PDA

View Full Version : Life is so simple in Starboard World ?


Unregistered
12th October 2010, 01:04 AM
Recently watched Tiesda`s speech about new Futrura.
I like the way that everything is so simple;pragmatic and easy. Obvious almost.

We`ve made the board 15% thinner to make board easy to control. ?

We`ve sharpened rails to make board fast ?

We`ve added dome to make board comfortable ?

So we`ve now got another new board with greater range;faster top speed' easier control ;earlier planing and easier gybing ??? Its great ;how do they do it year after year ?

Unregistered
12th October 2010, 01:19 AM
Although I am a starboard fan, I must agree :)


But on the other hand, it's the same in any other sport, hobby or wathever, e.g. skis, snowboards, tennis racquets, computers, software, mobiles, etc ...

Each year newer models, each year better.

Functionally all these products often don't get much better.
It's the package and marketing around that gets better each time.

It's the only way the manufacturers can survive.

Unregistered
12th October 2010, 02:06 AM
Hmmm, next year they make them stronger.......broke the top side of my brande new 2010 F111WC after only 3 hrs of use. Must say I love the producs and also have 3 other SB´s - so I wait for my dealer to answer on my poor F111WC :-(

But writing of 1200€ in 3 hrs is to expensive :-)

/Jan, DK

Philip
12th October 2010, 06:15 AM
Actually I see a parallel with what is going on in the snow ski world where the latest generation of all mountain equipment has produced significantly more versatile gear and some very interesting design concepts like reverse or adaptive camber / early rise tips etc that really do work in the steep and deep, are great for mowing down crud, and generally opening up the skiing experience.

Unregistered
12th October 2010, 03:22 PM
Yeh; some must be impressed or they wouldn`t do it !

viking
12th October 2010, 03:31 PM
Of course, he won't tell you "the new model is not better than the former one"; otherwise he kills the buisiness :)

That's how the world works.

Nevertheless, it is true that little by little, the shapes improve. It is not significant from one year to another, but a 2011 board is trully better than a 2005 one. The problem actually is that the price increase has become significant from one year to another!

viking
12th October 2010, 03:34 PM
Kitesurf evolves more rapidly because it is a younger sport. And I am not sure it is evolving a lot anymore.

In windsurf, we know now for about 10 years what works and what don't.

Farlo
12th October 2010, 03:34 PM
This is not specific to Starboard. All brands claim to make better gear year after year. This is probably a must to attract cool newcomers who want something else than their (grand) Dad. This must be true to some extend because the evolution is sensible over the past ten years, and furthermore if you look further back. However I wonder what the next revolution may be. Windsurf seems to be evolving marginally now while Kitesurf... I mean: isn't Kitesurf a radical evolution of Windsurf, like Windsurf itself was for sail boat? Smaller, more agile, bigger sail vs. wetted area, etc...

viking
12th October 2010, 05:03 PM
Can be seen like this

What is good to know if the situation is this one is that there are in the world maybe 200 times more people that practise sailboat than windsurfers, if the ratio windsurf/kite could be the same...

So, what can be the next step after kitesurf?

Some people try to sell the SUP as the next big thing, but it is not an evolution/revolution of kite/wind

Unregistered
12th October 2010, 05:34 PM
"Of course, he won't tell you "the new model is not better than the former one"; otherwise he kills the buisiness "

"In windsurf, we know now for about 10 years what works and what don't."

So in otherwords its BS ???>?>

Its not the claims re-performance that are contentious its the explanations I find questionable.

Like

" Lowering mast foot position aids control " ? Hows that work then ???

Almost like its set in stone;proven and obvious. Which at best it just isn`t ???? Is it ???

If its the case
a) Why dont other brands do it ??

b) Why didn`t starboard do it before ???

It will be good to see results ???

BelSkorpio
12th October 2010, 06:33 PM
Fanatic is doing it.
All the new falcons 2011 for instance are coming with a recessed deck.

But I agree, the real benefits still need to be proven.
How much percentage the aid will be, I don't know ...

The only way to find out is testing the 2010 & 2011 models on the same day, same place, same time, same rig, etc ...
I the benefit is high, you need to feel right away. If any doubt, well ....

Farlo
12th October 2010, 08:44 PM
Hmmm, not sure at all recessed deck will change the world. Quite the opposite way you have the NS ShoX which is also supposed to aid control, but obviously needs some clearance between sail and board. I wonder how you can live with 8 cm higher sail in one case and not in the other. Fanatic may have the answer. Windsurf is full of such wonders.

What is the next step after Kitesurf? Maybe Zeppelin pulled barefoot.

viking
12th October 2010, 09:39 PM
Paragliding is the natural evolution of the trend but it already exists!

Unregistered
12th October 2010, 09:40 PM
Wonder how much these "releases" are designed to promote discussion rather than offer definitive explanations. No such thing as bad publicity ??

If all the clams made had been realised over the years we`d have one wondrfull board;perhaps 2 sails and sail in 10 knots to 40 no problems..

Must seem little contrived to keep repeating the same (OK similar) blurb year on year ; afterall the Futura was suppose to do all these things 5 years ago; as was the S Type etc etc. Its the lack of objectivity that allows this to happen; imagine Ford claiming better top speed; acceleration;mpg; cornering; space etc with no one really knowing how fast its ever going.(or even excactly how big it is) It would be unacceptable in other sports but we just listen to it time and time again;year on year and keep replacing old with new to find out the claims aren`t are exactly that; and dont match up to reality ????

Is the 2011 Futura really faster than an 2010 ????

Farlo
12th October 2010, 11:24 PM
The answer is yes but by the time you can notice the difference, 2012 models will be available. Faster of course...

BelSkorpio
13th October 2010, 03:02 AM
By the way, the same story with the sails.

Take a look at the presentation of the new Neilpryde RS:RACING EVOIII of 2011.
http://rsracing.neilpryde.com/

Guess what, it's better in everything, more control in the gusts, higher top end speed, etc...

I do like these sails, really. They are top.
But I wonder how much better they are than the EVO/0 of 2007 that I have.

Anyway, would be very cool to test one out. :)

Ola_H
13th October 2010, 03:32 AM
Of course it's important to promote the product, but there is also clear development going on. I like to think about board development in terms of two aspects. 1. The "idea", target or vision. What exactly do you want the board to do? What should it do excellently and where can you compromise. 2. The execution. How well do you succeed in reaching your set goal.

Sometimes, even within a given board model program, the target shifts a bit. It might turn out customers had a different priority compared to what the designers though. Maybe they wanted a faster board but could handle some compromises elsewhere (or more exactly: maybe the designers think this is the case, it is hard to know exactly what customers really want). Then the target/vision has to move a bit and the shape will have to be adjusted.

But often, the target/focus remains the same and the designer simply keeps working on finding a better execution by either improve on priority areas or to make less compromises in non priority areas. And since board designs is very difficult and full of new things to learn, designer might find some new tricks or a new way of combining old trick and this might help them make a better board in the sense of making a board that fits the "idea"/vision/target better (and hopefully then satisfies the customers to a higher degree).

From one year to another it may not always be easy for a general sailor to feel the difference. But if you compare over say five years, the it is normally quite clear the new board is simply better.

Regarding the deck concave, only my iSonic has it so I can't say how much of a difference it makes. But I can say that it was over 20 years ago I started to note that thinner boards always felt so much niver to ride. In wave boards (and most other boards) there are many things to consider in the shape and it is not always easy to make a thin board, but to me it's clear that a thinner boards i simply nicer and the lower mast foot position is for sure an important factor. So why wasn't recessed decks done earlier. Mostly tradition, I reckon. SOmetimes, even if you get an ide like this and can prove for yourself that it works, you might still be a bit vary about implementing it because it will just "look strange" and looks is an important thing too when selling boards. And in this case, the deck concaves was introduced rather slowely and carefully on iSOnics. And as usually happens, we get used to the look and the idea which makes it possible to go a bit further. But even so, there are still other aspects to consider so as always the choosen design is a compromise between many factors.

Ola_H
13th October 2010, 03:33 AM
Of course it's important to promote the product, but there is also clear development going on. I like to think about board development in terms of two aspects. 1. The "idea", target or vision. What exactly do you want the board to do? What should it do excellently and where can you compromise. 2. The execution. How well do you succeed in reaching your set goal.

Sometimes, even within a given board model program, the target shifts a bit. It might turn out customers had a different priority compared to what the designers though. Maybe they wanted a faster board but could handle some compromises elsewhere (or more exactly: maybe the designers think this is the case, it is hard to know exactly what customers really want). Then the target/vision has to move a bit and the shape will have to be adjusted.

But often, the target/focus remains the same and the designer simply keeps working on finding a better execution by either improve on priority areas or to make less compromises in non priority areas. And since board designs is very difficult and full of new things to learn, designer might find some new tricks or a new way of combining old trick and this might help them make a better board in the sense of making a board that fits the "idea"/vision/target better (and hopefully then satisfies the customers to a higher degree).

From one year to another it may not always be easy for a general sailor to feel the difference. But if you compare over say five years, the it is normally quite clear the new board is simply better.

Regarding the deck concave, only my iSonic has it so I can't say how much of a difference it makes. But I can say that it was over 20 years ago I started to note that thinner boards always felt so much niver to ride. In wave boards (and most other boards) there are many things to consider in the shape and it is not always easy to make a thin board, but to me it's clear that a thinner boards i simply nicer and the lower mast foot position is for sure an important factor. So why wasn't recessed decks done earlier. Mostly tradition, I reckon. SOmetimes, even if you get an ide like this and can prove for yourself that it works, you might still be a bit vary about implementing it because it will just "look strange" and looks is an important thing too when selling boards. And in this case, the deck concaves was introduced rather slowely and carefully on iSOnics. And as usually happens, we get used to the look and the idea which makes it possible to go a bit further. But even so, there are still other aspects to consider so as always the choosen design is a compromise between many factors.

agrelon
13th October 2010, 05:48 AM
It's simple physics why a lower mast track position would make the board more stable.

Unregistered
13th October 2010, 03:55 PM
Stability and control are different things and not even sure about your statement.

Think its this sort of reasoning that original poster is talking about.

Farlo
13th October 2010, 07:09 PM
Simple physics, yes and no. Lateral force on mast base can't be so strong or you could never go upwind and ride the fin. Then it doesn't matter so much how high is the mast track. Lowering sail center of effort by a few centimeters may help, but I guess sail design and proper rigging are far more important. Recessed deck follows the trend towards flat boards & backward volume. You need some surface ahead to get going but once on a plane it should disappear. Another few years and you will obtain... a Kitesurf.

Ken
13th October 2010, 11:13 PM
Stability and control are different things and not even sure about your statement.

Think its this sort of reasoning that original poster is talking about.

Where the sail connects to the board, the closer to the surface of the water equals more stability. I have an iSonic 111 and a HiFly 105 Move, both almost the same in volume (108 vs 105). The 111 is wider - 68.5 cm vs 63 cm for the HiFly. The HiFly is 16 cm longer. The biggest difference is the thickness of the deck and the HiFly is much more "tippy". Width plays a role here but if you take this concept to the extreme and made the HiFly deck much thicker and shorten the board without changing the volume or width, it would be even more unstable at rest because you moved both the sailor and mast further off the water's surface. The higher off the surface of the water you place the mast and rider, the greater the likelihood of turning over or falling off.

With that said, I think that the thickness of the board has more to do with the stability than the slight recess of the mast foot connection, but both do help with stability.

It's a little more difficult to measure the stability differences while moving at 20+ knots, but I believe it is still there with the thinner board and lower mast foot.

Stability and control are different, but they are closely related. Unstable = less control and Stable = more control. I guess I would use the word stability when talking about slogging and control when planing. This whole thing can get pretty murky if you think of a formula board that is very stable at slow to medium speeds because of the board width and thinness, but can have huge control issues at high speeds.

It is simply a matter of physics.

Unregistered
14th October 2010, 06:31 AM
Everything is a matter of physics.

This is a matter of some simplistic physics with some aspects missed out and lots of assumptions thrown in.

There are just so many variables missed out;how far off water feet are (which transmit more power than mast foot). Centre of lift of board; centre of lateral resistance;centre of buoyancy.Total CoG (not just boards)

Stability and control are almost mutually exclusive.Narrowest least stable boards have far better total control.

We do what the marketing depts do. We chose particular aspects of the physics and quote them to justify the bits that have been added.

Windsurfing is full of half truths and sadly the objectivity that is demanded in physics (in the real world) is sadly lacking in the world of windsurfing.

I`m afraid windsurfing is full of mis- conceptions. Fair enough this might not be one of them but its certainly by no means "simple" physics. (there`s no such thing)

How many times do we hear

"Cut outs reduce drag" (They actually increase it !!!)
And others !!!

We accept so much subjectivity; opinions and here say.

Philip
14th October 2010, 08:36 AM
The interface between aero and hydro dynamics is always going to be an experimental field with so many shifting parameters nothing can be taken for granted. Anyone interested could have a look at the books by Marchaj on this subject. Sailing Theory & Practice runs to over 400 A4 sized pages while Aero-Hydrodynamics of Sailing runs to 685 pages. While written in 1964 and 1979 these remain a great reference.

BelSkorpio
14th October 2010, 06:46 PM
"Cut outs reduce drag" (They actually increase it !!!)

Euhm, I'm very curious how you explain this ?

Ken
14th October 2010, 10:23 PM
I agree, it's extremely complex and the designers are still experimenting to find a better way. You don't find better boards every year, but they do keep getting better over the long haul.

Assuming cut outs reduce the wetted surface, one might conclude that there would be less drag?

Evaluating board performance will always be subjective - there are too many variables for it to be objective. This leaves us with no other option but to accept subjective opinions.

Ola_H
15th October 2010, 01:15 AM
Everything is a matter of physics.


As someone a bit interested in philosophy (of mathematics...but still) I actually beg to differ. Remember that physics is the STUDY of nature (simplistically speaking). It's not nature itself. So a more appropriate way of describing thing would be that the behavior of windsurf boards can be described and analysed in terms of physics. But one can also look at it purely from en empirical point of view. Ie go out and sail see what works and have some other form of more or less systematic way of "transferring" the experience to new board shapes (something which could very well be a tacit type of knowledge).

And it is in fact FAR from clear which is best. As a scientist myself, I of course want to believe in the scientific way of working and that working from general principles of physics (hydrodynamics etc) would be the best way of doing things. But since the matter is so unbelievably complex I think the more tacit form of understanding in practice has proven to be better. Sometimes this form of knowledge can of course be informed from general physical principles, though. But I seriously doubt ANY board designer works purely from physiscs. I doubt even sail boat designers do.

Legendary bike designer Keith Bontrager formulated it well when he said that design is part art and part science. A combination of creative thinking and disciplined thinking.

Unregistered
15th October 2010, 01:30 AM
Cut outs do not reduce wetted surface area;they change its position.

A board going at a given speed needs a certain amount of area to support the load.Reducing area at rear means board will just find required lift elsewhere to find equilibrium.

One element of drag is directly related to the length of the trailing edge;its why aeroplane wings;our fins (for speed) have straight trailing edges. (or curved but not cutouts) Cutouts increase trailing edge length and hence increase drag;

Modern boards use big fins ; big fins need a wide board to provide the leverage to prevent excessive railing;fin lift. At some point as board increases speed the rear of the board starts producing too much lift;we see this as control problems;tail walking etc etc.(ie board is producing more lift than loa

Cutouts make it possible to build a wide board but with a small surface area.A wide board without cutouts would have less drag but severe control issues.

They dont work by simply reducing drag.Its much more complex.

Unregistered
15th October 2010, 01:39 AM
I agree with your point Ola but we shouldnt then try and use the physics to collaborate/simplify/justify what is in essence informed experimentation.

BelSkorpio
15th October 2010, 03:43 AM
Cutouts make it possible to build a wide board but with a small surface area.A wide board without cutouts would have less drag but severe control issues.

So you mean that cutouts are improving more control than direct speed. The total wetted surface stays the same. The cutouts simulate a thinner board in the tail while planing, so more control.
I'm following this.

I don't understand why a longer trailing edge increases drag. Is it because the smooth and continuous tail curve gets "interrupted" by the cutouts - when planing - and in this way also disturbs the hydrodynamic flow ?

Unregistered
15th October 2010, 04:36 AM
The way it was explained was;

Imagine standing behind a building in strong wind;you are infact in a lower pressure/turbulent zone;even though sheltered.The building on its lee side experiences a negative (lower) pressure ; .Now imagine the building moving through still air;that negative pressure zone would resist movement ( offer drag) and would be evident over the entire buildings length.
Its sort of intuitive if you imagine fin (or board). is fat on its trailing edge.The negative pressure would have a larger area to operate on;pressure constant but area larger. Trailing edge drag therefore correlates vwith edge length;not its effective edge length. (On other hand lift correlates with effective leading edge lenght)

So thats why highest lift drag ratios are with almost straight and long leading and trailing edges.(Gliders and fins) (I believe)

Philip
15th October 2010, 06:17 AM
Hi Ola H, yes meta-mathematics is a very interesting area of study. The maths contrary to what many people might think is not part of the nature but a way of understanding the nature. It is as you say part of the current discussion about how empirical evidence and higher level theories bootstrap. Marchaj (writing at the threshold of the invention of windsurfing) put it this way:

"Without some guiding idea or theory one can not even determine which features or factors to look for. Concepts or theories are frequently acquired by accident...but accident favours the prepared mind.." (page 346 on three dimensional foils in The Aero-Hydrodynamics of Sailing )

Ola_H
15th October 2010, 04:11 PM
Hi Ola H, yes meta-mathematics is a very interesting area of study. The maths contrary to what many people might think is not part of the nature but a way of understanding the nature. It is as you say part of the current discussion about how empirical evidence and higher level theories bootstrap. Marchaj (writing at the threshold of the invention of windsurfing) put it this way:

"Without some guiding idea or theory one can not even determine which features or factors to look for. Concepts or theories are frequently acquired by accident...but accident favours the prepared mind.." (page 346 on three dimensional foils in The Aero-Hydrodynamics of Sailing )

I agree. Of course some general idea of physics may help guide your design decisions. I think all good shapers have some sort of idea about how "things work". In fact, I have been thinking a lot about this in the area of wave board design (which is even more complex). After interviewing most of the best shapers of the world, I think there are at least three interrelated problem areas we need to connect. One is the actual riding experience. Most people can feel some board is better than another (for some particular purpose) but how do you in your mind discern different features of the ride from each other. And for each of those features what is the range of possible feel and performance aspects. The shaper (or tester) need a certain sensitivity when riding the board and/or an ability to recollect the feel afterwords, possible with the help of pics or video. So essentially, you need a "language for assessing the ride".

Then we have the issue of the actual board shape. You can measure it in millimeters as sort of bit map, but the overall shape is far to complex for such representation to tell you much. SO you need to look at the board in some other way. Often we use particular identifiers like volume, width, ofo, maybe amount of rocker (measured in some particular way) - I suppose each shaper has his or her own particular "numbers". Then we of course look at some curves and the smoothnes of them. Personally I use the notion of curvature a lot (in my own design program I can even decide a certain curvature flow of tx the rocker and then have the program calculate a curve with that particular curvature flow). But regardless of how you do it, you need a "language of assessing the geometry of the shape".

Finally you need some sort of basic rules that informs you how the features or combinations of features of the shape relates to features or combination of features of the ride. Theoretically, this could be guided by principles from physics, but I reckon for most part each shaper derives this from his or her own experience, possible also from discussion with others.

I would say that all three areas also influence each other as a shaper builds up his understanding. For example, it makes sense to use geometry variables that as good as possible relates to the way the shaper understand "what matters" in relation to certain ride variables. Or vice versa. For example, I know one well know shaper who uses the "height" of the rocker at 140cms from the tail as an important tell tale of rocker curve, and more specifically of the "rocker curve entry" which he then relates to aspects like board character in long turns, sense of feeling "free" etc etc. SInce this shaper has several hundred, maybe thousand boards under his belt and for each one of them has gotten feedback from the ride and then has related this to the "140cm height", he has a sort of database of this relationship (naturally also together with many other aspects). Probably quite effective, but not really physics except that some very, very rudimentary concepts from physics may help to structure the experience. Personally, as mentioned, I tend to work more with curvatures which in some sense makes more physical sense since they have a closer relationship with water flow. But even for me, most of the "guidance" for my understanding comes not from physics but from actually riding boards.

When I sit down to make a totally new board, I first decide what I want to it to, ie I formulate an idea about the ride. This is not just simple compromises between stuff like looseness and speed, but much more intricate, relating things like the character of different types of turns, how will the board feel when slogging (ie sub planing), how will the board feel when you push it to get planing, etc etc. Then I pick some shape aspects from other boards just to get a starting point. Rocker from this board, outline from this board, rails fro this baord etc. Then I do some basic scaling operations to get the right size, length, width, thickness, rails, rocker etc might be scaled differently depending on the rider. After this the real work starts. I watch the baords on my screeen (it's is then represented in lots of 2d curves and their curvatures) and I simply imagine sailing it, going through all relevant "situations" I can think of. When doing this I suppose I recall many, many experiences from other boards in particular situations and at the same time using the fact that I very carefully have measured and "characterized" the shapes of pretty much all boards I've ridden for 20 years. I rarely need to go back and look at the "mathematical" data of a board. It's is more like thinking about the face of somebody you know, you can recall the image of it without needing to go into details of ear, nose, eye etc. WIth this "contemplation" as a guide I start to fine tune the board... maybe some rails changes here, maybe a bit less outline curve there, maybe moving the curvature of the rocker back a bit etc.

When it comes to just updating an old shape, of course experience from that particular board matters the most, but even then the process is similar.

So, maybe some of this is guided by some basic understanding of physics I have, but I would still say it is a much more direct relationship between shape and experience.

But then we have the "problem" of trying to explain to the customer why the board is designed like it is. Some don't care, but some want's to be more involved. Then I'm challenged with trying to explain my own understanding to others. Sometimes it's not easy and now and then I might invoke some principles from physics as "helpers", despite that it might not have been those principles that guided my own choices. But of course it need to be things I believe in myself. This an important aspect of the respect for the rider/customer. But a more difficult question is if it really has to be "correct"? What is it really I'm explaining?

Farlo
17th October 2010, 12:49 AM
Correctness may be difficult because explaining complex matters is, but over-simplistic explanations or justifications may look like BS. For instance recessed deck (combined with other features) will certainly bring benefits in certain aspects of riding, but probably requires some compromises as well. The issue is that every new design is presented as the ultimate, best ever... just to be replaced by something else after one/two years. By the way recessed deck is nothing new. Tiga did it in the early nineties (without lowering the mast track). The idea was already to increase control by pulling volume backward. This was followed by the No-nose fever which vanished as fast as it had bloomed.

Unregistered
17th October 2010, 10:53 PM
I can understand both sides of this "discussion" and sympityhise with both but what I dont understand is how builders use rash statements utilising the verey physics/maths/hydrodynamics or whatever they imply is not that important in overal scheme.

For example; we often see mention of High aspect Planing surfaces which just dont hold up under the physics "microscope".

A body planes because of momentum trasfer;board effectively bounces off the water. Its not a foil or a wing;there are just different shaped planing surfaces.the only thiong that makes it plane in direction it does is Fin/rig;a long flat surface planes just as efficiently as a wide short one.So why the claims. Folk at SB must know all this ??!!

A wide planing surface allows board to carry big skegs so why not just say that intead of "Higher efficiency High Aspect Planing Surface" which is just BS !!!

davide
17th October 2010, 11:30 PM
Hi Ola H, yes meta-mathematics is a very interesting area of study. The maths contrary to what many people might think is not part of the nature but a way of understanding the nature.

Well, actually that is quite open to debate and it is not a resolved issue. One of the many mysteries surrounding us is why relatively simple mathematical equations describe nature so well. The discussion has been going on at least since the time of Pitagora. The following assay is only 50 years old, but it is quite insightful: http://www.dartmouth.edu/~matc/MathDrama/reading/Wigner.html

Philip
18th October 2010, 10:16 AM
Noted the reference in that article to : The probabilistic nature of the "laws of nature". Good point.

Ola_H
18th October 2010, 02:50 PM
RIght "all sides" of the old debate of the nature of mathematics is still alive. My personal view is that if all those sides of mathematics survived for so long, each of them probably say something important about mathematics that the other sides don't. So it's and endeavor with many faces. Science is a crual mistress, they say. But with mathematics its more: "WHo are you?... I'm whatever you want me to be".

For a view of one of the more extreme view points, Google Max Tegmark. He has a theory that essentially claims the universe (and in fact every universe) is equivalent to a mathematical structure. Or more exact. If you believe reality exist also if humans do not observe it (external reality hypotheses) and if you think there is a general theory for describing "the world", then this theory will be a mathematical structure.

But now we went astray, didn't we...

Farlo
18th October 2010, 05:18 PM
During the weekend I removed one cm of dust from my old Tiga 270 to look at the shape. It is the exact reverse of the actual trend: very thick and narrow, notably at the rear, and with a big nose. The recessed deck ends before the mast track. One benefit was probably to make the board stiffer but I remember it was also on the Tiga 285, of much harder construction, along with a big dome at the rear. A few questions popped in my mind. "Reducing succion effet which tends to lift the board at high speed", how does it work? Probably by generating some turbulence over the deck but then you get extra drag, don't you? What is the impact on speed? And lowering the mast track, though it makes the board more stable laterally, certainly doesn't help to keep the nose down (just make a drawing). And how does "closing the gap" aid control? Maybe the mast track had to be pulled back because COG was. Many compromises must be made to get a better board. So I guess life is not so easy at SB. Or at least not as easy as marketing pitches suggest.

BelSkorpio
18th October 2010, 06:18 PM
All good questions, Farlo.

I wonder why the master himself, Tiesda You, never answers any of these questions.
After all, he's the brain, the engineer, the specialist in aspects of fluid dynamics, production control, thermodynamics, material science, advanced mathematics and mechanics.

Perhaps he has no time to read these forums :(

viking
18th October 2010, 07:19 PM
All good questions, Farlo.

I wonder why the master himself, Tiesda You, never answers any of these questions.
After all, he's the brain, the engineer, the specialist in aspects of fluid dynamics, production control, thermodynamics, material science, advanced mathematics and mechanics.

Perhaps he has no time to read these forums :(

Whatever his specialities (among those marketing is surely his best), he is surely not skilled enough to follow and understand what people wrote here otherwise he would be Nobel price already!

Unregistered
18th October 2010, 11:41 PM
Good job engines aren`t designed by artists and folks valueing subjective "feelings" ;otherwise we`d be driving about in cars with side valve motors doing 30 mph and 10 mpg !!!

Even more BS on here than normal !!!

Farlo
19th October 2010, 01:14 AM
Most probably Tiesda understands all is written there, but is just too busy preparing the 2012 range.

BelSkorpio
19th October 2010, 02:02 AM
Lol :) :) :)

Philip
19th October 2010, 06:34 AM
[QUOTE=Ola_But now we went astray, didn't we...[/QUOTE]

Which goes to a debate several thousand years old as to whether it is humanity which is flawed or indeed the creation is just a complex and unforgiving place. No doubt it can be described by mathematics yet to be understood but I happen to subscribe to Karl Popper's (1902-1994) view that knowledge is conditional and the best we can do is to critically evaluate the possibilities and that open societies do this best.

Pertinent to the current discussion Popper asserted that "science is perhaps the only human activity in which errors are systematically criticised and in time corrected". Interestingly the Australian neurophysiologist John Eccles (1903-1997), a joint Nobel Prize winner for work on the central nervous system (1963), who did other collaborative work with Popper, argued that at the limits of knowable science there was a “divine providence” - which brings another face yet again to the debate.

This raises the question as to whether WS goes beyond the athletic and by engaging directly with nature is aesthetic in nature - many surfers think that of their sport and accept the mix of science and unresolved nature as the real attraction of being out there. I think that a lot of WS are a bit shy of saying it this way but old time surfers are more forthcoming. As an unreconstructed 'gear head' I applaud the developments in WS which *Board and others are providing which allow us to get closer to that experience, but to expect ultimate clinical efficiency for me is unrealistic. In the end WS is 'subjective' experimental and creative which is surely is what each unique ride is all about. Patently today the gear is more fit for purpose than ever which improves access to that 'experience' and we have to respect the intellectual property of the designers who have provided great advances in our still young recreation.

Unregistered
19th October 2010, 10:55 AM
dooods...
what in the &*&k are you talking about??

like ...you've toaaaaaaaaa-tally lost me!
less time blabbing more time windsurfing.


i would hate for some of you people to explain how to rig a sail.

herne

Farlo
19th October 2010, 02:30 PM
Hi Philip, in other words there's always been something magic in WS that can't be captured by computers. At some point you feel water and wind helping you rather than giving you a hard time. We call it perfect conditions and another day we might be in a different mood and it's gone. It is completely linked to our personal experience and difficult to share. I think many of us are in this sport for those magical moments (which by the way do not require the ultimate gear).

viking
19th October 2010, 03:25 PM
Most probably Tiesda understands all is written there, but is just too busy preparing the 2012 range.


You will never know, as everyone, he stopped reading after 5 lines with a strong headache!

Farlo
19th October 2010, 07:01 PM
Ola made a nice attempt to divert the discussion from the usual questions/complaints about SB marketing, apparently with great success. Headache is a small cost for such elevation of mind.

Darko_Z
19th October 2010, 08:20 PM
Little bit more of science talk, if you don’t like that, just read the last line.
Basic principle of science is that every theory must be proved with experiment and every experiment must be explained by theory. So science is trying to find explanation for reality as opposed to religion where people are trying to find reality that fits explanation. Mathematic is just one of the ways to describe certain problem. You can use this to build a virtual model of reality which helps you find solution in real world. But reality contains infinite amount of information and therefore is impossible to include everything in your model of reality. That’s why you make a model of certain problem and you try to include information which is relevant for solving this problem. But of course you can never include everything in your model that influences the result, so there is always uncertainty. Sailing is very complex problem that’s why the degree of uncertainty in mathematic model is high.

Simply said, windsurfing is science + religion.

Many years ago goal in windsurf design was to make windsurf faster in ideal conditions. The result were boards and sails which were faster than today but only at 115° angle and constant wind, no wind holes below 20kn. Upwind, low planning threshold and range are better with modern windsurf equipment. This development was crucial for windsurfing to survive. Most people have limited possibilities to windsurf in ideal conditions, if I would have to wait for constant wind 20 – 25 kn on ideal spot, I would probably windsurf less then 7 days/year. Who would spend so much money for 7 days of fun. This is the case with more than 90% of windsurfers. With windsurfing gear I have today I can windsurf (planning) 30 to 40 days/year. Without this development most windsurfers would probably start kiting.

If somebody claims that windsurfs of today are better, he is probably right but with regard to the goal he wants to achieve.

Ola_H
20th October 2010, 02:50 AM
Well, diversion was not the intention. For the record, while on one hand I think we all need to understand marketing is marketing, not to be confused with objective description of the boards; on the other hand I do believe in "respect the rider" which for example means it's not a good idea to give intentional mis-information.

In short, what I want to say is:
1. Board development is mostly an empirical endeavor that at best is generally guided by some principles of physics.
2. A designer may still want to "explain" his design, for example try to explain how this years model is different to last years model and what the effects of the ride are.
3. Due to the nature of the development, the understanding the shaper has of the "why" of shaping may be a tacit form of knowledge so when the shaper tries to explain to someone else there may well be a fair bit of "physical hand waiving" (in both senses: actually waiving the hands and at the same time making sweeping references to physics).
4. When marketing departments get ahold of this it may become worse...

I reckon that (at least up to point 3.) this can still be honest work. The shapers tries his best to shape the best board then tries his best trying to explain what he did and why it works.

And in the end, I think the best thing is to concentrate on what claims about actual on water performance that are made and if the boards fulfills them. Claims about _why_ the board fulfills the requirements might be interesting to shapers and some other nerds, but in the end, I think most sailors will rather have a good boards that comes with a bad argument than a bad board with a good argument.

Personally I'm working for good boards with good arguments, but you can't always have it all.

jackoo
20th October 2010, 04:52 AM
Thanks for sharing....

Unregistered
20th October 2010, 05:00 AM
Think Ola`s last post is one of most honest I`ve seen on here. I`ve been critical of SB (and others)approach to marketing for a while but if there are other folk in SB thinking along these lines I`m a convert !!

Nice one Ola !!!

Interesting thread; Darko Z also excellent post !!!

Ken
21st October 2010, 11:49 PM
Good post Ola-

One thing that I have experienced is that when jumping on to a new board for the first time, it never immediately feels like a great board, regardless of what the shaper or marketing dept. has said. It takes some time to adapt to the new design and get comfortable with the feel and handling of the board as well as learning how to tune it to my style and size. In most cases, my new boards have turned out to be better than the previous ones, but not always.

Sometimes, I think the testing of a new design doesn't discover the shortcomings until after the board is in production. This clearly has happened a couple of times in the history of the Formula boards. This is a by product of the need/desire to come up with a new & improved design each year, but with relatively little time to reach that goal. On the other hand, some designs have been carried over and not changed every year other than the paint jobs, which is generally a good thing for the consumer, but it may not increase the profit margin for the company.

However, I think the "art" as much or more than the "science" of board design has contributed to the amazing progress in windsurfing equipment over the last 39 years. Not just boards, but fins, sails, booms, etc.

Farlo
22nd October 2010, 10:21 PM
Something I appreciate in SB is that the boards I tried almost immédiately felt great. It took me very little time and tuning to get good feeling in many aspects of the ride. Maybe I was lucky and picked the right ones for my weight & skills but I suspect this is also due to hard work at design stage. Good boards, sometimes with questionable arguments.