Go Back   Starboard Forums > Free Forum

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 7th November 2009, 02:57 AM   #1
GURGLETROUSERS
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 29
Default Thinner BOARDS

Could somebody please explain how new thinner Starboard designs can be as strong as more tradional, and thicker, boards? Are they safe for jumping, or 'clattery' chop blasting? Are they kikely to snap in half if 'pushed'? One thousand pounds plus is too much money to be experimenting with.
GURGLETROUSERS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 8th November 2009, 02:17 AM   #2
GURGLETROUSERS
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 29
Default Thinner boards

So. No answer then. Do I assume that it's a case of wait and see because the customers will be used as the guinea pigs? Having been bitten once before, I won't [in the absence of proof to the contrary} fall for that one again! Unless there is some radical strengthening inside, it's hard to see how a thinner board can stand up to the constant pounding and thumping of the rig, through the mast foot. [It's almost a point loading right in the middle of the board,and in the absence of a shock absorber there's quite a lot of inertia to absorb.] I hope I'm wrong - but?
GURGLETROUSERS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 8th November 2009, 02:56 AM   #3
mark h
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: NW England,
Posts: 710
Default

I think the lack of initial response is because it sounds like strange question to ask (not being rude there). I am sure that SB customers are not used as experimental guinee pigs. But I'd guess that SB would heavily test all there boards before putting them on market. My "thin" iSonic hasn't snapped as yet and I don't expect it will either (i'm 105kg). Plus I've not heard of one snapping in two either. Your money sure is safe in buying a next gen thin board
__________________
Cheers - Mark H

The toys:
iSW44 - - iSW49 - iSW53 - iSW58 - iS107 - iS137 - F161.
North Warps: F2012 5.2m, 5.7m, 6.3m, 7m, 8m, 8.6m, 9.5m F2006 11m.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
mark h is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 8th November 2009, 03:24 AM   #4
Ola_H
TEAM
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,191
Default

The issue of the rig "pounding" the board is not affected much by the thickness of the board. It's more a matter of having a good connection between the mast box and the top laminate so the forces are distributed through the deck. But when it comes to a pure flat landing from a high jump, a thicker board will hold up better if everything else is the same. But when it comes to wave boards the Starboard have been rather fin for many years and have the lowest warranty rates. And if you think of a board like the Atom, it is still not THAT thin in the middle where a pure flat landing would break it. And like with any boards, the construction is a careful compromise between low weight and the best possible strength.

If you think about the slalom boards, like the iSonics and especially the 86 slim, they have a concave deck profile that actually adds stiffness to the board.

Feel free to ask again if you have ore questions.
Ola_H is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 8th November 2009, 04:32 AM   #5
GURGLETROUSERS
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 29
Default Thinner boards

Thank you for the replies. I take your point Ola, that an extra laminate will help spread the shock loading from the mast foot. While flat landings need to be avoided, unfortunately, us intermediates are sometimes caught out. As you say, all else being equal, a thicker board will be more resistant. I'm still using an original Evo 74, [amongst others], so it would be more sensible for me to replace it with a newer version of the same. Once again thank's.
GURGLETROUSERS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 8th November 2009, 09:19 AM   #6
Unregistered
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ola_H View Post

If you think about the slalom boards, like the iSonics and especially the 86 slim, they have a concave deck profile that actually adds stiffness to the board.

Feel free to ask again if you have ore questions.
hi Ola,

I don't understand how a concave deck profile adds stiffness to the board. Can you explain, please? Thank you!
  Reply With Quote
Old 8th November 2009, 02:31 PM   #7
Ola_H
TEAM
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,191
Default

Think of a flat piece of paper. It is super flexible. Now fold it like an accordion and try to bend it across (perpendicular) the fold. Much stiffer, right.

Essentially, the concave deck in addition to the thicker rails (compared with a flatter deck) creates a similar kind of stiffening effect
Ola_H is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 8th November 2009, 11:45 PM   #8
Hot Ice
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 29
Default

I feel there are several design and construction features that influence a boards strength. The boards thickness is only one of them and should not be taken in isolation.

So relax and remember you have the backing of a board warranty.
Hot Ice is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 9th November 2009, 09:32 AM   #9
davide
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 249
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GURGLETROUSERS View Post
While flat landings need to be avoided, unfortunately, us intermediates are sometimes caught out. As you say, all else being equal, a thicker board will be more resistant. I'm still using an original Evo 74, [amongst others], so it would be more sensible for me to replace it with a newer version of the same. Once again thank's.
I would not be worried about thickness: impact and compression resistance are not effected by the thickness of the (3") soft inner core, nor by the thickness of the denser-foamed mastbox: lamination material and its thickness (a few millimeters) are by far the main factors.

Longitudinal stiffness is, in theory, effected by thickness, but other factors are at play there (lamination, core, stiffeners, shape, etc..).

Last edited by davide; 9th November 2009 at 09:35 AM.
davide is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 9th November 2009, 08:08 PM   #10
GURGLETROUSERS
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 29
Default Thinner boards

I accept that thinner boards can be strong, but it raises another issue. My original Evo 74 has lasted because it is heavy and, presumably, strongly built. [ Did Starboard over build them because they were takinf things in a new direction and wished to avoid negative feedback?] ------ The general trend since, however, has been for ever lighter boards. [Including Evos.] This is where my main concern lies. You can have a light fragile board, or a heavier durable board, but you CAN'T have a lighter stronger board. Carbon may be stronger than steel weight for weight, but it is used to lighten boards. NOBODY MAKES A HEAVIER MORE DURABLE CARBON BOARD. Why not? I would buy one!
GURGLETROUSERS is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Tags
None

Thread Tools
Display Modes

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

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
GO Boards Loulou Free Forum 1 29th June 2009 08:01 AM
SUP boards bert Ask Our Team 1 8th July 2007 03:58 PM
Help me with 2 New Boards Guest Free Forum 5 4th April 2007 09:29 PM
New SUP boards. MadRussian Free Forum 5 19th March 2007 10:17 PM
boards MikeD Ask Our Team 0 7th March 2007 07:51 PM


All times are GMT +7. The time now is 11:31 AM.