Standup Zone Forum
Stand Up Paddle => Gear Talk => Topic started by: Green Water Sports on March 13, 2019, 06:45:27 AM
-
Hinted at late last year by SUPboarder, the info is now public.
Getting a jump on the market for 2020 models, Naish are playing catch up in the world of inflatables. Higher pressures, fusion construction, quad stringers.
Good to see Damien at the helm with some good looking boards coming out soon. Stay tuned to https://greenwatersports.com/?ref=17 (https://greenwatersports.com/?ref=17) for availability.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1f5kKuasNIY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nDEhJrYSXt0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xhTtlDgW02E
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hY24r9uqNk0
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3qRk6gHWUzc
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3qRk6gHWUzc
He is talking big game but don't show the actual test against the other boards they tested or even the board alone.
Julian, you're in a position to corroborate his claim. Let's see this Naish vs Red vs Starboard. If it's true, I'll be tempted to buy.
-
I'm trying to get more info on price and availability. I'll keep you posted.
"Introducing the new 2020 inflatable SUP boards from Naish. This year, Naish has partnered with a new factory and new material suppliers in order to provide heightened quality and durability in our inflatable boards. The quality control has been set to the strictest in the industry.
Every piece of material, every ounce of glue and every board is meticulously checked to ensure that every Naish inflatable board embodies the quality you can expect from a brand that has been making boards for 40 years.
Naish didn't stop there though. Instead they kept pushing and developed the Standard Stiffness Rating to ensure that the boards are the stiffest on the market to ensure they continue to provide the best performing boards possible."
-
Sounds promising and looks good, Naish. But prove your claims, please.
-
2020!? LOL
-
embodies the quality you can expect from a brand that has been making boards for 40 years
-
One new feature that was overlooked in the Maliko is the PVC rails or as they call it: "Hydroslick Edges"
I guess the wanted to avoid the resemblance to ULI boards that introduced that years ago.
That's a really good feature to have for that design and could potentially give the board an advantage
in certain conditions.
-
Yes, it look like a direct rip-off of the ULI wiki rail. Even down to the colour. But it’s a useful rip-off.
ULI sell the wiki rail as an aftermarket product you can fit to practically any inflatable SUP. It would be a good investment I think.
-
"Hydroslick Edges" doesn't exactly roll off your tongue like Wiki Rail either
-
Sounds promising and looks good, Naish. But prove your claims, please.
SUPboarder has one on test and is going to be independently testing its stiffness against some other boards in the next week or two.
(It nearly came to me to test it for them but I couldn't within the timescales involved (and my own policy is not to conduct short term review's). I'm wondering if I should cancel my inflatable Allstar order and get one of these instead).
-
RRD has it on their inflatable V3 and latest V4 boards:
https://vimeo.com/266280203
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NwB90uzca0Q
-
Sounds promising and looks good, Naish. But prove your claims, please.
SUPboarder has one on test and is going to be independently testing its stiffness against some other boards in the next week or two.
(It nearly came to me to test it for them but I couldn't within the timescales involved (and my own policy is not to conduct short term review's). I'm wondering if I should cancel my inflatable Allstar order and get one of these instead).
This was a particularly interesting review because the camera angle is so good for seeing flex and pitching. A static bench style flex test like these guys do doesn’t tell you that much because it’s a dynamic load you are dealing with when paddling. With done inflatables you can get a kind of reverberation of the flex which times awkwardly with your paddle strike, and can actually affect your stroke (eg. how deep your blade is going). The degree of flex of the UL in particular is very obvious here, and the way in which it is not at all random. I was surprised, actually, that the Starboard stiffening arrangement (the cord that runs under the board) didn’t appear to be working a little better. But then it is such a narrow cord, and it introduces tension into the board perhaps, like tightening a drum skin, that will have interesting effects in a dynamic situation, The question in my mind - and that these guys should try to assess IMO is which of the various approaches to iSUP stiffening works best. We also need to consider *where* stiffening is most required. One might imagine for instance maybe that stiffening the nose a great deal has a bigger payoff than stiffening the whole board a lesser amount.
There’s a huge amount of R&D to be done in this regard. If the brands would all like me to send their best board to me FOC I’d be happy to do it for them ;)
My guess is that a board with the Red Paddle on-deck stiffening rod up front, plus Red-style stiffening battens either side in the standing area, plus a fairly wide tail with an ULI-style wiki rail might be the stiffest. Mind you, I once strapped a 2x4 to the deck of my unlimited iSUP and it did seem to help. So that’s an easy and cheap (and presumably race-legal!) solution :)
I was also amazed at how much slower the 14ft airline was in this test considering it is lighter than the carbon board. They de-emphasise it in the video, but a 0.5mph difference is huge. You’d be toast in a race.
https://youtu.be/eehS_oe4mhg
Oh, and the carbon board flexes 5mm! Oh dear... over hundreds of thousands of paddle strokes just imagine what that is going to do to the board.
-
1) A static bench style flex test like these guys do doesn’t tell you that much because it’s a dynamic load you are dealing with when paddling. With done inflatables you can get a kind of reverberation of the flex which times awkwardly with your paddle strike, and can actually affect your stroke (eg. how deep your blade is going).
2) The question in my mind - and that these guys should try to assess IMO is which of the various approaches to iSUP stiffening works best.
3) We also need to consider *where* stiffening is most required. One might imagine for instance maybe that stiffening the nose a great deal has a bigger payoff than stiffening the whole board a lesser amount.
4) There’s a huge amount of R&D to be done in this regard.
5) I was also amazed at how much slower the 14ft airline was in this test considering it is lighter than the carbon board. They de-emphasise it in the video, but a 0.5mph difference is huge. You’d be toast in a race.
6) Oh, and the carbon board flexes 5mm! Oh dear... over hundreds of thousands of paddle strokes just imagine what that is going to do to the board.
1) You'd ideally need to see the hysteresis data for the board when being cyclically loaded. A static test does give you an initial impression though - i.e. if board X isn't as stiff as board Y, it's not likely to suddenly be a better board when dynamically loaded...... unless the internal construction is optimised for that effect (and that's likely well beyond the resources and understanding of current brands).
2) Too many confounding variables for that.
3) As above.
4) Agreed. I actually think that the creation of an inflatable board that is as competitive as a typical race hard board is a bigger holy grail than most other innovations at the moment.
5) Agreed.
6) Not as much as you think provided its within the parameters of the carbon layup. I see carbon bladed prosthetic legs last milions of cycles before the matrix begins to break down..... but it really comes down to the quality of the manufacture (and that I can't speak for)..
-
Too many confounding variables? You’ve got to be joking. I could discover this for them quite easily.
-
Too many confounding variables? You’ve got to be joking. I could discover this for them quite easily.
Shouldn't be too hard. A combination of methods most likely to prove effective As Red demonstrated.
-
Too many confounding variables? You’ve got to be joking. I could discover this for them quite easily.
Shouldn't be too hard. A combination of methods most likely to prove effective As Red demonstrated.
For sure. I don’t think they’ve even started to make much of an effort tbh. It seems mostly that they are just adjuncts to marketing rather than genuine attempts to find an engineering solution. Price is of course an issue. But if people will pay 3-4000 GBP for hard boards then they’ll pay half that for an iSUP as long as what they are getting is very obviously better than a pool toy.
-
Has anyone done the kind of test that the video review described (measuring the deflection of the bottom of the board at a midpoint when stands 1.5m apart are placed centrally over the midpoint, and a static weight of 75kg is applied (I think)) both before and after the Starboard “cord” (on eg. 2018 the Airline All Star) is used?
-
Too many confounding variables? You’ve got to be joking. I could discover this for them quite easily.
You'd need to consider stiffness through multiple axis and the dynamic elastic response is dependant on the mass of the paddler. I'd say thats quite hard to simulate.
You've piqued my interest though, how would you do it ?
-
Has anyone done the kind of test that the video review described (measuring the deflection of the bottom of the board at a midpoint when stands 1.5m apart are placed centrally over the midpoint, and a static weight of 75kg is applied (I think)) both before and after the Starboard “cord” (on eg. 2018 the Airline All Star) is used?
I did this for the 14x27 Elite (with and without FFC) and will do it for the 2019 14x28 All Star Airline. All Star review will be out as the season warms up with this info on both boards. I'd have to look at my notes but I believe I did it 2m apart and I'm 90kg.
-
Too many confounding variables? You’ve got to be joking. I could discover this for them quite easily.
You'd need to consider stiffness through multiple axis and the dynamic elastic response is dependant on the mass of the paddler. I'd say thats quite hard to simulate.
You've piqued my interest though, how would you do it ?
I wouldn’t try to model the forces at work, I’d just look at outcome (eg. speed) and measure some basics with sets of accelerometers fitted to both board and paddler, and possibly some physiological measurements too. I’m using similar methods at work to investigate the effects of exercise on the brain, so it would be fairly easy for me in comparison to that. But you probably don’t need the fancy stuff- it could be done with a simple factorial parametric (a mixed model, repeated measures) design where a small set of boards are adapted in turn to be fitted with the chosen solution and then you measure performance (using a set of paddlers of variying abilities) over a set of courses. And then swap between boards. That would be enough to find out which solutions are the most promising, which is all that is needed right now. It would take quite a bit of time, but could be done in a week, with co-operation from some colleagues. The analysis would probably take another week.
-
Has anyone done the kind of test that the video review described (measuring the deflection of the bottom of the board at a midpoint when stands 1.5m apart are placed centrally over the midpoint, and a static weight of 75kg is applied (I think)) both before and after the Starboard “cord” (on eg. 2018 the Airline All Star) is used?
I did this for the 14x27 Elite (with and without FFC) and will do it for the 2019 14x28 All Star Airline. All Star review will be out as the season warms up with this info on both boards. I'd have to look at my notes but I believe I did it 2m apart and I'm 90kg.
Great - that would be very helpful, thanks,
-
Too many confounding variables? You’ve got to be joking. I could discover this for them quite easily.
You'd need to consider stiffness through multiple axis and the dynamic elastic response is dependant on the mass of the paddler. I'd say thats quite hard to simulate.
You've piqued my interest though, how would you do it ?
I wouldn’t try to model the forces at work, I’d just look at outcome (eg. speed) and measure some basics with sets of accelerometers fitted to both board and paddler, and possibly some physiological measurements too. I’m using similar methods at work to investigate the effects of exercise on the brain, so it would be fairly easy for me in comparison to that. But you probably don’t need the fancy stuff- it could be done with a simple factorial parametric (a mixed model, repeated measures) design where a small set of boards are adapted in turn to be fitted with the chosen solution and then you measure performance (using a set of paddlers of variying abilities) over a set of courses. And then swap between boards. That would be enough to find out which solutions are the most promising, which is all that is needed right now. It would take quite a bit of time, but could be done in a week, with co-operation from some colleagues. The analysis would probably take another week.
Hold up a minute - I thought the point here was to measure comparable stiffness, not overall performance. With that in mind, you don't want accelerometers, you need strain gauges. However, they would be hard to affix to an inflatable board. With what you're proposing, not only does it not do that but when board X is proven to be better than board Y, you don't know why it is as you haven't measured any of the dynamic stresses/strains of the board to then isolate them from the other factors that govern performance.
-
Nerds.
-
Are we again pulling out the cannon to kill a mosquito?
Boards like Red Elite 14x25 already proved to be on par with hardboards of similar dimension when it comes to flat water.
My own experience with the board VS top end boards even rendered the board superior in certain condition where volume
and weight are key factors.
Mid-section and nose stiffening brought us to this point. Standard deflection test seems sufficient at this point, I would add
one for the nose section just to be extravagant and check which stiffening method works best in that regard.
At that point you'll have a pretty good grasp what works best and we can move on the measure the effects of the wiki-rail
on performance.
-
ukgm - I think you have misunderstood my proposal. As I mentioned, I would use a a mixed model, with both within-subject and between-subject factors. I would take a few different engineering solutions to eg. three different race iSUPs (eg. battens, dyneema cord etc) and then apply each one to each board in turn, and then perhaps also combine them. All paddlers would use all boards in all combinations, with the orders of use balanced using a Latin Square type design; it would be a fully crossed parametric design. This is a very powerful (and standard) way to approach the issue. It would be quite a lot of work, but would give a good answer as to which stiffening solution works (if any do), and indeed, which combinations might be best.
I would use the accelerometers to measure the amount of bounce and flex in the boards under use, and compare this with the stiffening solutions fitted or not fitted. I can statistically control for differences in paddler and conditions.
If any of these solutions provide so little improvement that it is impossible to detect like this, then it would probably be fair to say that they are not worth using (unless there were other benefits such as stability or some other performance metric not being measured but which could be examined informally from paddler reports).
I’m not aiming to find out which board is fastest. I’m aiming to find out which is the best way of stiffening an iSUP so as to improve its performance.
Burchas - if you are a scientist by trade, you can’t help wanting to have lots of statistics to back up what you believe in. It’s an occupational hazard, bound to infuriate all those around you :)
-
Burchas - if you are a scientist by trade, you can’t help wanting to have lots of statistics to back up what you believe in. It’s an occupational hazard, bound to infuriate all those around you :)
I have nothing against geeking out :) As interesting as your theories are you have no capability of testing what you're proposing. That said, You do have a way to test
deflection on both proposed areas and you do have a way to test the effects of wiki-rail on performance, so merely trying to channel it to a productive space where
your deep correspondence will result an actual facts rather than hot air :D Assuming of course you do intend to test it, otherwise i'm over & out.
-
1) It would be quite a lot of work, but would give a good answer as to which stiffening solution works (if any do), and indeed, which combinations might be best.
2) I would use the accelerometers to measure the amount of bounce and flex in the boards under use, and compare this with the stiffening solutions fitted or not fitted. I can statistically control for differences in paddler and conditions.
3) I’m not aiming to find out which board is fastest. I’m aiming to find out which is the best way of stiffening an iSUP so as to improve its performance.
1) ...so you are comparing the stiffening designs of existing products. I get that. However, whilst this may account for the best overarching stiffening solution on that day, it doesn't actually measure stiffness. To be honest, you don't need to I guess. In the case of developing a standardised test (as was the original point), your solution won't address that. You're going down a pragmatic path I would personally agree with though.
2) Measuring bounce and flex isn't the same as measuring stiffness. Your method doesn't allow the isolation or easy identification of any confounding issues surrounding any effects of torsion and hysteresis either. You'd also need accelerometers in several locations of the board and you'll get major noise in multiple axis over what is likely to be over relatively small displacements. I'm not convinced these could merely be averaged out as the range of boundary conditions is quite large. Realistically, you should be using strain gauges. Having them in just once place won't tell you much about the boards stiffness. Put simply, it isn't as simple a problem as you're saying it is. You're one hell of a scientist.... but you're not an engineer and your unintentionally glossing over fundamental issues an engineer would be aware of ;D
3) Your proposal doesn't do that. The reason for this is that you could take your best method of stiffening from your tests but if its applied to a different boards design on a different kind of day (with a different board profile), you may not get the same result. Neither will you if the waterstate is different as the boards reaction to it (particularly as you'll be changing the boundary conditions as the loads upon it will change - in terms of the paddlers behaviour and the board - as the points of contact will dynamically change - particularly if it has a larger rocker line).
Will you find out the best board on any given day though, absolutely. You just can't translate the results from one day to the next but then, none of us really know how close the current boards are in terms of their dynamic mechanical properties
-
Burchas - actually, I do have the capability to do this. It wouldn’t be too hard, and I’ve done similar tests for my own entertainment in the past. But time is the enemy, right now. I’m also not sure that the solutions we’ve been offered so far are the most effective ones. It might be more rewarding to develop a new solution. My UL iSUP could be so much better if I could reduce the flex. I might also fit one of the ULI wiki rails to it, and measure before-and-after. By coincidence, I approached ULI about this a couple of months ago, to check shipping costs.
-
I’m also not sure that the solutions we’ve been offered so far are the most effective ones.
I definitely agree with this. Manufacturing techniques are in their early days with respect to this.
If you have done testing like this in the past as you mention, please share it or the results - I'm genuinely interested.
-
...But time is the enemy, right now...
That's pretty much what I meant by it. Expenses involved as well.
In practical terms, inflatables are already challenging hardboards on flat water, even with half baked methods of today.
Simply by enhancing todays methods with least amount of expense, such as adding uni-directional strip and a wiki-rail
will yield immediate results guarantied. I can spare you the testing.
-
1) It would be quite a lot of work, but would give a good answer as to which stiffening solution works (if any do), and indeed, which combinations might be best.
2) I would use the accelerometers to measure the amount of bounce and flex in the boards under use, and compare this with the stiffening solutions fitted or not fitted. I can statistically control for differences in paddler and conditions.
3) I’m not aiming to find out which board is fastest. I’m aiming to find out which is the best way of stiffening an iSUP so as to improve its performance.
1) ...so you are comparing the stiffening designs of existing products. I get that. However, whilst this may account for the best overarching stiffening solution on that day, it doesn't actually measure stiffness. To be honest, you don't need to I guess. In the case of developing a standardised test (as was the original point), your solution won't address that. You're going down a pragmatic path I would personally agree with though.
2) Measuring bounce and flex isn't the same as measuring stiffness. Your method doesn't allow the isolation or easy identification of any confounding issues surrounding any effects of torsion and hysteresis either. You'd also need accelerometers in several locations of the board and you'll get major noise in multiple axis over what is likely to be over relatively small displacements. I'm not convinced these could merely be averaged out as the range of boundary conditions is quite large. Realistically, you should be using strain gauges. Having them in just once place won't tell you much about the boards stiffness. Put simply, it isn't as simple a problem as you're saying it is. You're one hell of a scientist.... but you're not an engineer and your unintentionally glossing over fundamental issues an engineer would be aware of ;D
3) Your proposal doesn't do that. The reason for this is that you could take your best method of stiffening from your tests but if its applied to a different boards design (with a different profile), you may not get the same result. Neither will you if the waterstate is different as the boards reaction to it (particularly as you'll be changing the boundary conditions as the loads upon it will change - in terms of the paddlers behaviour and the board - as the points of contact will dynamically change - particularly if it has a larger rocker line).
Will you find out the best board on any given day though, absolutely. You just can't translate the results from one day to the next but then, none of us really know how close the current boards are in terms of their dynamic mechanical properties
I don’t think you need to go as far as you are suggesting. Several accelerometers placed on the board and paddler would tell me enough for the purposes. I don’t care which method makes the board stiffer, I care which makes the board faster. So I probably don’t need to measure anything much more complex than speed and e.g. the degree of pitching delay front-and-back (and indeed, just degree of general movement excepting that in an front-back direction) which I could get easily from accelerometers at a gross level; it would be enough to suit the purpose and would be cheap and easy to do. A wobbly board will wobble. So just use the simplest method that would detect wobble at a gross level. A wobbly board would wobble the accelerometers a lot, and if I then applied a stiffening system (eg. battens) and then the wobbling decreased and speed increased, then job done.
And btw I work with some world-class engineers. So they could help me with any difficult bits :)
Anyhow, this is all moot, since next year Starboard will probably put a magnet on the nose of their Airlines, and then claim that it changes the electromagnetic properties of the molecules of board to make it stiffer and therefore “10% faster”. They’ll have a slogan that says “Viagra for iSUPs: Stay Stiffer with Starboard”. And everyone will go buy one.
Actually, that has made me wonder if the same pump-up solution that is one of the surgical solutions offered for a certain mens’ problem, could be used to make iSUPs stiffer. Scaled up, of course :)
Stay stiff, guys!
-
...But time is the enemy, right now...
That's pretty much what I meant by it. Expenses involved as well.
In practical terms, inflatables are already challenging hardboards on flat water, even with half baked methods of today.
Simply by enhancing todays methods with least amount of expense, such as adding uni-directional strip and a wiki-rail
will yield immediate results guarantied. I can spare you the testing.
Well, as I said before, I once strapped on a 2x4 that went the length of most of the deck of my 16ft iSUP and it did improve things noticeably, despite the added weight. So I’m all for easy and cheap solutions! The only problem is that I couldn’t fit the 2x4 into the board’s carry bag :) So it was an effective and cheap solution but not terribly practical, which is what iSUPs are all about. The main problem with stiffeneing an iSUP is that most solutions lead to a board that would be awkward to roll up.
I don’t agree that iSUPs are close to hard boards in performance. In flat water they aren’t too tragic, but in any dynamic situation the gap is still huge.
-
So - if a 2x4 helps, why not add a stringer? Make the isup in two chambers split open at the top - you have a multi-piece fiber stringer with puzzle joints every 3 feet or whatever -or maybe hinges? fold it up? Anyway, you put it between your two chambers - zip it up on top - or lace it up - or even velcro - that stuff can be really tenacious to a shear load, then inflate/finish inflating the two chambers.
You have a full length or nearly full length stringer/support member - and two chambers, tho' I can't imagine actually paddling 1/2 a board, it might be better than just your life vest.
Could also be a I-beam if the top n bottom are narrow. There is a bit of curve at the top n bottom of the chambers so that might help - but mashing them together will flatten that a bit.
Maybe this has been tried already? It's stolen from foam surfboards. I was reading up on how to make them and wondered about this applying to an Isup.
-
1) It would be quite a lot of work, but would give a good answer as to which stiffening solution works (if any do), and indeed, which combinations might be best.
2) I would use the accelerometers to measure the amount of bounce and flex in the boards under use, and compare this with the stiffening solutions fitted or not fitted. I can statistically control for differences in paddler and conditions.
3) I’m not aiming to find out which board is fastest. I’m aiming to find out which is the best way of stiffening an iSUP so as to improve its performance.
1) ...so you are comparing the stiffening designs of existing products. I get that. However, whilst this may account for the best overarching stiffening solution on that day, it doesn't actually measure stiffness. To be honest, you don't need to I guess. In the case of developing a standardised test (as was the original point), your solution won't address that. You're going down a pragmatic path I would personally agree with though.
2) Measuring bounce and flex isn't the same as measuring stiffness. Your method doesn't allow the isolation or easy identification of any confounding issues surrounding any effects of torsion and hysteresis either. You'd also need accelerometers in several locations of the board and you'll get major noise in multiple axis over what is likely to be over relatively small displacements. I'm not convinced these could merely be averaged out as the range of boundary conditions is quite large. Realistically, you should be using strain gauges. Having them in just once place won't tell you much about the boards stiffness. Put simply, it isn't as simple a problem as you're saying it is. You're one hell of a scientist.... but you're not an engineer and your unintentionally glossing over fundamental issues an engineer would be aware of ;D
3) Your proposal doesn't do that. The reason for this is that you could take your best method of stiffening from your tests but if its applied to a different boards design (with a different profile), you may not get the same result. Neither will you if the waterstate is different as the boards reaction to it (particularly as you'll be changing the boundary conditions as the loads upon it will change - in terms of the paddlers behaviour and the board - as the points of contact will dynamically change - particularly if it has a larger rocker line).
Will you find out the best board on any given day though, absolutely. You just can't translate the results from one day to the next but then, none of us really know how close the current boards are in terms of their dynamic mechanical properties
I don’t think you need to go as far as you are suggesting. Several accelerometers placed on the board and paddler would tell me enough for the purposes. I don’t care which method makes the board stiffer, I care which makes the board faster. So I probably don’t need to measure anything much more complex than speed and e.g. the degree of pitching delay front-and-back (and indeed, just degree of general movement excepting that in an front-back direction) which I could get easily from accelerometers at a gross level; it would be enough to suit the purpose and would be cheap and easy to do. A wobbly board will wobble. So just use the simplest method that would detect wobble at a gross level. A wobbly board would wobble the accelerometers a lot, and if I then applied a stiffening system (eg. battens) and then the wobbling decreased and speed increased, then job done.
And btw I work with some world-class engineers. So they could help me with any difficult bits :)
Anyhow, this is all moot, since next year Starboard will probably put a magnet on the nose of their Airlines, and then claim that it changes the electromagnetic properties of the molecules of board to make it stiffer and therefore “10% faster”. They’ll have a slogan that says “Viagra for iSUPs: Stay Stiffer with Starboard”. And everyone will go buy one.
Actually, that has made me wonder if the same pump-up solution that is one of the surgical solutions offered for a certain mens’ problem, could be used to make iSUPs stiffer. Scaled up, of course :)
Stay stiff, guys!
I suspect if you even asked some world class engineers from even our lowly institution they'd steer you away from this method to start with but we'll agree to disagree on this one. The problems with boards isn't wildly different to my research in assessing the stiffness of lower-limb prosthetic limbs. I'm only spotting fundamental engineering considerations that you would equally castrate me for if I attempted to comment on neuroscience ;) .
As for performance against hardboards its interesting to note that Red paddleboards team rider (and employee) Sam Ross actually placed in a national series round a couple of times (I think he won one too). On both occasions the conditions were beach-based and extremely challenging surf-wise. When I spoke to him about it, his view was the opposite to what you suggested earlier - in flat conditions the lack of the boards form optimisation really makes it struggle. However, when its a technically challenging paddle, no board is going to save you and its merely a question of physical ocean skills.
-
...But time is the enemy, right now...
That's pretty much what I meant by it. Expenses involved as well.
In practical terms, inflatables are already challenging hardboards on flat water, even with half baked methods of today.
Simply by enhancing todays methods with least amount of expense, such as adding uni-directional strip and a wiki-rail
will yield immediate results guarantied. I can spare you the testing.
Well, as I said before, I once strapped on a 2x4 that went the length of most of the deck of my 16ft iSUP and it did improve things noticeably, despite the added weight. So I’m all for easy and cheap solutions! The only problem is that I couldn’t fit the 2x4 into the board’s carry bag :) So it was an effective and cheap solution but not terribly practical, which is what iSUPs are all about. The main problem with stiffeneing an iSUP is that most solutions lead to a board that would be awkward to roll up.
I don’t agree that iSUPs are close to hard boards in performance. In flat water they aren’t too tragic, but in any dynamic situation the gap is still huge.
I often wondered why Red in particular didn't extend their bow beam of their race board all the way back. It could have been recessed or been along the full deck as a 'race day option'. With their pin tail, you're not going to have a huge degree of footwork anyway.
I personally suspect that part of the problem of an inflatable boards inefficiency is not just front to back stiffness but also torsional stiffness - and the current solutions don't address that. This is obvious when you consider that the points of contact and points of loading are not along the central axis of the board. You'll get twist. The board that does consider that as well as fore to aft stiffness (and no harnessed porpoise claims please Starboard), is the one to buy.
-
deepmud - Interesting idea. And it could be one way to ensure a correct rockerline. Might be tricky to create in practice since sand etc would tend to accumulate in the joint and would be tricky to clean out. But you could use crossbeams as well (like the Red battens only across the width of the board), and most iSUPs would be used in an inland environment where the abrasive effects of sand aren’t such an issue.
There are possibly also various exoskeleton solutions, but I’m guessing that cost is the issue. If you remove the advantages of low cost and convenience that iSUPs have, would people still buy them? I know that many people don’t bother fitting the Red Paddle battens because they find them fiddly. But maybe with highly specialised craft such as eg. inflatable unlimited race boards, the likely customers for such a product would have a different, more performance-oriented mindset. Ideally, I’m guessing that use of inflatable stringers or compartments within the board itself would be good. Maybe with a hard multi piece folding deck. It might be a good research project for a Masters engineering student, given the resources. Build a couple of models.
It would be interesting to know how good a board would be that had all the current stiffening options from the different brands fitted at once (eg. Kevlar belts, top deck rods, dyneema cords, side battens etc).
The same solutions that work for longitudinal stiffness could presumably also work for reducing twisting, and so would help address ukgm’s point. Although it may be that because of the design of the internal connecting fibres, some kinds of deformation can be resisted inherently better than others. The most obvious problem when you paddle a longer iSUP is that the damn thing is like a trampoline once you start to really put the power down. It would be interesting to see a drone view from directly above when someone is sprinting in pure flat water on an iSUP vs a hard board to analyse the ripples that emanate from them.
-
It would be interesting to see a drone view from directly above when someone is sprinting in pure flat water on an iSUP vs a hard board to analyse the ripples that emanate from them.
I'm frankly amazed Starboard haven't claimed yet that the flex of their inflatable boards as being performance enhancing..........
-
It would be interesting to see a drone view from directly above when someone is sprinting in pure flat water on an iSUP vs a hard board to analyse the ripples that emanate from them.
I'm frankly amazed Starboard haven't claimed yet that the flex of their inflatable boards as being performance enhancing..........
I am assuming that this is a little sarcasm but if not take a look at the 2019 Starboard Airline iSUP video and you will see they are selling a feature they call Stored Flex Energy which launches you forward after every paddle stroke.
-
2019/20 Naish Maliko 14x25 and 14x27 will come in at MSRP $1529. Anyone interested in a board before I place my order? Zoner discount available.
Let me know - 1-888-252-4983.
-
2019/20 Naish Maliko 14x25 and 14x27 will come in at MSRP $1529. Anyone interested in a board before I place my order? Zoner discount available.
Let me know - 1-888-252-4983.
Thanks for the info Julian. I'll have to see a Maliko deflection test comparison with the RED elite FFC before considering.
-
It would be interesting to see a drone view from directly above when someone is sprinting in pure flat water on an iSUP vs a hard board to analyse the ripples that emanate from them.
I'm frankly amazed Starboard haven't claimed yet that the flex of their inflatable boards as being performance enhancing..........
I am assuming that this is a little sarcasm but if not take a look at the 2019 Starboard Airline iSUP video and you will see they are selling a feature they call Stored Flex Energy which launches you forward after every paddle stroke.
“Stored Flex Energy” = NOODLE POWER! Go fast by being as limp as a damp noodle. You know it makes sense...
But Starborg are not the only ones at this kinda thing. Get this explanation from Red Paddle about how its stiffening rod at the front of the board works:
“It...increases board speed to give you the competitive edge by channeling the energy to the back of the board”.
It seems that iSUP manufacturers think their customers have as much air between their ears as they have in their boards.
-
Ok then, time to place your bets on which 14ft board will show the greatest rigidity in the kind of weight tests described above.
My bet is on the Red Paddle Elite with FFC and stiffening battens.
Mainly on the grounds that if you want to make something stiffer in a low tech way then then you could start by adding stiff things to it.
What do you think?
-
It would be interesting to see a drone view from directly above when someone is sprinting in pure flat water on an iSUP vs a hard board to analyse the ripples that emanate from them.
I'm frankly amazed Starboard haven't claimed yet that the flex of their inflatable boards as being performance enhancing..........
I am assuming that this is a little sarcasm but if not take a look at the 2019 Starboard Airline iSUP video and you will see they are selling a feature they call Stored Flex Energy which launches you forward after every paddle stroke.
“Stored Flex Energy” = NOODLE POWER! Go fast by being as limp as a damp noodle. You know it makes sense...
But Starborg are not the only ones at this kinda thing. Get this explanation from Red Paddle about how its stiffening rod at the front of the board works:
“It...increases board speed to give you the competitive edge by channeling the energy to the back of the board”.
It seems that iSUP manufacturers think their customers have as much air between their ears as they have in their boards.
They could be using this technology, that was developed in the 1960s for shoes:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1rUFlXZzbE8
-
It would be interesting to see a drone view from directly above when someone is sprinting in pure flat water on an iSUP vs a hard board to analyse the ripples that emanate from them.
I'm frankly amazed Starboard haven't claimed yet that the flex of their inflatable boards as being performance enhancing..........
I am assuming that this is a little sarcasm but if not take a look at the 2019 Starboard Airline iSUP video and you will see they are selling a feature they call Stored Flex Energy which launches you forward after every paddle stroke.
Some of my past research looked at such an effect with runners with lower-limb amputations who use the 'cheetah' legs. The reality is that theoretically the effect is possible but its reliant on the weight of the paddler, the orientation of any forces are being applied and crucially, the timing of all of this operating in sequence. It's also speed and duration specific. When you consider all of this, not only is it likely that Starboard would not have the resources or expertise to investigate this but even if they did, unless the board was designed uniquely for each paddler, it would nearly always be out of phase and in some cases could work against you. The likelihood is that in most cases, its just creating energy losses or the perceived effect is psychological at best.
-
...which is a polite way of saying that it’s total b*llocks.
But that won’t stop anyone believing it.
ALL HAIL NOODLE POWER!!!
STRENGTH THROUGH WEAKNESS!!
Make iSUPS great again :)
-
Make iSUPS great again :)
One correction, iSups were never great :D
-
Make iSUPS great again :)
One correction, iSups were never great :D
Well, that’s a bit harsh. Some uses:
1. They make a good picnic table on the beach.
2. You can fashion a wind-break out of them.
3. You can use it as a makeshift mattress.
4. You can use it as a football target.
5. You can signal how little you care about the joy of paddling.
-
Make iSUPS great again :)
One correction, iSups were never great :D
Well, that’s a bit harsh. Some uses:
1. They make a good picnic table on the beach.
2. You can fashion a wind-break out of them.
3. You can use it as a makeshift mattress.
4. You can use it as a football target.
5. You can signal how little you care about the joy of paddling.
Or perhaps joy is different things to different people and one shouldn't judge what makes others happy as long as it doesn't cause harm to anyone else. I enjoy some social recreational paddles. I paddle for exercise sometimes in situations where carrying a hard board would be inconvenient at best. Fortunately I can enjoy being on a board that won't win any races or surf well. Sometimes "different strokes" can have a very literal meaning.
-
5. You can signal how little you care about the joy of paddling.
It's a good point but It's very obvious you haven't used one in a while, the most common usage:
It cools you down when you deflate and the end of the workout :D
-
Settle down chaps. News just in from Reuben at SUPboarder supboardermag.com (http://supboardermag.com)
In their reviews they have a deflection test. The board is place over a gap of 1.5m and a weight of 75kg (165lbs) is placed on top. Sag/deflection is measured and the results below. A lower number indicates less deflection/sag and can be translated into being a stiffer board.
NEW 2020 Naish Maliko 7mm
Red Paddle Co Elite 2017 10mm / 2018 11mm
NEW 2020 Naish Glide 12mm
Staboard Airline 2018 13mm
Starboard Touring 2018 DC 14mm
Reuben says his full review should be up this week.
-
Settle down chaps. News just in from Reuben at SUPboarder supboardermag.com (http://supboardermag.com)
In their reviews they have a deflection test. The board is place over a gap of 1.5m and a weight of 75kg (165lbs) is placed on top. Sag/deflection is measured and the results below. A lower number indicates less deflection/sag and can be translated into being a stiffer board.
NEW 2020 Naish Maliko 7mm
That's pretty impressive considering the All-Star carbon measured at 5mm.
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PB02bzr2kTY
-
Well done Naish. The Maliko goes straight to the head of my iSUP desirability list.
However, the review video demonstrates extremely well the weakness of the kind of static deflection test being used.
Although 7mm is very little “bend” in the board when you bear in mind that the Starboard carbon hard board bent by 5mm, when the video shows the paddler bouncing up and down in the board it’s is clear that there is the usual iSUP “boing” going on. No way in hell would the hard board be flexing like that.
So, it might not be flex at the midpoint under a static load that is the meaningful thing to address in an iSUP, especially if you want to make it fast. This might be the reason why the Maliko was apparently not as fast (as reported in the review) as some other iSUPs, rather than the reason being the weight, as suggested in the review. I don’t think that weight, within reason, makes a huge difference in average speed in windless flat conditions. But width, nose shape, rocker, and stiffness in the nose especially, might well make a huge difference.
It’s also a shame that the review didn’t try the Maliko for surf/downwind or ocean compared to other boards. The ULI-style wiki rail at the rear could really make it shine then.
Next time, Naish, please let’s have some sidebite fins fitted as well (zero toe-in). They would make the board track better, increase speed, and improve handling downwind and in beach races etc. You could make them a USP.
-
I love 14' iSUP's for use on class 1-2 rivers. I have been using my Imagine 14' connector for 3 years now and I'm amazed at the abuse it has taken. It's been great for long downriver expeditions (like 70 miles a day!) but I want something a little skinnier and stiffer.
I really like the Maliko, but wish it had the touring features (handles, more bungee space), especially because it apparently has more volume (which doesn't make sense since its 3 inches skinnier and same thickness and length?). Those extra handles at the nose and tail are super useful on the river for portaging. But I would still pick the Maliko over the two because I like the dimensions more and bungees and handles can be added.
Also, one of the few benefits to having a "noodly" board is it can be less fatiguing to the paddler in rough conditions. Kind of like super plush suspension on a Cadillac. It's not going to improve the performance but it will be more comfortable for the user over rough terrain and long distance, at least that's been my experience
-
I love 14' iSUP's for use on class 1-2 rivers. I have been using my Imagine 14' connector for 3 years now and I'm amazed at the abuse it has taken. It's been great for long downriver expeditions (like 70 miles a day!) but I want something a little skinnier and stiffer.
I really like the Maliko, but wish it had the touring features (handles, more bungee space), especially because it apparently has more volume (which doesn't make sense since its 3 inches skinnier and same thickness and length?). Those extra handles at the nose and tail are super useful on the river for portaging. But I would still pick the Maliko over the two because I like the dimensions more and bungees and handles can be added.
Also, one of the few benefits to having a "noodly" board is it can be less fatiguing to the paddler in rough conditions. Kind of like super plush suspension on a Cadillac. It's not going to improve the performance but it will be more comfortable for the user over rough terrain and long distance, at least that's been my experience
Handles and tie-downs are super easy and cheap to install on such board: https://www.northshoreinc.com/store/pc/viewCategories.asp?idCategory=93
Amazon may land you even greater selection at various price points.
-
yeah Amazon is cheap - less than $20 gets you 6 stainless d-rings and some bungee cord.
and color options. put 'em all over the board. I bought some sets last year at $12-ish for 4 and they were pretty easy to install.
https://www.amazon.com/simhoa-Paddleboard-Bungee-Rigging-D-Ring/dp/B07KZWTXW7/ref=pd_day0_hl_0_7?_encoding=UTF8&pd_rd_i=B07KZWTXW7&pd_rd_r=80377496-5339-11e9-a56e-99f017310be1&pd_rd_w=AqyNN&pd_rd_wg=bDxIs&pf_rd_p=ad07871c-e646-4161-82c7-5ed0d4c85b07&pf_rd_r=YKH6S6PDRQFWFW64XQFA&refRID=YKH6S6PDRQFWFW64XQFA
No question - isup can bump along rocks and no damage. That and that folding fin from frogfishfins.com and you are good to go in any creek/stream or babbling brook :D
-
Naish 2020 inflatable paddle boards now available at: https://greenwatersports.com/shop/brand/naish?ref=17
-
Ok, so Caspar raced here in the UK recently, on his Maliko inflatable, against some of the local paddlers (who are definitely very decent paddlers, but not top 10 in the world like Caspar is). Caspar came 4th, around 2 mins behind the winner in a race that was a little over one hour.
So, what do we make of that? The Maliko iSUP has quite a lot of nose rocker, and in the photos from the race, going upwind on a river it looked like that might be an issue, perhaps.
-
However, the review video demonstrates extremely well the weakness of the kind of static deflection test being used.
Although 7mm is very little “bend” in the board when you bear in mind that the Starboard carbon hard board bent by 5mm, when the video shows the paddler bouncing up and down in the board it’s is clear that there is the usual iSUP “boing” going on. No way in hell would the hard board be flexing like that.
I am aware of the fact that this is an older thread. Got som new info regarding that last sentence. "No way in hell would the hard board be flexing like that". Check out this video. First I thought this was a video of an inflatable board....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LDH1W1Mkn4A
-
Maartenair
That is an amazingly enlightening video that SIC (generally considered a good board in both design and construction) flexed that much with only a reasonable sized guy (as opposed to my clydesdale mass) not overly jumping up and down and the board flexed that much.
I need to rethink inflatable SUPs
JimK
Extreme Windsurfing
-
However, the review video demonstrates extremely well the weakness of the kind of static deflection test being used.
Although 7mm is very little “bend” in the board when you bear in mind that the Starboard carbon hard board bent by 5mm, when the video shows the paddler bouncing up and down in the board it’s is clear that there is the usual iSUP “boing” going on. No way in hell would the hard board be flexing like that.
I am aware of the fact that this is an older thread. Got som new info regarding that last sentence. "No way in hell would the hard board be flexing like that". Check out this video. First I thought this was a video of an inflatable board....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LDH1W1Mkn4A
Wow, that does look bad. My 14x26 RS doesn’t flex like that, so I wonder if it’s just that particular board? The new SIC RS are made in the Kinetic factory in Vietnam now (where the Jimmy Lewis boards are made) rather than at Cobra in Thailand where the one in the video was presumably made. And the new ones are full PVC sandwich too, which should make them stiffer and more durable. The degree of flex in the video would affect performance, and I have watched closely several elite racers on the RS and have not seen that degree of flex. So maybe the board in the video was a lemon?
-
Maartenair
That is an amazingly enlightening video that SIC (generally considered a good board in both design and construction) flexed that much with only a reasonable sized guy (as opposed to my clydesdale mass) not overly jumping up and down and the board flexed that much.
I need to rethink inflatable SUPs
JimK
Extreme Windsurfing
Hi Jim,
How about that video.
For me an inflatable raceboard would be a sensible option, especially a stiff board like the Maliko. I only recently started racing. In my neck of the woods races are run in several categories. There is the "pro class" as in 14' hardboard, inflatable class and touring class with awards for alle categories. In the pro class there is an arms race going with the hottest equipment and the competion is very stiff. These guys are good. I have zero chance against those guys. In the inflatable class I stand a chance to do better. I have not yet seen the Maliko inflatable or had a chance to try it out. I'd like to give it a go and see how it feels on the water.
Regards, Maarten
-
Wow, that does look bad. My 14x26 RS doesn’t flex like that, so I wonder if it’s just that particular board? The new SIC RS are made in the Kinetic factory in Vietnam now (where the Jimmy Lewis boards are made) rather than at Cobra in Thailand where the one in the video was presumably made. And the new ones are full PVC sandwich too, which should make them stiffer and more durable. The degree of flex in the video would affect performance, and I have watched closely several elite racers on the RS and have not seen that degree of flex. So maybe the board in the video was a lemon?
Yes it does look pretty bad. I raced in the wintercup over here a week ago and one of the bigger guys was on an RS. That board looked allright and he did wel on the board. Board on the video could possibly be a monday morning model. I would definitely talk to my dealer if my board behaved like the one in the video.
About the Maliko inflatable, there is not a wealth of user info on it. I'd like to see more video and I'd like to know how the rails would increase performance on a proper downwind run. That would be interesting. All in all I think it is a pretty good looking board.
Best regards, Maarten
-
I think he hit the frequency that was just right for that board - and it's not fair to that board, or an inflatable even, to jiggle up and down to see if it flexes. That's not what you do when you paddle a sup. I think it should be more - does it flex as you push a bow wave, changing your board shape and limiting speed? This is what some isups are really bad at - and others less bad :D. Even the test flex on sawhorses isn't what happens on the water. Maybe a row of laser "bricks" measuring "flex per foot" and when paddling or surfing? Hmmm. PonoBill could do something with that I bet :D .
-
I think he hit the frequency that was just right for that board - and it's not fair to that board, or an inflatable even, to jiggle up and down to see if it flexes. That's not what you do when you paddle a sup. I think it should be more - does it flex as you push a bow wave, changing your board shape and limiting speed? This is what some isups are really bad at - and others less bad :D. Even the test flex on sawhorses isn't what happens on the water. Maybe a row of laser "bricks" measuring "flex per foot" and when paddling or surfing? Hmmm. PonoBill could do something with that I bet :D .
You make a good point about how that specific movement will flex a board much more than standard paddling. With that said, the RS is flexing substantially and it's especially noticeable on the front half and how long it takes the board to go back to normal, as it continued oscillating up and down noticeably after the paddler stopped moving. This particular RS would be a wet noodle under you because that paddler looks to be a normal size dude and it's flexing considerably under him.
I remember using a BIC touring 12'6" x 30" hardboard replacement when my Glide was getting repaired and it flexed just like the board in this video when I bounced up and down. I remember paddling it, and thinking "what's going on here" because the flex was so noticeable. Then, I stopped paddling, and bounced up and down, and it just flexed wildly. I had tried the same model Bic before and it was the same deal. The flex was really noticeable under my 210-215 pounds then, and it would feel like total garbage under you.
-
I am more in support of the isups being unfairly pointed as "flexy" from THAT sort of test - yes they flex, but the quick jabs with strong legs and make most things flex a bit, even if you are light - and yeah that hardboard appears very susceptible - very stiff nose, shallow/thin right under the feet - any weakness and it will noodle a lot - and I admit some of my strokes have me loading and unloading a LOT of weight off my feet as I go up on my toes to stab my next stroke - but at a very low, "stroke-rate" frequency. I get a lot of bounce off my Blue Planet, less from my Red Elite. Both will wiggle like a puppy when I do that high-frequency jab. I haven't tried it on my hard board. Quick, all you guys living near liquid water, show us some different hardboards and the "wiggle test" them!! :D ......... btw - I am very close to moving south to Seattle, where winter is like a lot of my summer - I'll be year-round paddling soon! I wonder if my Bark Unlimited (waiting down there for me in my friend's garage) will do anything like that? Joe put a big 'ol ridge down the center, so may not.
-
This reminds me of Starboard’s ‘porpoise power flex’ claims. (Maybe I’m misremembering the porpoise part :) )
Deep, please come and enjoy our 50 degree winters in Seattle...
-
Here's my take. I grew up at the beach surfing, skateboarding and windsurfing. Till I started SUP'g, I pretty much had zero experience with a paddle in my hands. I kayak once about 30 years ago. I started paddling SUP's on a 10' ULI steamroller. CapoBeachBoy (Chris) loaned me one and a paddle. A couple of loops around the harbor and I was hooked. I paddled that ULI almost everyday for about a month. Chris then loaned me a 15' ULI (race/touring inflatable). This was in 2008. I paddled that ULI miles out into the ocean by myself all the time with no pfd. If it popped, I would have been in trouble. ::)
I borrowed another friends 18' x 25" Ohana. This was the first real race board. 14' boards didn't come into existence for another 2 years or so. It was a different feeling to paddle a hardboard. Much better glide and power in my stroke. The flex in the inflatable's does absorb and lose some of the energy you apply to the board from you feet. The flex pattern is different in an inflatable than a hardboard. The inflatables Taco right in the middle. It's not linear like the flex in a hardboard. That Taco flex gives the board an increased rocker for maybe 1/2 of the board, raising the nose and tail out of the water. This will cause the board to plow. So as you are in your power phase (the pull) of your stroke, the increased rocker is putting the breaks on. They add kevlar stringers, rail bats,, thicken the board to create a truss effect, and try to get as high of a PSI as they will take to cut down on this. It helps, but you still lose some of your paddle effort. On a hardboard this affect is greatly reduced.
My 18' fiberglass boards vs. my 18' carbon fiber boards. Again, night and day and far as flex. I paddled an old all fiberglass 18' Ohana like my friend had years ago, and it felt like an inflatable compared to a my current, all carbon fiber unlimiteds. The deck on the Ohana even had little ripples in the glass from being compress so much. I have two 14' Hobie elites. One is all carbon fiber, the other is CF top with an S glass bottom. The all CF is noticeably stiffer with almost no flex.
-
This reminds me of Starboard’s ‘porpoise power flex’ claims. (Maybe I’m misremembering the porpoise part :) )
Deep, please come and enjoy our 50 degree winters in Seattle...
I'm pretty happy about that part since SUP has sort of taken over as my main recreation/health kick. I can't run/jog, my knees are toast - but I can paddle pretty fast, get my heart rate up there - and I have a great time - it's kayaking all new again - but different. The cost of living is crazy but what the heck. Give up 30k in overtime and hang out with my (grown) kids - I just have to try to make all those bills I used to pay easy on OT.....lol
EDIT speaking of kayak - waaay back in the day I read Baidarka by George Dyson. He had a theory that the Aleut built their boats with flex on purpose. Then there are reports of them outpacing ships under sail - so I would say they were downwinding. Maybe a nonplaning hull needs to do this? They also did that bifurcated bow - both a sharp/slicing bow with a big wide volume as it penetrated deeper (overcoming pearling?). They also had a flat tail - to be pushed by the following waves..... but anyway - the built the frames with slip-joints - it wasn't just the flex of wood, they tied the wood and had plates of bone to make them flex even more. So - is there a hidden bonus we don't know about? These were true watermen, they lived on the water in their boats. The Russians pushed them as far south as Baja searching for otter in big fleets (on fear of death, of course).
-
Interesting here that they are taking the view that stiffness might not be everything as regards speed in iSUPs - they seem to be steering towards weight. Presumably their comments towards the end are aimed at the Maliko inflatable?
https://youtu.be/SOijGJ5et5c
But maybe it’s different in choppy conditions.
The problem is that nothing weighs nothing. But nothing doesn’t make for a very stiff board. My Hypr Hawaii 14ft gun is double-carbon full PVC sandwich board with wood stringer plus s-glass I-beam strengthening. It is super-stiff despite being only 4.5” thick. But all that stuff weighs a bit. I suspect that, regarding the stiffness/weight relation to speed, in choppy waters, especially the ocean, speed is substantially related to stiffness relative to weight, whereas in pure flat water, weight is relatively more important.