Old 9th November 2009, 08:31 PM   #11
agrelon
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 421
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GURGLETROUSERS View Post
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!
Have you ever snapped a 'thin', modern board? how do you know they're less strong?

Surely with new material allowing people to go out in tougher conditions Starboard will have made sure to keep the boards as strong as they were, if not stronger.
__________________
JP Super-X 106l, North F8 Ram: 5.8m,
175cm, 54kg
agrelon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 9th November 2009, 09:22 PM   #12
mark h
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: NW England,
Posts: 708
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GURGLETROUSERS View Post
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!
Worth point out that the "new thinner" design quad is about the same weight as the older 2005 Evo. So its a shape change only, no less materials.
__________________
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 9th November 2009, 09:56 PM   #13
davide
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 248
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GURGLETROUSERS View Post
NOBODY MAKES A HEAVIER MORE DURABLE CARBON BOARD. Why not? I would buy one!
Boards UK had a very nice articles months ago asking your same question. The problem is that people like to look at a single measurement as a way to summarize complex objects. Weight is very easy to measure and it is very easy to think that the-lighter-the-better. The reality is that 500-1000 grams difference means nothing and would add a lot of extra resistance to the board ... but many people would think that they are buying the lesser product if the buy the heavier one.
davide is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 9th November 2009, 11:22 PM   #14
GURGLETROUSERS
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 29
Default Thinner boards

To Agrelon- Snapped no. Creased yes. It seems to be accepted nowadays that a boards lifespan is only a season or two! --- WHAT new materials? Have they finally perfected ever lasting non ladder nylons? --- To Mark H- Yes, the new quad does seem to be strongly built. [The same reasoning as the original Evo perhaps?] --- To Davide- I fear you've hit the nail on the head! The market is obssessed with light weight because everybody seems themselves as radical hotshots! Am I the only one content to be labelled ordinary?
GURGLETROUSERS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10th November 2009, 12:34 AM   #15
mac33
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: perth west australia sail swan river 3km wide
Posts: 42
Default

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.
mac33 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19th November 2009, 11:35 PM   #16
Unregistered
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Talking

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
  Reply With Quote
Old 20th November 2009, 04:00 AM   #17
GURGLETROUSERS
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 29
Default 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.]
GURGLETROUSERS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20th November 2009, 04:24 AM   #18
myxerss
New Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 1
Default 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

Veronika
myxerss is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20th November 2009, 10:49 PM   #19
PG
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 234
Default

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.
PG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20th November 2009, 11:50 PM   #20
sergio_k
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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
  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 05:31 AM.