Resin Infusion - lots of Innegra links

General Discussion
41

So I don’t get it. I’m a relative newcomer to the site, compared to many, so I’m not sure what it is you loved that is not here now, but to me, in the eight years I’ve been here, its always been about learning sharing teaching etc., for the good of the sport and the craft we ride. Now we shouldn’t share, because there is an assumption that assholes will spread negative bs? What does that even mean? I have shared several build threads, yeah I get some negative comments, but so what, I move on, and try to focus on those who appreciate what I posted. Someone who posted a negative comment in one thread is helping somebody out in another thread, its all relative. Manners are sometimes forgotten, but at least everyone feels free to speak their mind, which I think is a cool thing.

As far as profit, can’t we share for the love of what we do? I don’t make money from my craft, so I guess I don’t get it, but is it all about money now? We can’t share just to be sharing, to help each other? Is every instructional point being used by some bad people to make money somewhere? It seems to me that the assumption of negativity only creates negativity. Yeah, the world has changed, and there is lots of negativity everywhere if you look for it, but we don’t have to bring that here - sharing and helping each other build surfboards for playing in the waves doesn’t have to get bogged down in all that, if we don’t want it to. There was a comment about composite sites having build threads, so how does that work?

42

I do recall you had some threads that got badly de-railed, and it was sad. But there were lots of people really enjoying your threads too. People are people, and somebody’s always gonna say something negative, but the whole concept of trolling is to get you angry and de-rail a thread, and for whatever reason, some people wanted to do that. Just ignore 'em! These people are everywhere, not just swaylocks, its an internet phenomenon. But we don’t have to let them dictate what we share.

BTW, moderators can delete troll comments, but its a gray area, open to interpretation, and most people seem to prefer being able to say whatever they want without being censored. Which is why I say just ignore them, because that way they can speak their mind, however caustic, without taking the whole thread off topic.

43

Polyester - it isn’t just a resin
Nylon
Epoxy
Propylene glycol - among other things
Vac bagging
Infusion
Fiber orientation
Skin thickness
Surface energy
Elastic modulus
Isotropy versus anisotropy
Pushing envelopes versus fun fooling around
Figure it out
Creativity
Pragmatism
Fun

44

the infusion methods I know about are all very well suited to do in- mould parts or panels, but as mentioned before you would need a very well sealed blank and all the materials​ - and I don’t think the outcome would be much higher quality then the vacuum bagging that was shown by bb30 and others. Or am I missing something ?

45

Infusion will let you do multiple layers, and top and bottom at once. It also let’s you have perfect resin/ cloth ratios.

Think Coil and all the patches they use.

A wet out table, with bagging will give you the same product, but with a bit less efficient at scale.

46

Plenty of unjustified negative comments made on Sways.
Comments made about products, tech or some skilled builder that a member has not used/tried or does not know.

47

Just a thought from the darker side.

There are some posters here who really shouldn’t post like they do. Research is fine, and trying to be helpful is admirable. BUT if you haven’t ever done the thing you are advising about, you REALLY don’t know if what you posted is the right prescription or not.

I’ve seen some guys get totally screwed over by listening to ideas that set them back.

I’ve been a victim of it myself. I listened to what I trusted as good, only to find out three boards later, that I was sent down the wrong path.

So maybe, it might be a good idea when you post something that you haven’t tried, that you caveat your self.
Or if posting something that worked 50 years ago, say it is a 50 year old design.

48

Infusion is not practical in every application. Generally speaking the thicker the laminate the more efficient infusion is.
The if the laminate is thick there is a lot of area for the resin to flow, as you reduce the laminate you reduce the area, making it difficult to get the resin to flow the entire length of a board. To compensate for the reduced area you have to use a thick breather cloth (which is in some cases is at least twice as thick as 2 or 3 layers of 6 oz under vacuum). So while your board may end up lighter, you end up using a lot of resin just filling up the breather so the efficiency goes down.

I am impressed with what folks have been able to accomplish wet bagging boards, you get the same results as infusion but less waste.

49

Sorta like old time sways…
He said, he did, he said… Ha!
I use foam from the local building supply because I can, and it works for my purposes.
New ideas, experimentation, techniques old and new - that is a mainstay of Sways.
People who want to get negative will do so, but, then again, while there are times it seems like negativity for FU’s sake, there are plenty of times when those in the know want to call bullshit, and do so, even if they get exasperated and may come off as overtly negative.

I’ve picked up useful things over the years, lots of useful things. For me, there is more to my boards function than the way it rides - and being light is not one of those things, but not getting the skin perforated due to routine contact with the rocks is - so hand laming 4-5 layers of 4oz is fine by me.
I could relate to Everysurfer - the board I made 5 years ago kicks so much ass, and is still just fine… A big part of my motivation to make a new one was to go back to RedX fin boxes… Ha! And try out some tweeks I’d been rolling around in my head. Plus, I didn’t want to see Ambrose without something new to show… Ha!
Carry on infusers, or not-infusers…

50

What I did some years ago is infuse sandwich skins between two layers of 3 mm polyethylene sheet (on which resin doesn’t stick), by making channels in the sheet on the future “back side” of the skin. This used no consumables. It ended up working, only if using specific infusion resin (I initially tried with my ordinary epoxy resin as it was clearer and UV treated but never managed to infuse properly, even after heating or thinning with ethanol). Then I glued the skins on a blank and made the rails and laminated the rails and finished the board. Skins were nice but it took me too long to complete the board that way. Now the idea is to infuse directly fibers on the board, and from my tests, an infusion net on top of the laminate works well to get resin to travel everywhere (and this is the method used on most infusion projects in composite industries). Or (not tried) an infusion core such as Lantor Soric LRC can be used insite the laminate, as seen on the libtech bords (the honey comb like material), but this adds 600 g / m² for the 1.5 mm thick lantor according to the manufacturer, but reduces consumables. As said above, using molds is best and the challenge is to use that technique satisfactorily for laminating a core. Vacuum bagging is very good too, infusion would be cleaner.

51

…hello PierreK, would be cleaner…that would be very good, but then you have the problems of cosmetics and consistence; then that all boards will looks the same?

-Negative is one thing; say words without any back ups etc but questioning the quality of some builds; techniques etc is not a negative thing.
I had in my hands several of Burgers boards in Tokyo, I am not afraid to say that was somewhat disappointed.

But what would be the advantage for most surfers if there s something new? Ok, no new materials to fill that void but possible new techniques like this one; so do you think that you build a board this way; and you ll obtain a cosmetic flawless boards (that by the way I did not see any photo in this forum showing that quality regarding alternative tech and if in a photo you see the problems imagine in direct) with more functionality ¿? why more functionality? if you are using the SAME types of shapes? Again, no change at all only on your minds (and soul)
Again the change is only possible drastically; again, that comes with new materials and new everything; but like mentioned before, there s no more refinements with the surfboards; curves are curves, physics is physics; as Artz mentioned the WWII boards or previous were too “planks” so if you wanna turn in tight radius and perform different maneuvers in extreme parts of the wave you need more curved stuff so now we have the actual shortboard. Smaller cannot go only if you buy a jet sky, due to the paddling wave take off and needed flotation. More curvy cannot too; we just see how curvy and how straight you can go; even how thin overall you can go.
The BASICS are VERY WELL PROVED.

THIS IS NO NEGATIVE ANYTHING FELLAS. Is real As mentioned in other comment about the balls, tennis rackets etc; no change too; because you cannot play football (soccer) with a square ball or use a racket 10 times bigger or 10 times smaller or with other shape.

The only thing remains IS the fatigue of the materials, In this case we need better materials and may be with one of these techniques we can obtain that.
Of course; for most surfers that is not applicable; also you can use a denser PU and use one more thicker fiberglass layer and you are done but all we complain about the weight…hence these other techniques; that in reality depends on the PS because the glass is somewhat heavy.

Ok, now my MAIN question:

Do you really think that you can improve riding with a board with the same shape but stronger?

My opinion is: with the basics sorted out and perfectly designed for an intended board; that board should do whatever you want in whatever place in the wave at high speed as showed by thousands of fine surfers around the world; get out and try to see them.
So with a good design is up to the surfers skill. Look this Tomo guy, He s a great surfer; fantastic action at top speed in larger heavy waves; and he performs on not the best of the designs…is the surfer.

Enter in this world of plastics etc we are losing our bases and letting all this industry (and culture) in hands of the megacorps. Think about it.
Where s the gain?
Again, the gain is to change everything but I do not see what drastically change in the design we can work out to keep the basic physics.
I bet that the industry fabricating rackets balls et all try harder than us but cannot because they have the perfect design for that sport.

52

I think the basics of the discussion can be broken down to a simple question: Is the juice worth the squeeze? Or perhaps more accurately, is the extra juice worth the extra squeeze.

We already have a well-established benchmark of what it takes in terms of resources (time, equipment and materials) to build a functional surfboard, both at the garage level and at the production level. As well, we also have a known benchmark for the utility, durability and performance of a generic PU/PE board that’s built with those methods and materials.

In addition to PU/PE we now have similar benchmarks for some other materials and some other processes, as well as performance and durability benchmarks for the boards coming out of those processess.

So if a garage shaper spends 2 hours shaping and 5 hours glassing and finishing a PU/PE surfboard they get X. If they spend 2 hours shaping and 7 hours glassing and finishing an PU/Epoxy of EPS/Epoxy they get X+1. (Just using an aribtrary scale for the purpose of discussion) If the latter adds a layer of veneer in the mix it might result in x+2.

The point is that sooner or later we get to the point where for most garage shapers the costs associated with advancing from X+1 to X+4 will outweigh the benefits of doing it. It’s more expedient to them to simply stop at a given point of functionality and simply do it again to get another board rather than to spend that time, effort and money making the one board that much better.

Same for the factories, only on a different scale.

What are we trying to do with the fragile 4# HPSB? Make it stronger? Lighter? More or less flex? And then once we get there, was the extra time/effort spent to get there justified by the extra benefits?

This is where we get back to the question of what will be meaningful to the surfer. Those benefits are measured at the user level, not as an abstract that’s isolated from that user’s experience. What percentage of surfers are at the elite level that they would be able to take advantage of the extra benefits, vs what percentage of surfers can’t even take advantage of what their current off-the-rack board will do? Moreover, are there enough of the can-do users to economically support the more intensive processes?

As an example, the tech is out there for hollow wood boards, and there are plenty of builders who would love to build such boards if only they could sell them at a price that covered their costs and time. Except that, for the most part, these boards are not marketable at such pricing. Which is why we have a product that we can make but we mostly can’t sell.

The conventional PU/PE or EPS/Epoxy is functional and sufficient for many surfers and the limitations for how much extra most surfers will pay to get the more advanced construction are a known constraint. As builders, we are capable of building more than what most of these users will be willing to pay for. Thus, the known limitation is at the consumer level, not the builder level.

53

As I wrote before, your comments are very wise Reverb and Gdaddy (and others), I get your point. On the other hand, there is a niche for alternative methods, I don’t know their numbers but Firewire, Libtech, Coil, Sunova etc… seem to be doing well and are taking the extra steps compared to a core wrapped with 4 oz glass. Apparently the best “performance” boards would be an ultralight core with a wood stringer with the lightest glassing as possible to have lightness and good flex, but these boards get destroyed very rapidly. If someone can get the same with durability, it would sell (I think this is the main point af the above cited brands) if a reasonnable extra cost leads to significantly increased durability. Then, nothing’s perfect as all boards break.
My point is that beside all these wise insight you’re giving us, I like building things myself in my own way and the process is a lot of fun to me, even if I am really losing my time I am having fun thinking about what I could experiment, what are the drawbacks of this and the advantages of that. At the end I am learning things I would not if using only the tried and true methods explained here on Swaylocks. This is the view from a garage shaper who is not facing the constraints professional shapers have (I don’t sell boards). Your points of view have a larger scope than mine (more global to the surf industry).
Reverb, on the need to have a “revolution” in the shapes of surfboards that would lead to riding waves differently (better?), maybe this lies in not using the board but rather foils as shown in a few of extremely interesting discussions here. Maybe foil development will really change things and the surfboard will become itself only a floating device (may be an inflatable platform) on which the foil is attached.

54

When you believe there is nothing new to learn or develop and the frontiers are gone, you have become obsolete.

55

…the rhetorical and theory is good; so I want to ask a wiser guy like you, how do you develop or enhance a ball? Think that this conversation happen in other sport industry. Then something wiser like you start with the rhetoric and all other members that exposed real situations are looked down. You guys are negatives, you guys are obsoletes etc.
Do you have the new ball design? NO because there are not. Better yet do you have a new surfboard design? No, because as explained briefly previously there s no more possibilities except get by without the board, like PierreK is saying.

Put something with substance out of rhetoric and show what you have to put some light on us the inferior guys in this industry

56

Rhetorical?
Never claimed to have a new “ball” or a superior surfboard design. Because you (plural) cannot see the new ball, does it mean that one does not exist? Omniscience on your part?
It seems you assume advancement comes only in designs suitable for pros and improvements on the current surf spear designs.
There are a considerable number of variables and combinations of variables for you (pl) to have tried them all.
As a professional in my field, I have designed and built new variants of old technologies several times. They were advancements and the design innovations were simple.
In all instances, I was told there was nothing more that could be done with those technologies. There was nothing new left to do.
The history of innovation has demonstrated repeatedly that change comes when the “established” experts/pros are sure they have explored and know all possibilities.
I do not claim to be an expert surfboard designer.
My statement is no more emphatic/absolute than yours (pl).
It seems negative is relative…

57

…what this demonstrate is that two persons can believe somewhat the same from different angles or point of views.
What you say in this last comment is very precise and I believe that too.
However, in some fields, the potentials are limited to physics laws etc.
A given shape, like a ball, or wheel or circumference are epitomes of the possibilities. Such forms are impossible to enhance. The only way to go is not to think more in such things; dispense totally of them.
Is totally different like in telephony or other industries that relies in advancements of the technologies applied. They do not have a limited field, like sea waves and geometric forms (shapes)
Again, you cannot build a board 1 ft long if you do not compensate with other stuff etc
Is not that me or others are quit thinking or do not want to change or whatever; I am trying to be more precise and not be a “dreamer”…or an utopian socialist, overoptimistic guy that conducts to a dead end.
PierrK explained pretty well his position and is a good one.
Again, the reality is that we, like the football, etc industries, are limited due to the use of “forms”, the waves and the materials. No new materials except few synthetic fibers that do not change anything in the shape of a board; technologies and techniques of other industries that CAN aid with the materials fatigue and not much more.
Is that bad?
I do not know; but I tell you that if I were a carpenter I still wanted to make the stuff out of wood…what an obsolete thing do not you¿?
Cars made with metals! what an obsolete thing too; how many years, centuries the mankind working with these materials…such negative peoples that do not want to change…
Houses made from the same materials over and over again! is not possible! how is that is the XXI century! only a tiny % building houses from plastic materials…
You know, really depends how some one see the facts.

58

This is great if people agree to disagree around our same passion which is why Swaylocks is wonderful!
The definition of “new” is difficult, and progress can go forward not only with big leaps but also by little tiny steps that at the end will give significant progress.
I am a researcher (biologist) and often people joke asking me if I have found something. This is not that simple as Eureka moments are very rare and things are most of the time progressing by small steps in real life that put one after the other lead to improving our knowledge on a particular question.
The wheel is a wheel, but it can be lighter, heavier, thinner, wider, slick or not, soft or hard etc… and the choice of characterisitcs and how this is applied to a particular application will constitute a form of progress. There is still R&D going on for tires beside that they are still round as from the first day. Maybe durability can be improved, or the use of greener materials (another type of progress) or the efficiency of the factory for making the same tires etc… Still, today’s tires are quite OK anyway.

59

I have had several Eureka moments professionally. They kept me employed. It is about seeing something – often simple – from a new perspective.
One of several Eureka moments came because I had tried a face mask and swim fins in the surf zone on the Gulf of Mexico years before when I was a teenager. Light intensity in coastal waters – incredibly simple. A new perspective gave rise to new technology.
http://www2.ca.uky.edu/wkrec/LightSpawningShrimp.PDF
Below is the second of two new variants I developed for an old technology (“nothing new left to design/invent”). It is a technology that had seen almost no change for at least a century. Simple tech, common materials and “basic” physics.
http://www2.ca.uky.edu/wkrec/RectangularAirliftPump_11_12.pdf

60

That’s pretty cool Mr. burner of stones.
I need one of those but bait bucket size lol.
I was wondering how practical would it be to power a version of that pump with some sort of renewable energy source (I was thinking wind)
The reason I ask is that we have had a few fish kills in the Indian River Lagoon in the last few years due to low oxygen levels. So I had this idea of deploying large (but portable) aerators in areas that are found to have dangerously low oxygen levels to help keep the fish alive.