Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - 2Rivers

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 15
1
SUP General / Re: Board security on road trips?
« on: September 30, 2018, 04:34:10 PM »
How do you keep a 14' board secure (theft-wise) on road trips? My family is planning to drive from Washington to California, staying in motels, and I thought I might bring the board with us.
After traveling around the Bay Area and the Valley in Nor Cal with my 14' board, I realized that even with Kanulocks and being diligent on where I parked after sessions or overnight, it was just too much hassle and headache. I then made the decision that whenever traveling overnight/days or when I needed to be away/out-of-sight from my auto for some extended time (e.g. Beer:30 &/or food), having an inflatable 14' is the better way to go. Just deflate, pack it away, done! Granted the re-inflation process is a bitch, but well worth the trade-off imo.

No more hardboards unless it's day trips only. It's not the cheapest option having two boards, but imo, it's much better than dealing with a 14' hardboard constantly. The only exception would be if I was attending a race or paddling event where the performance of a hardboard would be critical to me.

2
SUP General / Re: CA Definition Amendment
« on: April 06, 2018, 12:05:16 PM »
The last word own this topic is that adding the definition of "machinery" to the CA HNC, it will allow law enforcement the ability to better enforce current laws against those using a "vessel" while under the influence of alcohol and/or drugs. Supposedly they can't perform a field sobriety test on those aboard a "mechanically propelled vessel" that's non-motorized.
So it sounds like CA simply does not want to allow one to get drunk and/or high and go paddleboarding. ;)
Much better! You can still enjoy your beers. Just don't get over .04% and you're all good.
http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180SB1247

3
Gear Talk / Re: Biggest impact vest
« on: March 27, 2018, 01:07:11 PM »
Follow is the hot brand for impact vests. They make a surfing impact vest in XXXL that fits up to 52" chests.
http://followwake.com/shop/wakeboard-vests/mens/happy-surf-ed-mens-jacket?attribute_pa_color=black&attribute_pa_size=l

4
Sneak Peeks, Rumors, and Wish Lists / Re: A "clog-like" iSUP ?
« on: March 14, 2018, 03:25:58 PM »
How would you get the standing area rigid enough if it were to be so thin?
You don’t want the standing area flexing wildly every time you take a stroke. Maybe you could use a system of battens or similar, and/or have an installable hard area to stand on to spread the load.
Riot (formally Corran) has a whitewater specific model called the Combat that's a "clog-like" design. It uses an inflatable "boogieboard" for the standing area to add rigidity and support. If this concept could be made into a touring or racing application, they (or somebody else) could be onto something.
http://riotsups.com/combat/

5
SUP General / Re: CA Definition Amendment
« on: March 08, 2018, 06:49:49 PM »
My question is, what does Senator Ted Gaines gain from this? He's an insurance guy......????? Who's fronting the $$$?
Nothing. He was approached by the Sheriff department within his District to doctrine up the new bill for them. Law enforcement does not create new legislation, they only enforce it.

6
SUP General / Re: CA Definition Amendment
« on: March 08, 2018, 06:26:58 PM »
The proposed bill is to modify existing language in the definitions so that law enforcement can adequately do their job. It's not increasing regulation, it's improving it.

The only issue (currently) is the interpretation of some definitions, like a "personal watercraft" as example. If the proposed definitions were to remain as is without any other modifications going forward, a vessel such as an 11' paddleboard with someone standing on it and using a paddle for means of propulsion, could then be defined as a "personal watercraft" based on the current language. A kiteboard could be defined as a "power driven vessel" based on the current language.

However the language in the proposed bill is going to be amended before it's sent out. As you can see it's already incorrect with the inclusion of the word "rudder". A rudder is a device to allow a vessel to steer (turn). It's not a device for the mechanical propulsion of a vessel, which is the sole focus of the amendment.

Word has it that the Dept. of Boating and Waterways is monitoring this proposed bill to make sure it does not cause any negative impacts on existing boating laws.

7
SUP Advocacy / Re: New CA Bill Introduced
« on: March 08, 2018, 06:19:40 PM »
This is a bill to watch, the possibility of unintended consequences are very high.  Increased liability for one...
The proposed bill is to modify existing language in the definitions so that law enforcement can adequately do their job. It's not increasing regulation, it's improving it.

The only issue (currently) is the interpretation of some definitions, like a "personal watercraft" as example. If the proposed definitions were to remain as is without any other modifications going forward, a vessel such as an 11' paddleboard with someone standing on it and using a paddle for means of propulsion, could then be defined as a "personal watercraft" based on the current language. A kiteboard could be defined as a "power driven vessel" based on the current language.

However the language in the proposed bill is going to be amended before it's sent out. As you can see it's already incorrect with the inclusion of the word "rudder". A rudder is a device to allow a vessel to steer (turn). It's not a device for the mechanical propulsion of a vessel, which is the sole focus of the amendment.

Word has it that the Dept. of Boating and Waterways is monitoring this proposed bill to make sure it does not cause any negative impacts on existing boating laws.

8
SUP General / CA Definition Amendment
« on: March 07, 2018, 09:53:10 PM »
I'd posted this topic on one of the sub pages, but I'm seeing it's getting a lot of traction on social media groups including the kayaking community. I know this page gets more traffic so I'm posting the link here.
https://www.standupzone.com/forum/index.php/topic,33246.0.html
http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180SB1247

The last word own this topic is that adding the definition of "machinery" to the CA HNC, it will allow law enforcement the ability to better enforce current laws against those using a "vessel" while under the influence of alcohol and/or drugs. Supposedly they can't perform a field sobriety test on those aboard a "mechanically propelled vessel" that's non-motorized.
So it sounds like CA simply does not want to allow one to get drunk and/or high and go paddleboarding. ;)
Any other thoughts? Some think it's a first attempt to modify the classification of "vessels" so more people in CA will be required to be registered with the State. I don't see this, but maybe I'm missing something.

9
SUP Advocacy / New CA Bill Introduced
« on: March 06, 2018, 06:35:35 PM »
Interesting! I just saw this posted on one of our local kiteboarding forums. This would also apply to paddleboards.

Concerning us paddlers, it looks like it's simply designed to clarify that a paddle is "machinery" and could endanger someone.

California SB-1247 Vessels: machinery: mechanically propelled vessel.

http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180SB1247

(l)(1) “Machinery” means any sail, rigging, rudder, oar, paddle, or similar device.
(2) Any vessel that uses machinery in its operation is a mechanically propelled vessel.

10
In terms of deflection and stiffness,  how does it compare with a comparable size Red Paddle?
I'd also be curious on how it compares to a similar RPC and Hala's CarbonNass 12'6x30 touring board.
https://halagear.com/product/carbon-nass-126/


11
bluerushsup@gmail.com

E-mail & ask Steven Pug If he has any more Ninja Star sups left. He has had deals on his left over blue-rush boards... same as some of the slightly older blue planet boards. i think he closed his shop in the north bay.

F-One has taken over their shop. No more Bluerush branded products. Bluerush is only involved with events now:

"F-One & Manera will soon be opening a flagship store at the Bluerush location in Sausalito, CA. In 2017 and beyond, Bluerush and its partners will continue to support world class events such as the Battle of the Bay / Watersport Festival, Molokai 2 Oahu, Crissy Kite Race Series, APP Tour, and regional events such as the Santa Cruz Paddlefest (March 24-26th) and the SUP Race Series in the Richardson bay. The Bluerush team will now be competing using F-One & Manera equipment and gear."
https://www.supconnect.com/news/bluerush-now-powered-by-f-one-manera

"For this reason Bluerush hosts monthly race series, downwind race events, Kiteboard races and the Bay Areas biggest SUP Race event, the Battle of the Bay held annually. We also offer race clinics by our team of Elite paddlers and instructors."
This is stated on their home page.

The best Surf SUP shops near Oakland are:
+1 for what Tautologies recommended - Boardsports California https://boardsportscalifornia.com
101 Surf Sports http://shop.101surfsports.com
I would argue that 101 is the top SUP shop in the area.
Proof Lab & Wise surf shops might worth checking out too:
http://www.prooflab.com
http://www.wisesurfboards.com/index.htm

12
Gear Talk / Re: US Coast Guard Approved Type III PFD's
« on: February 26, 2018, 12:00:04 PM »
Texas law is the same as California. A Type III PFD can be carried or worn.

So a Type V only would be illegal in my state.
If your laws are the same as in California, then a Type V can be used in lieu of a Type I-III and is not illegal.
Most Type V lifejackets are required to be worn in order to meet both State and Federal carriage requirements. Also the Type V must be equivalent to a Type intended for the given activity. Usually it will say something like "Type V with Type III performance".
CFR (Code of Federal Regulations) Section Code 175.17 under Title 33
CCR (CA Code of Regulations) Section Code 6565.6 under Title 14

This one may interest you if you want an inflatable that is wearable:
https://wingmanlifejacket.com

13
Gear Talk / Re: Solite Neoprene surf boot review
« on: February 19, 2018, 12:20:04 PM »
I tried on a pair of body gloves with the sole molding tech and they felt really stiff like tire rubber.  are these solite soles flexible, or do they soften up after hot molding?
Bodyglove's Red Cell booty is actually a Solite.
https://soliteboots.com/pages/partners
http://www.bodyglove.com/store/men/wetsuits/surf-accessories/3mm-red-cell-bootie?color=black

14
Gear Talk / Re: Solite Neoprene surf boot review
« on: February 19, 2018, 12:00:55 PM »
Thermo-Foam Sole: Injection molded from our proprietary foam blend, the Solite sole can be heat-molded with boiling water for a perfect custom fit.

Bummer that it's only the sole portion that's custom moldable. I've had a very hard time finding booties that fit my feet. Every split-toe (hidden and unhidden) I've tried do not fit. Most open-toe boots don't fit either. I really wish someone made booties that were like custom moldable Intuition liners.
Can anyone recommend a good fitting booty for people with Morton toes?

15
SUP General / Re: pfd ***UPDATE*** California style
« on: February 14, 2018, 07:47:53 PM »
First of all, you have to be pretty weird to be interested in this stuff...

Thanks for the link to the definitions.  Just so it's handy, I copied what seems to be the whole relevant section below.

The first thing that pops out is that you're right, a SUP is a "vessel", because it is definitely NOT a "recreational boat" because those carry more than 6 passengers.

So the whole email that hbsteve got was wrong, because the person who wrote it didn’t check the definitions, and gave him the regulations for the wrong type of craft.

I'll admit that I'm a bit weird about the PFD laws around here. Where I paddle is commonly in State and County parkways and I often encounter the rangers that are patrolling the launch areas and waterways. I also have some ranger friends that have some mixed interpretations of the established laws. It seems like there's always a new ranger though that has their own perceptions, so being precise and knowing the exact laws has paid off thus far.

So I have to ask where is it defined that a “recreational boat” carries more than six passengers? All it says is that it’s a vessel that’s not engaged in carrying six or fewer passengers like a “boat”, nothing more.
As it’s written it could be interpreted that a “recreational boat” is neither a vessel engaged in carrying six or fewer passengers nor a vessel engaged in carrying more than six passengers and is something completely else. 

Also the Feds and CA have nearly identical definitions for “recreational boats/vessels”…

Under US Section Code 175.3 the definitions are identical to the State’s Section Code 651(d) and (t) when combined. Both also deem “recreational vessels” as vessels for pleasure purposes only, so couldn’t a paddleboard be considered as a “recreational vessel” in this context?

Under US Section Code 175.11/175.11(c) and CA Section Code 6565.3 the PFD requirements are applicable to “recreational vessels” that can be propelled by “paddles”, so couldn’t this be interpreted that a paddleboard is considered as a “recreational vessel” in this context as well?

My point with these questions is to highlight that these “grey” areas are exactly what the authorities are misinterpreting.

Btw, you mentioned that hbsteve got the wrong regulations from the state. I’ve looked into it and there’s only one state regulation within CA’s legislation regarding PFDs (under Title 14) and it’s directed at “boats” and mainly “recreational boats”, not “vessels”.
Nowhere can I find any language and the associated regulations directed at “vessels” such as paddleboards, kayaks, and other watercraft of this type. Even CA's Section Code 6564 only pertains to PFD equipment requirements as prescribed in sections 6565 to 6566 which are also not directed at "vessels".

I should point out that the US Section Code 175.15 would also not be applicable to paddleboarders then if they are not defined the same as a “recreational vessel”. The Feds uses nearly identical language as CA does under Section Code 6565.5 and it's only referencing a “recreational boat/vessel” and the PFD carriage requirements upon them.
Nowhere does it mention the PFD requirements for “vessels” as defined by both the Feds and the State.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 15

SimplePortal 2.3.7 © 2008-2024, SimplePortal