Bart de Zwart 24 hr record on 18x21.5 SB Sprint

[PonoBill]

In conventional sculling/kayak/canoe design, you can get away with a chine with minimal drag added, where a V or concave bottom costs a lot in drag. I think one of the big problems in SUP design is that most of the designers come from the surfboard world, where they are playing with all the horsepower available from a wave, which is between three and five horsepower or 2250 to 3750 watts. Then they design for flatwater where 200 watts would be really good. So they add a big concave channel without trying to shear stalled water in the channel, so it all goes into form drag. Boo.

The sport might get enough maturity and sustain enough interest so designers are doing more than just trying shit, but right now, as far as I can tell, that's all anyone is doing. The best designers in the SUP world are the guys who have tried more stuff. That isn't how the world works anymore.

[TallDude]

Craig Richmond, Brian Szymanski, Joe Bark, and Mike Eaton to name a few, were the pioneers of flatwater and open ocean racing prone paddleboards. Probably 20 years or more of R&D on racing paddleboards before SUP ever existed. When the first sup races started here in SoCal more than 10 years ago, the only race boards were unlimited race boards, and stock class 12'-6 race boards. They were just prone board designs slightly widened out so someone could actually stand on it and paddle. All the above mentioned started making a few unlimited sup racing boards. That's where all the flat water racing side of sup started (Laird was surfing sups). It wasn't till about 5 years after that, that a few manufacturers decided to start make a 14' board. I remember thinking why would anyone want to buy a 14' sup? It's such a random size. Apparently they fit better in shipping containers, and everyone was starting to have their boards made overseas. 

Here's a picture I took probably 6 years ago of Thomas and his Richmond unlimited. You can see the similarities in the board bottom designs.

[PonoBill]

There's R&D meaning build a board and try shit, and there's R&D meaning build a test tank and instrumentation, build a water tunnel and visualization systems. That is what it takes to move design forward, not build, try, and gee, I think this is faster.

There isn't a thing you put into a house design that wasn't tested in a laboratory, with nominal load, failure load, yield strength, blah, blah tested and verified. Not a door hinge, not a truss, not an anchor or a fifty cent joist hanger. There's no engineering happening in SUP design--just the guy who has been trying shit longer.

Oh, and 14 feet sucks toads. Killed the sport as far as I can see.

[Eagle]

"You can see the similarities in the board bottom designs."

Yes - looks like a vee to double concave with side panels.  The current Sprint UL looks like a rolled vee to big single concave with side concaves and chamfered edges.  Interesting to see how the designs change over time.  The underbody profile changes on the SB design are actually very nuanced and quite hard to see from a distance.  Like the amount of transition from rolled vee to flat to concave -> and the side concaves quickly transitioning from flat to concave to flat again.  You can feel these transitions by standing forward and back to find the sweet zones on the board as you ride.

Comparatively the deep vee to mild convex tail of say the Think XOR is much more straightforward.  The Dom as well with a deep vee to flat tail is quite straightforward.  Personally we like the variance in designs as the smooth predictable ride of the Dom cannot be duplicated with a triple concave approach.  Same applies to DW boards.  Surf nose Bullet double concave to M14 flat to Bullet V2 single concave.  All good actually.  Whether 12'6 or 14 or UL -> all have their pros and cons.

Seems the R&D approach by SB and some others is -> what input do the sponsored racers provide - and how often do they podium.  The only lab testing is maybe Jimmy L loading with metal weights for a flex demo and Jimmy T snapping a paddle shaft with a load machine.

[ukgm]

In conventional sculling/kayak/canoe design, you can get away with a chine with minimal drag added, where a V or concave bottom costs a lot in drag. I think one of the big problems in SUP design is that most of the designers come from the surfboard world, where they are playing with all the horsepower available from a wave, which is between three and five horsepower or 2250 to 3750 watts. Then they design for flatwater where 200 watts would be really good. So they add a big concave channel without trying to shear stalled water in the channel, so it all goes into form drag. Boo.

The sport might get enough maturity and sustain enough interest so designers are doing more than just trying shit, but right now, as far as I can tell, that's all anyone is doing. The best designers in the SUP world are the guys who have tried more stuff. That isn't how the world works anymore.

I have to agree. It's amateur night as far as I'm concerned.

[Pierre]

Nice, this chines.. more smoothly rounded/elliptical sections may be faster...but about stability, another issue... especially to stand on a 21'5" though 24 hr trip P: , I may go more rounded, a little wider, and paddle more economical. Less drag at moderate speeds. I may use a rudder to get economicaland easy though turns, too... I am right?

[TallDude]

In conventional sculling/kayak/canoe design, you can get away with a chine with minimal drag added, where a V or concave bottom costs a lot in drag. I think one of the big problems in SUP design is that most of the designers come from the surfboard world, where they are playing with all the horsepower available from a wave, which is between three and five horsepower or 2250 to 3750 watts. Then they design for flatwater where 200 watts would be really good. So they add a big concave channel without trying to shear stalled water in the channel, so it all goes into form drag. Boo.

The sport might get enough maturity and sustain enough interest so designers are doing more than just trying shit, but right now, as far as I can tell, that's all anyone is doing. The best designers in the SUP world are the guys who have tried more stuff. That isn't how the world works anymore.

I have to agree. It's amateur night as far as I'm concerned.

Well....... I don't have to agree, BUT Pono is probably right. They don't hand out the name Pono for nothing  I have a feeling that Glen Curtis tried a ton of design shit, that was more intuitive than clinical. Look where that got us. I know.... He didn't have a PHD, but managed figure a few things out.

[Area 10]

Well, as a scientist by trade, I have to agree that the way that SUP development is made is extremely amateurish. But doing it properly takes a lot of money, time, and professional training, and that is in short supply in a sport that is so young and where few can make any real money. And anyway, wild ideas help sell boards to the impressionable. Porpoise away, Starboard

Having said that, when outsiders with professional training and fancy tools have had a go at SUP design the results have generally not been impressive. The problem is that the way in which SUPs are used makes them a rather different beast than eg. yachts or kayaks. So the proper algorithms that would allow a builder to model a SUP board design accurately under simulated real-world conditions probably don't exist, nor is there a database from years of real-world testing to develop them.

The whole sport is amateurish in general. But that is one of the things I like about it. Sailing, swimming, kayaking etc are all so regimented and organised with qualifications and entry requirements and rules and regulations. That appeals to some, but it doesn't to me. I just want to get out there and have some fun without some smart-arse with a better SUP qualification than me telling me what's right and wrong and where I can do it and how. So, if we professionalised SUP at all levels (including board design) I'm afraid it would change a lot I like about the sport - the freewheeling nature of it. Increased professionalism doesn't mean more fun, and perhaps even it might stifle a spark of creativity in a board designer that might help us progress beyond what we already know.

[Eagle]

"Nice, this chines.. more smoothly rounded/elliptical sections may be faster...but about stability, another issue... especially to stand on a 21'5" though 24 hr trip P"

This is the nub.  Too narrow round like a surf ski and not possible for anyone to stand on in real world ocean conditions.  Let alone 24 hrs.  Seems why a lot of the computer flow simulations are not that applicable to SUP.    Peeps have made smooth round shapes a while ago but had way low stability. On a SUP you sometimes need to move all over the board with huge weight changes -> so quite different from a surfski or canoe or sailboat.

Can say tho the surfski theme Think SUP could probably cut down to say 25 if the deck was dropped like that Nelo SUP.  That is based on the Race 25 being too tippy for the average joe in the ocean.  Since a tippy round perfect in the flow simulator SUP has not yielded major winning results -> not much need to change what works.  But until Puma Farr Kernan etc get results -> the current design method will probs continue.  SB seems happy selling all their seat of the pants board designs.  In 5 quick days of refining they came up with that 18 Sprint.

[PonoBill]

Don't get me wrong, I'm a cut and try guy myself (more like cut, try, cut more, oh shit, start over), though I do like playing with instrumentation. There's a certain amount of pretense in the premium racing SUP world that the design changes of the latest, greatest model are the result of some scientific/engineering/design wizard quest. It's marketing. That's okay too, I'm a marketer, I was just commenting on what is. These guys are playing with a seriously limited palette.

[ukgm]

Well, as a scientist by trade, I have to agree that the way that SUP development is made is extremely amateurish. But doing it properly takes a lot of money, time, and professional training, and that is in short supply in a sport that is so young and where few can make any real money. And anyway, wild ideas help sell boards to the impressionable. Porpoise away, Starboard

Having said that, when outsiders with professional training and fancy tools have had a go at SUP design the results have generally not been impressive. The problem is that the way in which SUPs are used makes them a rather different beast than eg. yachts or kayaks. So the proper algorithms that would allow a builder to model a SUP board design accurately under simulated real-world conditions probably don't exist, nor is there a database from years of real-world testing to develop them.

The whole sport is amateurish in general. But that is one of the things I like about it. Sailing, swimming, kayaking etc are all so regimented and organised with qualifications and entry requirements and rules and regulations. That appeals to some, but it doesn't to me. I just want to get out there and have some fun without some smart-arse with a better SUP qualification than me telling me what's right and wrong and where I can do it and how. So, if we professionalised SUP at all levels (including board design) I'm afraid it would change a lot I like about the sport - the freewheeling nature of it. Increased professionalism doesn't mean more fun, and perhaps even it might stifle a spark of creativity in a board designer that might help us progress beyond what we already know.

Whilst I agree with you, we're already halfway there to boredom when the unlimited class got all but killed off and the ISA and others tried to put some arbitrary restrictions down. If not for those, I'd be racing on SICS standamaran by now......

I actually tried contacting a few firms about contributing to get some rigour in to what they're doing in terms of R&D. However, I found out they just weren't interested - even if the help were for gratis. When you get to that point you realise the whole industry is just a marketing exercise and best left well alone once you've found a board you like.

[Area 10]

Yes, I had the same experience a few years ago.

Partly this is a clash of cultures, I think. A friend of mine who works in the watersports industry pointed out that it is mostly a blue collar job. So if you come from a white collar background, the way business is done can be very unfamiliar. These guys are working much more hand-to-mouth rather than planning long-term. Given that a few SUP outfits have essentially gone bust over the last 10 years (with some later revived) I guess that's not so surprising. There really isn't much money in this at all, and virtually no infrastructure. Anyway, this short-termism tends to run through sports: A friend of mine who consults with some elite-level athletes in mainstream sports on performance improvements told me that unless a change in procedure or whatever yields virtually instant improvements, no-one is interested. As a consequence much less research goes on than could do. For some very wealthy sports more research occurs, but most are not backed-up by professional structures and the consistency and incremental improvements that offers. There is also the IP issue: if a board manufacturer found some tweak that gave an advantage, next year everyone would copy it and the advantage is gone. This happened most obviously recently with the QB v-drive paddle. It was such a hit with racers that within a year Starboard brought out a very similar design. So why would a company invest loads in research when the financial advantage is going to be so transitory?

So, while I agree that marketing is one reason, I think there are other factors at work as well to do with the culture of the industry and the financial realities and time-frames that they are working with. If you come from a professional background where you routinely work on projects with eg. a 3-5 year (or perhaps as in my case, sometimes a 10 year) turnaround, then the 6-12 month turnaround of the water sports industry seems quite alien.

[Eagle]

Seems most brands are pretty straight up with saying they make changes based on the input from team riders.  SB played on the sea creature organic theme and silly comments from riders -> but this approach was dropped pretty quick as was probs deemed not beneficial to the brand.

"Our Race board designer Mathieu Rauzier, is a nautical architect and is for example able to calculate the speed and resistance of the race boards in his computer simulations. The best potential designs get cut on our 5 axis CNC machine and then go into the water on our test program."

"Looking at race board evolutions, we already in 2008 paddled on 22″ wide boards designed for flat water. The late Jim Drake was drawing up these designs and they won the first ever Paddle board World Cup , the Jever Cup, in Hamburg. They were insanely fast and were soon banned as they had a fin in the middle of the hull to help stabilize the narrow board."

http://star-board-sup.com/2017/history-of-starboard-sup/

[Area 10]

To paraphrase Mandy Rice-Davis, well, they would say that, wouldn't they?

Going by the opinions of team riders is pretty much the opposite of the appliance of science. It is unlikely to lead you to determine the principles underpinning a board that performs well.

There's probably a much better way of building boards too. But there's little financial incentive for the manufacturers to develop it.

Once the sport has matured and so race distances, format, and conditions have become reasonably standardised it might make sense to start on a program of steady improvement - if this was professionally possible for the staff. But SUP events and uses are changing year on year, so designs do too, and whether a board works from one year to another is a bit hit-and-miss.

[Eagle]

Looking back the 24 K14 that Ekolu used was more of a deep vertical convex profile vs the wide concave flat tail 21.5 Sprint of today.  So the SB designs have changed quite a bit.  The current trend of a narrow board with wide tail for stability seems to be working for most brands.  Kernan in this 2012 vid talks about his approach to find the balance that works for his boards.  His first proto was the fastest by far but was simply too unstable.  Pretty basic stuff but may be useful to some.

"It's always an equation of power vs drag" ... "you want to minimize the drag that the board creates as it moves through the water and you want to maximize the ability of the paddler to put power into the board" ... "The more stability you need to create with the board the more drag goes up."