I know this isn't the first time this subject has raised it's head but the list below is from the current ISAF website http://www.sailing.org/11672.php

Why does starboard, for instance, constantly year after year quote a board's volume as say 122litres when in fact it is only 113litres - only 3 litres more than the next size down. I know the argument that volume does not translate to performance is generally used as their defence, but I would have thought there would be laws regarding false or misleading advertising.


Board / year date registered weight length width volume

ISONIC 76 2009 19/08/08 5.55 2442 547 84
ISONIC 86 2009 19/08/08 5.65 2414 562 86
ISONIC 94 2009 19/08/08 5.9 2422 585 92
ISONIC 101 2009 19/08/08 5.9 2362 636 97
ISONIC 111 2009 19/08/08 6.3 2328 683 110
ISONIC 122 2009 19/08/08 6.7 2320 750 113
ISONIC 133 2009 19/08/08 7.4 2234 850 127
ISONIC 144 2009 19/08/08 7.9 2270 850 137
ISONIC SPEED SPECIAL W44 2009 19/08/08 4.2 2290 440 53
ISONIC SPEED SPECIAL W49 2009 19/08/08 4.6 2310 490 64
ISONIC SPEED SPECIAL W53 2009 19/08/08 5 2302 530 74

PS - In case it's not apparent, I am not sponsored by Starboard but should I be I would happily defend their right to list any volume not even close to the actual

PPS- I own two *board boards and are very happy with both of them.

Hey Sausage,
did you look at the site nebs put it on the Masts thread,

www.peterman.dk/start-windsurfing-gb01.htm

Have a look at the article on lies we're told

Yep it sh!ts me that these guys get away with telling porky pies about their gear thrown in with all the promotional hype, and yet they treat us with contempt when all you want is the correct volume board.
Makes t difficult if you want something marginal to get home on when the wind dies

Select to expand quote

sailpilot said...

Hey Sausage,
did you look at the site nebs put it on the Masts thread,

www.peterman.dk/start-windsurfing-gb01.htm

That is a great link (thanks Nebs) - very informative and relatively objective. I suspect he's one big thorn in the side of some sailboard companies reading some of his gear assessments.

Don't really know if it still goes on but a few years ago the same thing was frequent with sail sizes.

When looking at board sizes and comparing brands I would tend to look more at widths than volume, more width, especially in the tail will generally provide better early planning ability. Comparing the specs of the Isonic 111 and 122, the 122 is much wider and hence will plane earlier and 'feel' more like a board with 122L...

Select to expand quote

g279 said...

When looking at board sizes and comparing brands I would tend to look more at widths than volume, more width, especially in the tail will generally provide better early planning ability. Comparing the specs of the Isonic 111 and 122, the 122 is much wider and hence will plane earlier and 'feel' more like a board with 122L...

So explain the difference for me on this basis comparing the 76 to the 86 isonic.

Yeah, I understand this is their modus operandi, but why can't they just state the actual volume. Still call it an iSonic 122 but list it's volume as 113litres.Maybe they think by insulting our intelligence they are helping us make the decision easier.

ISAF site has had typos in the past, maybe the 76 is actually 76?

yer not sure that the 76 is 86lts.
When wide boards were introduce they were named by width rather than volume.
Because width make a huge differance in how the board floats.
you cannot compare a 120lt board 65 wide and a 120lt 75 wide the 75 wide board would act more like a 125-130lt board. I think Starboard allow for this extra width when name there boards. If you look at the smaller Isonics 86 its actually 86 because its not a wide style board. Well thats how i understand what there doing.

ta Vando

Select to expand quote

mkseven said...

ISAF site has had typos in the past, maybe the 76 is actually 76?

As they're both the same width I doubt theres 10 litres difference in 30mm (3cm) length (not taking into account thickness though)

was even more confusing when wide boards first came out in '02 they (starboard and fanatic) would quote "virtual volume" which was much more than the real volume.

They can name them whatever they like... but they should put the actual volume on their somewhere.

Anyway, I actually like the fact that the 122 is 113L, I was considering getting one, but thinking it was a bit too big at 122L.

The early planning ability is all very well, but that's where you should be looking at width.
If you're after grovelability, volume is also important. no matter how wide a board is it's hard to grovel up to your waist!
If I'm after a low wind wave board, I'm not real interested in early planning, I'm interested in how well the board floats me

Select to expand quote

sausage said...

mkseven said...

ISAF site has had typos in the past, maybe the 76 is actually 76?

As they're both the same width I doubt theres 10 litres difference in 30mm (3cm) length (not taking into account thickness though)

No there not the same width 86 is 56.5 76 55 wide.

Swoosh I find the IS122 a perfect volume for me have ago next time.

ta Vando

Select to expand quote

decrepit said...

The early planning ability is all very well, but that's where you should be looking at width.
If you're after grovelability, volume is also important. no matter how wide a board is it's hard to grovel up to your waist!
If I'm after a low wind wave board, I'm not real interested in early planning, I'm interested in how well the board floats me

Agree Decrepit volume is still important but width helps ya float too its not just for early planning. Yer if ya sailing in the waves early planning isnt as important but not every one sails in the waves

I think that quoting marketing volume vs. real volume is BS and I find it annoying. I bought an IS111. At the time I was debating between a 111 or 122, had I known the real volume of the 122 I probably would have gone for the 122.

Select to expand quote

vando said...

sausage said...

mkseven said...

ISAF site has had typos in the past, maybe the 76 is actually 76?

As they're both the same width I doubt theres 10 litres difference in 30mm (3cm) length (not taking into account thickness though)

No there not the same width 86 is 56.5 76 55 wide.

Swoosh I find the IS122 a perfect volume for me have ago next time.

ta Vando

Vando,
Yeah that's what starboard's specs state for width - and going by their stated volumes I'd be somewhat circumspect about the width. Apparently their weights are the same but the iSonic 76 is 10litres less although the 6litres difference between the next up is around 300grams. (It just doesn't add up)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it up to the board manufacturers to register their exact board specs with the ISAF. I find it hard to believe Starboard would not have corrected the ISAF register by now.

Does anyone know a Starboard representative who can clear the air on this?

PS - I really don't want this to be a Starboard bashing thread as there are numerous other manufacturers who do exactly the same thing (and I am also waiting eagerly next to the phone for my Starboard sponsorship deal to come through). It just happened to be the easiest example to use.

Its hard too know Sausage unless you have them side by side to see where the differences are. I know the IS86 has a scooped out deck around the mast track not sure about the IS76.

So who actually measure all the board specifications such as volume

Haggar,
This may shed some light on the subject. Have hi-lighted a pertinent point. The more you dig the smellier that rat becomes.


ISAF APPROVED SERIES FREEWAVE/SPEED/SLALOM
PRODUCTION BOARD REGISTRATION SYSTEM
1
An ISAF Approved Series Production board or board range* is a mass produced
board or board range, made in a production run of not less than 50 Slalom/Speed
or 50 Freewave units per board in the range. Each board in the range must be
produced from identical female moulds using the same construction specification.
*A range of boards may consist of an unlimited number of size boards with
identical design purpose but varying dimensions making them suitable for
different wind/wave conditions or crew weight.
These moulds (sets) shall have been inspected (Part II registration), together
with a board from the production run, prior to the board being added to the
approved list for International, Continental or World Championships. Boards, for
which ISAF Part I registration has been applied but have not yet passed the
inspection, are eligible for National Racing only.
This shall be done by way of individual board serial numbers and copies of
shipping documents from the manufacturer being sent to the ISAF Secretariat.
Only a board 'Part II' registered by ISAF may race in Funboard Class
Windsurfing Class International events.
1. Class Rules
When a manufacturer has decided that a new design shall be made
available for competitors to compete in Funboard (Production Board)
events, he shall first check that the manufacturing procedure agrees with
the latest version of the Class Rules of the Funboard Class. In particular,
rule B.1.1 that concerns the ISAF logo, which must be displayed on each
board
For the latest version of the Class Rules please click here:
http://www.sailing.org/5671.php
ISAF APPROVED SERIES FREEWAVE/SPEED/SLALOM
PRODUCTION BOARD REGISTRATION SYSTEM
2
2. Registration Part I
Immediately when a board manufacturer starts production, excluding
prototypes, forms Part 1a & 1b must be completed. These require that a
number of measurements and the average weight and stiffness of the hull
be established. The form should be signed by a senior management
executive of the manufacturer. Please follow the link:
www.sailing.org/2114.php
The form should then be emailed or sent to the ISAF to: norbert@isaf.co.uk.
The full address is at the head of the form
On receipt of these forms, an invoice will be raised by ISAF and payment is
due for settlement within 30 days.
The fees are established as follows:
?300 British Pounds for any number of boards up to 6 of the same range
for Slalom/Speed Boards.
?300 British Pounds for any number of boards up to 6 of the same range
for Freewave Boards.
?50 British Pounds for any extra board of the same range
On settlement of this invoice the boards will be listed for National Racing.
Not less than 60 days after first receipt of form Part I the mould sets and
production boards should be available for inspection. The builder will be
required to liaise with ISAF for the inspection to be scheduled. Reasonable
pre-agreed travel costs will be paid by the builder to representative of ISAF.
3. Registration, Part II
When at least ten (10) boards have been manufactured and are ready for
inspection with the production tooling, form Part II should be completed,
noting any changes in specification from those originally stated on form Part
I. This form should then be sent to ISAF and the inspection date fixed.
Please follow the link: www.sailing.org/2114.php
ISAF APPROVED SERIES FREEWAVE/SPEED/SLALOM
PRODUCTION BOARD REGISTRATION SYSTEM
3
Registration
ISAF will enter the board on the list of ISAF Approved Series Production
Boards only when the procedure and inspection has been completed and all
invoices paid and costs settled. To see the current board list click in the link:
www.sailing.org/11671.php
4. Design or Production Changes
If any changes are made to a registered board, the ISAF must be notified
immediately. The changes may make the board liable for re-registration or
a new registration.
ISAF (International Sailing Federation):
ISAF is based in the Isle of Man, an offshore island of the UK. All payments
must be made to ISAF Ltd., Isle of Man. The administrative arm of the ISAF is
ISAF (UK) Ltd.
Contact
ISAF (UK) Ltd., Norbert Marin, Technical Coordinator, Ariadne House, Town
Quay Southampton, Hampshire, SO14 2AQ, United Kingdom.
Tel: +44 23 80635111; Fax: +44 23 80635789; Email: norbert@isaf.co.uk
________________________

Pretty confusing list of all the board manufacturers, as if it isnt hard enough to decipher what to buy...
Sausage the link didnt work, full stop on the end stuffed things up.

http://www.sailing.org/11672.php

then download the pdf.

Do board manufacturers need some ISO standardization regarding the specifications and model numbers they describe their boards by?

If those numbers on the ISAF list are correct than that's crap by Starboard, I believe that is a huge dent in your companies credibility Mr Rasmussen.

Maybe Starboard didnt know the volume of the boards they designed? When they had to get the boards accredited for the ISAF and actually measure the volume it turned out ...different?

I would hate to buy a 4.0L car and find out it was only 3.0L!

i understand that the isaf have been trying to measure the latest starboard slalom kit.

problem has been that no one can catch up to them to have a decent look..

Just sent this off via email. Don't like my chances though (definately done my Starboard sponsorship chances now)


Norbert,
Sorry to bother you with such an inane request, but it appears the ISAF register for Windsurfers - Funboard class may have a discrepancy for the Starboard iSonic 76 2009 model. The manufacturer states in their advertising a volume of 76 litres but the official ISAF register notes the volume as 86 litres - exactly the same as Starboard's next model up (the iSonic 86 2009). Also the same widths are nominated for these two boards respectively.

Is it possible for you to confirm the details in the ISAF register found on the ISAF register (link http://www.sailing.org/11671.php) titled;
"ISAF COMPLETE LIST OF APPROVED SERIES PRODUCTION SLALOM/SPEED BOARDS"

is accurate. I understand it is the manufacturers who lodge the required paperwork detailing each crafts specific dimensions, weight and volume. I appreciate you looking into this for me.

Kind regards,

Select to expand quote

Gestalt said...

i understand that the isaf have been trying to measure the latest starboard slalom kit.

problem has been that no one can catch up to them to have a decent look..

Gestalt,

Sad to say it but I am probably the biggest Starboard fan out there - was converted from JP and F2 after buying my first Starboard 2 years ago. i can't talk more highly about them - Yeppoon is very JP orientated and I think I'm the only one with them up here.

What really sh1ts me though is the lack of respect they (all manufacturers, not just *board) have for the consumers and as I've said it's an insult to our intelligence.

Now I'm getting all worked up over such a trivial thing like false advertising.

just having some fun mate.

People are confusing two different types of bouyancy in some of the above posts.

Static bouyancy is volume alone. Width does not matter, nor does length. If the board is not moving the volume of foam in it determines what it will float.

Kinetic bouyancy at slow speeds is influenced by width. (1) the board will feel more bouyant at sub planing speeds due to the width (2) it will feel more laterally stable giving the illusion of more bouyancy. That si where the virtual bouyancy crap came from a few years ago.

Thus, both are important.

I think it is disgraceful that manufacturers do not provide proper volumes. There is a number of different ways they can measure it easily. It would be nice to see magazines measure the volumes in all their board tests.... if you are doing heaps of tests, and making squillions of $$$ out of selling mags to us, it would be easy to build a rig which pushes down onto the mast track to sink a board in a giant rectangular bathtub, measure the displaced water, done.


I think correct volumes are important. For eg: I want soeemthing with a bit more static bouyancy than my EVO80 and little more early planing but similar wave riding capabilities. If I pick a RRD Wave Cult 85 I know it is an earlier planer (flatter rockered). However if it is really 80L I have only gained one thing out of two that I was looking for and how would I know until I have bought it?
Manufacturers need to realise we are not all d1ckheads who fall for brochure rubbish about how the smoothness of the turn will make me feel deep within my soul and how it turns on a dime but is faster than last year's model.
Give us a figure but make it accurate.

Mr Stone (of SSD) has what he calls "The Coffin". I think it has a bar that you stick the nose of the board into, and some form of pulley system where you pull the board down until it's totally immersed. I think he then measures the amount of water that is displaced by the board.


It's not hard to build.


I think that what we're dealing with is marketing people, who by their very nature are arrogant and look down on the consumer. I'm pretty sure that the technical people at starboard would be happy to put the actual volume on the boards, but it's always the marketing people who muck things up for us tech-heads.

Wouldn't a "water displacement" measurement tell you the mass of the board rather than the volume? (i.e. the board displaces an amount of water of the same mass as the board).

I guess if you know the density of the EPS core and ignore the other layers as immaterial then you could convert to volume.

Measuring the volume of an irregular-shaped solid object isn't as easy as it at first appears...

Select to expand quote

Cambodge said...

Wouldn't a "water displacement" measurement tell you the mass of the board rather than the volume? (i.e. the board displaces an amount of water of the same mass as the board).

Only if it's floating


If it's immersed (held underwater) then that's the volume.

Select to expand quote

Cambodge said...

Wouldn't a "water displacement" measurement tell you the mass of the board rather than the volume? (i.e. the board displaces an amount of water of the same mass as the board).

I guess if you know the density of the EPS core and ignore the other layers as immaterial then you could convert to volume.

Measuring the volume of an irregular-shaped solid object isn't as easy as it at first appears...

I could be completely wrong here as its many years since school science lessons but I would have thought if a ping pong ball was pushed into water and then a lead ball of the same dimensions was put in water it would displace the same amount of water as the ping pong ball. From measuring the amount of water, eg 30 mililitres, the volume could be measured. They would both displace the same amount of water even though one has a mass much more than the other.

The term virtual volume sounds really dodgy. Something virtual isn't going to help much when dealing with actualities like a fading 5 knot zephyr and 2kms from shore.

Interesting post. I was at Newport Reef the other day and a windsurfer was looking at my 99ltr wave board and said there was no way it was that big. He also said that the printed volume is often different to the actual volume. I always figured they'd be if not 100% accurate at least 98%!

It was quite eye opening as the board never feels that big and doesn't float me. I figured it was mainly ability on my part, but I now wonder if it is smaller. If it is a 92-94ltr board it would easily sink as I weigh in at 94kgs.

It shows how important it is to be able to demo boards before buying them - it's the only way to tell if they are big/small enough for you.

Crash,

Even if the volume is correct a 99L wave board wouldn't float you at 94kgs as you have to take into account your weight plus the weight of the board plus the weight of the rig