View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
grantmac017
Joined: 04 Aug 2016 Posts: 946
|
Posted: Mon Sep 16, 2019 11:28 am Post subject: Volume distribution |
|
|
I have two board of very similar volume (based on use, one has no numbers) and similar length.
One is narrower, flat decked with very sharp boxy parallel rails
The other is wider with a domed deck, narrow soft rails which are heavily curved.
I was expecting the wider board to have more static stability but to my surprise it was the narrow one.
Is this because it has more volume out at the rails? Or because the average width is greater (it's tail is very wide)?
My interest in this is at least partially because I'm considering an MB Wildcat as my next board and they are VERY narrow/stubby for the volume with a lot of thickness out to the rails. I've been concerned that it'll be impossible to uphaul based on past boards of that volume.
Cheers,
Grant |
|
Back to top |
|
|
dllee
Joined: 03 Jul 2009 Posts: 5329 Location: East Bay
|
Posted: Mon Sep 16, 2019 11:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
Both.
Boxy rails float away from center of mass.
More surface area resists tipping.
But both above not good for rail in the water speed turning aka windsurf wave or freeride.
Flat deck is natural stability, like the ground.
Foils are turned in the air.
Foils have long masts.
Anyone can easily uphaul 57cm wide boards of adaquate float. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
dllee
Joined: 03 Jul 2009 Posts: 5329 Location: East Bay
|
Posted: Mon Sep 16, 2019 12:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Adaquate float.
For 165 lbs., that should be 100 liter.
For 185, maybe 110 liters.
Minimal float for 165 lbs. might be 82 liters. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
rigitrite
Joined: 19 Sep 2007 Posts: 520 Location: Kansas City
|
Posted: Mon Sep 16, 2019 1:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
dllee wrote: | Adaquate float.
For 165 lbs., that should be 100 liter.
For 185, maybe 110 liters.
Minimal float for 165 lbs. might be 82 liters. |
That's pretty accurate, just remember that the better you get, the less volume you need. I weigh 185 lb and my 100 litre Skate is ample floatation as my biggest board. I can uphaul my biggest sail (6.2 Revo) if I have to on it.....not much fun, but it can be done.
I just got a Severne Psycho, and it's remarkable how different the volume (102 litres) distribution feels compared to the Skate. The nose on the Psycho feels less prone to sink, but the entire board feels more prone to sink....weird. _________________ Kansas City |
|
Back to top |
|
|
grantmac017
Joined: 04 Aug 2016 Posts: 946
|
Posted: Mon Sep 16, 2019 3:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I'm 180-185 but always wearing quite a lot of gear (cold water here).
Past experience with a 62cm wide 106L was that uphauling isn't possible. It had very thin rails and domed deck, plus it was an older board so rather long.
120L is pretty easy to uphaul (the boards in question are this size).
But I suppose my question is whether volume is the real measure of how easy it is to uphaul. Would a freestyle board of similar volume to a waveboard be easier since the deck is a bit flatter and rails much thicker? How about newer stubby shapes with parallel rails? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
dllee
Joined: 03 Jul 2009 Posts: 5329 Location: East Bay
|
Posted: Mon Sep 16, 2019 4:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Kevin Kan at 185 lbs.b sleeve full suit, uphauled his 86 liter boards just to show off. He was 35 years old then.
Wyatt at 185lbs uphauled his 90 liter boards, app same age.
I find long narrow 90 liter boards much easier to up than 228x62, where the nose or tail sinks.
To each his own. I never had balance, so can't foil and can't uphaul a 80 liter board, even at age 50. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
kevinkan
Joined: 07 Jun 2001 Posts: 1661 Location: San Francisco
|
Posted: Mon Sep 16, 2019 5:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
smallest board i ever uphauled (or sailed for that matter) was an 62l RRD.... i was a lot lighter back then, though. STB 85 is still uphaulable for me at 195lbs but the board is knee deep. my shorter Stubby Wave 88 (about 10cm shorter) despite having 3 extra liters slogs much deeper than the longer STB 85 (which is very stable slogging even under water). _________________ Kevin Kan
Sunset Sailboards, San Francisco CA
http://www.sunsetsailboards.com
https://www.instagram.com/sunsetsailboards
http://www.facebook.com/sunsetsailboards |
|
Back to top |
|
|
dllee
Joined: 03 Jul 2009 Posts: 5329 Location: East Bay
|
Posted: Mon Sep 16, 2019 6:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Ah.....to be 45 again, when I could almost actually windsurf.....1995. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
grantmac017
Joined: 04 Aug 2016 Posts: 946
|
Posted: Mon Sep 16, 2019 7:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Well I CAN'T uphaul 85 or even 95L and slogging ankle deep is likewise not a strong suit so let's ignore that for the moment and focus on the theoretical effects of volume distribution on static stability for someone like me who doesn't have much talent. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
cgoudie1
Joined: 10 Apr 2006 Posts: 2599 Location: Killer Sturgeon Cove
|
Posted: Mon Sep 16, 2019 10:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Go with 120 ltrs. ;*)
-Craig
grantmac017 wrote: | Well I CAN'T uphaul 85 or even 95L and slogging ankle deep is likewise not a strong suit so let's ignore that for the moment and focus on the theoretical effects of volume distribution on static stability for someone like me who doesn't have much talent. |
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
|