Thanks. I think I get it.
You see flex, beyond that which is
usually available in the more traditional builds, as
a way to store then recover
elastic energy
</li><li><p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">a way to implement a
variable-rocker
- and possibly even a way to implement a
variable-plane-shape (or template)
and you've made why you see the
benefits for these pretty clear.
The latter two, tend to speak to the
level of strain, or deformation, pliability if you like, more than
the first. That is, you could likely tap the benefits of
storing/recovery of elastic energy with a minimal of strain
(deformation).
Perhaps Mike (Coil) will jump in here,
hopefully without having to reveal to many proprietary secrets, but I
believe their approach -i.e. a unique combination of materials and
structure, (construction technique included) has allowed Coil to
address the storage/recovery energy issue to some degree, more so than the pliability issue. (Perhaps Mike will clarify.)
I’m also inclined to believe that,
given Coil’s approach, they have tried to match the response
characteristics of their builds with to that of the rider (or average
rider), but again I wouldn’t know for sure. (Coil has not made to the
Northeastern US is any big way yet, but perhaps things will change
after this year’s US Florida expo.)
Matching the response characteristics,
or even optimizing them with respect to those of the rider is likely
to be an important design issue – these kinds of concerns tend to
make a more user friend board. Pogo-stick design, which is almost
solely about energy storage and recovery, is actually not a bad
example. Getting just the right spring stiffness and level of strain
required, is important. Too much strain (deformation) and it just
feels wrong.
But energy storage/recovery isn't the
issue with respect to the second and third applications. Or, at least
I wouldn't think you'd want it to be. It seems to more about
pliability. (But I could be wrong about that.)
So, at least I believe, you've got a
trade-off problem. That is, the higher level of strain [deformation]
that will generally be required to produce the sufficient level of deformation to
actually conform to a given wave face, where energy storage/recovery is not the issue versus an
optimal level of response (strain) when energy storage/recovery is.
The applications do overlap, but they are different. The former is
tends to be far more about deformation -i.e. pliability, the latter
far more about energy storage/recovery, or stiffness.
Or it's as if you would like to
build a structure whose stiffness is under the control of the rider - relatively high for energy storage and recovery, and relatively low for when pliability is required.
Pliability applications would seem to
have been more or less successfully addressed for non-stand-up forms
of surfing -i.e. spoons, boogie boards, surf-mats, etc. The energy
storage/recovery, possibly addressed in stand-up surfing by
applications like we're seeing in Coil products. But the two have yet
to successfully come together in a stand-up surfboard.
That's a nice challenge, and your
approach is interesting.
My apologies for my musing about your
challenge. After wading through the marketing hype, picking each others brains, even if it's just clarifying a
problem, at least the
last time I checked, is a large part of what Swaylocks is about, so I
don't feel too bad and hopefully you won't either.
kc
