Arctic Foam is from the American based company that originally offered Surfblanks. There was a parting of ways that has some details to yet be resolved between the parties, but the result has been the formation of “Foam Corps” from the guys that are also known , or at least were known, as “Surfblanks America”.
I am not a liberty to discuss any reason why the decision was made for a new direction for the American based company other than to say I have used the previous Surfblanks foam and am now using increasing amounts of the newer “Arctic Foam” being offered.
**I also have historically used foam from “U.S. Blanks” and continue to do so, but on a more limted basis. **
Both Surfblanks and Arctic are a harder polyurethan foam than U.S. Blanks given the same density. This can be somewhat dificult to determine as instead of making it crystal clear what actual densities the foam is, most companies cite foam in percentages f lightness relative to a “base foam density” or “most commonly used” foam density.
Foaming isn’t an exact science, by any means. You would think the foamers could tell you "black is 3 lb density, yellow is 1 lb. density and more specific information than they do, but for the most part, the descriptions are designed to help the average Joe decide what the best foam density they should purchase for what they want to build and/or offer.
In the last few years, polyurethane foam has evolved beyond what Clark Foam offered. There were many of us that had shaped Clark, Walker, and a few other foams for years prior to Clark’s abrupt closing. I’m stating this from the perspective of being a shaper in the United States. Obviously guys were using MIdget’s Surfblanks as well as Burford and other foams in Australia while guys in South Africa, Brazil, Europe and Japan were using something else.
The primary evolution that the newest polyurethane (aka ‘regular surfboard foam’) has to offer has been the development of a finer, smaller cell. In the past, the lighter foam densities offered from Clark and others, resulted in a fixed cell structure that, as the foam became lighter, the cell wall became more prone to crushing. This was one of the primary reasons I sought out a material that I could build very lightweight sailboards as early as 1981. Weight really wasn’t a concern for the sailboards I built for Jalama, Hookipa, San Francisco, or the Columbia River Gorge. But when it came to desigining successful slalom boards used for tactical racing in light wind, it became quickly evident to me that a lighter core with superior buoyancy was the way to go. That search led directly to earll day use of EPS (Expandable Polystyrene).
The weight difference was hugely siginifcant. When I shaped 9 ft, 5 inch thick light wind slalom boards the typical dual 1/8" stringered, Clark blanks would shape out at about 7-1/2" pounds. In contrast the stringerless 1.0 to 1.5 lb. EPS blanks weighed less than 2 or 3 lbs. At that point, the writing was on the wall. Other than the designs I was using for surfsailing, (and even some of those) we switched to EPS almost overnight.
But as time went along these was at least one distinct advantage with slalom boards sometimes weighing more: momentum, or the ability of the hulls greater weight to continue carrying speed through ‘holes’. By this, I mean the days that the wind was ‘puffy’ or sporadic versus a good solid consistent blow. And there are plenty of days like this, that make it difficult in deciding what size sail or design of sail you are going to put up. The very light EPS based boards noticeably fell off a plane on ‘holey’ days while the heavier ones could continue through a lull until you could pick back up or drop off wind some to maintain speed.
OTOH, the very light EPS boards were like dragsters that you could do a beach start from…stepping onto the board, pumping the sail wildly to thrust the board quickly on to a plane thereby blowing off the guy next to you struggling on a heavier board. The light boards would just blow you off the line every time.
The wide use of EPS in sailboards directly contributed to surfboard guys looking at reducing weight while increasing strength to weight ratios. This evolved into other forms of build that took what i considered stagnant surfboard building methods of the 70’s, 80’s, and 90’s or sometimes referred to as “the forty year bubble” and promoted us to think about alternative methods of cnstruction. Randy French’s “Seatrends” would eventually evole into “SurfTech” and a generation of sandwich construction would begin to gain momentum by the industry and creative DIY’ers.
For a very long time now, the primary distinction between polyurethan foam and expandable polystyrene based foam has been the difference in structure of each foam. The polyurethan foam that the vast majority of surfboards have historically been constructed from represents a ‘fixed cell’ structure that is prone to crushing. In contrast, the bead structure of the EPS results in a closed cell ball that is fused together in a secondary steaming process that has a resilient quality to it with memory. EPS des crush however, and in more technical terms, this is describes as load bearing or impact that represents energy that exceeds the ability of the material to recover. Both materials exeperience experience load bearing and have their individual thresholds for “managing energyy”.
How a material manages energy is not a random feature for many of the products manufactured from well thought out end products. For example, if you take a cyclist’s helmet, a designer may decide he wants that helmet to absorb the energy experienced if a cyclist falls thereby hitting their head. The absorbing of energy results in a big dent or crushing of the helmet rendering it useless, but the designer opts for this approach versus a more ridgid product causing dangerous jarring to the cyclist’s brain. In this case, “failure” was planned in how the designer has the product ‘manage energy’.
With the new polyurethan foams, the finer aka smaller cell structures deliver an increased resiliency not terribly unlike EPS or an extruded polystyrene product. The age old drawback with early day EPS foam is the air space between the closed cell beads that traps and retains water. It is a fact that you can leave an EPS block of fom out in the rain and it won’t became waterlooged with water. The problem comes when the material is encased in fiberglass skins and is pumped upon while riding and has experienced different atmosphere’s inside the board while heating up on the beach, then subjected to colder water than the air temperature. Superfusion is a method of reducing that airspace bonding the beads tighter together thereby allowing less water to be drawn into the blank if compromised by a break in the fiberglass skin.
**All of this history comes around to how the major polyurethane foamers approach what they offer within our industry. **
Of the three companies I have mentioned in the title, all are good products choosing to offer their foams in keeping with what their respective philosophies are in what makes for a great surfboard blank.
**What I have noticed with the foams mentioned is the difference in hardness of shaping each. To be fair, I have not shaped any recent Surfblanks that Midget may have produced inthe last 6 months to a year. I have a pretty extensive inventory of foam including some really good Surfblanks that I originally obtained before Surfblanks America and MIdget went separate ways. That foam is rock hard. I shaped one last week, and it felt like I was finish sanding a brick. The board glassed out light and really strong. By comparison, the Arctic is also a hard foam, though it has a different quality to it. It finish sands easier but not as easy as U.S. Blanks foam. The Arctic is noticeably harder than the U.S. Blanks but not as hard as the old Midget Surfblanks. Yet the Arctic is also more resilient than the old Surfblanks. In a way, the Arctic reminds me of the old Dow 2.2 lb extruded foam that we shaped about 15 years ago. **
The very commonly used and popular U.S. Blanks (blue) is very soft compared to the other two foams. It glasses well, nets good weights depending upon choice of glass schedule used, but dents considerably easier than the other two. It is a pleasure to shape compared to the old Surfblanks or Arctic.
**From doing all of the blanks (again citing that the Midget SB is from older stock), the Arctic is noticeably the whitest end result. The foam doesn’t suck up a lot of resin, and the guys that I build for that get a lot of dents on their decks have been signing the foam praises. **
**If you are a novice handshaper, you may like using U.S. Blanks because it is easier to sand. USB also has a very deep blank catalog to help you save time and work in arriving upon your desired finished shape. But if you are willing to put a bit more elbow grease into your project, and want a light, great looking durable product, then Arctic Foam is definitely worth considering, and the price is a bit less delivering a really good value.
**
