Go Back   Starboard Forums > Free Forum

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 2nd November 2010, 02:05 AM   #1
Unregistered
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default kode 2011 vs 2010

I see in the 2011 kode 94 the max width is 60.5 compared to 2010 that is 62.5. does this mean that the board is thicker in profile? this goes against all advertisement that starboard is claiming thinner profiles gives better control?? Now they are going the other direction? can someone explain
  Reply With Quote
Old 3rd November 2010, 08:57 AM   #2
basher
New Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 16
Default

Surely the measurements you give are width measurements, i.e. from rail to rail.
Whereas the 'profile' means the thickness of the hull, from the underside to the deck.
basher is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 4th November 2010, 03:23 PM   #3
Ola_H
TEAM
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,191
Default

But I reckon the poster infers that with less width and the same volume, thickness has likely gone up. I've asked Tiesda to comment, but I know he's super busy at the moment. I have not tried the boards myself so I can't really say. But from a general perspective, it's always a compromise between many factors when designing a board. I'm personally a fan if the feel a thin and very flat decked boards provides. but on some boards I have designed and have instead "been forced to" go for a bit more thickness and slighty more deck roundness to arrive at a matter compromise overall (ie a better "fit" for what the boards is designed to do).

I'm sure similar considerations has been involeved when designing the '11 Kode 94.

And by the way, increasing/decreasing width affects volume much less than you might think. On a fairly big board like the Kode 94, 2cm of width change (some of which also more reflect a redistribution of surface rather than a "pure" width decrease) can be counteracted by only a very marginal adjustment of profile. In fact, you can easily regain that the volume "lost" by just redesign the rails a bit and still keep center thickness nice and low.
Ola_H 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
quad 2011 vs 2010 griff Ask Our Team 2 18th July 2011 05:05 PM
KODE 2011 weights roby007 Ask Our Team 2 30th August 2010 08:17 PM
Acid 60 (2006) or Kode 80 (2010) John1 Ask Our Team 2 14th October 2009 03:01 AM
about the 2010 Kode 68 christopher chang Free Forum 11 24th July 2009 12:15 PM


All times are GMT +7. The time now is 01:15 AM.