Can we kill board length limits?

[TEX_SUP]

Just take his, change 4m to 14' (or 15', or 4.5 or 5 meters) and I'd be pretty happy with it.  

And yes, I'm not against the parts I'm for, and I realize I changed his length limit to suit myself.  

It's published here now, and I've already advocated for it.  

Ok so you are saying 4, 4.5, or 5 meters (13' 1", 14' 9", or 16' 5" feet) please pick one.

So that you know my choice, I would pick Jim Terrell's proposal as written (even though I have a 14 footer).  

I think the best thing for the sport would be a stock class and an unlimited class.  

The stock class would be relatively inexpensive, easy to store, easy to transport, and able to paddled by the majority of the people who enjoy the sport (so not narrow like Olympic canoes).  The unlimited class would have crazy new boards every year featuring the latest in technology.

Overall, I think what makes races fun is huge turnouts on similar boards.   I believe the best way to generate huge turnouts is to have a class with boards that are reasonably priced, don't change much every year, are robust enough for everyday paddling, and are easy to transport and store.

For those that favor technology there is the unlimited class.

[PonoBill]

I stand by my comment that the boards used by the top team riders at important races are light weight single race specials that are very delicate.

Walk around afterwards and you will see the damage.  Or talk to the ding and repair places after the race.  Or watch Craigslist for boards "raced only once by so and so, professionally repaired".

Do you believe everything Larry Allison says about fins?  I stopped listening after he claimed that his fins produce thrust.  To each his own.

Okay, that's funny.

[Pierre]

endless arguing!!!
restriction rule does not stop innovation, it promotes it.many examples in boat design history!
fastest paddlers will be however faster on any board 12'6" to 18', if boards fit to them. as example Connor Baxter  unbelievable sprint at 1 and half time hull speed on flat water.
I already shown any body can perform at his / her best onany length. another example, 210 + pound and 20 x windsurf world champ and speed record-breaker Antoine Albeau nearly  smokes me with a ugly 12.6 footer, i'm 150 pounds and paddle a 14'
REALLY defining one single flexible stock class ( at least for length) is a progress.
and for those who like ULs only, i even do not understand why they enter the discussion... be open minded. I'd like to see more board sketches and design proposals, the rest of discussion is bullshit. we do not have to forget that is a box rule restriction all whet is not forbidden is allowed. brainstorming should be on. let's be constructive, we are out of class wrestle if there is one class left only, because ULs, per definition are OUT of class.
Eureka: just realized a 4m board below  JT's minimum width can be a UL board  if fits to rider and condition, that can be the good one .

[PonoBill]

Yeah, I just love seeing all those one design sailboards out on the river. Oh, wait, they're not sailing. Small women and kids have pulled then out from under the house where they were abandoned and are using them for SUPs. Really.

[spookini]

Bad argument!  One-class board designs have nothing to do w/ why windsurfing shriveled on the vine. (That was due to equipment prices, narrow use ranges, and unrideable products).

I think these "thrust-producing" fins may be the answer.  Big paddlers get to use them on their JT 4m boards, little paddlers do not.  The great equalizer!   

[Bean]

...his fins produce thrust. 

Your quote is out of context TEX_SUP. 

[SURFnTURF]

A common theme that I'm hearing here is that a person should choose the board that they can be most competitive on for their weight and skill.  I'd like to see a race with no restrictions on board length, but  paddler weight.   Several sports have this, most notably skulling.   Triathalons usually have an "Athena" class for women over 150 lbs, I think, and  clydsdale (over 190?), in running, it varies between 170 and 200 lbs.
    If you think that this would put a lot of people on unlimiteds...   Mabey not.   At the last Carolina Cup,  there were over 500 racers for 3 distances, and there were still only 14 or 15 ULs.    The largest race on the east coast of the US and the 4th largest SUP race in the world (or so I heard) and ULs were still relegated to also-ran status.
    This way there is a level playing field, and no one could complain that they are at a disadvantage.   Scratch that last one, no matter what the race director does, someone will complain.

[PonoBill]

...his fins produce thrust. 

Your quote is out of context TEX_SUP. 

Not only out of context, but goofy. A more technical use of language might be preferable but would certainly be less understandable. In common terms, fins produce thrust. It's the only reason we tolerate the draggy things. Any other purpose is secondary.

[TEX_SUP]

...his fins produce thrust. 

Your quote is out of context TEX_SUP. 

It was right on the money.

I was countering a point to "tell Larry Allison that nothing he's done in the last five years with fins has made boards faster". 

A fin doesn't make a board faster, they slow boards down.  Larry Allison might make great fins, but they don't produce thrust.  Force acting on a mass produces an acceleration.  By convention, when this force is in the forward direction it is referred to as thrust.  When it is to the rear it is referred to as drag.  Fins produce drag. 

Fins are used because they also keep our boards tracking straighter than if we didn't have fins.  When a board begins to yaw a fin produces a force to the side, which because of its placement at the rear of a board creates a moment that counteracts the turning of the board.  It's the same concept that keeps a dart flying straight, turns a weathervane into the wind, or why airplanes have their vertical stabilizers on their tail and not their nose.

But that doesn't change the fact that any fin you place on a board, no matter how high tech it is, adds drag and slows the board down. It's the price you pay to track straight ahead easily.

[PonoBill]

You're so wrong I don't even know where to start. Why am I not surprised?

So do airplane wings (produce drag), try flying without them. You should be much faster without a fin, you can use your paddle to steer, take off that silly old fin and see how fast you can go.

[PonoBill]

Bad argument!  One-class board designs have nothing to do w/ why windsurfing shriveled on the vine. (That was due to equipment prices, narrow use ranges, and unrideable products).

I think these "thrust-producing" fins may be the answer.  Big paddlers get to use them on their JT 4m boards, little paddlers do not.  The great equalizer!   

Of course I wasn't talking about why windsurfing shriveled, just about how boring one design stuff is. You and tex don't need fins to go fast. Take them off. Have fun.

[spookini]

(Ok, I'll stick my head up next to be Pono's whack-a-mole..  .)

On a windsurf or SUP on the wave,  fins are both tracking AND also providing lift.   But on a raceboard at paddling speed, is the fin doing anything other than tracking/providing stability?

[TEX_SUP]

So do airplane wings (produce drag), try flying without them.

Airplane wings produce lift, not thrust (along with some drag). Try to stay on topic.

http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/k-12/airplane/forces.html

Now show me a fin that produces thrust, you have some hilarious concepts about fluid dynamics and physics!

[PonoBill]

Of course. You're not paddling down the center line of the board, the force you apply by paddling is a vector to the center of resistance of the board, at a steadily increasing angle (one more reason why most of the useful power in a stroke is in the first foot of the stroke). You need lift, to counter the X axis of the thrust. Some boards are faster with a ventral fin in addition to the rear fin. It's a delicate balance between available force and drag, but they can help. I found a tiny stub of a fin in the daggerboard slot of a 12'6" Starboard made it .2 mph faster in dozens of tests.

Fins "produce thrust" in the same sense that conservation produces energy. They permit the sideways trust to be effectively countered and turned into lift. Low aspect fins do that better at low speed, high aspect does it more efficiently at high speed.

You don't need the theory. Just actually take your fin off and see how fast you can make your board go. Or just use a very small one vs. a big one. No physics required. the bigger fin is obviously draggier, it MUST be slower.

[pdxmike]

Just take his, change 4m to 14' (or 15', or 4.5 or 5 meters) and I'd be pretty happy with it.  

And yes, I'm not against the parts I'm for, and I realize I changed his length limit to suit myself.  

It's published here now, and I've already advocated for it.  

Ok so you are saying 4, 4.5, or 5 meters (13' 1", 14' 9", or 16' 5" feet) please pick one.

So that you know my choice, I would pick Jim Terrell's proposal as written (even though I have a 14 footer).  

I think the best thing for the sport would be a stock class and an unlimited class.  

The stock class would be relatively inexpensive, easy to store, easy to transport, and able to paddled by the majority of the people who enjoy the sport (so not narrow like Olympic canoes).  The unlimited class would have crazy new boards every year featuring the latest in technology.

Overall, I think what makes races fun is huge turnouts on similar boards.   I believe the best way to generate huge turnouts is to have a class with boards that are reasonably priced, don't change much every year, are robust enough for everyday paddling, and are easy to transport and store.

For those that favor technology there is the unlimited class.

OK--14'.  

You still haven't given one reason why 14' doesn't work as well as 4m.  14' would do everything you say above as well or better than 4m, other than for the very few people who couldn't handle the extra 11" for transport or storage (assuming they'd get a board at the length limit).  It would also do everything Terrell wants better than 4m.  We don't know his reasons why he thinks 4m is better than 14' because he didn't tell us any.

You say you think what makes racing fun is having huge turnouts on similar boards. The 14' limit would keep more people on similar boards than the 4m limit, thus accomplishing that better.  We've already heard from several people that if the limit were 4m, they'd switch to unlimited, thus reducing the turnout in the stock class.  

Again, show us your (or Terrell's) arguments why 4m is better than 14'.