Lighter is faster- real world test results

[caseyg]

To me this still doesn't make sense.  The Roto Molded boards don't compete with race boards in any way.  Those boards are typically designed for recreation and aren't going to be designed for the fastest conditions.  It is not their purpose.  Most the arguments I have seen on this board, typically are regarding boards that don't differ more than 5 lbs, with the 15lbs example I gave earlier being the extreme.  Trying to compare a light weight carbon fibre race board to a roto molded board seems silly.  Like comparing apples and oranges.  The reason it was brought up had more to do with completely isolating the testing conditions.  That way shape and design are taken out of the equation.  In that scenario, it would truly come down to what type of difference the extra weight made.  The nice that about that test condition, is the weight would be evenly distributed and almost part of the hull design, rather than some weights added to the top of the board in an unatural or uneven way.

[Six Feet and Glassy]

I think this test is about as real as need be.  Everyone can agree that the difference in flatwater overall speed is pretty small.  So if you're not racing, weight really doesn't matter too much.  But anyone who races, or even moreso, anyone who is doing downwind races or runs, should know that a light board can make a significant difference in catching bumps.  As mentioned, catching bumps is quick business; and taking one or two extra strokes to get up to speed is huge.  And going 5% faster overall could move you quite a ways up the rankings in a tight race with many participants.

As for the methods, I would think outside of weighted mats, the weights plates might be just fine for these purposes.  If I understand correctly, the roto boards are hollow.  But are they baffled on the inside?  How would you keep the sand or water - or whatever is used for weights - from shifting around in the board?  One lean on a rail and all the water/sand goes to one side, etc...

[blueplanetsurf]

I was thinking about the results today and what they mean.
So first, some simple math:

I rounded the sprint results to 3 seconds slower with 30 pounds extra weights.  Over 48 seconds total that is a difference of just over 6 % 
I'm assuming that each additional pound has a proportional effect on speed, so 6% divided by 30 pounds= 0.2%

So, I'm assuming that a pound of weight to the board makes it 0.2% slower.

So 5 extra pounds makes it 1% slower and 15 extra pounds 3% slower

This sounds very minimal and if you are cruising or touring, who cares if you are going 1% slower, that's only 36 seconds per hour of paddling.

I just want to put it in perspective from a racing standpoint.
Imagine for a moment that you are Rob Rojas and just finished the BOP Elite race in 1:03:15

If you want to check the results:
http://raceresults.eternaltiming.com/index.cfm/20101002_Battle_of_the_Paddle.htm?Fuseaction=Results&Class=Elite+SUP+Individual%7EOpen+MElite

You finished the Elite race in 15th place- a respectable finish against the world's top SUP athletes, but not top ten, no podium, trophy, prize money, shaking Jerry and Sparkys hands, pictures in the mags and on the web etc.

Matt Becker, on the other hand, finished  in ninth place in 1:03:08.  His time was 7 seconds (or 0.185%) faster and he makes the cut.

If you knew that making your board just one pound lighter would have made you 0.2% faster would you still say that weight does not matter?
I think not.

[robon]

To me this still doesn't make sense.  The Roto Molded boards don't compete with race boards in any way.  Those boards are typically designed for recreation and aren't going to be designed for the fastest conditions.  It is not their purpose.  Most the arguments I have seen on this board, typically are regarding boards that don't differ more than 5 lbs, with the 15lbs example I gave earlier being the extreme.  Trying to compare a light weight carbon fibre race board to a roto molded board seems silly.  Like comparing apples and oranges.  The reason it was brought up had more to do with completely isolating the testing conditions.  That way shape and design are taken out of the equation.  In that scenario, it would truly come down to what type of difference the extra weight made.  The nice that about that test condition, is the weight would be evenly distributed and almost part of the hull design, rather than some weights added to the top of the board in an unatural or uneven way.

This never started as a super high performance racing topic. There was many different scenarios. Not just racing, and plastic SUPs got brought up several times over the course of the debate. It's not silly and no one was comparing roto moulded to a racing board either. It was more about heavier boards carrying carrying more glide and momentum vs lighter boards being faster getting up to speed and over longer distances in general. I'm interested in several different types of boards for touring/distance and the weights vary dramatically from 28 pounds with a 12'6" model, to 50 pounds+ for a plastic board. There is many different reasons why I am entertaining such a wide weight range between boards, and racing certainly isn't one of them. I am not alone on this and I have noticed other paddlers enquiring about the increasing number of plastic designs right now. This is why the 30 pound weight difference is of particular interest to me. Spreading out the weight isn't exactly the same as a heavier SUP, but it is the closest thing a the tester could come to the actual thing and it showed a markable difference than with having the weight centered. Makes enough sense to me.

[PonoBill]

Fine test, fine conclusions. I think most people can sort it out from here.

If you are playing around or cruising the extra weight doesn't make much difference. When I bought my 14' Glide I could have had the carbon version for about the same money. Elected for the heavier board because I'm hard on equipment and the Columbia River is brutal. I have NO expectation that the heavier board presents any advantage other than that.

As I recall the genesis of this debate it was that heavier boards might be advantageous in some conditions. I'm sure some folks will still maintain that is true, I've never seen it and this test doesn't show it. I LIKE the way a heavier board feels in the surf, but there's not much question in my mind that most if not all of the performance factors are diminished by weight.

It comes down to cost and how you intend to use the board. It's not just formal racing. I don't know about the rest of you, but for me and my friends, if three of us were paddling across a kiddie pond the guy in the back would want to be in front. Being the last guy to the beach on a Maliko run is just not a good thing. Most of the time improvements come from paddling better, getting into better shape, reading the waves better, catching more runners, and losing the blubber. But then there's that five or six percent difference in the board.

[blueplanetsurf]

I agree with you, Bill, training runs can be just as competitive as a race, nobody likes to be the last guy.  A 5-6% speed advantage is huge, usually speed differences are much smaller.

I got a message asking what GPS I used but can't figure out how to reply.
I used the Garmin Fortrex 401 that my wife gave me for father's day last year.   It's a great training tool and I like to tape it on the board in front of me with electrical tape so I can monitor the speed while I'm paddling.  Using a wrist band GPS makes it much harder to look at the current speed so you don't get that instant feedback.
It also has a pointer function which was a great feature for the Molokai race.  

[Admin]

Not sure if anyone has posted this yet, but what may be a small advantage in the first minutes becomes a huge advantage as 10 or 20 mile goes on.  My heavy 18 felt awesome early on in a run (especially if it was really windy) but fatigue sets in more quickly on a heavy board and then the disadvantage multiplies. 

[PonoBill]

And then you have to carry the pig to the car.

[Six Feet and Glassy]

"And then you have to carry the pig to the car."

 You guys crack me up!!!

[Tecpartner]

I'vbe never gotten hurt paddling. But I've hurt myself a few times carrying a heavy board (or a surfski) back to the racks.

[blueplanetsurf]

I went paddling the morning with my friend Scott (known here as 1paddle2paddle) and we continued the discussion offline, especially about weight distribution and its effect.  I just wanted to share some of the things we talked about to open them up for further discussion.

1) The test used weights on top of the board, not evenly distributed.  Also, I used the sprint results to calculate the 0.2% effect per pound.  Most likely the difference would have been smaller with even weight distribution and over a longer course.  My estimate is that one extra pound, evenly distributed will make the board somewhere between 0.1% to 0.2% slower.

[blueplanetsurf]

2) Static weight vs. dynamic weight.  Scott said this has been a discussion topic amongst surf ski users.  Some have argued here that instead of getting a board that is 5 pound lighter, you could just go on a diet and lose 5 pounds.  Assuming you have 5 extra pound of fat and can lose it without losing any muscle mass, you should lose it, no doubt.
The argument Scott brought up is that body weight is dynamic, it can be shifted and used to your advantage, while the weight of the board is static and can't be shifted.  This implies that a difference in static weight (equipment) has a bigger effect than a difference in dynamic weight (body weight).
I think most agree that a heavier board is slower, especially accelerating.  So if you lose a bunch of body weight, you might be able to go faster but you still won't be as fast on a heavy board as on a light board.  So, a light board is faster than a heavy board, regardless of the rider weight.

[blueplanetsurf]

3)  We decided it was too early in the morning to get into this but maybe some of you want to discuss it:
I talked to one of the guys from future fins at a trade show a while back.  He showed me some new fins they make that are so light that they actually float.  He told me you could feel the lift they create in the tail and that the weight of the fins has a bigger impact on performance than say the weight of the board.  It sounds reasonable and I have no reasone to boubt it but I can't explain why it would make a difference where the weight is located.  Does anyone want to take a crack at it?

[Six Feet and Glassy]

Weight/buoyancy in the tail section, i figure, helps most with catching bumps.  When we move forward on the board to help us catch waves or bumps, we are placing more of the board - more foam - behind us, making the tail more buoyant.  This allows the wave to lift the tail more easily; then gravity does the rest.  This is why a longboard catches waves easier - you have more board behind you.  So I'd guess a buoyant fin could make some difference.  

How much of a difference will probably depend on what board and fin you have now.  It will very likely not matter to those on heavier boards.  For fins, I have a 10" Futures Classic fin that weighs over a pound.  May not sound like much, but when you figure someone mentioned going carbon only saves three pounds, one pound is pretty significant.  I can't imagine there being much difference if you already have a lightweight fin.  Then again, we are messing with an area where there is much less foam to begin with, so weight should have proportionately more effect there.

Will be interesting to see if you can feel or measure a difference.

My first test with such a fin would be to get the lightest board you can,  mark your feet position for optimum trim.  Use the heaviest fin you can find first, then use the buoyant one, and see wasabi.  Fun fun fun!  

[1paddle2paddle]

I could lose 5 pounds without losing muscle mass...not that I WILL though.