Go Back   Starboard Forums > Free Forum > Thinner BOARDS

Thread: Thinner BOARDS Reply to Thread
Your Username: Click here to log in
Image Verification
Post Icons
You may choose an icon for your message from the following list:

Additional Options
Miscellaneous Options

Topic Review (Newest First)
22nd November 2009 11:44 PM
Thinner boards

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!!!!!!
22nd November 2009 03:21 AM
Thinner boards

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!!!
22nd November 2009 01:32 AM
steveC 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.
21st November 2009 04:41 PM
Thinner boards

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!
20th November 2009 11:50 PM
sergio_k 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
20th November 2009 10:49 PM
PG 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.
20th November 2009 04:24 AM
Thinner BOARDS

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

20th November 2009 04:00 AM
Thinner boards

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.]
19th November 2009 11:35 PM
Unregistered 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
10th November 2009 12:34 AM
mac33 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.
This thread has more than 10 replies. Click here to review the whole thread.

Posting Rules
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

All times are GMT +7. The time now is 03:16 AM.