Author Topic: TRYING to think outside the box  (Read 43569 times)

pdxmike

  • Cortez Bank Status
  • *****
  • Posts: 6186
    • View Profile
Re: TRYING to think outside the box
« Reply #135 on: May 01, 2016, 10:07:47 PM »
Yes - for sure, sub20s are almost here already. That is why I'm puzzled as to why anyone who really wants one isn't already buying one. We've currently got a thread on this forum from someone who is building a 12-6x21.5. So if it was a 14fter it could be pretty close to 20. And that is a board that isn't just for use on a rowing lake.

So just get one made, and then show us the pics. There's no point anyone complaining that the big brands aren't making a 14'x19" stand-up surfski because the market would be far too small for big brand orders made at Cobra. But that's OK, that's what custom board builders are for. The move to sub20s will probably come too late for most of the old geezers who populate this forum, but the young kids who are getting into SUP now will find balancing these boards fairly trivial once they are well into their teens and have 10 years and thousands of hours' of SUPing behind them.

By the way, I have no idea how the idea of copying other watercraft became an example of "thinking outside the box" in this thread. Surely there is nothing more firmly "in the box" than copying other well-established designs? The fact that at least some SUPs don't look much like any other watercraft is a good sign that SUP shapers are truly approaching the problem with a fresh eye. I think SUP designers have been hugely creative over the last 7 years or so.
I don't think anyone's likely to complain that the big brands aren't making narrow standup surfskis, or for that matter any boards under 20", since everyone understands that what you say is true--the market for them is too small. I also don't think there are many people out there currently who'd want one, so the fact that people here aren't ordering customs and posting photos isn't surprising either.  As you also said, the people who narrow boards could be great for aren't likely to be zoners, but a younger generation, so that demand is future.  Also, shapers are making a lot of progress making boards stable for a given width, but 20" is still extreme.

On the other hand, the typical race board for the typical racer has probably narrowed by at least 2" in only a few years. And like you said, the 12-6 x 21.5 in the other thread that isn't just for dead flat water shows that 20" 14-footers may not be as extreme as people think.

In the meantime, it's fine for people to say they're excited about boards getting narrower, without feeling they should either order one and post photos, or keep quiet.

In regard to the idea of "copying other watercraft" becoming as example of "thinking outside the box", I've been thinking of the comments about surfskis being more about taking cues from their design, versus simply copying them.  But even if the surfski comments were meant to mean more literal copying, that can still be thinking outside the box, even though as you said surfskis are another form of watercraft, so already somewhat related to SUPs.  If taking cues from surfski design WASN'T thinking outside the box, then the boards people have mentioned that look most like surfskis (greatdane's custom, the orange Huki, and to a lesser extent the Coreban) wouldn't look so very different than the typical SUP. 



« Last Edit: May 01, 2016, 10:12:32 PM by pdxmike »

photofr

  • Peahi Status
  • *****
  • Posts: 771
  • Dakine… fun
    • View Profile
    • Extreme Outdoor Photography
    • Email
Re: TRYING to think outside the box
« Reply #136 on: May 01, 2016, 11:09:29 PM »
By the way, I have no idea how the idea of copying other watercraft became an example of "thinking outside the box" in this thread. Surely there is nothing more firmly "in the box" than copying other well-established designs? The fact that at least some SUPs don't look much like any other watercraft is a good sign that SUP shapers are truly approaching the problem with a fresh eye. I think SUP designers have been hugely creative over the last 7 years or so.

I'd see "Thinking outside the box" as NOT shaping boards that resemble everyone else's boards, but as gathering ideas from other sports that glide at roughly the same speed. Thinking outside the box is not copying others; it's applying certain ideas that work.

CURRENT DESIGN
There are roughly 4 phases to give us today's surfski design. I have assembled them in the image below, starting at the top with the original design. Sadly, and as mentioned before, "Phase 2" really resembles our current SUP phase. If it worked, surfskis would still be using it, but clearly, surfski have moved past Phase 2.

See for yourself, and compare the bow of Phase 2 with the image of the SUP below.



« Last Edit: May 01, 2016, 11:13:15 PM by photofr »
Nelo SUP - 14' x 23"
Nelo Surfski 560M - 18'4" x 17"

Area 10

  • Cortez Bank Status
  • *****
  • Posts: 4057
    • View Profile
Re: TRYING to think outside the box
« Reply #137 on: May 02, 2016, 12:16:17 AM »
Pdxmike - With respect, it's a bit harsh to characterise what I've written as "order a narrow board or keep quiet". Forums are for the exchange of ideas so I don't think keeping quiet is what anyone wants anyone to do.

There are basically two "world views" being expressed in this thread. The first, like photofr's, is that SUP shapers have been too blinkered or unsophisticated to consider using design aspects from other watercraft. Let's call this position A. I, and others on this thread, are taking a different view. That is, that these things have been tried, and mostly resulted in boards that were too niche to go into general production. This is position B.

If one's firm belief is that SUP design is at a Neanderthal level of evolution (position A) and examples of previous attempts to use particular design features provided by holders of position B are not found convincing, then it seems fair for B people to encourage A people to go ahead and try for themselves. That is I think what is going on here. "A" people are getting frustrated at what they perceive as the closed-mindedness of "B" people, and "B" people are getting frustrated because they think that their examples of past designs and explanations are being ignored.

There are many aspects of bow designs that only work well when they are combined with other design features, or operated within certain parameters. For instance, bows that utilise large bulbs only work over certain lengths of hull, and for craft that are being operated near their maximum speeds. The "b" position people in this thread, myself included, are expressing the view that importing design aspects from surfskis might not work well for SUPs because there are a wide variety of other differences between the vessels and the ways they are used. For instance, length, speed, rudders, sitting down vs standing up, single vs. double-bladed paddles.

But ultimately, I think that some things you just have to learn for yourself. I'm lucky to live in a place that has a wide variety of paddling conditions, and a wide variety of boards to try. And I am a gear nut (I own 6 different 14ft downwind boards alone!) so love trying new designs, and try to do so whenever I can. And what has come across to me starkly over the last few years is how different features work in one context but not another. What the big brands are trying to do currently I believe is to find a design that works for the maximum number of people in the widest possible range of conditions. This is typified by eg. the 2016 All Star, FX, Vapor etc designs. And at least some of these newer designs seem to be working quite well, according to popular acclaim. It is the view of the position B people that this is not accident, and that there things to be learned from these successes. This comes from having tried past designs and felt the incremental improvements, and having tried, and found wanting, alternative designs in a spirit of open-minded exploration.

But maybe some things you just have to try for yourself.

powermi

  • Waikiki Status
  • *
  • Posts: 38
    • View Profile
Re: TRYING to think outside the box
« Reply #138 on: May 02, 2016, 12:36:32 AM »
another brand thinking "outside of the box"...


UKRiverSurfers

  • Teahupoo Status
  • ******
  • Posts: 1079
    • View Profile
Re: TRYING to think outside the box
« Reply #139 on: May 02, 2016, 12:52:42 AM »
Quote
There are basically two "world views" being expressed in this thread. The first, like photofr's, is that SUP shapers have been too blinkered or unsophisticated to consider using design aspects from other watercraft. Let's call this position A. I, and others on this thread

Some of the prone surfboard shapers I know are the most blinkered people I've ever met. Mostly stuck in the 90's trying to copy KS
SIC Bullet 17v2 Custom
Richmond Custom Carbon 16'
Starboard Point 14'8
Starboard K15
Starboard Astro Touring 14
Starboad Big Easy
Redpaddle Ride 10'6
Badfish Rivershred
Jackson SUPercharger
Badfish MVP 9'o
Badfish IRS 7'2
Pack OC1 12'

photofr

  • Peahi Status
  • *****
  • Posts: 771
  • Dakine… fun
    • View Profile
    • Extreme Outdoor Photography
    • Email
Re: TRYING to think outside the box
« Reply #140 on: May 02, 2016, 01:04:59 AM »
REF.:
 "B" people are getting frustrated because they think that their examples of past designs and explanations are being ignored.

Your explanations were not ignored, but past designs aren't just brushed off. Next, you are going to point out that the Sprint Unlimited 17'6 x 23 didn't work. Facts: that board was designed in 2013 and it is still the world's fastest stock board in flat water. It's a UL though... so let's just rule it out since UL seemingly are only geared towards a very small group of people.

VISUALIZE AID
Let's just take that exact design of the Sprint UL, make it a 14' to please the "norm" and let's add couple of things: a) let's make the width 25.5" (instead of 23), b) let's add a bit more volume up front, c) let's keep the catch area nice and narrow, and finally, d) let's add a little more rocker.

PAST DESIGNS
Some of the past designs weren't dismissed (at least not by me). I saw them, some look super cool, and I want to express a big thanks for sharing. However, you can't say that it's been tried and we know that it didn't work... because nearly all SUP boards that have been brought on the table fall into at least one of the following categories:
- They are Unlimited boards (not that I mind, but in an effort to stay on Q, I'd like to only include 14' boards)
- The catch is way too wide (front end is not narrow enough)
- They are just too heavy (huge deal breaker when comparing)
- Most of us don't even know someone who has tried them (they are so rare)
- The top 10 racers of the world didn't use them (sad, but average Joe will look at who wins a race with what board)

Basically, from a bird's eye view, the Past Designs have been tried, but as you can now see, that's not really true.

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

Area 10

  • Cortez Bank Status
  • *****
  • Posts: 4057
    • View Profile
Re: TRYING to think outside the box
« Reply #141 on: May 02, 2016, 01:54:04 AM »
Jeez...Now you are putting words into my mouth. And nothing even vaguely like I'd say. I give up. You win.

Here's another from those inventive people at Coreban. The Alpha Race 14, from around 2012, at a guess.

The marketing blurb read: "The in-step deck lowers centre of gravity and at the same time allows for more stability and control... Bottom deck - double concave which allows for early planing and chime edges for hydro-planing once board is up to speed. Surfski type nose which cuts through the water and swells".

A friend of mine had one, so I paddled it quite a bit.

 





« Last Edit: May 02, 2016, 02:42:04 AM by Area 10 »

Area 10

  • Cortez Bank Status
  • *****
  • Posts: 4057
    • View Profile
Re: TRYING to think outside the box
« Reply #142 on: May 02, 2016, 05:14:57 AM »
There has also been suggestion in this thread that SUPs have been designed mainly by windsurf designers, and that windsurf designers do not pay heed to other types of watercraft. Please take a look at this Starboard page from a few years back. It clearly tells the story of a light wind windsurfer that has taken design cues from other watercraft, and then, based upon that design, a SUP was born. So here is a clear example of a design lineage that has gone from racing kayaks through to SUP, via windsurfing.



photofr

  • Peahi Status
  • *****
  • Posts: 771
  • Dakine… fun
    • View Profile
    • Extreme Outdoor Photography
    • Email
Re: TRYING to think outside the box
« Reply #143 on: May 02, 2016, 06:05:01 AM »
The above  Alpha Race 14 looks very promising.
Why was it dismissed?
- not selling enough?
- too slow?
- too sluggish because it was too heavy?
- not stable enough because the deck wasn't lowered enough?
- too flexible because of outdated construction methods?

That's perhaps a very good example of how we should be thinking outside our comfort zone.

Funny you should mention windsurfers again though. Last year, I was talking to two different shapers about this. They both (still) represent two of the fastest brands in today's races. When asked if they had taken the time to talk "shop" and "design" with any surfski manufacturer, they both mentioned that surfski paddlers do not stand on their boards. Two both mentioned that windsurfers stood on their boards, and they both knew 3-d models & windsurf boards.

How can a current shaper think outside the box when they do not realize that surfski (and nearly all other forms of kayaks) all have a hull speed that is nearly identical to that of a SUP? Why is it so hard to see that windsurf boards aren't usually traveling at 9 km/h, but that when they are, they choose a kayak shape?~!?!?!?!?
Nelo SUP - 14' x 23"
Nelo Surfski 560M - 18'4" x 17"

yugi

  • Cortez Bank Status
  • *****
  • Posts: 2228
    • View Profile
Re: TRYING to think outside the box
« Reply #144 on: May 02, 2016, 06:10:10 AM »
^^ try that kind of shape (Naish Catalina too) and you'll understand quickly why they appeared and then disappeared quickly.

Exec summary: v unstable in chop.


stoneaxe

  • Cortez Bank Status
  • *****
  • Posts: 12084
    • View Profile
    • Cape Cod Bay Challenge
Re: TRYING to think outside the box
« Reply #145 on: May 02, 2016, 06:35:24 AM »
+1 on what Yugi said. I think they made the Alpha race too thick and the sides present too much resistance to chop. Very fast for a 14 when its flat but tough to handle when it gets sloppy. My son-in-law has one, he smokes me when I'm on my Vec 14 in a sprint in calm water but I'm faster than him, particularly over distance, once it gets bumpy.
Bob

8-4 Vec, 9-0 SouthCounty, 9-8 Starboard, 10-4 Foote Triton, 10-6 C4, 12-6 Starboard, 14-0 Vec (babysitting the 18-0 Speedboard) Ke Nalu Molokai, Ke Nalu Maliko, Ke Nalu Wiki Ke Nalu Konihi

photofr

  • Peahi Status
  • *****
  • Posts: 771
  • Dakine… fun
    • View Profile
    • Extreme Outdoor Photography
    • Email
Re: TRYING to think outside the box
« Reply #146 on: May 02, 2016, 07:02:46 AM »
Granted, a V shape is more unstable in chop (therefore usually slower). We can work around that though, especially with what we know today. Surfski had the same problem many years ago. Do you know how they fixed the "stability issues" for beginners? No, you probably do not, because we are mostly looking at anything but surfskis and or other kayaks.

The Naish Catalina brought some great ideas on the table. It was however too short (12'6), too heavy by about 9 pounds, and not "needle nose enough". Its deck wasn't lowered enough, but a great attempt no less.

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

Bean

  • Cortez Bank Status
  • *****
  • Posts: 4211
    • View Profile
Re: TRYING to think outside the box
« Reply #147 on: May 02, 2016, 07:06:42 AM »
Wow, we're just now taking about the Catalina, please wake me up when we get to 2010 ;D


yugi

  • Cortez Bank Status
  • *****
  • Posts: 2228
    • View Profile
Re: TRYING to think outside the box
« Reply #148 on: May 02, 2016, 07:26:17 AM »
so has been

Bean

  • Cortez Bank Status
  • *****
  • Posts: 4211
    • View Profile
Re: TRYING to think outside the box
« Reply #149 on: May 02, 2016, 07:29:58 AM »
"Thinking outside the box" has to consider the current ability and needs of the athletes.
« Last Edit: May 02, 2016, 08:07:41 AM by Bean »

 


SimplePortal 2.3.7 © 2008-2024, SimplePortal