|11th December 2007 05:50 PM|
|viking||Concerning the assertion regarding to the X-15, the X-15 was a rocket propelled aircraft unable to take off by itself. To compare its performances with the SR71 is as relevant as comparing a jetski with a windsurf!|
|4th December 2007 02:40 PM|
MAYBE DRAKE SHOULD SAy ( OOOPS shouting ) pushing the envelope or developing new boxes.....
i think widestyles were outside of the box now they are in the box and we look for new shapes, ie: serenity , again outside the existing box, gets made now it a part of established windsurf shapes therefore its now "in the box"....
oh and one can windsurf in zero wind you just pump the sail. but yeah your not "wind" surfing, and its not too much fun...
|4th December 2007 10:13 AM|
What about the other boxes we keep on ignoring?
There's the board that is easy to sail but goes really well in light winds and tacks quickly.
There's the board that is tough and cheap and can take the role the original longboards had and the kayaks have taken to some extent.
There's the cruising board, to be used like a sea kayak.
There's the club-racing board - good (ie fast) in light winds, stable, simple,
There's the "development class" board where we are no longer constrained by rules that only allow production boards.
All those boxes....it's a pity we just concentrate on one or two of them.
|4th December 2007 05:48 AM|
|G-42||Funny thing about "inside the box" vs. "outside the box" thinking is that often the problem is purely one of perceiving the true dimensions of the current "box." Meaning that often, people come up with wild-ass designs that are way outside the box, and from that something is learned that can improve conventional solutions without ever leaving the box - it's just that people hadn't truly understood how much latitude they already had.|
|4th December 2007 02:06 AM|
This may be a bit off topic, but anyway... I'm not really a theory kind of guy, I prefer to sail more and think about it less. And i'd tried to sail without a fin this summer... and with the correct stance, the board was the same as if it had a fin, it is just a bit more difficult to do carve gybes and not to spin out. As I said, you just need the correct stance (weight on the front foot and the mastfoot/harness lines). Having no fin is great for FREESTYLE though
Don't think it's that far out of the box...
All the best
|4th December 2007 02:05 AM|
|-Lampi-||deleted post... same as the previuos|
|4th December 2007 01:42 AM|
This may be a bit off topic, because I haven't really read the whole thread. I'm not really a theory kind of guy, I prefer to sail more and think about it less. And i'd tried to sail without a fin this summer... and with the correct stance, the board was the same as if it had a fin, it is just a bit more difficult to do carve gybes and not to spin out. As I said, you just need the correct stance (weight on the front foot and the mastfoot/harness lines). Having no fin is great for FREESTYLE though =p
Don't think it's that far out of the box...
All the best
|3rd December 2007 03:05 PM|
Who cares what the science of the box is? Since when has the hydrodynamics of windsurfing been fully explained. The best shapers do not spend time running computer simulations to make a new design, they just try it and that's half the fun. Fun is what this sport is all about.
The idea of not having a fin is something I would love to hear more about though. This is thinking outside the box*
Te only comment in that article I thought was odd was the one saying he would like to make it possible to windsuf in no wind...WTF, surely the wind part of windsurfing gives something away there.
*Widestyle was outside the box at the time, loose leach sails was outside the box at the time. Anything very different has to be considered outside the box.
|3rd December 2007 08:53 AM|
What Crazychemical has to say makes sense. Science produces working hypothesis that produce the goods until their limits are found. With the arrival of Newtonian mechanics it was thought that it was only a matter of time before humans understood how everything worked. But it hit the wall. Later came Quantum Mechanics that explained how sub atomic matter worked with the 'laws' of probability. And so on. The points of 'equilibrium' are transitory.
With the aerospace industry the box is the flight envelope which significantly changed with the advent of computerised control systems. A modern jet fighter is 'unstable' hence its agility and can be flown because of the onboard computer thingies. Not an option for WS!
Anyway, I am sure that we all look forward to Jim Drake's latest break-through for WS.
|3rd December 2007 12:10 AM|
the box being a mathematical structure i think is somewhat true, but on the other hand it may be, i believe, compared to philosophical 'paradigma's' by which everything is defined. Being part of one paradigma is no definate state if you have the need to exceed it, or go underneeth it. Transending a paradigma though, only means you fall into another one.
In that aspect though, you could say that you never manage to fall out of a paradigma and therefore you're also never able to get out 'the box', you just transend to another one...
A box is limited by it's factors, in this case fin + sail + board ... they have their limits; find the solution to transend those limits by whatever means you need and then you eighter transend into another box with new parameters or you expand the old boxes limits untill you hit another utter limit. eighter way, you're no longer in the old box, it's a new one because it has a new shape, or new parameters.
|This thread has more than 10 replies. Click here to review the whole thread.|