nebbian said...


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.

Hey, don't tar all the marketing people with the same brush, I'm one...it was probably a product manager that made the decision anyway

I can understand what Starboard and others are trying to do. They design a board for a specific outcome in a product range and it most probably does the job extremely well for it's design brief and most people are happy with the product. However that boards volume may not be a good fit in the range for the way that people are used to assessing boards. So instead of doing the more difficult task of marketing / selling it's outcome they take a shortcut and misquote the volume. I don't agree with the approach. Performance car manufacturers have the same problem, max power alone doesn't indicate the cars capability, yet many will choose on this criteria. They don't misquote the power but they do have other tricks to sway the buyer.

I'm sure it won't be long before some litigious American sues Starboard after he / she nearly drowns and blames the misquoted volume as the reason for the accident.

Response from ISAF technical co-ordinator regarding iSonic volume. Maybe time to contact Starboard directly, although I gather they will have a rote response!

Hi Brian,

I have been checking the details you mention in your email below and you are right there is a mistake in the form but is not as big as you thought. The volume of the ISonic 76 is 84 litres and the width is 547mm (both figures have been amended in the list) this is according to the registration forms that we received from the manufacturer (Starboard in this case), the data of the other boards in the series is correct. We had this problem before with discrepancies between the data in our lists and the data in the company’s website and this, we were explained, is due to marketing purposes, that is to say that the data in the ISAF list is probably more accurate from a technical point of view than the data obtained in the manufacturer’s website. I suggest that if you have any doubts you contact Starboard and ask them directly. I am sure they will be helpful.

I hope this helps and if you have any other questions please do not hesitate to contact me.

All the best,

Norbert

I do agree that the real volume would be usefull if you need to grovel home, and the brands should suply this on the small boards especally. But when it comes to choosing a slalom board the 'virtual' volume can be more useful to alot of sailors out there.

I've used both the iSonic76 and 86 and there is a big difference (I pretty sure the 84l is correct for the 76. The static volume feels very similar). The 86 definatley planes earlier and handles a bigger sail.... for me the 76 is a little nicer to gybe and in the chop when its blowing.
I've had a 76 for th last few years, but next year I'll be getting an 86 to add to the collection for the 6.7m days.

But then. Both boards easily float me.

PS. There tends to be a lot less of the fudge factor on the wave boards

icesurf said...

3D CAD programs can calculate the volume with great accuracy.
See upper left of the Pic for the amount of error allowed in the volume.

(Cad file is courtesy of Martin Love who has professionally designed a range of boards)

Thanks Icesurf, but you have to realise Starboard wouldn't have access to such tools as a computer and a basic 3D package.

I think the only way you could get any action from the sailboard manufacturers who continually market the volume of their boards "virtually" would be to contact the Advertising Standards Bureau. There are strict laws regrading 'false or misleading impressions of products'.

Maybe prior to doing so though, maybe someone from Starboard could explain their propensity to continually mislead the consumer.

My new Carbon Art Slalom has a quoted volume of 98L, when it arrived the spec's are hand written on the board with the volume at 96L. Now I don't know if each board is individually measured or how it might be done, but I'd bet my left nut it's accurate. A 2L diff is nothing, the fact they have the correct volume written on the board shows to me they are a stand up mob

But at the end of the day, pick a board you might like and test it (not an option for me), if it's sweet then it's sweet and just buy it

Oh yeh, I love my Carbon Art SL58

ducati said...

I find that buying a board on Volume is pretty useless these days
After deciding on the brand/style board I go on the width as being much more reliable
eg my Futura 101 feels more floatier then my old 110L naish

What pi**'s me off most is the WEIGHT discrepancy
My Futura 101L wood ......stated = 6.7kg actual = 7.5kg
Jp FSW 92 wood ...... stated = 6.8kg actual = 8.0 kg
making it heavier than my old AHD 125L

that reminds me... I need to weigh my new board.

btw, i think quoted volumes may be bare board sans fin/footstraps. did you weigh your board with straps+fin?

I think some manufacturers may even be quoting without pads, paint and deck grip!

"Stated versus actual Volume discrepancy"

Have a mate who was internet dating for a while, and he was having the same problem with his dates.