Endtimes for the Surfboard Industry?

[Northern_Shores]

Back on track, please.

Is the current economic environment hurting board sales in a tangible way? Are shapers feeling the squeeze?

 

[Duffy LaCoronilla]

Back on track, please.

Is the current economic environment hurting board sales in a tangible way? Are shapers feeling the squeeze?

I squeezed the rail on a Team Light board at the ci shop and my thumb went right through it.

 

[Maz]

"Agree. Fibreglass has spring characteristics. As used in a bow and arrow. But for a usable spring effect to occur, you have to unload in a reasonable timeframe. If you slowly release the tension in the bow, the arrow will just fall to the ground. The energy is still transferred to the arrow, but not enough energy per time unit to counteract gravity. My position with surfboards and flex is in line with that. That is if a surfboard would have the comparable characteristics to a fibreglass bow. It isn't enough to matter. This is for longtudinal flex. For torsional flex/twist, I don't see anything happening. Our feet are planted along the center of the board and has no meaningful leverage. To twist a surfboard with our feet it would have to be made from porridge."

Skiing and skis blow your theory out of the water in zero seconds flat. Potential energy - fricken lots of it - is stored during a turn by proper athletes with big glutes, quads and hamstrings, only to be released as kinetic energy (speed/momentum) at the exit of the turn.

 

[Northern_Shores]

"Agree. Fibreglass has spring characteristics. As used in a bow and arrow. But for a usable spring effect to occur, you have to unload in a reasonable timeframe. If you slowly release the tension in the bow, the arrow will just fall to the ground. The energy is still transferred to the arrow, but not enough energy per time unit to counteract gravity. My position with surfboards and flex is in line with that. That is if a surfboard would have the comparable characteristics to a fibreglass bow. It isn't enough to matter. This is for longtudinal flex. For torsional flex/twist, I don't see anything happening. Our feet are planted along the center of the board and has no meaningful leverage. To twist a surfboard with our feet it would have to be made from porridge."

Skiing and skis blow your theory out of the water in zero seconds flat. Potential energy - fricken lots of it - is stored during a turn by proper athletes with big glutes, quads and hamstrings, only to be released as kinetic energy (speed/momentum) at the exit of the turn.

A surfboard is not a ski. Just because one thing has a characteristic doesn't mean another has it.

To further elaborate on this tedious topic: A racing ski is bent against a firm surface in air.
A surfboard is bent against a soft material, water, and also springs back surrounded by water sogging out any movement.

If the flex theory of surfboards had any legs it would not have died out everywhere else than on surfboard forums.

But fine by me, take your 2mm of surfboard bending, call it flex and live in the belief it makes you surf better.

I'm a beginner, but I can really notice differences in flex - single 4oz compared to 4oz with patch I can tell.

This is so messed up, I don't want to be on Team Flex, even if I am wrong.

 

[Maz]

Ski in powder. Bends just fine, and it's a slow release of energy out of a turn, not some super rapid whip.

Water is not soft, at least not at planing speeds. Have you noticed how it handily supports our fat arses?

 

[sdsrfr]

A surfboard is not a ski. Just because one thing has a characteristic doesn't mean another has it.

To further elaborate on this tedious topic: A racing ski is bent against a firm surface in air.
A surfboard is bent against a soft material, water, and also springs back surrounded by water sogging out any movement.

If the flex theory of surfboards had any legs it would not have died out everywhere else than on surfboard forums.

But fine by me, take your 2mm of surfboard bending, call it flex and live in the belief it makes you surf better.




This is so messed up, I don't want to be on Team Flex, even if I am wrong.

You’re wrong, at least regaeding the compressibility of snow vs water.

water does not compress real good. air does compress real good, and snow is frozen water with a bunch of air in it.

 

[oeste858]

I squeezed the rail on a Team Light board at the ci shop and my thumb went right through it.

Did you at least move it to the blem rack?

 

[Northern_Shores]

Ski in powder. Bends just fine, and it's a slow release of energy out of a turn, not some super rapid whip.

Water is not soft, at least not at planing speeds. Have you noticed how it handily supports our fat arses?

Ok, you are right. Now what.
You deform the surfboard (by how much?), and it happily flexes back and propels you along the wave with magically even more speed.


Sounds great, but present this to anyone with even half a brain and they will have some reservations. I've tried to shed some dim light on the matter. I'm no phycisist, but atleast I've tried.

 

[Mr J]

Read below in the tone of respectful discussion. I’m not trying to rip on you….and I’m also not 100% convinced of my opinion on this either…

So despite saying there is “no usable spring effect” you then go on to say the exact opposite with your example of increased rocker during a turn.

If a board flexes, increasing the rocker during the turn (from the application of weight and pressure from the rider) and that results in suction/grip/engagement then what do you think happens when there’s a letup in pressure during the transition from bottom turn to top turn?

Well the opposite would happen. The board will flatten out and disengage resulting in release. This release would/could add to your acceleration out of a turn, more or less depending on build material. PU has less of this (which is mostly a good thing IMHO) but other builds have more.

Now is the effect “significant” in terms of measurable added acceleration? Probably not. But it certainly feels different.

FWIW: I had Plasmic in PU and then got one in DA with the exact same dims. Did those boards feel different? They did. So much so that it almost made them two completely different designs.

But as that relates to the topic flex, well it really doesn’t because the difference in board weight was so significant it would be impossible to make a comparison in regards to flex.

Plus, how much flex are we getting from a thick, foam packed 5’6 anyway?

I agree with you! Board bends into extra rocker weighting into a turn - the suction/grip/engagement is because rocker is essentially an inverted foil. This has a slowing effect. Then the board returns to close to its natural rocker out of the turn - lower rocker => less suction => more speed. So yes we get that feeling of acceleration. All I am saying is that dragging and release of dragging effect comes from the board changing its shape and having different lifting/dragging during the phases of the turn - the potential energy stored during the weighted turn is used to return the boar back to its natural rocker. Some have claimed that this energy is slingshotting us forward - that's the bit I disagree with.

That's a good point about say a thick foam packed 5'6" say fish glassed with 6oz - its going to flex less than a tuflite. Weight also has a big effect on how a board reacts. Some of the difference between the feel of a composite epoxy build and PU is dampening - even if they are built to equal stiffness the PU build has more internal friction in the foam and will come out of its oscillation of bend/flatten more slowly Damping - Wikipedia

 

[Maz]

Ok, you are right. Now what.
You deform the surfboard (by how much?), and it happily flexes back and propels you along the wave with magically even more speed.


Sounds great, but present this to anyone with even half a brain and they will have some reservations. I've tried to shed some dim light on the matter. I'm no phycisist, but atleast I've tried.

I wasn't on some surfboard flex stampede, just trying to point out why I thought your premise was wrong.

But it's very easy to test how much a board flexes simply but laying it on the ground upside down and pressing the middle.

 

[Duffy LaCoronilla]

Did you at least move it to the blem rack?

 

[Mr J]

....
Skiing and skis blow your theory out of the water in zero seconds flat. Potential energy - fricken lots of it - is stored during a turn by proper athletes with big glutes, quads and hamstrings, only to be released as kinetic energy (speed/momentum) at the exit of the turn.

heaps of potential energy - the skiier is pumping. Lets say 80KG of rider starts in a semi squat and then raise themselves to a more upright position by 0.5m - according to chatGPT that's 390 joules of energy.

I then asked it "if a snow ski is supported at each end on blocks, how much downward weight applied to the middle of the ski do you estimate to be needed to bend it 5cm downwards?"

It made lots of assumptions and came up with 1,000N which is the equivalent of 102KG - sounds like a gross overestimation of amount needed to me, but let's run with that. 5cm is my very ballpark guess - I don't ski, although I have snowboarded - a rider could deform it more when rested on blocks, but the snow resists that.

102 KG raised 5cm stores 50 joules. There are 2 skis although riders weight one more than the other don't they? Also rider counteracts the acceleration due to gravity of descending into the squat by pushing with their thighs so they would be exerting well over the 80KG of downward force - its like if you jump on your bathroom scales - the number will go well above body weight.

I'm not sure how correct chatGPT and myself are, but according to those estimates energy from rider bodyweight far exceeds that stored in ski bend. I'm not saying flex doesn't matter it changes the shape of the ski or snowboard which affects how it tracks into a turn on edge, its just not supplying significant energy that's all.

edit--> from my conversation with AI

The amount of weight required to bend a ski depends on various factors such as the length, width, thickness, and material of the ski, as well as the distance between the blocks on which the ski is supported. Therefore, it is difficult to provide an accurate estimate without additional information.
However, we can make some assumptions and use a simplified model to estimate the weight required to bend the ski. Let’s assume that the ski is a typical downhill ski with a length of 170 cm and a width of 70 mm at the waist 1. Let’s also assume that the ski is supported at each end on blocks that are 150 cm apart 1.
Using these assumptions, we can estimate the amount of force required to bend the ski by 5 cm. The formula for the deflection of a beam under a load is given by:
�=��348��δ=48EIFL3
where �δ is the deflection of the beam, �F is the force applied to the beam, �L is the length of the beam, �E is the modulus of elasticity of the beam material, and �I is the moment of inertia of the beam cross-section 2.
Assuming that the ski is made of wood and has a modulus of elasticity of 11 GPa 3, and that the cross-section of the ski is rectangular with a height of 20 mm and a width of 70 mm, we can calculate the moment of inertia as:
�=�ℎ312=(70×203)12=4.67×105��4I=12bh3=12(70×203)=4.67×105mm4
Substituting these values into the formula, we get:
�=�48���3=(50��)48(11×109��)(4.67×105��4)(1.5�)3=1,000 NF=L3δ48EI=(1.5m)3(50mm)48(11×109Pa)(4.67×105mm4)=1,000 N
Therefore, an estimated 1,000 Newtons of force would be required to bend the ski by 5 cm 2.
Please note that this is a simplified estimate and the actual force required may be different depending on the actual dimensions and material of the ski.

 

[PRCD]

Based on the turn this conversation has taken, I thought this gem might be worth revisiting and reflecting upon. Keep pushing everyone and you too will be throwing buckets in no time, epoxies be damned.

Time to revisit this one:

 

[billypilgrim]

Time to revisit this one:

How's his frontside schwack?

 

[Retropete]

Sounds great, but present this to anyone with even half a brain and they will have some reservations. I've tried to shed some dim light on the matter. I'm no phycisist, but at least I've tried.

Shapers aren't rocket scientists and surfers are not astronauts though plenty of both are space cadets.

 

[Mr J]

I think you are right about the variable rocker effect Mr J- that's what Greenough always told me was the effect of his flex spoons.

Greenough is a well documented mat rider and I believe the expert mat riders are actively adjusting rocker and other hull curves. That's an example of a situation where rocker matters a lot although the force from springback is negligible. Maybe that's why he preferred knee and prone to standup - he enjoys the greater level of hull rocker and twist feedback that kneeling in the middle of a spoon or lying on a mat gives.

 

[One-Off]

You’re wrong, at least regaeding the compressibility of snow vs water.

water does not compress real good. air does compress real good, and snow is frozen water with a bunch of air in it.

Does it need to compress if it displaces?

 

[vanrysss]

I didn't realize this was the autism thread for our resident physicists and mechanical engineers.

 

[menobrah]

I don't know what it was - I won't claim it was 'flex' - but I have tried a few surftechs and libtechs and I didn't like how they felt underfoot... that's about as far as I can take it..why didn't I like it? who cares...will I buy a libtech, no.

 

[sdsrfr]

Does it need to compress if it displaces?

No, think billiard balls but a lot smaller.