Definition of 70/30 etc, numeric rail descriptions? I see references to these numeric descriptions of rail shapes, but have never found a definition. I assume one # is the rail tuck and one the bottom. Would truly appreciate an answer from those in the know. Also, is there a different meaning to “turned down” and “tucked under?” Shiner http://users2.fdn.com/~shine
Shine: I hope you get a bunch of answers to this. The 70/30 deal I’ve always thought of as a rough description of the rail profile. From the profile view- a 70/30 cross section would describe a rail line apex that is past the midline (50/50). A modern longboard might have a 60/40 profile at the midpoint of the outline and a 70/30 profile closer to the tail. I don’t think this was ever intended to be an absolute measurement but more of a way to express rail shape in words when ordering a board and a hard copy wasn’t available to look at. The Bruce Jones site has some good diagrams of this concept. Well, the sun’s up and the surf is blown flat from this friggen cold wind, I’m going outside and try to warm up my shop. tom>>> Definition of 70/30 etc, numeric rail descriptions?>>> I see references to these numeric descriptions of rail shapes, but have > never found a definition. I assume one # is the rail tuck and one the > bottom. Would truly appreciate an answer from those in the know. Also, is > there a different meaning to “turned down” and “tucked > under?”>>> Shiner
Shine:>>> I hope you get a bunch of answers to this. The 70/30 deal I’ve always > thought of as a rough description of the rail profile. From the profile > view- a 70/30 cross section would describe a rail line apex that is past > the midline (50/50). A modern longboard might have a 60/40 profile at the > midpoint of the outline and a 70/30 profile closer to the tail. I don’t > think this was ever intended to be an absolute measurement but more of a > way to express rail shape in words when ordering a board and a hard copy > wasn’t available to look at. The Bruce Jones site has some good diagrams > of this concept. Well, the sun’s up and the surf is blown flat from this > friggen cold wind, I’m going outside and try to warm up my shop.>>> tom Yeah Tom, that’s my take. Generally it’s the ratio of the rail above the rail line to the rail below the rail line. The operative word is “generally”. The ratio doesn’t take into account the point where the rail ends, and a crowning deck begins. Way too many “dudes” try and take sides. Like you have to quote the ratio in relation to the entire board thickness, taken at the stringer… Not! The problem? If you try and express overall ratio thickness at the point where crowning deck turns into rail, what point is that? Any point you can name can be argued against. It’s subjective. The ratio is a general one. -Noodle