Naish 2020 Inflatable SUPs

[burchas]

...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.

[Area 10]

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

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!

[Area 10]

...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.

[deepmud]

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.

[ukgm]

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

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.

[ukgm]

...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.

[Area 10]

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.

[ukgm]

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..........

[SupSimcoe]

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.

[Green Water Sports]

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.

[burchas]

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.

[Area 10]

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.

[Area 10]

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?

[pdxmike]

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

[ukgm]

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.