing in open ocean I'd prefer to have more volume in a narrower board rather than vice versa i.e. I'd be happy with a 60cm wide 95-99litre board (old school, I know )


The 2014 is90 is going to be perfect for my size (70Kg) with a 6.6 (although the 87 looks good too). On paper the is90 looks like a "smaller" 2013 97. Finally something to replace my very questionable Carbon Art 58. Yei!!!

Personally I would go for shorter wider boards any time: both for Bump&Jump and slalom. For Wind-SUP in displacement ... a longer board (11') is good

BTW My CA 58 might be 98L on paper (or should I say" fading label" since the specs are quite incredibly fading under the epoxy coat), but in reality (a) that volume is of no importance when the board in used in its intended range, and (b) if I found myself slogging home the board cannot really hold my 70Kg + 6.6 cambered sail afloat ... give me a 231x63x40 tail platform with the same volume and I would float home happily.

Magnus8
QLD, 353 posts
27 Jul 2013 4:47PM
Thumbs Up

Select to expand quote
duzzi said..

sausage said..

Magnus8 said..

Good point Sausage.

How about everything getting wider again?? The I97 now 65.5 that's getting a bit wide on the hips for a 97L. I thought at 63.5 was about spot on, perhaps the tail could have lost a bit, which they have done....


Yeah the iS90 is now 63cm wide - only half a cm less than the 2012-13 iS97. Sailing in open ocean I'd prefer to have more volume in a narrower board rather than vice versa i.e. I'd be happy with a 60cm wide 95-99litre board (old school, I know )


The 2014 is90 is going to be perfect for my size (70Kg) with a 6.6 (although the 87 looks good too). On paper the is90 looks like a "smaller" 2013 97. Finally something to replace my very questionable Carbon Art 58. Yei!!!

Personally I would go for shorter wider boards any time: both for Bump&Jump and slalom. For Wind-SUP in displacement ... a longer board (11') is good

BTW My CA 58 might be 98L on paper (or should I say" fading label" since the specs are quite incredibly fading under the epoxy coat), but in reality (a) that volume is of no importance when the board in used in its intended range, and (b) if I found myself slogging home the board cannot really hold my 70Kg + 6.6 cambered sail afloat ... give me a 231x63x40 tail platform with the same volume and I would float home happily.


Well I was going to say that 80kg + the 97 would be the go and less than 80, the 90 would be the pick. So really they are aimed at different weights. Whether your on the 90 or 97, they are both easily capable of going 35-38 knots+ on a moderate day, with a 7 or 6.2 sail, so what more could you want? I find the whole volume versus width debate, to be more of a balance, seems that mid 60's width with 100L just works, less than 60 wide, that same 100L isn't as effective. Volume certainly plays a part with keeping the board cranking at a good speed, less volume/width ratio, will tend to bog, in less than ideal conditions. Hence have found in real world conditions that, my 7m/I97 combo, is faster than 7m/W54, simply because the I97 is going faster before the gust.

geoITA
115 posts
14 Aug 2013 5:44PM
Thumbs Up

As for the wideshort/narrowlong issue. Recently I tested an iS117w against my CA SL78; and an RRD X-fire114 vs. CA SL66. A few things showed in both cases, so I think could be not due to different sails and fins but to general board design (CA's are longer and narrower). The wider boards in both cases felt like 'floating', with what I (used to the CA's) would call 'poor lateral stability'; and in both cases felt faster, but proved not such when sailing side to side (apart from the obviously much more powerful RRD passing my SL66 in lulls). So I think it's mostly a matter of 'style'. I have to admit the wider boards seemed easier to plane, expecially in the case of the RRD vs. SL66 (much); but in my view the RRD also becomes less maneageable at speed, showing signs of saturation, maybe to be solved via more appropriate fin selection. In the end: wider boards seemed to me easier choices for slalom racing, the more true with closer marks to be rounded; but I'd choose the CA's for (very) fast freeriding and for long distance racing.

petermac33
WA, 4965 posts
14 Aug 2013 6:29PM
Thumbs Up

I once tested against a Fanatic 111 litre 69cm wide slalom board against a 2004 64cm wide 110 litre F2 X-Speed in choppy conditions,winds of 18-25 knots.

The 5cm narrower X-Speed won hands down,particularly in the chop! And much less prone to spinout likely due to less powerful tail.


The wider Fanatic would sail higher upwind and plane earlier.

You lose a bit you gain a bit.

gavnwend
NSW, 1007 posts
25 Aug 2013 9:04PM
Thumbs Up

The 2014 slalom boards look good l have notice they are a little thinner. (Thickness) lm looking at getting one.

SeanAUS120
QLD, 680 posts
28 Aug 2013 6:04PM
Thumbs Up

Select to expand quote
gavnwend said..

The 2014 slalom boards look good l have notice they are a little thinner. (Thickness) lm looking at getting one.


Actually it's the opposite ... in the bigger sizes, most of them are thicker and much WIDER ... the 97, 107, 117 especially. I had a chance to test a few of the bigger ones in Turkey this week and they are really something special. Much earlier planing (you can also put bigger sails on them) and they have a very reduced wetted surface area in the tail (kind of like the RRD's tail from 2013 onwards) so they are even easier to gybe with this smaller tail and also much more control in high winds with the smaller tails ...

That probably sounds like marketing hype, but it's actually my true opinions after riding the boards. I'll most likely take 1 board size UP (going for 87, 107, 117) from my current choices (currently 80, 97, 110) for the PWA next season and expect to get the same performance and control in highwind because of the new shapes... which is great!

seanhogan
3024 posts
28 Aug 2013 5:29PM
Thumbs Up

red thumbs again.... ooooh I get it, you're sponsored !!! serves you right then !!!

I better not post a review after my first sail with my point 7 AC 1, (especially as it was a pig to rig.... )

vando
QLD, 3400 posts
28 Aug 2013 8:21PM
Thumbs Up

Thanks for the feedback Sean, the new tail shapes look interesting.
Just have to wait till i get mine to see how different they feel on the water.
With the new tail shape would you pick the same size fins as last years boards.
Ive ordered a 97 and 110 for this year as my biggest sail is a 7.8.


SeanAUS120
QLD, 680 posts
28 Aug 2013 8:42PM
Thumbs Up

Select to expand quote
vando said..

With the new tail shape would you pick the same size fins as last years boards.





All the boards are developed with the current Z-Fins in these sizes:

97 = 36/38cm
107 = 38/40cm (I only tried it with the 40cm and this is working with 7.8m, 8.6m)
117 = 42/44cm
130 = 48cm

We didn't have a new 110 to try in Turkey so not sure what that is using. But I imagine it's the same fins as most of the boards haven't changed fin sizes at all.

shinobi
148 posts
28 Aug 2013 9:54PM
Thumbs Up

Hi Sean,
Thank a lot for your opinion in the new iSonics..
Could you also try the new 130?
Or could you get hear some feedback from the other starboard team members?
I'm particular interested in the low wind performance increase and the high wind control, compared to the 2012/2013 iSonic 127.
~Shinobi

col5555
WA, 306 posts
29 Aug 2013 10:18AM
Thumbs Up

Select to expand quote
SeanAUS120 said..

vando said..

With the new tail shape would you pick the same size fins as last years boards.





All the boards are developed with the current Z-Fins in these sizes:

97 = 36/38cm
107 = 38/40cm (I only tried it with the 40cm and this is working with 7.8m, 8.6m)
117 = 42/44cm
130 = 48cm

We didn't have a new 110 to try in Turkey so not sure what that is using. But I imagine it's the same fins as most of the boards haven't changed fin sizes at all.


Hi Sean,
What stiffness Z fins ?



Subscribe
Reply

Forums > Windsurfing Gear Reviews


"Starboard iSonic 2014" started by sausage