Starboard Forums - View Single Post

6th March 2008, 03:35 AM

Everyone knows that the buoyancy of a board is based on the displacement characteristics and NOT the volume.

I appreciate that quoting the volume for a 'sinker' is relevant because the board is fully underwater then the volume is the displacement, but what about all the other boards? For all the other boards, there is only a minimal link between volume and buoyancy. In many cases it is misleading.

During my earlier naive days, I used the industry's standard buoyancy data (ie width and volume) and bought a new Fanatic Falcon 104 thinking it feel similar to my previous 100L boards. Little did I know the Falcon 89 was much more comparable to my previous boards.

Anyway why does the industry mislead everyone and quote volumes?

6th March 2008, 03:35 AM	#1
Unregistered Guest Posts: n/a	Why Quote Volume Not Displacement? Everyone knows that the buoyancy of a board is based on the displacement characteristics and NOT the volume. I appreciate that quoting the volume for a 'sinker' is relevant because the board is fully underwater then the volume is the displacement, but what about all the other boards? For all the other boards, there is only a minimal link between volume and buoyancy. In many cases it is misleading. During my earlier naive days, I used the industry's standard buoyancy data (ie width and volume) and bought a new Fanatic Falcon 104 thinking it feel similar to my previous 100L boards. Little did I know the Falcon 89 was much more comparable to my previous boards. Anyway why does the industry mislead everyone and quote volumes?