The below, I believe, was written around 2001 by Svein Rasmussen. I'm gobsmacked that *board actually admits that their technical specs were based on a falsehood with the primary objective of misleading the consumer about the actual volume so they would try (read 'buy') their boards.
Good to see though he mentioned indirectly at the bottom of the letter that virtual volumes would no longer be quoted the following season. Maybe he forgot to tell their marketing department the subsequent years after that or maybe his statement was just a "virtual truth". They probably prescribe to the "YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH" Jack Nicholson school of thought.
As I've stated previously, why don't they let the consumer decide what's good for them. I doubt they would have been able to get away with this line of slick marketering if sailboarding was a more mainstream sport. Sorry Svein, but you haven't got my understanding!
This said, it still won't stop me buying their boards (albeit second hand ones at that).
Hi there.
> Just back from testing in Perth.
> I agree that virtual volume is confusing and there was a clear reason
> why we needed to introduce it in the past.
>
> The first Formula boards we developed were quite different from the
> norm of race boards.
> We started to market virtual volume because the volume of those
> innovative boards were some 30 liters less than the boards that racers
> were used to win races on. Even our own race team did not want to
> touch the first boards as they looked so strange. The first produced
> board design however actually ended up taking the first 6 places in
> the 2000 worlds.
> If we had marketed race boards at 130 liters which was the volume of
> the original 155, only a few sailors would have been experimental and
> open minded enough to try the shapes. The key was that we had found
> extreme width would aid earlier planing more than thickness and length
> , yet we did not want to make them thick just to fit with the volume
> expectations. The new Formula 158 is 158 liters and the 138 is 138
> plus minus a few liters which are the tolerances of the measuring
> system we use.
> The 3 years old Junior and youth boards , 136 and 156 , are still in
> the old system of virtual volume description and we will change that
> for the next season.
> Thanks for your understanding
> Svein Rasmussen
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.
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
What a load of crap!!! Yes they misquote volume a little for marketing.... maybe up to 10% ??? ...... but I can't believe Starboard has made 2 boards of the same volume
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
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)
That's fine if you have a cad model but you wouldn't build one just to measure the volume. Not when you can get a very accurate measurement from a physical displacement test as Mark suggested. The easiest way is to fully immerse the board and measure the uplift. If you sink the board with weight, the weight required is a precise measure of its volume.
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 
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
Select to expand quote
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?
Yea, weighed without fin but with straps
Straps =150gr ea X4 = 600gm
S'pose that accounts for most of it
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.
