PDA

View Full Version : kode 102


frankc
24th December 2010, 03:18 PM
Hi all ,
need some ideas??

I bought a Kode 102 to improve my sailing in the waves ,,had been using a Carve 133 and a Shark 130 for flat water blasting both boards are heavy and so I thought the Kode would be a good choice as I also ride a S Type 105 at home when it is strong (Thailand).
Now on holidays in Australia east coast and problem is that after 2 rides it keeps spinning out, today wind solid 20kts, sail Gator 6 ,fin standard Drake Crossover 300 and moved right to the back and the mast step 2cm forward of the recommended position,

any ideas re board set up that I can make a change and see if I get more control? or is it just too much back foot sailing??

would welcome your advise ,,

thanks Fc

Ulf
26th December 2010, 06:16 PM
Not the team but can help, The problem is the fin. I found after having a couple of those boards, the US box cant take larger fins. In Aust it is mostly onshore, With a six or bigger spin out starts to happen with the stock fin. If you put in a bigger fin ( good luck finding one ) The Us box wont handle the sideways pressure. It Pi&^%$D me of so much I now own a board in that size that comes with a powerbox fin. I run a 32 FSW fin in with a 6.4 now and never have a problem like i used to with the us box.
You can get the US fin bigger if you hunt around, but don't make the mistake of running aground with it, or landing with the board a bit side on.

John1
29th December 2010, 09:51 PM
Kode 102 and US-box.

From 2000 and until now I have had Acid x 3, Carve 99, Hypersonic and Futura. All of them are great boards exept the Hypersonic which is a very difficult board, but;
US-box and 6,5 sail? I agree with the "last speaker". And apart of that; the base of the US-box to day is shorter than the old boxes. Therefor it must be a rather high pressure on that modern boxes.
I was thinking seriously of a Kode now, but because of these arguments I shall try a Lorch Offroad 102 this time.
The time will show if it was stupid or not changing to a Lorch board.
Repeating;
The Starboards are great boards, but many surfers has asked for Power or tuttle boxes for the bigger waveboards during a long time.
Is it tecniquelly impossible to produce them with power or Tuttleboxes or is it without doubt sufficient strenght with the US_boxes.
With regards,
JJ

Ola_H
29th December 2010, 11:41 PM
So you were planing along at good speed but had spin outs now and then? The problem was not that the board spun out on you while trying to gain speed?. In the former case the problem is normally not the size of the fin as the other indicate. In the latter case it can be. Can you specify the nature of the problem a bit more, ie in what sort of situations you get the spinout (and also where you run the straps + if you run double strap in the back).

I'd say that unless you're heavy or heavy footed, the 30cm crossover should cover a 6m2 sail quite well. It's a pretty powerful fin (I run the 28cm version up to 7.0 but I'm quite light).

I agree that 30 or maybe 32 is around the max size a US box will take. But the box installations are much, much more reinforced these days. And the shorter the box, the stronger the box itself will be (assuming the fin base length stays the same).

John1
30th December 2010, 12:08 AM
Im worried about 6,5 sails and the new US-boxes. The fin base length is really shorter. I have the Acid 88 with the "long US-box" . Using the fins from that board for the Acid 2006 I had to cut the finbase down to 22 cm (I think), some cm shorter.

So; if the argument,
the shorter the box, the stronger the box itself will be (assuming the fin base length stays the same) is valuable,
the argument; longer fin base lenght will give a stronger system as assuming the finbase length not stays the same will give a weaker box system.

With regards,
JJ

Ola_H
30th December 2010, 01:29 AM
Well, it doesn't follow by logic, but to some degree, yes. But it's not a totally straightforward relationship. I reckon you have to do some serious calculations to really know the details, but intuitively, increasing both fin base length and box length will help a bit but not that much since even with a stiff g10 base, the torque will be concentrated at the center. But conversely, using a long box with a short fin base will really hurt the strength since the edges of the box help a lot in keeping it distortion free and the further away from where the torque is applied they get, the less useful they will be.

John1
30th December 2010, 04:18 AM
Yes, I understand all your arguments.
But a long box with a "looong" rigid finbase (stiff g10 base) will spread the forces antagonizing the torque in its hole length (force x distance). For a given torque, a short arm will create a higher force. The extreme example of a short box/finbase is a simple screw fixating the fin to the board. What will happen? the force transmitted from the sail ect to the board is still the same. In the future I really hope it will function with the short US- as I love the starboards.
Many years ago there was a similar discussion at the star-board WEB site. (Carve 99 and single footstrap with tuttlebox). I remember from the very beginning that the starboard team was listening to the people out there. Im sure it will progress in the same line for the future.
with regards,
JJ

Ola_H
30th December 2010, 04:40 AM
Yeah, some have noticed the box in the 2011 Atom so things might change. It's always a tradeoff though. I don't reckon the strength of the US box is the real problem and in any case people do in fact also use these Kode sizes in waves and then it's becomes a more delicate matter to get the right trim for both freeride and waves with a fixed box. Compromises...as always. And I reckon this particular size is the most difficult one. Smaller and us box is in my opinion the absolute best choice. And bigger a tuttle (or perhaps power) is the natural choice. But the 102 size is tricky...

Regarding your torque argument it's not in the direction of the box but perpendicular (assuming we're talking about sailing, not hitting rocks). Twisting rather then bending. To see that you get into the area of diminishing returns by a longer base/box, just imagine a several meter long base/box but where the base is only fixed at the ends. Even with a G10 base, there will be a lot of twisting of the fin base. So the further away from the fin you go, the less added length will help. And since it's also a weight issue (less box length=more weight to spend on a stronger box and more reinforcements) there will in practice be some "in between" solution that offers the best compromise. But again, to learn the explicit details one would have to actually calculate it (or make experiments... which is sort of done...there are very few broken boxes nowadays).

John1
30th December 2010, 01:01 PM
Hi again.
We have 2 different torque systems with perpendicular constant axes in our boxes, one of them with longitudial axis. We can end up in complicated mathematics which has interess in other forums.
But its important for the starboards to have guys in the stab with mathematical knowledge putted into applied physics. I understand you are thinking in the right way. Good for the company.
Thank you for the discussion.
JJ.

Maximus
30th December 2010, 08:03 PM
Look what you started ULF...you naughty boy

John1
30th December 2010, 08:32 PM
Most of all;
Its nice to see that the forum is not dead as postulated by some.
"chaous, mother to all sciences".
regards,
JJ