Author Topic: TRYING to think outside the box  (Read 43552 times)

photofr

  • Peahi Status
  • *****
  • Posts: 771
  • Dakine… fun
    • View Profile
    • Extreme Outdoor Photography
    • Email
TRYING to think outside the box
« on: April 21, 2016, 12:29:26 AM »
Seemingly, you can open a board catalog and see a clear common denominator:
Most boards look very similar for 2016 - with only a few exceptions.

From where I am standing, most boards widest point is just at the standing area, or even slightly in front of the standing area, by a few inches. Sure, it's one way to add stability, and making the nose wider adds volume.

Isn't this "old school" though?
You want volume, but when you make the bows wider, you slow the board down as soon as the nose touches the wave in front of you.

Why aren't we seeing more boards with:
A narrow bow (for speed AND a narrow catch for more speed)
Higher bow (for volume)
Widest area 4 to 12 inches behind the feet (for stability)

SUP is closer to the speeds of surfskis than windsurf boards, so why not use the 35+ years of the surfski progression? Surfskis used to look a lot like the 2016 SUP boards, but have evolved to what they are now, sharing all 3 points above.

So what the deal, and why aren't more people thinking outside the box?
Nelo SUP - 14' x 23"
Nelo Surfski 560M - 18'4" x 17"

Area 10

  • Cortez Bank Status
  • *****
  • Posts: 4057
    • View Profile
Re: TRYING to think outside the box
« Reply #1 on: April 21, 2016, 01:56:07 AM »
The board you have described would be tippy for it's width. At the moment everyone is obsessed with width. Width= speed is easy to understand, and since we have fixed board lengths (the UL category is effectively dead from a worldwide POV), it's the most easily understood variable for customers to fix on. Plus, narrower boards are nicer to paddle, if you ignore the stability issue.

So at the moment I think it's all about creating the most stable board for a given width. That is going to be something approximating a rectangle in outline, with the widest point where you stand.

Some shapers are doing interesting things though. For instance, Joe Bark went for a very low volume thin and narrow nose approach with the D2, whereas Mark Raaphorst went completely the other way, with a very thick, high volume solution for the FX. Plus, the Starboard bottom shape of the 2016 is highly innovative, and it will be interesting to see if it gets copied.

So there are innovative things going on. Just not especially with plan shape (excepting things like SICs Standamaran, and various other UL boards out there).

IMO if we didn't have fixed board lengths (14 and 12-6) then we'd be seeing a much greater variety of outlines, and many more needle-nose boards. But because we have collectively decided to go with very short water craft, this means our shapes are quite stubby compared with eg. surfskis etc. Once you fix one parameter you constrain a number of others also.

UKRiverSurfers

  • Teahupoo Status
  • ******
  • Posts: 1079
    • View Profile
Re: TRYING to think outside the box
« Reply #2 on: April 21, 2016, 02:28:38 AM »
Quote
SUP is closer to the speeds of surfskis than windsurf boards, so why not use the 35+ years of the surfski progression? Surfskis used to look a lot like the 2016 SUP boards, but have evolved to what they are now, sharing all 3 points above.

So what the deal, and why aren't more people thinking outside the box?

Same thing is happening in the UK.. SUPers are trying to re invent the wheel. Why not stand on the shoulders of other paddle disciplines that are long established. ??

I think its mostly because at the moment, most Standing paddlers over here have a surf/windsurf back ground and have always considered paddle crafts for the 'lesser waterman' "D
SIC Bullet 17v2 Custom
Richmond Custom Carbon 16'
Starboard Point 14'8
Starboard K15
Starboard Astro Touring 14
Starboad Big Easy
Redpaddle Ride 10'6
Badfish Rivershred
Jackson SUPercharger
Badfish MVP 9'o
Badfish IRS 7'2
Pack OC1 12'

UKRiverSurfers

  • Teahupoo Status
  • ******
  • Posts: 1079
    • View Profile
Re: TRYING to think outside the box
« Reply #3 on: April 21, 2016, 02:30:05 AM »
Quote
Why aren't we seeing more boards with:
A narrow bow (for speed AND a narrow catch for more speed)
Higher bow (for volume)
Widest area 4 to 12 inches behind the feet (for stability)

K15 is pretty much as you describe but now discontinued - although I heard a rumour that its coming back ?
SIC Bullet 17v2 Custom
Richmond Custom Carbon 16'
Starboard Point 14'8
Starboard K15
Starboard Astro Touring 14
Starboad Big Easy
Redpaddle Ride 10'6
Badfish Rivershred
Jackson SUPercharger
Badfish MVP 9'o
Badfish IRS 7'2
Pack OC1 12'

UKRiverSurfers

  • Teahupoo Status
  • ******
  • Posts: 1079
    • View Profile
Re: TRYING to think outside the box
« Reply #4 on: April 21, 2016, 02:31:47 AM »
I wish folk would stop using the term 'stable' .....


No boat is just 'stable' or 'unstable' :)

Makes us look silly and uneducated to the rest of the paddling community.
SIC Bullet 17v2 Custom
Richmond Custom Carbon 16'
Starboard Point 14'8
Starboard K15
Starboard Astro Touring 14
Starboad Big Easy
Redpaddle Ride 10'6
Badfish Rivershred
Jackson SUPercharger
Badfish MVP 9'o
Badfish IRS 7'2
Pack OC1 12'

UKRiverSurfers

  • Teahupoo Status
  • ******
  • Posts: 1079
    • View Profile
Re: TRYING to think outside the box
« Reply #5 on: April 21, 2016, 02:34:13 AM »
Quote
  But because we have collectively decided to go with very short water craft, this means our shapes are quite stubby compared with eg. surfskis etc. Once you fix one parameter you constrain a number of others also.

This is because the 'nineties Kelly wannabes' still think smaller must mean more skilled waterman.. Im mean surely it does :o ::) ;D
SIC Bullet 17v2 Custom
Richmond Custom Carbon 16'
Starboard Point 14'8
Starboard K15
Starboard Astro Touring 14
Starboad Big Easy
Redpaddle Ride 10'6
Badfish Rivershred
Jackson SUPercharger
Badfish MVP 9'o
Badfish IRS 7'2
Pack OC1 12'

photofr

  • Peahi Status
  • *****
  • Posts: 771
  • Dakine… fun
    • View Profile
    • Extreme Outdoor Photography
    • Email
Re: TRYING to think outside the box
« Reply #6 on: April 21, 2016, 02:54:48 AM »
Shapers know that a wider nose will add stability.
Hopefully, shapers will also realize that a wider "nose" can promote poor technique by having to reach so far outside the board. Reaching away from your board results in less efficient paddle strokes.

Don't you guys think that (just like surfskis) a narrow catch area will promote better and more efficient paddling technique AND therefore contributes to more SPEED?

This is probably the case in hand:
A 26 inch needle nose board that will be faster than a 24 inch "2016" board with a wide nose.
(note that I was going to say bow, but then I realized that I was talking to stand up paddlers... this, alone, may just initiate more response and feedback :) )
Nelo SUP - 14' x 23"
Nelo Surfski 560M - 18'4" x 17"

photofr

  • Peahi Status
  • *****
  • Posts: 771
  • Dakine… fun
    • View Profile
    • Extreme Outdoor Photography
    • Email
Re: TRYING to think outside the box
« Reply #7 on: April 21, 2016, 02:57:02 AM »
Point taken: the K15 was amazing, and could use a bit of revamping to make it the new and improved K15, changing everything but the needle "nose".
Nelo SUP - 14' x 23"
Nelo Surfski 560M - 18'4" x 17"

Area 10

  • Cortez Bank Status
  • *****
  • Posts: 4057
    • View Profile
Re: TRYING to think outside the box
« Reply #8 on: April 21, 2016, 03:48:46 AM »
The K15 (30" wide) was no faster in flat water than the Naish 17 which was 26.75" wide, except for when it was going with a current, when it was bizarrely fast. The Naish was a more adaptable board. The K15 felt a bit tippy to many people considering it's width. So the K15 was quite a specialised beast for an UL. It probably needed to be the same shape but narrower and longer to have survived. It was also crazy heavy - but that's another story.

I actually think that the latest breed of boards has a lot going for it - excepting that I'd like to see more UL boards. I'm enjoying paddling the Bark Vapor in virtually all conditions, and the SIC FX and Starboard All Star in particular interest me also. They may not be the last word in speed, but unless you are race-obsessed, paddling pleasure and adaptability is more important. A SUP that is like a surfski would undoubtedly be fast. But it wouldn't be much fun to paddle, and wouldn't make use of the key feature of SUPing, which is our ability to make large shifts of weight around the board. The sit-down paddlesports do not have this feature (at least to this degree), so it is pretty much a SUP USP, and I welcome designs that make full use of it.

So, you might want to paddle a Stand-up Surfski, but I don't. My references are surfing, where it's all about foot positioning and movement, and using that to achieve trim. I want to be able to "surf" my boards not pilot them - indeed, be able to surf them like a surfboard.

But those people from older paddlesports will of course tend to see SUP through the prism of sit-down paddlesports, and will tend to imagine that they know best, and tend to patronise the newer sport.

If a needle nose/bow SUP/boat was fastest and most efficient in the real world then you'd bet your life that Connor would be racing one right now. Can I please remind you of the general design disasters that have happened when boat designers have had a go at shaping SUPs? There are currently no computer models that can optimise a design for the large shifts of weight around the deck that is integral to SUP, and is a celebrated and highly useful aspect of it. People by and large want boards that are practical, adaptable to many conditions, and enjoyable to paddle. Hence the overwhelming popularity of inflatables. This is not IMO to be derided. Instead I think it's great that the drive towards ever more extreme and specialised boards actually seems this year to have moderated a bit.

photofr

  • Peahi Status
  • *****
  • Posts: 771
  • Dakine… fun
    • View Profile
    • Extreme Outdoor Photography
    • Email
Re: TRYING to think outside the box
« Reply #9 on: April 21, 2016, 04:21:22 AM »
I don't really agree on couple of points...

Compared to most paddlers, I was really late getting into the sport of "paddling". I started on surfskis at age 17, granted I have put in a lot of hours into the sport. I was surfing Pipes and Sunset way before I ever got a paddle into my hands. However, I would rather see SUP getting closer to surfskis than to windsurf boards.

You are right: UL seem to have died in its path. For a moment, let's just leave out the rudder system. Let's focus on the bow for downwind or chop. We know we need volume, and we know we need a narrow catch. Take a K15, make it 10 pounds, add volume to the bow (for all intent and purpose, make its bow look like a surfski) but make the rails a little harder for stability. Yes, you would have a stand up paddle board that differs greatly from most boards out there.

We'll eventually have to agree that the first surfskis were looking exactly like the current 2016 boards, and they have ALL gone away from that shape for the simple and good reason that there were more efficient bows.

In the end, The SUP of the future may have a bow that will look a little like a surfski, but the SUP in question will 1) look very differently overall, and 2) may not require "piloting" them.

It's cool if people don't see the benefits of a narrow catch, but for as long as shapers don't see the interest in narrow bows, we will have more handicaps while paddling, especially for those of us carrying smaller shoulders. Shapers could (at least) bevel the catch area of the boards...
Nelo SUP - 14' x 23"
Nelo Surfski 560M - 18'4" x 17"

Bean

  • Cortez Bank Status
  • *****
  • Posts: 4211
    • View Profile
Re: TRYING to think outside the box
« Reply #10 on: April 21, 2016, 06:55:30 AM »
I wish folk would stop using the term 'stable' .....


No boat is just 'stable' or 'unstable' :)

Makes us look silly and uneducated to the rest of the paddling community.

UK, please elaborate? 

photofr

  • Peahi Status
  • *****
  • Posts: 771
  • Dakine… fun
    • View Profile
    • Extreme Outdoor Photography
    • Email
Re: TRYING to think outside the box
« Reply #11 on: April 21, 2016, 07:55:30 AM »
There's nothing "stable" ou "too unstable" out there. Perhaps that's what he meant, and perhaps we should refer to stand up paddle boards as MORE stable, or LESS stable depending on:
Water conditions
Board load
Board shape

But I am sure he will elaborate or correct me.
Nelo SUP - 14' x 23"
Nelo Surfski 560M - 18'4" x 17"

Bean

  • Cortez Bank Status
  • *****
  • Posts: 4211
    • View Profile
Re: TRYING to think outside the box
« Reply #12 on: April 21, 2016, 08:07:54 AM »
It is likely esoteric, but I'd like to hear it.

Admin

  • Administrator
  • Cortez Bank Status
  • *****
  • Posts: 6443
    • View Profile
    • StandUpZone
    • Email
Re: TRYING to think outside the box
« Reply #13 on: April 21, 2016, 08:25:57 AM »
It is always great to evaluate why things have taken the path they have (and possibly even have a second look at designs that have been tried and not commonly adopted) but wide point back on flat-water/race/distance boards has been tried in numerous variations.  Seated (surfski) vs Standing is a big deal. 

Bean

  • Cortez Bank Status
  • *****
  • Posts: 4211
    • View Profile
Re: TRYING to think outside the box
« Reply #14 on: April 21, 2016, 08:52:42 AM »
As the sport evolves and matures and more participants are traveling to venues, there is a greater need for a virtual one race-board quiver.

 


SimplePortal 2.3.7 © 2008-2024, SimplePortal