View Full Version : Next High performance light windish board

1st February 2007, 10:38 PM
Hi Roger and others,

since my old FT138 went offline (fell apart in a not so nice way after ~8 sailing months) I'm torn between the following two boards:

- IS145 Wood
- HTS SuperPhantom XL K1

comparing the two

- OFO ~ almost identical (HTS ~ 1cm less)
- max width (HTS ~ 8 cm less)
- weight (HTS ~ 1.8 Kg less)
- Volumne ~ identical
- sail range ~ identical


- should the HTS theoretically plane almost or as early as IS145?
(what counts more: 8cm less width <-> 1.8 kg less weight )
- light wind speeds <= 12 kts (1cm less OFO make much of a difference)
- slightly more wind (10-15kts) speed advantage to ?

I must admit I did like the FT138 but its durability did piss me off so I am tempted to go for the HTS since that board seems to be stronger but I&#39;m still not 100% sure about it (FT138 was otherwise a fantastic board). OTH the 2007 boards (Kombats) are somewhat less nice than the 2006 boards which is also a intimidating factor when considering to go for antoher sb.


2nd February 2007, 01:02 AM
Since I have a windsurfer classic, I&#39;d be picking the iS145. How did your 138 fall apart?

2nd February 2007, 08:58 PM
Hi Duracell,
Not sure to answer all the "negatives" here.
We&#39;ve tried to help with your F-Type 138 problems, but obviously your dealer and the *bd warranty folks were unable to resolve your issues to your satisfaction.
Will a board that&#39;s 8 cm narrower plane up as early as a wider board?
Not in my experience!
I&#39;ve also not noticed any significant problems or "differences" between the &#39;06 Kombat 96 and the &#39;07 Kombat 97.
I have the new Kombat Aero 127 and I had the &#39;06 Aero 127 and I&#39;ve not noticed any significant differences there either.
I&#39;ve seen a couple of "negative posts" about the differences between the &#39;06 Aero and the &#39;07 Kombat Aero, but they&#39;ve been from just a couple of sailors, and who knows what their experience and sailing conditions are and whether or not the &#39;07 KA 127 is the right choice?
So, try the HTS Super Phantom, and see if you get better durability.
I&#39;m pretty sure you will not get any forum support, or be able to discuss your issues on the "HTS forums", but perhaps that&#39;s not so important.
Hope this helps,

5th February 2007, 10:55 PM
Hi Roger,

if a "custom" IS145 were under the mast 8 cm narrower than it actually is and the "custom" IS145 would weigh 1.8kg less,

- would it plane as early as the "stock IS145"?
- would it goes as fast as the "stock IS145"?

what is important for early planing?
- width under the mast vs. width at the tail
- weight (difference 1.8 Kg)
- lift produced by board when out of the water

what is important for top speeds?
- width under the mast vs. width at the tail
- weight
- lift produced by board when out of the water

I&#39;ve been wondering how important the lift produced by the board actually is in which phase of surfing (getting on a plane as well as flying over the water)

I still have 4 *b and will most likely have 3-4 in the coming season so "negative" or not I still use the boards and will continue to generate sales.

6th February 2007, 09:59 PM
Hi Duracell,
I&#39;ll give you my "best guess" answers to your questions, based on my experiences over the years.
These might be good questions to ask Tiesda You (one of Starboards principal designers).

I&#39;ll paste in your questions and answer them individually.

"if a "custom" IS145 were under the mast 8 cm narrower than it actually is and the "custom" IS145 would weigh 1.8kg less,

- would it plane as early as the "stock IS145"?
Probably not, but tail width may be a little more important to early planing than we suspect.
The weight could make a minor differrence, but not as much as many would expect.
- would it goes as fast as the "stock IS145"?
Could be faster, probably would be a little easier to control, but with the same tail width perhaps not.
8 cm is 3.15 inches. That&#39;s really alot of width to either add or take off.

"what is important for early planing?
- width under the mast vs. width at the tail
Both I think. Look at the "wide in the middle but narrower at the tail boards like the Carve, the Kombat Aero 127, etc.
They are nearly as wide as the Isonics of similar volume, but do not seem to plane up as early, so I think the right combination of total width and tail width is what makes early planing happen. Also to some degree the volume placement (in conjunction with width) can be very significant.
- weight (difference 1.8 Kg)
I think the weight is a bit overrated in terms of early planing.
I have taken the very heavy early model Starts and planed pretty early on them. Not as early as a formula race hull, but within a knot or so with the same rig.
- lift produced by board when out of the water.
"Lift" may be a function of overall width, volume distribution, tail width, fin size, and sailor skills (to develop the lift with pumping etc.), so the "lift" coefficient can vary greatly depending on the above factors.
The normal planing threshold is probably much easier to tie in with a "lift" coefficient.

OK! maybe you are not as negative toward Starboard as sometimes comes across in your posts. I fully realize you&#39;ve had problems, and I&#39;ve done whatever I could (as an outside/unpaid advisor) to assist you in getting satisfactory resolution to you issues.
Hope this helps,

7th February 2007, 11:43 PM
Thnx Roger,

thinking of the differences between F161 anf Apollo (besides the fin) its just mainly that the tail is quite a bit wider, so it seems to support the theory that the tail might just be what makes a board plane a bit earlier (F161 is 1 cm wider under mast but ~ 8cm narrower at the tails than the Apollo). Apollo supposedly* planes 2 kts earlier (* haven&#39;t seen the board in the shops yet and nobody seems to have had a decent go at it beside *b).

Well now I have a theory supported by at least someone else... Now I&#39;ll have to decide.