Go Back   Starboard Forums > Free Forum

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 12th October 2010, 06:33 PM   #11
BelSkorpio
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Belgium
Posts: 484
Default

Fanatic is doing it.
All the new falcons 2011 for instance are coming with a recessed deck.

But I agree, the real benefits still need to be proven.
How much percentage the aid will be, I don't know ...

The only way to find out is testing the 2010 & 2011 models on the same day, same place, same time, same rig, etc ...
I the benefit is high, you need to feel right away. If any doubt, well ....
__________________
IS87 / IS101 / RRD114 / US147
BelSkorpio is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12th October 2010, 08:44 PM   #12
Farlo
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 531
Default

Hmmm, not sure at all recessed deck will change the world. Quite the opposite way you have the NS ShoX which is also supposed to aid control, but obviously needs some clearance between sail and board. I wonder how you can live with 8 cm higher sail in one case and not in the other. Fanatic may have the answer. Windsurf is full of such wonders.

What is the next step after Kitesurf? Maybe Zeppelin pulled barefoot.

Last edited by Farlo; 12th October 2010 at 11:11 PM.
Farlo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12th October 2010, 09:39 PM   #13
viking
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Thailand, France
Posts: 148
Default

Paragliding is the natural evolution of the trend but it already exists!
viking is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12th October 2010, 09:40 PM   #14
Unregistered
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Question

Wonder how much these "releases" are designed to promote discussion rather than offer definitive explanations. No such thing as bad publicity ??

If all the clams made had been realised over the years we`d have one wondrfull board;perhaps 2 sails and sail in 10 knots to 40 no problems..

Must seem little contrived to keep repeating the same (OK similar) blurb year on year ; afterall the Futura was suppose to do all these things 5 years ago; as was the S Type etc etc. Its the lack of objectivity that allows this to happen; imagine Ford claiming better top speed; acceleration;mpg; cornering; space etc with no one really knowing how fast its ever going.(or even excactly how big it is) It would be unacceptable in other sports but we just listen to it time and time again;year on year and keep replacing old with new to find out the claims aren`t are exactly that; and dont match up to reality ????

Is the 2011 Futura really faster than an 2010 ????
  Reply With Quote
Old 12th October 2010, 11:24 PM   #15
Farlo
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 531
Default

The answer is yes but by the time you can notice the difference, 2012 models will be available. Faster of course...

Last edited by Farlo; 13th October 2010 at 10:31 PM.
Farlo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13th October 2010, 03:02 AM   #16
BelSkorpio
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Belgium
Posts: 484
Default

By the way, the same story with the sails.

Take a look at the presentation of the new Neilpryde RS:RACING EVOIII of 2011.
http://rsracing.neilpryde.com/

Guess what, it's better in everything, more control in the gusts, higher top end speed, etc...

I do like these sails, really. They are top.
But I wonder how much better they are than the EVO/0 of 2007 that I have.

Anyway, would be very cool to test one out.
__________________
IS87 / IS101 / RRD114 / US147
BelSkorpio is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13th October 2010, 03:32 AM   #17
Ola_H
TEAM
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,191
Default

Of course it's important to promote the product, but there is also clear development going on. I like to think about board development in terms of two aspects. 1. The "idea", target or vision. What exactly do you want the board to do? What should it do excellently and where can you compromise. 2. The execution. How well do you succeed in reaching your set goal.

Sometimes, even within a given board model program, the target shifts a bit. It might turn out customers had a different priority compared to what the designers though. Maybe they wanted a faster board but could handle some compromises elsewhere (or more exactly: maybe the designers think this is the case, it is hard to know exactly what customers really want). Then the target/vision has to move a bit and the shape will have to be adjusted.

But often, the target/focus remains the same and the designer simply keeps working on finding a better execution by either improve on priority areas or to make less compromises in non priority areas. And since board designs is very difficult and full of new things to learn, designer might find some new tricks or a new way of combining old trick and this might help them make a better board in the sense of making a board that fits the "idea"/vision/target better (and hopefully then satisfies the customers to a higher degree).

From one year to another it may not always be easy for a general sailor to feel the difference. But if you compare over say five years, the it is normally quite clear the new board is simply better.

Regarding the deck concave, only my iSonic has it so I can't say how much of a difference it makes. But I can say that it was over 20 years ago I started to note that thinner boards always felt so much niver to ride. In wave boards (and most other boards) there are many things to consider in the shape and it is not always easy to make a thin board, but to me it's clear that a thinner boards i simply nicer and the lower mast foot position is for sure an important factor. So why wasn't recessed decks done earlier. Mostly tradition, I reckon. SOmetimes, even if you get an ide like this and can prove for yourself that it works, you might still be a bit vary about implementing it because it will just "look strange" and looks is an important thing too when selling boards. And in this case, the deck concaves was introduced rather slowely and carefully on iSOnics. And as usually happens, we get used to the look and the idea which makes it possible to go a bit further. But even so, there are still other aspects to consider so as always the choosen design is a compromise between many factors.
Ola_H is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13th October 2010, 03:33 AM   #18
Ola_H
TEAM
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,191
Default

Of course it's important to promote the product, but there is also clear development going on. I like to think about board development in terms of two aspects. 1. The "idea", target or vision. What exactly do you want the board to do? What should it do excellently and where can you compromise. 2. The execution. How well do you succeed in reaching your set goal.

Sometimes, even within a given board model program, the target shifts a bit. It might turn out customers had a different priority compared to what the designers though. Maybe they wanted a faster board but could handle some compromises elsewhere (or more exactly: maybe the designers think this is the case, it is hard to know exactly what customers really want). Then the target/vision has to move a bit and the shape will have to be adjusted.

But often, the target/focus remains the same and the designer simply keeps working on finding a better execution by either improve on priority areas or to make less compromises in non priority areas. And since board designs is very difficult and full of new things to learn, designer might find some new tricks or a new way of combining old trick and this might help them make a better board in the sense of making a board that fits the "idea"/vision/target better (and hopefully then satisfies the customers to a higher degree).

From one year to another it may not always be easy for a general sailor to feel the difference. But if you compare over say five years, the it is normally quite clear the new board is simply better.

Regarding the deck concave, only my iSonic has it so I can't say how much of a difference it makes. But I can say that it was over 20 years ago I started to note that thinner boards always felt so much niver to ride. In wave boards (and most other boards) there are many things to consider in the shape and it is not always easy to make a thin board, but to me it's clear that a thinner boards i simply nicer and the lower mast foot position is for sure an important factor. So why wasn't recessed decks done earlier. Mostly tradition, I reckon. SOmetimes, even if you get an ide like this and can prove for yourself that it works, you might still be a bit vary about implementing it because it will just "look strange" and looks is an important thing too when selling boards. And in this case, the deck concaves was introduced rather slowely and carefully on iSOnics. And as usually happens, we get used to the look and the idea which makes it possible to go a bit further. But even so, there are still other aspects to consider so as always the choosen design is a compromise between many factors.
Ola_H is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13th October 2010, 05:48 AM   #19
agrelon
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 421
Default

It's simple physics why a lower mast track position would make the board more stable.
__________________
JP Super-X 106l, North F8 Ram: 5.8m,
175cm, 54kg
agrelon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13th October 2010, 03:55 PM   #20
Unregistered
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Cool

Stability and control are different things and not even sure about your statement.

Think its this sort of reasoning that original poster is talking about.
  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
my life daverovan Free Forum 3 10th October 2008 08:59 AM
Life Jackets Required? Andrew Ask Our Team 8 28th August 2006 07:52 PM


All times are GMT +7. The time now is 10:43 AM.