Told my brother I wasn’t going to post anymore, you guys are too nerdy about all this stuff. I guess I’m addicted to it now.
Shoots! Forgot to say “welcome aboard” SharkCountry.
I really appreciate your posts.
A far as addictions, its always best to nip it in the bud…quit now before its too late! HA!
Interesting user name. My Oahu buddy mentioned there was a serious shark attack at Lanni’s recently. Scary stuff.
Cheers
PS - your first line was priceless…LOL!
…and as far as the res of you ‘nerdy’ guys (myself included)…
I could be wrong here but…
if your early in develoment, taking micro-steps will not get you very far…shoot for extremes and you will proly learn lots more…there’s a engineering process called 'Design of Experiments" better known as DOE, that does just that using multiple variables and upper and lower spec limits for each variable. The idea is that there’s always one or two variables (out of many) that have the most profound effect. As it relates to BCS’s, one potential variable would be core density, and a classic DOE variable setup would be to make two identical boards…one with #2 core (USL) and the other one hollow (LSL)…just an example.
Oneula,
Got me giggling man! hehehe!
Markyv,
I agree with Silly - your boards do finish up really nicely. We’ll have to talk somewhere where the lurkers won’t go into a feeding frenzy over build technique.
Sabs,
That’s really interesting, re berts skins. it was one of the thoughts I had in the back of my head. But there’s something else I want to try too.
Craftee,
Urm. I don’t think I am necessarily advocating microsteps. But if you change too many things too wildly how can you reference that back to what you did previously, accurately? Like, build a 10’x30"x3" and next build a 5’x22"x2", how do you compare the two? But stick with the same basic design and then, say, make it much wider. Or thicker. Or whatever. Change one thing at a time, doesn’t mean you can’t make that one change really big.
i dunno mike ive tried a a different rail technique every board and it really seems to make a difference.
the ones that were overlapped on the bottom and continous,ended to be very stiff boards.
could be a coincidence
but ive looked at nearly every photo berts posted and a lot you can see the rail bands on the bottom.
i cut a rail off that board and i had in my hand just a glassed rail
it was of the continous type
now interestingly
by itself it is very easy to break.not like a skin which can bend for ages before it breaks
i dont like it .some things gotta change
ill let you know what happens
welcome back meecrafty
yeah thats a good point as well building in extremes does tell you alot
like doing one with two ounce and 1mm balsa
as opposed to 6 ounce and 5mm basla
teaches you a lot
i dunno mike ive tried a a different rail technique every board and it really seems to make a difference.
the ones that were overlapped on the bottom and continous,ended to be very stiff boards.
I no longer view the board as a whole, instead as a set of connected components. The rails are the key to controling how much flex the board is allowed to have. I’m not so sure that the rails contribute much to board springback. I think that a lot of the springback comes from the bottom skin and the horizontal stringer. The deck skin needs to stand up to the constant abuse of hands, feet, etc… I think that what is so important is to develop your own design and material philosophy. For instance, Sabs views the boards as one giant sandwich with the rails only serving as a seperator. His way of building his boards are perfect for his philosphy. I really like the way that Sabs makes his boards and can see the logic of why he does things, but I do things slightly differently to achieve things that I want to achieve. Its not right or wrong (we’re both achieving our goals) - only different. I don’t think all of the discussion about shape is not too benificial until you know how you are goint to build your boards. I THICK that shape is used to fine tune your construction technique. I’m noticing on my 2 longboards that visually they look very similiar, but they paddle and surf very differently. Both boards have characteristics that I like and dislike. I have several ideas on how to change my board construction technique to bring about the characteristics that I like. For instance, one board paddles much easier than the other. Normally you would lower the nose rocker to regain paddle speed, but I’m thinking that if I stiffen up the nose area but keep the back flexy will give me what I want (but I won’t know until it build it). Then I can futher tweak the rocker as needed.