Ice Nine Rumors

Industry Talk
41
Quote:
I have questions:

-its all TDI or a mix?

-whats the name of those; Walker or Ice9 or both?

-which s the weight in comparison to CF, Rhyno, Surfblanks?

From what I’ve been told by Chris the Ice9 rep, it’s Walkers TDI formula and Ice9s pouring and blowing tech. The foam looks completely different than what typical Walker foam looks like. It’s a much tighter (smaller) cell structure, which is something that I as a painter prefer. I’m still waiting for our shaper to get to the blank that Ice9 furnished us and get some feedback on what he thinks of it shaper-wise. Surfding and Dead Shaper also have received blanks to test and have mentioned that they are going to report here on Sways about what they think of them. It’s a little to soon to compare weights since these blanks are still a work in progress.

42

Keith: Weren’t you the one that sent me those cool sanding pads?

I’ll send you a copy of my study by email. I don’t think I’ll post it because of the hate mail that will come from it.

TDI - MDI (As many different blanks I get my hands on)

Thanks for being open minded.

43

SD…I used to state “open your mind, your ass will follow”…then one of the guys PM’d me and asked if he could make that his byline…and I said “well, sure…I didn’t coin the phrase”…I was surprised he even sked me!

But that is how the cool people do it on this site…mutual respect. Hate mail? Geeeez, not in the spirit of things at all. My recent post in “Made Where” provided a road map for the little guys to not only survive the offshore onslaught, but to enjoy some success and independence while (as one big guy put it) “staying in the sandbox”.

There is lot of creativity and soul poured out on Sway’s…pssion nd a willingness to share…not to different from surfing, which has previously been described as so wonderful an experience you hve to share it with at least one other person but too many at one time spoils the broth.

Taking the time and energy to test and report your findings should never be a candidate for hate mail…anyone that spiteful has issues to begin with.

44

Surfding, I’m all for your test program and would be happy to supply the blanks. We love these kinds of subjective tests. Get a handful of riders of great proficiency and let them ride all the boards without knowing which is which.

Sporting enjoyment is all about the subjective feelings of the participant whether it be surfing, snowboarding or whatever. It’s all about how the rider feels on the board and in the end it is this subjective element, ride, that is the critical factor. If all of the test pilots favored a particular one or two that would be interesting data and if there were no clear favorites that would make a statement about the significance, or lack thereof, of the foam in the final ride of a board.

We bend things till they break, push them till they bend, stretch them, measure cell size, etc. yet no one of these is a grand predictor of ride. We test our foam and the competitors for tensile, elongation, hardness, flexibility, blah, blah, blah, using standard lab tests but this data is fairly sterile and although it is very valuable data for us when formulating or tweaking process it doesn’t really tell the whole story. The reality is, as in any plastics design, it’s a constant compromise. To increase one property you usually have to give up something on another property. None are clear “winners” in all facets so it’s the balance of each foams various attributes, some “good” some “bad”, that together create the foams ride characteristics. In the end all that matters is how it shapes, paints, glasses and rides and the only way to check this is to shape, paint, glass and ride it.

Post the results and let the chips fall where they may. People can decide for themselves whether to factor in the data when buying their next PU board or not and it gives those of us in the industry that come in second and beyond a bar to shoot for (which is guaranteed to include us since we have two foams that you are testing.) Feedback drives development. I think what you propose is valid. Hold as many variables as you can constant and that’s the best you can do and I suspect that will be good enough for many of us. Full disclosure on the methodology of your testing allows those looking at the results to decide for themselves what conclusions to draw, if any.

This type of testing is in the true spirit of the dialogue intended on this website. Count us in.

LT

45
Quote:
Quote:

then to qualify performance I will have 5 professional surfers ride each of them

Couldn’t that end up being a little opinionated? I still think it’s an excellent idea to test weight though across all blanks. Just need the same glasser to do all five boards. Break strength would be nice too but what sort of machinery would you need?

Break strength…this is a real simple deal. You use a RAM that measures the amount of force needed to break a given span and thickness (ASTM stuff). You will find that thickness is the greatest deterrent against breakage, and as the span lengthens (fulcrum increases) the likelihood of breakage increases. In other words, longboards are more prone to breakage than a six footer.

Load bearing in “real life” situations (waves dumping on them, getting stuck at angles going over the falls, etc.) is also subject to the amount of deflection/resiliency the board can take previous to fatigue and subsequent failure. As I have stated before:

The vast majority of surfboards break because the bottom stretches and the deck buckles.

The most vulnerable part of a surfboard is at it’s thinnest parts: the rails. Reinforcing the rails with parabolics or additional glassing config’s directly relate to the amount of stress (loadbearing/tension) a surfboard can withstand before failure occurs.

A simple RAM measures this and can fairly compare as long as the test subjects are made in the same dimensions and manner with no variables other than the focus material being tested.

46

Lonely Tyrant:

I will start collecting blanks this week and set-up testing. They will all be cut with the same settings in G-Code. The file for this study is for a High Performance Shortboard. This file has been worked on for over two years. The machine settings will be set to provide a near finished board to help avoid any distortion. It will take longer to cut each one. However it doesn’t matter because we are not a cutting house.

You can come by and inspect the quality of the study in order to validate the work that will be done.

On your side I will need the following:

3 x 6’3 blanks with my rocker (you have it) 1/8" with extended tabs - {Cane; Able; TDI new formula}

I believe it’s important to have the three types included in this study.

I will need to have all the blanks in the study all together before cutting them and finish shaping them so they can all be done at the same time with the same settings.

So far I have the Bennent, King Mac, Empire blanks. I will order a US Blank, Surf Blanks America, Elova as well if they can provide the correct rocker.

After glassing and getting the final weights I will have a video photographer document the surfing.

The surfers will provide feedback on each board from the study.

I will let you review the findings and deterime if it is worthly of posting?

47

I will let you review the findings and deterime if it is worthly of posting?

Surfding,

I will enjoy seeing a copy of the report when completed but do not want to have any part in deciding if it’s “worthy of posting” and would prefer that none of the blank companies involved in the testing would have the ability to censor publication of the results. If you go to the trouble to do the study as you have outlined I think you should definitely post the results. Should make for a great discussion!

Thanks,

LT

48

If you mean the Ferro sanding pads, yes, that was me.

I have tried a lot of different blanks, with varying results, so look forward to seeing what you find…

As for the nay-sayers out there, I am reminded of one of my favorite movies, Kelly’s Heroes:

“Why don’t you knock it off with them negative waves?”

49

News Bulletin to All:

Okay…so I tore into the Ice Nine 9’3" Walker formula longboard blank Stu gave me for testing.

This foam is sooooooo f-cking unbelievable!!!

First I weighed it with the standard 1/4 or 5/16" bass stringer in it before doing anything. Weigh in was 11.990.

Before templating, I decided just to have a go with the bitch and see if she yelped or started scratching.

The foam turned to powder…poof! Reminded me of the freshest and best foam I had ever gotten from Clark in the 80’s.

Full choke thicknessing at speed and not a tear to be seen. So I speed up next band…she refuses to tear or complain.

So now I decide to run from nose to tail, and she still is singing sweet nothings in my ear!!!

I notice there are some very small clusters of pour bubble holes in a few spots but nothing that can’t be addressed with Ice 9’s pouring equipment.

So…I still just can’t believe this epiphany that I’m having all by my lonesome here…the stuff is so good I’m wondering if I’m dreaming…so I take my big Clark Hitachi (that’s all I use) and I cut fast as all get out with the blade straight on with zero angle sure that I’m going to get tears and cheddar…nothing, planer cuts thru it like a red hot knife in butter!

The foam below the powder? Totally even and stable. No wobbles and the cells are super consistent. This foam is so consistent and easy to run the planer thru that the full 100% handshaped longboard took 28 minutes rough to fine sanded at 150 grit.

After the test rail bands I grabbed my 80 grit and it sanded the band ridges super easy…is that because it is super soft? Nope!

It was super easy to sand out the cuts with only a few swipes and I was ready to go right to 150 grit…couple more swipes and I’m ready for a quickie paint test in honor of Atomizer…

Paint test…I wanted to get this report in quick so I just taped a test overlap and sprayed it with some “Model Master” Custom Lacquer System out of the can that I got at Ace…Tropical Paradise…(Aqua)…I waited for about 10 seconds pulled the tape and had a razor sharp lapline.

This foam is the best

foam I’ve ever mowed!

Glassing report will be tomorrow and more weight check in with the digital scale supplied by Ice 9.

50

Surfding…I think the main challenge you are going to have is an obvious variable in whatever blanks you get: the stringer.

I suggest the stringer is eliminated and the glassing config’s focus on use of warp glass and wider laps that are the same on all of the blanks. Your test will be seriously compromised with each individual companies stringers. It basically nullifies the test which is about the foam.

If the test boards are short fulcrums (6’3" or something popular) than the load demands will be minimized and a truer test can be achieved.

51

ill say it again “oh thank god” im so happy walker lives on

52

Dead Shaper:

I agree with you on the stringers.

If we want some real tight comparsions I can have all the stringers cut on a CNC out of the same wood.

Maybe Brad at Apple Core can donate some 1/8" Basswood Ply.

With the current blanks I have we can go off percentages of weight gain after glassing.

All of the stringers I have are 1/8" ply so they should be fairly close.

As far has shaping:

I’ve found the US Blanks pretty easy to shape out just as I have the King Mac, Surf Blanks America and Just Foam.

I think were are getting better foam by more suppliers now. So maybe this study will help foster the quest for continuous improvement.

53

SD…good on the wood. i was thinking maybe you would use a different stringer material that would be guaranteed more consistent because of the manufacturing process so the I beam could be judged as equal. Maybe the Apple approach is acceptable. Same tree approach.

As far as the other foams…to be fair I have not shaped Just Foam, U.S. or King Mac. I hear people like King Mac and quite a few people use U.S. Foam…but unless they perform like what I got yesterday, I wouldn’t even bother with them for the reasons I stated previously.

In fact…I have no interest in shaping Cane now…whether it is green or not. I told Stu to take what I wrote yesterday and multiple it by three…that is how good this foam performed. And I know there are people out there hating me saying this but what happened really happened…and I have shaped plenty enough foam in my lifetime to tell people to put this up aganst any other foam out there or any foam they have EVER SHAPED and tell me truthfully what they think.

54

?Deadshaper have you ever shaped walker foam (the original)before and how does it compare with ice nines blowing/molding technology I always liked the sugary feel of walkers kid of like shaping a big sugar cube shaped blank

55

This has become quite the snowball…good on ya ding!

56

Nat…I didn’t shape ny of Walker’s Foam previous to this…I did hear from many folks that it was very granular…you call it sugar-like. Guess that’s the same thing.

This stuff goes “POOF!” and powder is flying everywhere if you don’t have a vac system…I’m going to have to get one actually…anyone out there have a line on them. Someone mentioned U.S. Blanks maybe…or a used system.

Yeah, this stuff is messy but wonderful. I did manage to plow into the shorter MOWSES blank (a 6’6"HPS)…and I was able to tear it a little bit on some fast n furious test runs…but think about it…having to try to tear it. Man this is where you want to be, not pokey assing along at a snail’s pace having to go get an espresso becuz of the foam.

By the way…for everyone interested. The 9’3" longboard blank I shaped in MOWSES weighed in before shaping with a 5/16" basswood stringer at 11.99 lbs. when I was finished shaping a "shortboard in disguise high performance stinger single/double concave team board the blank finish shaped weight was 5.775 lbs.

…not too shabby for a 9’0.5"x21.0x2.6x16.5Nx12.5T(after sting)w/sting up 34"and 19.5"b4cut in.

I built similar EPS stings for the same rider at 9.6 lbs. but they were stringerless Warp glass reinforced (this is in another thread). But this board is going to come in pretty close with stringer and TDI foam…that’s pretty damn amazing if you ask me!

57

Surfding -

Your idea is great. Even if your study is not a true double-blind randomized control trial, the results will be very interesting. As a former researcher, I might advise that the number of test subjects (in the case, surfboard blanks) is probably the most important single component of your study. The higher the better: Results obtained from one “set” of 5 or 6 individual blanks won’t necessarily be significant, but if you repeat this process “identically” with perhaps 4 or 5 “sets” of blanks… well now you’re talkin’. This would give you (hopefully) some repeatability in your results. Problem here is obvious - time and cost. But, damn, if you could pull it off… that would be some VERY interesting results.

Remember also that everyone involved the the building or surfing of the boards has to be “blinded”. To this end, you should probably code the boards differently with each set (different number or letter for each and every blank - just have an outsider keep track of a “key” so you know which blank is which in the end), this way folks involved don’t inadvertantly end up with a bias (example: “Boy, these ‘#2’ boards always shape up so well…”). Maybe keep a scoring system for each step of the process (shaping, painting, glassing, finish weight, surfablity, etc.). Add up the scores at the end of the process for each board, and (again, hopefully) you’ll see certain blanks consistently rise to the top of the heap.

This is a great idea you have and I hope you run with it. I’m sure the majority of Swaylockians would be super stoked to hear about your results.

58

Hi Bruce -

“As far as the other foams…to be fair I have not shaped Just Foam, U.S. or King Mac.”

I haven’t shaped the new Ice-9 formula or Just Foam’s but Terry Martin was quoted as saying that Just Foam shaped at full throttle without tearing. In spite of his quotes shown below, he is apparently working with other companies in the area of plug design. I have sampled some of his Bennett plugs and had little trouble tearing chunks out at anything but slow speed. That was with a brand new spiral cutter of the type that generally has not given me trouble with Clark Foam Blanks.

You were in with a couple of posts on that thread so I’m surprised you haven’t given Just Foam a shot.

Terry Martin; (hand shaped) Terry actually skipped (like a child at Christmas) through his second and third pass to see if the foam would tear and then became excited for the first time in years. “The foam is consistent from skin to interior with no pour lines, no change in consistency, very lightweight and very hard, yet very easy to shape. I pushed my planer as fast as I could with no tearing, even down to the center while doing the rails. This is the most excited I have been in years of shaping. I actually look forward to hand shaping this foam in the future. The Comp lite is comparable in hardness to the US Foam green version but at 20-30% less weight. The 9.3 blank I shaped was perfect in dimension and the natural rocker fits most rockers I use. Congratulations Just Foam!”

Anyway, no doubt there are some very good foams out there. Some of us are still trying to sample our way through the various brands so various opinions are really quite valuable. To hear about guys like you and Terry Martin being so excited with the new foams certainly is encouraging.

59

thanks John…I actually can completely relate to Terry’s response…surprising how similar both of our reactions were to finding this unsually good foam…and encouraging that more than one company can come up with some great foam to supply this size an industry.

The bottom line for me is finding joy in a supply source that actually listens to what my needs are and not feeling like I will have to search through thirty plus blank suppliers only to find all of them shaping too much like the old Dow extruded foam. I respect people like Midget Farrelly and his contribution to our industry but being told I have to accept blanks that are “less shaper friendly, but better for the surfer” doesn’t cut it in my book. Otherwise I’d probably be shaping extruded still…but if that were the case, I’d have killed myself and be really dead.

I’m thrilled to handshape this new MOWSES foam…yeah, I can finally MOW again!

60

Msadht:

I plan to do the study starting next week. Has far as sampling I will do what $$$ will permit. I can do one of each for now. Your correct in that with a higher sample rate the results would be more precise. However we should be able to obtain the information necessary by trying to keep some consistancy.

King Mac is already making up blanks for me to add to the study (no charge). I will add there new line of spring foam. It’s really light and bends without snapping. From a performance level it may be unreal however I want to put it through a shaping test for ease of process.

Dead Shaper really is a good shaper and one of the last really good mowers of foam on the planet so his comments are pretty valid on mowability.

In the meantime I will do the best I can with my own resources. My back ground includes TQM (Dr. Demming) QA (Juran) HACCP (NASA). I’m sure you could add some balance to this study and your more than welcome to participate. I do want it to be non bias. If it works out it could be something that sould be done every year to see how the blank companies are progressing?