hey jjp
i only done 6 boards to date but have tried a different method each time
all the boards have been abused to some extent and ive had a couple of failures on two boards that were used to do airs by a friend who cant seem to stay on the face of a wave.
i would say thinner cores are okay on the bottom in fact desirable.
the two boards that failed were thin cored (1/16)with 2 0z under 4 oz over
one failed on the deck (small split)
the other on the rail(large tear )
niether failures were dings
the core density would make a big difference as well to strength.
the board that failed at the rail was 3mm deck 2 mm bottom
the stringers were not wide enough at the point of failure as they were taperd back toward the tail and also the the deck core was sanded thinner toward the rail
both of these things were critical errors.
after repair i reinforced the rail considerably and put another layer of glass on the deck at the tail
the board unsanded went shit loads better after this
it had been stiffend
i know how stiff and where i want stiff at this point
i want this stiffness to flex and be bouncy
i have discovered that the board feels better if i get flex and strength from the wood as apposed to the glass
in saying that though other than those failures neither boards can be dented the dents springs back out
the one that failed at the rail, i can jump on upside down with only minor scrathes.
also the fish with the split on the deck i can jump on upside down
there just not as good is what im trying to say
my first board is 8ft mal 4 oz under 3mm double 4 oz over and it is almost indestructable
and has just the right amount of flex and is still the best board i have made
fluke really and uses stringers as suggested by john or the A method
no 2 is a shortboard with same schedual . use A method but fully overlapped rails.
fun board but its too stiff, and creased a bit on the bottom when i jumped on it
i think this is because the bottom overlaps the rails and basically the board is to well tied together.
the rest are all different as well and i have come to the conclusion that you need to make a few to get this right.from now on im sticking to roughly the same length and shape for at least the next three boards
im sticking with C on the rails however and can do them pretty quick by now
also ill try difference between 2 and 3 mm bottoms but most decks from now on will be 5 mm or 3/16 thick
Benny
yep im right with you on the that method
and im not gunna change it at this stage until i start using EPP
yeah my lams werent looking that great until sabs let me know in a post how to do it
they were okay but his method rocks
can you imagine running the container up the middle really close to the cloth with a fine bead about a wees width, followed immediatley by a spreader about 10cm wide. the small bead really spreads out that wide if the resins hot .It is absolutely amazing how far it goes.
so i do say five or 7 passes down the length of the board working out to the rails.
no pressing hard its really light (i use a piece of balsa wood)
i save a bit in the cup for the laps and bits i miss
when the whole boards wet , i might squeegee out the excess, but the last board their was none. i just did a few hard passes to get out the few airbubbles.
im really happy with the last lam that got its filler/cheater coat after 5 hours,cured, and sanded finished
i cant see the weave at all really
also benny i can see what you are doing with the carbon. it does make sense .
its not available and is expensive for me so . i try and achieve the similar result i guess
by tuning my cores thickness and density for varying purpose.
theres so many different builds and materials being used that what applies to some thing
can be way off on a different length or outline .so it does get confusing at times .
and the only way to really know is to experiment
and even then Berts probably quietly laughing about how we approach stuff.
