Author Topic: TRYING to think outside the box  (Read 43555 times)

photofr

  • Peahi Status
  • *****
  • Posts: 771
  • Dakine… fun
    • View Profile
    • Extreme Outdoor Photography
    • Email
Re: TRYING to think outside the box
« Reply #75 on: April 30, 2016, 08:47:14 AM »
We basically got 3 types of bows:
Flat water kayak type bows (Olympic style) which are only designed for flat water and NOTHING ELSE.
Surfski type bows, specifically designed for open ocean (and yes, they still do fine for flat water).
SUP Ace bows, or similar like the Allstar, or like NSP, or like so many, which seem to be the 2016 GO TO BOW.

FACTS:
SUP are not even remotely similar to airplane wings.
Surfskis used to have bow that looked identifcal to the Ace bows, et al - more than 40 years ago!
Surfskis have evolved, and now use a bow that basically no SUP is willing to use.

So no, I don't care what bathing suit you or anyone else is using while paddling. Sometimes, I'll even use biking gear, other times, I will use baggy surf shorts... I am not complaining...

I even realize that the shops do not want to deal with the headaches of Unlimited boards, and I understand that the public is scared of even trying an Unlimited board. I got it... really... in fact, I am even selling my UL after putting more than 3500 km on it. So, yeah, I got all that.

What I don't get is: why is everyone so determined NOT TO TRY Surfski bows.
And if you are gonna try a Surfski bow, try to make sure your SUP looks like a dolphin, and not like a Manatee front-end.
Nelo SUP - 14' x 23"
Nelo Surfski 560M - 18'4" x 17"

photofr

  • Peahi Status
  • *****
  • Posts: 771
  • Dakine… fun
    • View Profile
    • Extreme Outdoor Photography
    • Email
Re: TRYING to think outside the box
« Reply #76 on: April 30, 2016, 08:57:43 AM »
So yeah, I still maintain that it would be nice to start thinking outside the box a little more.

Here's a popular SUP nose for 2016




Here's a popular SURFSKI bow for 2016





Here's another one, in case you missed it...



Nelo SUP - 14' x 23"
Nelo Surfski 560M - 18'4" x 17"

supuk

  • Teahupoo Status
  • ******
  • Posts: 1957
    • View Profile
Re: TRYING to think outside the box
« Reply #77 on: April 30, 2016, 09:37:10 AM »
there is actually a lot of similarities to airplane wings starting with the out line of the boards the ace for example uses a naca profile for the outline and then start looking deeper in to high and low pressure area.
i don't quite understand surfski style bows have been done for years go back to the SB pin and k15 then corban did a huge ski style bow and look how popular that was and at the moment bark still use a fairly similar bow along with a number of other companies. The reason boards have ended up were they are is because that is what works after years of experimenting.

Have a play on shape3d and you will soon see what works, to keep any were near the same proportions to get the ski look at a width that is posable to stand on you would be looking at a 30' board! 

Area 10

  • Cortez Bank Status
  • *****
  • Posts: 4057
    • View Profile
Re: TRYING to think outside the box
« Reply #78 on: April 30, 2016, 09:43:23 AM »
The reason that surfski bows are not popular is that they give a rolly feeling. This doesn't matter so much when you are sitting close to the water and are using a double-bladed paddle so can easily and quickly brace on both sides. But when you are standing up, and using a single blade paddle, it is pretty tiring. To compensate for the roll, you need to go wider in the standing area. If you go wider in the standing area it is harder for the paddler to get a good stroke, which makes the board ergonomically inefficient. Ergonomically inefficient boards are not fast for most people. Surfski widths can be far narrower than SUP ones, and the paddle blade enters at a completely different angle (and you have a rudder), so these ergonomic issues that apply to SUP do not apply to surfskis.

So, you could build a SUP with a surfski nose. But in the real world it would probably bring you more disadvantages than advantages. That is why we don't have them, usually. If it worked, Connor, Annabel etc would all be using them right now.

You can't just import some aspect of a design that works for a completely different watercraft that is used in a completely different way, and expect it to be so successful in a totally different context. All aspects of the design need to be coherent with each other. At the moment the SUP world is largely experimenting with designs that try to maximise stability and tracking for a given width, because narrower boards are nicer to paddle, and people want to be able to say that they paddle a narrow board because in their minds that is synonymous with skill. If you want a narrow board that is stable then the nose has to be fairly wide and flatish, the tail has to be wide, rails quite hard for at least part of the board, bottom concave or flat, volume out towards the rails, and a lowered standing position. All these features can be made to work together to yield a board that is not svelt, but it is easy to paddle technically well, and so is flattering to the rider. If you slapped a surf ski noseon the front you'd have to re-think every other aspect of the design at the same time.

Take a look at the Coreban Edge. Lots of bow shapes have already been tried.
« Last Edit: April 30, 2016, 10:13:59 AM by Area 10 »

photofr

  • Peahi Status
  • *****
  • Posts: 771
  • Dakine… fun
    • View Profile
    • Extreme Outdoor Photography
    • Email
Re: TRYING to think outside the box
« Reply #79 on: April 30, 2016, 10:07:46 AM »
You gotta ask yourself if the K15 wasn't popular because:
It was too heavy.
It was an UL at a time when people didn't see past their nose and 12'6 boards...
OR ALL THE ABOVE.

I can say the same thing about the Unlimited 17.6x23, and how unpopular that board is. Still, it won't make it slow, and you most certainly cannot say that this board doesn't work on flats, or downwind.


« Last Edit: April 30, 2016, 10:32:45 AM by photofr »
Nelo SUP - 14' x 23"
Nelo Surfski 560M - 18'4" x 17"

robon

  • Teahupoo Status
  • ******
  • Posts: 1155
    • View Profile
Re: TRYING to think outside the box
« Reply #80 on: April 30, 2016, 10:23:28 AM »
Good thread. As more than one have already commented, the surf ski type bow is in use by more than one SUP manufacturer today. Bark still uses a traditional cutting bow on more than one model that are still in production. We already talked about Coreban trying a deep cutting bow, which actually resembled the surfski example pictured here quite closely, but it had mixed results, didn't catch on, and for good reason. Standing up is entirely different than having a MUCH lower center of gravity in a surfski, kayak, etc. You can brace with a paddle much more quickly, and typically more effectively sitting down imo, and standing up simply creates more challenges. Everything is amplified when water forces act upon the board.

A cutting bow has its place and a good paddler can make most designs work well in almost any condition, but other designs work better for a wider array of uses. As mentioned previously, the deep cutting bow of the Coreban works well for tracking and cutting through chop, but becomes a handful in side on chop/quartering swell. The cutting hull of the Barks encounter the same problems imo. Great for straight ahead charging, but when conditions are mixed, other designs work much better. I will take a design that has little to no displacement underneath the hull almost every time. If I knew I was going to be paddling on glass and conditions would stay that way, then a sharp cutting hull would be great, but I prefer designs that work well in multiple conditions rather than one design that works well for a primary purpose. That's the way it is with cutting hulls and stand up boards. We are standing, and it makes things much more challenging and designs such as the cutting hull amplifies these challenges. You can make a cutting hull work, but just not as well as other designs for a wider array of conditions.
« Last Edit: April 30, 2016, 10:28:41 AM by robon »

Area 10

  • Cortez Bank Status
  • *****
  • Posts: 4057
    • View Profile
Re: TRYING to think outside the box
« Reply #81 on: April 30, 2016, 10:24:21 AM »
The K15 WAS popular. For about 1 or 2 years only, however. Just like virtually every other successful board, in other words.

What killed the K15 was, in roughly descending order of importance:

1. The 14ft race class becoming the norm.
2. It wasn't long enough to compete with longer ULs.
3. It was too heavy.
4. No centre handle so a pain to carry.
5. It was fragile and the finish was poor.
6. There were various promises about accessories that never materialised.
7. Annoying short fin box.
8. Jim Drake died so the design wasn't evolved.
9. Flat water design only, really.



Arany

  • Malibu Status
  • **
  • Posts: 70
    • View Profile
Re: TRYING to think outside the box
« Reply #82 on: April 30, 2016, 10:46:32 AM »
Think make surfski and sup the firest have allot with surfski but the second take more sup look and construction is at the best.

photofr

  • Peahi Status
  • *****
  • Posts: 771
  • Dakine… fun
    • View Profile
    • Extreme Outdoor Photography
    • Email
Re: TRYING to think outside the box
« Reply #83 on: April 30, 2016, 10:50:06 AM »
Robon: it seems wrong to compare a deep cutting bow to that of a surfski.
Surfskis bows look like they offer a sharp water entry point if you compare them with the bow of an ACE, but very dull if you compare surfskis with Flat Water Olympic Kayaks bows.

Why do you think that surfskis are so very versatile, in all water conditions?

I like Bark's designs, but you'll have to show me how and where any of Bark's design remotely resemble that of a surfski bow.

You do realize that one can easily stand on a surfski?!
If you are going to make a SUP with a bow that looks like a surfski, the following must also be applied:
1. Narrow paddle catch area (width needed should start at the feet, and get larger behind you).
2. Deck MUST be recessed to the max.
3. SUP weight must be kept to a minimum, like 9 or 10 kilos for a 14 foot board.
4. Obviously, the bow must be narrow like a surfski, but there MUST be ample volume.

Why the heck am I so certain?
Because if you are looking for glide, you'll want a surfski look alike for a SUP - and not something that YOU THINK LOOKS LIKE A SURFSKI.



Nelo SUP - 14' x 23"
Nelo Surfski 560M - 18'4" x 17"

photofr

  • Peahi Status
  • *****
  • Posts: 771
  • Dakine… fun
    • View Profile
    • Extreme Outdoor Photography
    • Email
Re: TRYING to think outside the box
« Reply #84 on: April 30, 2016, 10:53:36 AM »
Think make surfski and sup the firest have allot with surfski but the second take more sup look and construction is at the best.

THINK did in fact make a SUP, and that was also one of the closest thing to a surfski, but still came in short on many levels. I still say Bravo to Think for thinking outside the box, and a bold move, but what I am talking about here is even bolder, and way "outside the norms" of what we have seen to date.

You wouldn't sacrifice stability either, in fact, you will have close to the same stability, more speed, and more glide between strokes... if you just cut the water right.
Nelo SUP - 14' x 23"
Nelo Surfski 560M - 18'4" x 17"

photofr

  • Peahi Status
  • *****
  • Posts: 771
  • Dakine… fun
    • View Profile
    • Extreme Outdoor Photography
    • Email
Re: TRYING to think outside the box
« Reply #85 on: April 30, 2016, 10:58:28 AM »
Sorry for the multiple posts... but you guys need to look at the above image again:
I am travelling at 9.2 km/h, very little wake, great glide.
Meanwhile, my feet are way on the hump of the surfski pictured, so stability could be improved many folds. In fact, I could probably get more speed if my position on the ski was trimmed correctly.

So tell me again... why you do not want to think outside the box?
Nelo SUP - 14' x 23"
Nelo Surfski 560M - 18'4" x 17"

robon

  • Teahupoo Status
  • ******
  • Posts: 1155
    • View Profile
Re: TRYING to think outside the box
« Reply #86 on: April 30, 2016, 11:10:34 AM »
You are basically proving some points I already mentioned. For one, the picture provided is standing in the surfski in glassy conditions. Secondly, you can dig out a stand up, but you still will be far short of having a center of gravity that is as low as as sitting down and that is a huge factor. You are comparing apples to oranges here  Imo. You can't apply generalized reasoning for a surfski doing well in conditions to a sup because there are many different variables at play. Completely different COG regardless of having a dug out, different paddles, and more effective bracing sitting down etc. The forces reacting to a sup influence standing up more than sitting down Not quite sure why you won't recognize these inherent differences? Deep cutting bows have been tried in sup and simply don't work as well in varied conditions.

raf

  • Teahupoo Status
  • ******
  • Posts: 1141
    • View Profile
    • soposup.com
    • Email
Re: TRYING to think outside the box
« Reply #87 on: April 30, 2016, 11:46:28 AM »
Paddling in those conditions looks barely more fun than running on a treadmill :P  If you wanted to create the perfect board for those conditions wouldn't you simply measure up a couple inches from waterline and get rid of everything above it?  Since its pretty much a static environment above waterline design is completely irrelevant, all you need is the bare necessary volume.

Admin

  • Administrator
  • Cortez Bank Status
  • *****
  • Posts: 6443
    • View Profile
    • StandUpZone
    • Email

robon

  • Teahupoo Status
  • ******
  • Posts: 1155
    • View Profile
Re: TRYING to think outside the box
« Reply #89 on: April 30, 2016, 12:04:38 PM »
and others....


 


SimplePortal 2.3.7 © 2008-2024, SimplePortal