Go Back   Starboard Forums > Free Forum

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 27th December 2006, 09:23 PM   #11
gl
New Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 3
Default RE: Anybody try the Apollo Yet?

Hi expaner.
I think you made one mistake in your comparison.
According to the official F2 page:
"The FX V has a tail width of an impressive 83 cm measured 30 cm from the tail. "
So it is not 78.5 as you wrote.
Also I wonder in general if Starboard 'tail width' really means width at 'one foot off'. Likely it is, but I haven't heard confirmation about this.
gl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28th December 2006, 06:48 PM   #12
Expander
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Santa Croce lake, Italy
Posts: 132
Default RE: Anybody try the Apollo Yet?

--

Hi All,

comparison image between several Formula boards has been updated with latest F2 FX-100 v deck design: see image below (dec 28 version).



All previous comparison images are been removed because some measure errors (i.e. Apollo was shown longest than in reality - so Remi was right: at O.F.O. lenght Apollo is about 85 cm and it seems that tail measure at Starboard Apollo web page is not correct).

Note: even I have drawn boards deck profiles with highest possible accuracy, using scanned images causes inevitably (in some case) a marginal error of some centimeters (i.e. when a board is originally photographed with a perspective distorsion); so, be indulgent about !

Cheers.

Last edited by Expander; 15th December 2007 at 03:44 AM.
Expander is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28th December 2006, 07:46 PM   #13
Expander
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Santa Croce lake, Italy
Posts: 132
Default RE: Anybody try the Apollo Yet?

Quote:
GL...think you made one mistake in your comparison.
According to the official F2 page: "The FX V has a tail width of an impressive 83 cm measured 30 cm from the tail. " So it is not 78.5 as you wrote.
--

Hi GL,

in this drawing process, as I've described, there is a not trascurable marginal error (I think about 1-2 cm particulary in horizontal measures) due orginal photos perspective distorsion.

Anyway I've taken care to minimize this error as much as possible (vertical measures should be quite correct, instead).

About FX-100 v tail at O.F.O. lenght (30,48 cm), I've found it measures merely 79,1 cm; I could be wrong, but even if we assume a marginal error of 2 cm, FX-100 v tail should be 81 cm and not 83.

Regards.
Expander is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29th December 2006, 02:43 AM   #14
gl
New Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 3
Default RE: Anybody try the Apollo Yet?

Hi expander,
I understand that there could be some round off errors in fractions of cm.
But now let's compare official widths of 3 boards of different manufacturers (as mentioned above, Apollo has wrong numbers in webpage) against widths you calculated:
Board | official width cm | your width cm |
----------------------------------------
SB F160 | 81.1 | 81
F2 FxV | 83 | 79
E TF2007| 85 | 80.4

So what happens - officially SB F160 is with smallest width. But according your calculations it became widest. No rounding errors can explain this.
If you really calculated width from pictures (this is called re-engineering), than this is not good method - as far as I see pictures on manufacturers web sites are 'synthetic' and likely not precise enough. Or do you took pictures of boards you have physically available and made photos in the same environment?

P.S. I like what you did, just I simply want to know which board is widest O.F.O., which is longest, etc.
gl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29th December 2006, 10:10 AM   #15
steveC
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 639
Default RE: Anybody try the Apollo Yet?

Hi expander,

I'm very impressed with your graphic presentaion. From what I've seen, you're ahead of the traditional published sources in many respects. I really like the visual comparisons you've highlighted, but of course, that's only a part of the total design perspective. Nonetheless, you've offered a lot of food for thought that most haven't presented and summarized. I truly appreciate your focus.

steveC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29th December 2006, 07:21 PM   #16
Expander
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Santa Croce lake, Italy
Posts: 132
Default RE: Anybody try the Apollo Yet?

--

Hi SteveC,

thank you for your impressions; it's always a great satisfaction to know someone really appreciate your work !

Thank you again.

- Expander
Expander is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29th December 2006, 07:53 PM   #17
Expander
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Santa Croce lake, Italy
Posts: 132
Default RE: Anybody try the Apollo Yet?

--

Quote:
GL wrote: ...now let's compare official widths of 3 boards of different manufacturers...
...so what happens - officially SB F160 is with smallest width. But according your calculations it became widest. No rounding errors can explain this...


Hi GL,

thank you for your meticolous but constructive remarks.

About 160 tail question you refer, from Starboard 2006 web page ( http://2006.star-board.com/products/formula.asp ), at O.F.O. lenght it measures 77.9 cm while in my calculation it measures 78.5 cm: only 0.6 cm of difference but really inside of tollerance error of 1-2 cm described above.

Yes, I make drawings from pictures taken from manufactures web sites; I perfectly know this is not surely "the best way" to measure something, but I draw over original pictures using Autodesk Autocad, taking care to bring horizontal and vertical linear dimensions to declared values using images as "way points" in tracing process and correcting possible imperfections and distorsions as much as possible: final images are produced in vector Autocad DWG format and every boards may be easily measured (and compared) with Autocad "Dimension Function" (for those familiar with CAD software)

Anyway this process, as described, produces a "non trascurable" error (technically speaking: a tracing error) plus errors of perspective internal of photo itself (i.e. when camera is not placed perfectly in front of board).

But, as example of how I have worked, look at following image (new FX100-V) where I've traced (in red color) board deck profile over original picture (grey image) and where consequent variances are highlighted:



As you can see, tracing errors are comprised in about 1 cm (thin dark area in right side of the board is a "shadow effect" made by F2 web graphic designers); so, all things considered, I think that even some (good) web images could give us some useful metric information about this (and other) Formula boards.

Cheers.

- Exp.

Last edited by Expander; 15th December 2007 at 03:43 AM.
Expander is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 7th January 2007, 05:38 PM   #18
Starfarrel
New Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 2
Default RE: Anybody try the Apollo Yet?

But, at the end, anyone has tried *board Apollo?

It doesn't seem to me.

Cheers
Starfarrel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 8th January 2007, 05:44 AM   #19
GeorgeUSA39
New Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 18
Default RE: Anybody try the Apollo Yet?

I think the answer is no or that it doesn't live up to it's claims, hence the silence. I hope I'm wrong but if it did work, then I think we would be hearing more about it.
GeorgeUSA39 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 8th January 2007, 04:22 PM   #20
Expander
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Santa Croce lake, Italy
Posts: 132
Default RE: Anybody try the Apollo Yet?

--

Hi George,

I hope you are wrong and silence about Apollo is simply due by very low number of Apollo boards sold far now.

In Italy, for example, no dealer has yet received this board and estimated delivery time is about end of january.


- Expander.
Expander 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


All times are GMT +7. The time now is 06:22 PM.