PDA

View Full Version : Thinner BOARDS


GURGLETROUSERS
7th November 2009, 02:57 AM
Could somebody please explain how new thinner Starboard designs can be as strong as more tradional, and thicker, boards? Are they safe for jumping, or 'clattery' chop blasting? Are they kikely to snap in half if 'pushed'? One thousand pounds plus is too much money to be experimenting with.

GURGLETROUSERS
8th November 2009, 02:17 AM
So. No answer then. Do I assume that it's a case of wait and see because the customers will be used as the guinea pigs? Having been bitten once before, I won't [in the absence of proof to the contrary} fall for that one again! Unless there is some radical strengthening inside, it's hard to see how a thinner board can stand up to the constant pounding and thumping of the rig, through the mast foot. [It's almost a point loading right in the middle of the board,and in the absence of a shock absorber there's quite a lot of inertia to absorb.] I hope I'm wrong - but?

mark h
8th November 2009, 02:56 AM
I think the lack of initial response is because it sounds like strange question to ask (not being rude there). I am sure that SB customers are not used as experimental guinee pigs. But I'd guess that SB would heavily test all there boards before putting them on market. My "thin" iSonic hasn't snapped as yet and I don't expect it will either (i'm 105kg). Plus I've not heard of one snapping in two either. Your money sure is safe in buying a next gen thin board:)

Ola_H
8th November 2009, 03:24 AM
The issue of the rig "pounding" the board is not affected much by the thickness of the board. It's more a matter of having a good connection between the mast box and the top laminate so the forces are distributed through the deck. But when it comes to a pure flat landing from a high jump, a thicker board will hold up better if everything else is the same. But when it comes to wave boards the Starboard have been rather fin for many years and have the lowest warranty rates. And if you think of a board like the Atom, it is still not THAT thin in the middle where a pure flat landing would break it. And like with any boards, the construction is a careful compromise between low weight and the best possible strength.

If you think about the slalom boards, like the iSonics and especially the 86 slim, they have a concave deck profile that actually adds stiffness to the board.

Feel free to ask again if you have ore questions.

GURGLETROUSERS
8th November 2009, 04:32 AM
Thank you for the replies. I take your point Ola, that an extra laminate will help spread the shock loading from the mast foot. While flat landings need to be avoided, unfortunately, us intermediates are sometimes caught out. As you say, all else being equal, a thicker board will be more resistant. I'm still using an original Evo 74, [amongst others], so it would be more sensible for me to replace it with a newer version of the same. Once again thank's.

Unregistered
8th November 2009, 09:19 AM
If you think about the slalom boards, like the iSonics and especially the 86 slim, they have a concave deck profile that actually adds stiffness to the board.

Feel free to ask again if you have ore questions.

hi Ola,

I don't understand how a concave deck profile adds stiffness to the board. Can you explain, please? Thank you!

Ola_H
8th November 2009, 02:31 PM
Think of a flat piece of paper. It is super flexible. Now fold it like an accordion and try to bend it across (perpendicular) the fold. Much stiffer, right.

Essentially, the concave deck in addition to the thicker rails (compared with a flatter deck) creates a similar kind of stiffening effect

Hot Ice
8th November 2009, 11:45 PM
I feel there are several design and construction features that influence a boards strength. The boards thickness is only one of them and should not be taken in isolation.

So relax and remember you have the backing of a board warranty. :)

davide
9th November 2009, 09:32 AM
While flat landings need to be avoided, unfortunately, us intermediates are sometimes caught out. As you say, all else being equal, a thicker board will be more resistant. I'm still using an original Evo 74, [amongst others], so it would be more sensible for me to replace it with a newer version of the same. Once again thank's.

I would not be worried about thickness: impact and compression resistance are not effected by the thickness of the (3") soft inner core, nor by the thickness of the denser-foamed mastbox: lamination material and its thickness (a few millimeters) are by far the main factors.

Longitudinal stiffness is, in theory, effected by thickness, but other factors are at play there (lamination, core, stiffeners, shape, etc..).

GURGLETROUSERS
9th November 2009, 08:08 PM
I accept that thinner boards can be strong, but it raises another issue. My original Evo 74 has lasted because it is heavy and, presumably, strongly built. [ Did Starboard over build them because they were takinf things in a new direction and wished to avoid negative feedback?] ------ The general trend since, however, has been for ever lighter boards. [Including Evos.] This is where my main concern lies. You can have a light fragile board, or a heavier durable board, but you CAN'T have a lighter stronger board. Carbon may be stronger than steel weight for weight, but it is used to lighten boards. NOBODY MAKES A HEAVIER MORE DURABLE CARBON BOARD. Why not? I would buy one!

agrelon
9th November 2009, 08:31 PM
I accept that thinner boards can be strong, but it raises another issue. My original Evo 74 has lasted because it is heavy and, presumably, strongly built. [ Did Starboard over build them because they were takinf things in a new direction and wished to avoid negative feedback?] ------ The general trend since, however, has been for ever lighter boards. [Including Evos.] This is where my main concern lies. You can have a light fragile board, or a heavier durable board, but you CAN'T have a lighter stronger board. Carbon may be stronger than steel weight for weight, but it is used to lighten boards. NOBODY MAKES A HEAVIER MORE DURABLE CARBON BOARD. Why not? I would buy one!

Have you ever snapped a 'thin', modern board? how do you know they're less strong?

Surely with new material allowing people to go out in tougher conditions Starboard will have made sure to keep the boards as strong as they were, if not stronger.

mark h
9th November 2009, 09:22 PM
I accept that thinner boards can be strong, but it raises another issue. My original Evo 74 has lasted because it is heavy and, presumably, strongly built. [ Did Starboard over build them because they were takinf things in a new direction and wished to avoid negative feedback?] ------ The general trend since, however, has been for ever lighter boards. [Including Evos.] This is where my main concern lies. You can have a light fragile board, or a heavier durable board, but you CAN'T have a lighter stronger board. Carbon may be stronger than steel weight for weight, but it is used to lighten boards. NOBODY MAKES A HEAVIER MORE DURABLE CARBON BOARD. Why not? I would buy one!

Worth point out that the "new thinner" design quad is about the same weight as the older 2005 Evo. So its a shape change only, no less materials.

davide
9th November 2009, 09:56 PM
NOBODY MAKES A HEAVIER MORE DURABLE CARBON BOARD. Why not? I would buy one!
Boards UK had a very nice articles months ago asking your same question. The problem is that people like to look at a single measurement as a way to summarize complex objects. Weight is very easy to measure and it is very easy to think that the-lighter-the-better. The reality is that 500-1000 grams difference means nothing and would add a lot of extra resistance to the board ... but many people would think that they are buying the lesser product if the buy the heavier one.

GURGLETROUSERS
9th November 2009, 11:22 PM
To Agrelon- Snapped no. Creased yes. It seems to be accepted nowadays that a boards lifespan is only a season or two! --- WHAT new materials? Have they finally perfected ever lasting non ladder nylons? --- To Mark H- Yes, the new quad does seem to be strongly built. [The same reasoning as the original Evo perhaps?] --- To Davide- I fear you've hit the nail on the head! The market is obssessed with light weight because everybody seems themselves as radical hotshots! Am I the only one content to be labelled ordinary?

mac33
10th November 2009, 12:34 AM
i did own once a heavier full carbon board. it was made by Gem, it was a 270cm by 47cm around 70litres, slalom/speed board.
when i bought it second hand i knocked the bottom with hand, it felt real dense + hard as nails.
i used for 2/3 years before finding a starboard 52 that was faster in the chop.
the gem never had a single soft spot after probably 10k use. i think board probably would have lasted at 10 years of twice a week use.
i left it out my back in australian sun and it fell apart by itself after a few years.
the board weighed around 6kg heavy for its size and carbon content.
it costs too much extra for that extra kilo of carbon and besides sales would drop too much, so get back to reality.

Unregistered
19th November 2009, 11:35 PM
Some personal observations.
There were some issues a few years back with some companies "giving the people what they wanted" in the form of very light boards.
I heard this from a wholesaler of a large brand.
unfortunately the wholesaler stated that this brand was seeing fragile hulls, and warranty claims to that fact.
I wont mention the brand.

To add, ive noticed rental outfits in maui putting noseguards on newly bought boards. This has been going on for a few years, and they are only on two brand that i have seen.

me and a friend were quite baffled by this and wondered why NOW, as we never had seen on any rental stuff 6 years + back.
Conclusion , either shops put up with fragility in ther past and changed there ways . Or noseguards had not been available in the past.
Or boards were more structurally sound then and NOT now.

Also to add one shop had a line of boards that they havent changed out for many years, ... no nose guards , much apparent use , suffs and skid marks minor repairs BUT no apparent damage ie nose .( I will mention this brand :realwind boards)


i have flat landed many a jump on the new starboards no "apparent" damage if i kept doing that ..........who knows.
( i wont say if they had noseguards on) shredulato

GURGLETROUSERS
20th November 2009, 04:00 AM
To unregistered guest - I see where you'r coming from and totally agree. Boards in the past WERE stronger! The two best constructions in my experiencewere; MISTRAL DCS, [Screamer and Shredder], and BIC ACE TECH [Bamba]. I used, and sometimes abused, all three boards in the early 90's without damage. Of the eight boards I currently use, the early Evo seems sound, as do the Exocet Cross 118 and Kona. The other five, of assorted makes, I can't be sure about. According to the 'Beach Telegraph' and claims on various websites, they have all been snapped or creased by other people - one make often more than just occasionally! [ Not Starboard.]

myxerss
20th November 2009, 04:24 AM
Hi George
Im excited to be asking you this question

Ive decided to go with the Trick Pro-1 V series pedals. I know you play Axis, and I wanted to know if you could help me understand the differences between the long and short board, because I need to make a decision on which one to choose from Trick, since I cannot test them out at a store.

By the way, what is your opinion on Trick?

Thanks so much

Veronika

PG
20th November 2009, 10:49 PM
How thin boards will hold out for regular use? No one knows. But Exocet did already last year have the waveline Surf II with width to volume ratios very similar to the SB Quad of this year.

Have they held together? That should be some kind of indicator.

And Exocet has launched another thinnish line of waveboard, the 3X, for this season and is keeping the Surf II unchanged. It cannot have been too bad.

sergio_k
20th November 2009, 11:50 PM
First, I think you guys forgetting that new generation boards a re much shorter,
so comparing with older (>10 year old boards), boards got thicker and wider, so now they just get a bit thinner, don't see an issue at all, what makes a diff is quality of construction/
reinforcements, prod. defects... The only board I saw split in 2, was a freewave JP about
10 years back, was a production defect...

And board can be strong and light, most quality custom boards are, and they do last just about forever, the only issue, not very ding resistant, but it's usually easy to fix

GURGLETROUSERS
21st November 2009, 04:41 PM
Ta for the reassurance P.G. Three of my current crop of boards are Exocets, so I like good news
With regard to construction; surely shorter wider thinner boards have no right to be lighter than older shapes OF THE SAME VOLUME! If they are there must be less material, or greater use of carbon. [Unlikely in todays harsh economic climate.]
One change from the 80's/90's is the use of lighter less dense foam. I sawed my 1989 custom Lightwave wave board in half [obselete shape] to see why it was so strong? Clearly, the very dense and heavy foam combined with the epoxy skin worked together with a degree of flex. Apart from constant epoxy dings it survived my learning to jump unscathed.
Might this constant striving for none flex stiffness nowadays be compounding the fragility problem? After all, Oak trees and Willow trees and all that!

steveC
22nd November 2009, 01:32 AM
One important thing to keep in mind is that the EPS foam has very little structural strength by itself, so the thickness of the foam blank really doesn't contribute notably to a board's structural strength and durability. However, in a recent discussion that I had with Mike Zajicek, he indicated that there's often quite a difference in the density of ESP. Although the specified rating of the manufactured foam might be the same, the actual density and weight of different manufacturing lots can vary quite a bit. That's one of the reasons why the overall weight of boards can vary by plus or minus 5-6%.

So, depending on the actual density of the foam used, it can have an affect on the long term durability of a given board. I have found this to be true with a few of the custom boards that I've owned. All the boards were built by Zajicek, so the construction integrity was always extremely high. Over time, the beating a board takes on the bottom below the footstraps, and on the deck in front of the rear strap(s) can literally crush the ESP foam under the divinycel and laminations causing an internal separation and softening in those areas. I should emphasize that this softening occurred after 4-6 years of hard use, but it never has resulted in breakage or leaks of any kind. Other boards, which were used for far longer never reflected any softening of any kind.

To summarize my thoughts a bit, the thickness of the foam means very little with respect to board strength, but its actual density means quite a bit over the long run and can affect a board's overall strength and durability.

GURGLETROUSERS
22nd November 2009, 03:21 AM
Many thanks SteveC. Youconfirm what I found with the Lightwaves. The foam was very dense, and the board was strong. Many jumps went wrong but it withstood the impacts, half ton epoxy Rotho Super Wave masts inertia loadings not withstanding! I wonder how my current J.P. Freestyle Wave board would take to such treatment? It doesn't bear thinking about!!!

GURGLETROUSERS
22nd November 2009, 11:44 PM
With the helpful information now received I want to know exactly what, and how much, is inside a board before I buy any more new ones? Fancy marketing pictures of hot shots doing twirly whirly things on 50 foot breaks, then throwing in a couple of loops while picking their noses in boredom at the lack of real action is useless. I want to see sectioned [nearly said exploded] diagrams of a boards innards. The thicknesses names and average densities of the materials used is also needed. In any other field [cars, cameras,etc] we get deluged with such information. Why not with boards? Iv'e spent thousands over the years so I feel justified in now making demands! P.S. I note that with carbon booms the strengh before lightness principle is the norm, but not with boards! Well, the worm has turned!!!!!!