|4th November 2010 04:23 PM|
But I reckon the poster infers that with less width and the same volume, thickness has likely gone up. I've asked Tiesda to comment, but I know he's super busy at the moment. I have not tried the boards myself so I can't really say. But from a general perspective, it's always a compromise between many factors when designing a board. I'm personally a fan if the feel a thin and very flat decked boards provides. but on some boards I have designed and have instead "been forced to" go for a bit more thickness and slighty more deck roundness to arrive at a matter compromise overall (ie a better "fit" for what the boards is designed to do).
I'm sure similar considerations has been involeved when designing the '11 Kode 94.
And by the way, increasing/decreasing width affects volume much less than you might think. On a fairly big board like the Kode 94, 2cm of width change (some of which also more reflect a redistribution of surface rather than a "pure" width decrease) can be counteracted by only a very marginal adjustment of profile. In fact, you can easily regain that the volume "lost" by just redesign the rails a bit and still keep center thickness nice and low.
|3rd November 2010 09:57 AM|
Surely the measurements you give are width measurements, i.e. from rail to rail.
Whereas the 'profile' means the thickness of the hull, from the underside to the deck.
|2nd November 2010 03:05 AM|
kode 2011 vs 2010
I see in the 2011 kode 94 the max width is 60.5 compared to 2010 that is 62.5. does this mean that the board is thicker in profile? this goes against all advertisement that starboard is claiming thinner profiles gives better control?? Now they are going the other direction? can someone explain