Go Back   Starboard Forums > Ask Our Team

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 1st March 2009, 01:12 PM   #41
Alpina57
New Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 7
Default

I started this thread and can't believe the response it has churned up !
Now if someone(I'm THINKING Starboard ....hint...who maybe has a LOT to gain here ) can find a way to get all the data into one place (maybe via an online questionnaire?) to make a "calculator" or spreadsheet of the different variables which could work out volume for type of sailing, experience level, the type of components (carbon, alloy or whatever)the intended normal wind range and maybe factor in those float ratios as well, would be REAL handy.......obviously it would still only be a guide and not infallable, but it would help prospective purchasers of equipment to get it right first time and enhance the sailing right from the word go.........
Alpina57 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2nd March 2009, 06:43 AM   #42
wiindz
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 65
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Floyd View Post
Perhaps a wavesailor/speedsailor doesnt need a guide anyhow though ???
bingo, lol, after a couple of seasons, you start knowing what you need and what you dont and the sizeof everything, not to mention pros! anyways, i think Alpina hit the nail rite on head, offering information like this in a realy good marketing idea to offer this information as little program where you enter your wieght, level, average sail size used, water conditions and deciplin, and from that you are sudjested the best fit board or a choice of 3-4 boards as a guideline to what you are looking for, something like this could be tremendiously helpfull for peopl entering our complicated sport... i know for a fact that a program like this exists for fin size calculations....granted startboard does have this idea somewhat, but the one thing it doesnt tell you is how much volume you need, which is arguably the most important part of your first board and probobly the hardest to figure out corectly...

Last edited by wiindz; 2nd March 2009 at 06:48 AM.
wiindz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2nd March 2009, 04:12 PM   #43
Ola_H
TEAM
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,191
Default

I have not followed this thread, but one comment is that except for uphauling "dry" and when not moving forwards _at all_ on the board, rather fine details of the shape can easily be more important than 10 liters + or minus. Also, even with uphauling and such things, how quick a learner you are and how light you are on you feet (ie how sensitive you are to putting you feet i the right place) matters a whole lot when we talk volume requirements. All these things makes it very, very complicated to make a _good_ volume calculator. Especially since nowadays, really good information, specified for you and the requirements you have, is available on the internet forums, like this one. Post a question, get some questions back, give some answers and get a personalized recommendation - much better than any "calculator" if you ask me (and I'm a mathematician, so its not that I don't believe in number crunching...).
Ola_H is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2nd March 2009, 11:11 PM   #44
Floyd
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 459
Question

Ola
I agree about subject been complicated and all your points re width etc etc (there`s always a but ???) BUT the problem is that some of the numbers we already crunch (especially when learning) are seriously flawed.

Reserve volume is a totally flawed concept. We should scrap it !!!!

Manufacturers should be honest and accurate with volume .(And all other objective measures)


If we did these two things the situation would be far clearer for everyone; numbercrunchers or not !

Think you will agree manufacturers have in the past (some still do???) used volume details not as an objective measure but as a marketing tool.It really isn`t difficult to give real volumes. Why cant real (and accurate) volume just be given ???

I dont want to know what somebody thinks the volume is; or what its equivalent to; or that if board is wider its worth 10 litres more etc etc. I just want the volume. Plain and simple.
Its actually the manufacturers complicating the issue ???

Last week I sailed a Naish board. (quoted Volume 110 litres) I reckon it was nearer 100.
I`ve got an S type 126. Reckon its volume is nearer 115.
(Assuming my old F2 style at 109 litres and PG at 130 litres are accurate; which nobody knows !!)
Its actually quite ridiculous.

People do buy boards according to volume. Its still the most important measurement for flotation.

There should be an industry standard.
Floyd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 3rd March 2009, 01:13 AM   #45
wiindz
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 65
Default

i completely agree with you Floyd,if for nothing more then safety's sake, as board manufactorer, especialy if your a big, well known and internationaly recognized company such as starboard, you realy do have to provide the buyer with this kind of information. call the board whatever sells more, that doesnt concern me at all, but in the little area where mesurement specifications are given on the board and on the web site, you realy do have to give the real volume, not realy any way around it... if you are a custom board maker selling your boards for fairly cheap, a wrong volume calculation is understandable, but since startboard is obvously not that, and the boards are far from cheap, im not arguing with the pricing, i think a good board is well worth that amount of money but you kind of have to know what your buying when your spending that much... most sailors cant afford to buy a new kit every year, and in many cases buy a new board expecting it to last for 3-4 years, if you buy a board that you cant use or doesnt suite your needs because the manufactorer misguided you with the volume specification, i think that it is just low... i think that a company as inovative and progressive as startboard can set a maket benchmark by raising the bar, and providing the buyer with a real, acurate volume specification, and since the equivilent volume is very important to, provide the two of them! personaly, i think that putting in another line saying the real volume cant cost much, even if i had to pay another 5-10$ for the board, but knew exactly what i was buying, i think that would for sure be worth it!
wiindz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 3rd March 2009, 02:06 AM   #46
Ola_H
TEAM
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,191
Default

Floyd: I agree real volume should be published. But what normally happens is that volume might drift a bit during prototyping stages (ie 5 versions of a "70" might be shaped and the best one happens to be 72l). It will still be called a "70" because it in fact was the best "70". It would also be strange to call it a 72 when there is already a 74 in the lineup that in fact sails a fair bit bigger in every respect (despite being exactly 74).

The problem is as I see it not only the manufacturers not being honest. It is also the TOTALLY overrated belief on what a few liter more or less do. Some people actually believe that a perceived high wind control problem with a board is a result of 3-4 extra liters of volume, ie that a "94" can never be a good high wind board for them while a "90" can. Because of such hangups, if a "big sailing" slalom board was labelled with less volume than a "small sailing" one none of them would be very easy to sell. The labeled volume would be used against the both of them. This is not a defense of not publishing correct volume, just my interpretation of the phenomena.

And going one step deeper. Since volume for so long has been the label of size, the volume _label_ in fact _becomes_ the tell tale of size. Everybody knows what a 100l slalom board does. Or a 70 liter wave board. Shapers produce boards to fulfil these exact requirements. Each year, the shape as a whole, is the best possible interpretation of the commonly accepted concept of a 100l slalom board or 70 liter wave board. But then again, the actual volume might not be right in the end. IN other words, the "concept of the 100l slalom board" can be something different some a slalom board that actually has 100 liters of volume.

So, its a kind of (negative) symbiosis that leads to this volume paradox. Buyers believe in volume as a sizing tool. Manufacturers use volume as label, but shape to fulfil the actual sizing requirements. But then buyers _also_ want to use the volume to know floatation, which is something totally different from "size".

BTW, On Maui ha had many chats with a friend (who is the same weight as I am, around 70kg). He mentioned he believed a light wind wave board needed a lot of volume. He was on a 90l trad wave while I was on the ET70 (actual 72l). In the end he tried my 70/72 and found that (at least i some types of light wind sailing - and we're talking sub planing except when on a wave here) the 70 was actually more effective. And it's not as simple as a width thing. In this case, it is rather nose outline and rail shape, particularly in the nose, that give that little 70/72 so good upwind when schlogging and the (flat) deck shape that gives it so good stability when schlogging. Of course, cometh time of uphauling, the 70 will sink half a meter more than the trad 90, but if you're doing this type of sailing that is normally something you can handle. The thing not mentioned here though, is that this Maui type sailing, were super underpowered 4.7 och 5.0 is the norm. In European type conditions, most people would instead put on a 6.0, which would make the 90 l trad into a fast planing rocket whereas the 70l would be a total dog with a 6.0 and have to settle for a (Still underpowered, non planing) 5.3 at most. So what is the conclusion again? Say after me: "It depends".

BTW2: (Kind of a side note, not meant as a replacement for correct volumes, just an idea). In those rare, rare cases when 100% floatablity is in fact a safety issue, a cool little thing would be some inflatable add on. Such a thing could easy fit in the mast pad of the sail, and still add 5-10 liters of float.

Last edited by Ola_H; 3rd March 2009 at 01:13 PM.
Ola_H is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 3rd March 2009, 02:14 AM   #47
steveC
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 639
Default

Not that I disagree about the need for actual dimensions and specifications in marketing, I just don't think the windsurfing industry is inclined to adhere to such a stringent policy. I've noticed over the years that most all windsurfing products exhibit a certain degree of subjectivity when it comes to dimensions and specifications. Some products adhere a bit closer to objective reality, but boards and sails have been notorious for being all over the map. If the past is any indication, nothing is going to really change in the future.

Last edited by steveC; 3rd March 2009 at 02:27 AM.
steveC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 3rd March 2009, 04:36 AM   #48
Floyd
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 459
Cool

Its impossible to dissagree with anything Ola says but none of it changes the fact that real volumes should be published.
Its kind of like saying because a particular 2 litre car engine outperforms another the manufacturer can alter its published volume. He cant. A 2 itre engine is just that wether it produces 85BHP or 285 BHP (Quite possible variation)
Ola is justifying continued innaccuracy; which I do not understand. We all know that boards of equal volume can have totally different qualities but that does not make it right for the manufacturer to publish a different volume for one of them. Promote the board`s qualities by all means.
Fair enough with prototype to production discrepencies but the end product will have volume varying by at most 1 litre ??? (I`m guessing) So publish that ??? Why not ???

Are we saying Starboard do not know the exact volume of boards produced ??
Or
They dont want to tell them to us ?
Or
They vary that much there is no point ??

Its not a good reflection on #B for any one of them ??!!!
Floyd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 3rd March 2009, 06:22 AM   #49
wiindz
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 65
Default

i think the bottom line is this, both actual volume and verual volume (ie if the board performs like its volume or not) are very important and can deffinately help out the buyer to figure out what board is the best fit for them. as everybody knows, a happy buyer will buy more and/ or recomend the product to friends, so far where in favour of posting the two volumes.

furthermore, putting the actual volume plus the virtual volume could be a great sales gimic. just think your buying a, for example, 105l board that performs like a 95-100l board, now, the manufactorer can play on that with the exact same people that think 5l makes a big differance, and look what you got... the customer thinks that he is buying a board that not only has enough wieght to uhaul on, in some case, BUT, since it performs like a board that to them, is much smaller, its almost like buying two boards in one!! hows that for a sales pitch?! and, on top of all this, the manufactorer looks like a genuis because they have done the impossible they created a "lightwind" board that has all the volume advantages of one AND it performs like their mid range board, what more could you ask for? starboard is still only gaining from putting the two volumes on...

finaly, you have those guys that want to sail the smallest board possible for the wind, so they do need an acurate volume specification. if you post the real volume as well, its gona make their life easier and therefore will encourage them to buy your boards. as you can see, starboard is still only profiting from a developement as such..
so why not make this step to improve your reputation, your # of clients adn your customer service all in one, and basicly for free, how much could it realy cost to put one more line in? id be willing to wager that it would be a miniscule cost for such an improvement...

the ball is on your side of the court startboard, your move
wiindz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 3rd March 2009, 01:28 PM   #50
Ola_H
TEAM
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,191
Default

Hey Floyd, I'm not justifying it, just explaining why I think it is like it is. I start my previous message by expressing my view that I indeed do think real volumes should be published.

Wiindz. Again, I think real volumes should be published. But I dislike the term virtual volume altogether since it only manifests the paradox I describe above. And the statement "guys that want to sail the smallest board possible for the wind, so they do need an accurate volume specification" is also a testament for that same paradox. IN real life, for a given sailor weigh, min wind strengt, sail size etc, there is no such thing as a "smallast board (volume) possible". Such a "smallest volume" will to a large degree be a function of the rest of the shape.

Another interesting note: In the german SURF very comprehensive wave board test this year. They mention in many places that a certain board feel bigger than quoted when schlogging or smaller than quoted when schlogging. And in every case the boards that feel smalla and unstable has doomed decks, where maybe 5 liters of extra volume is packed i the middle of the board. The "classic" way of thinking is that by putting volume there, it does not hurt the performance of the board, just add some light wind security. But in my opinion this is wrong. For virtually all practical purposes, adding volume like this will in fact make light wind schlogging worse.
Ola_H is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Tags
board volume, futura 122, overweight

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not 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

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +7. The time now is 05:04 AM.