|28th April 2008 04:50 AM|
|Anowan||Read what qldsalty wrote, you guys are going to have your "carbon construction" in 2009 on most lines.|
|25th April 2008 10:15 PM|
Yeah, the wood finish looks good at first, but it starts to look like shit after a while and is a pain in the ass to repair / re-finish. I think woodless boards would retain their value longer, especially their resale value.
When the wood grain in the bottom of my F158 started to crack and expose itself through the paint it was the last straw of my many frustrations with the hassle and expense of formula. So I sold my formula kit and bought a low-tech Kona longboard, which I am happy with. I may buy formula stuff again some day, but never a wood-finish board.
|25th April 2008 04:45 PM|
|qldsalty||The new boards are carbon and wood , wood or technora. There are three choices in the 2009 range.|
|25th April 2008 07:55 AM|
However, durability is quite a moot issue: most boards last years (I have a full carbon Rogue Wave that is exactly ten years old) and reality is that most of the times you get tired of the board before it ends its life.
The main reason we see less carbon on sailboards is simply because it is very expensive. But "carbon" (and you can do a wood/carbon if you want) will beat any other fiber for overall layup.
PS I put "carbon" in quotes just because there are a big bunch of types out there.
|25th April 2008 02:08 AM|
Well carbon or not isn't really interesting. To make a stiff, light and strong construction in any composite material it's a matter of the whole construction and the mix of the different lay ups (and the professionality of the guy who does the job). A 100% carbon board would be very stiff, quite strong and VERY fragile (and $$$$$). The mixture of different fibres (and there are lots of other good ones than carbon) will always be a compromise and no single construction is the best on all points.
"Carbon" is also a way of branding some boards. Do you actually know if they use 50% or 5% carbon when they call it "carbon construction"? Do you know where and how they made the lay up?
The most weird way of making a board (looking) light is the way t.ex. Fanatic and F2 do where they kind of sand the paint off the board leaving it with black patches to give it a light weight look.
It's pure branding. Anybody can make a very thin paint covering the whole board and still weighing nothing.
I've had lots of wood boards. The only ones that suffered a little were the formulas. They are very light in the lay up and quite fragile. My carves and S-type were all nice and strong after several seasons of hard work. I agree though that repairing a wood board is a shitty job. Starboard should leave the nose of their boards coloured as it's always here the worst damages happen.
But yes, wood looks good too, and it matters.
|25th April 2008 12:51 AM|
- wood is heavier
- wood breaks easier
- wood is more difficult to repair (always looks like shit after a repair)
but hey, wood looks NICE and is sooooo cooool
|24th April 2008 09:27 PM|
Why no carbon board in Starboard ?
I wonder why Starboard don't use any carbon in their board . Is it because it can save a lot
of cost ? Other brand all have carbon board .