Hi baldy, I am a CA team rider on the East Coast and have sailed both the boards you are looking at and also sailed the Ledge to Lancelin in 2001. To be completely honest with you, I would highly recommend the CA62 for your weight and sail range posted. The CA62 hammers with a 7.6-8.0. I am 89kg and I am able to get planing very quickly in light to medium winds. This board also handles rough chop well.

The Isonic's are great boards, don't get me wrong, though you will find the CA62 to be better in construction, super stiff, slightly quicker out of the gybes and holds a rail like you wouldn't believe. You really do need to get on one to see the difference. I also found the CA to be much more comfortable under foot. The isonic rides a little higher out of the water, whilst the CA's feel lower to the water and slightly sportier in feel (depends on your preference there).

I hope this has helped in your decision making. If you lived on the East Coast I would have been happy for you to jump on my gear so you could see what I am talking about

Look forward to seeing you up as a CA Rider!!!

Hi Baldy,


Your spot on with your choices. Isonic are great boards and as said swalsh, main advantages for CA boards are construction (precision, stifness, reactivity and durability) and easiness to ride. Always smooth an easy to control with a steady power at low speed under foot. In the end, a wider range, for sure.

I use to use the 62 for a while with 7.6 and I'm 87 Kg. It was a super nice board to ride with a lot of power, acceleration, high average speed and tons of control in chop/gusts.

The latest 66 is more like a smaller version of the 70 as I understood.

I own the latest version of the 70 which is also a great board, with same feeling and performance as the 62 for bigger sails. My favorite size on the 70 is the 8.4. The 7.6 is also very nice on it.

End of the day and considering your wind range, both boards 62 and 66 are more than recommanded. I will choose considering the use of the 7.6.
You do use it on the light side with more tight reaches? Go for the 66.
You use the 7.6 more powered and the 6.5 very often ? go with the 62.

Whatever the choice you'll make, you won't be disappointed...

The next question is, what board should I get for stronger winds...

Hi all,
this Summer a few more slalom sailors showed up at my home spot, so I was finally able to test the famous iS 111 and 122. I have been posting a few exeriences on the Maui Sails forum, and I have been totally honest, but it was like throwing a stone in a wasps' nest; so now I am refraining from posting about new stories where too many people don't sail on CA's... but here we are supposed to be among friends, so...
There is a guy showing at my home spot, fast and proficient; we met because he asked for testing a CA, he did and was enthusiastic about it. We did some 'buddy racing' a few times, he on '09 iS111 and P7 7.7, me on CA SL62 and TR-5 7.6; always with 'similar results'. The last time it was strong and gusty; at one time, reaching out to sea, he seemed to be able to slowly approach me when out of the gusts: I understood there must have been some tuning issue with my materials and started thinking about... and I saw what. Luckily it was something I could do without need to go back to the shore. Jibed, but dipped in water after changing tack. Reached to the fin. Freed it from a thin long bough. Jumped on again, and the usual performance gap was restored... yes in my experience the gap between CA SL62 and iS111 is such.

Not kidding at all!
Not a big bough anyhow, really thin and flexible, maybe 40 cms., bent around the fin, but it was there.

And most of all: I am not bad mouthing anyone's opinions, no no no. I am plain reporting what happened to me. After all, who knows? Maybe it's not the board, maybe my Tomcat 38 is so much better than his 40 SL2 even in light winds, maybe my TR-5 is so overwhelmingly superior to a P7 7.7 (oh well...), even maybe I should really be racing if I can be so fast against the very top boards on the market, see there are lots of options if you can't accept my reports for good... or, should we just accept the easy story that the #1 selling slalom board necessarily has to be the #1 performing too, and never raise our heads to see better?
Can you see the difference between bad mouthing and reporting? Rather, I see you are doing your best to question I am reporting honestly, and based on nothing since it seems you never compared your 111 against a 62 on the water, head to head, similar sails fins body sizes. After all, should I remind you, you had to get an 111 to do the job a '2 sizes smaller' board (SL58) was supposed to do in your mind?

I'll make things easier for you: I admit that yesterday, my 7.6 downhauled way too much, buddy with a 38 fin instead of 40, he had a nice advantage going upwind and was better out of jibes most of times, and was faster than when on 40, but still I had speed over him on the straights and still was doing better when out of the lulls, but this is just board size so does not matter. He would have killed me in a tight slalom race, I would have killed him in a long distance race.

By the way, Dodo: is your 58 a '08 design, or a '09? When was it built (month/year)?

Thanks for all the responses guys.
It never was going to be an easy choice and just because Person A likes a board, doesn't mean Person B will. The only way is to test ride. At least i'm on the right track but will consider the CA SL62 also.
It will be used mainly on the lighter side 14 - 18 knts but want it to handle the big gusts or be able to stay out comfortably when it picks up a notch to 20 knts.
What are your thoughts on the chop handling? The Swan River can get nasty chop and combine it with stink boat washes coming at 45 - 90 degrees to the wind chop, makes it like sailing moguls in summer.
Not having sailed a Straboard with cutouts (i use a S-Type 93 for 5.5 - 6.6) what difference do they make ?
Or is it a bit of a marketing gimmick?
Latest is ALWAYS best isn't it?

Cheers

Hi Baldy, no opinion from me except I love my SL58

I'm guessing you live in WA, so my advise is to track down Chris Lockwood and ask him, he's very approachable and friendly. He sails the SL62 and came a close 2nd in this years L to L with it

Cheers Bob.

Go with the 66 then ! Both boards wil make you happy anyway !

You will keep it even with 6.6, no problem !

Main thing on these boards is control and easiness.

I'm always impressed with conrol on the whole range. I can use the 70 with 8.4 in stupid winds, when it's already full power with 6.7 and the CA 58.

In the same way, I've tried several times the 5.5 in nuclear winds (35-45 knots, small chop) on the 58 when the 52 and 5.0 was already the full powered combo.

Just try the "money back warranty" program...!-)

Cheers

Geo, nice to disagree! In terms of outline the difference is not just being shorter. Isonics are not only shorter but also wider-tailed, and the tail is thinner (and the decks are scooped out). As you say the CAs feel, comparatively, nervous; I do not have a theory for why they are so, other than noticing the bulbous/narrow tail and wandering if it might promote lateral pitch.

About performance: Most top shapers and sailors know each other and they can and do exchange information; or they can copy, or buy anything out there. Do you think that if one board design was so much faster it would not be immediately copied by everybody else? Look at Antoine: he went to JP last year, found the board harder to ride than his previous starboards (!), and helped redesign the whole JP slalom line together with the other JP riders (this is now the Slalom VI): do you see a copy of a CA SL in the new JP lineup? Nope: the style is wide and short with no board above 230.

Dodo,
wouldn't it be nice to add a new post, instead of editing an old one that was already answered to?
Anyhow no problem.
AA helped redesigning the JP boards, now mk. VI are good, mk. V were not, and mk. VI don't look like CA's... this is consistent with my point, again, different production standards lead to different shapes. Agree.
More practically: do you really believe that? JP took onboard the current World champion, and NOW (not before!) the need is born for a better/easier board to ride? Or, they hire a top racer and now at last there is someone to explain Werner Gnigler how to shape a decent board? I think WG is a top board designer as much as AA is a top racer. Today everyone is moving towards easier boards to ride (by the way: maybe someone was already there years ago, and others are following?), in my view NOT because AA needs that, but rather because lower level racers/riders do.
What really counts is how boards go when we use them. We will see. For now, what I see is, past season no one was looking at JP, now all of a sudden JP is gathering the interest of many riders... and everybody knows AA would win even riding a door... power of marketing bull****.

Dodo,
so kind of you to save me time and write by yourself what you think I am thinking! Unfortunately you are way off, but thank you anyhow. Only please consider, if you would refrain from doing so, you would actually save me the time to correct you, and that would really be effectively kind of you.

My 'theory' is different from what you suppose. 'Big brands' are not stupid at all, just do a different job. They build a reputation based mostly on marketing (including PWA) and sell "industrial production" boards. Spend more on marketing and less on materials and manufacturing. Nothing stupid in this, leads to larger quantities, but products are different from what I look for. Their construction methods may be inferior because they can not "do anything they want construction-wise" if they want to offer products at a decent price despite huge marketing and distribution costs.
By the way, let alone production accuracy and just consider materials: current market leader's most recent and "sophisticated" construction is well depicted on 'their' web site in the "products - technology" section, take a look at the quantities of glass used re. high modulus fibers, and compare that to Carbon Art's ProModel full carbon and Kevlar wraps.
Big brands' designs should not be considered 'inferior', but rather apt to fit into such scheme. Make do with extra width and concaves in place of smoothness and precision, (so called) 'power' in place of efficiency. Of course, different designs lead to different performances, and it is now proven to me that straightforward, uncomplicated designs have the potential to provide... 'good enough' performances.
The conclusion that "... there is only one company in the world that can build the superior slalom board" is yours, not mine. My idea is that any 'big brand' could do that, and probably they do, to the benefit of their very top racers; but would not be able to offer such boards to common customers at decent prices. AND, I can see "... there is only one company in the world that" ACTUALLY MAKES AVAILABLE "the superior slalom board" to me. I wish there were many, this would shift the competition from marketing claims to real performances; if possible at local level (actually don't like too much the idea of flying my boards from the antipodes - be that Thailand or New Zealand), but for now, while dreaming of many, CarbonArt-like, small manufacturers in place of the few big commercial enterprises we have now, I think I will do with what's available, and very gladly so.