This is a pretty good way for common board rail standardization.
Helps things a lot as a customer can measure his board himself in a far away place and give you a dimension… much clearer than low, medium or boxy…
Many shapers have a different view on rails and their volume tag. maybe longboards and unusual designs might still need some clarification. But this would certainly aid online board descriptions…
now i just have got to make time to put it online on my website with all the board models…
Heady stuff… stab in the right direction.
Keep going.
…hello man,
I really do not understand the way the customer take measurements to do that math…
would you explain a bit?
thanks
feraldave,
A step in a good direction.
Why did you choose 30mm in from rail apex?
I’ve used an inch in from rail (just because most shapers still work in inches)
Do you take measurements every 12in or 6 or 3 in along the rail? SOunds like a good idea feraldave.
you can take measurments all over the board the calculation is the same math sum…
but i wanted to offer a simple easy method… centre of the board… easy, rail 30mm in from apex… easy…
yes lots of people still use inches… dark ages stuff…and too hard to do math, haha
I’m all for standardization and repeatability, but how does the measurement define anything about the shape? Couldn’t a 50/50, down, or even mis-shapen rail all produce the same volume calculation? What am I missing?
As a shaper, I can’t help seeing it as a cube out on the rail. Some of it is foam and the other is air that represents removal of material. Since shaping is procedure of reduction some agreed upon distance in and distance tall relative to the bottom (versus the rail apex) could provide a suggested size of cube to refer to. The rail’s apex would represent the right hand frame, the bottom would represent the bottom frame (as with using s square).
So to me, the real question is how far in from rail apex aka right frame, do you want to easure and how tall for “top” frame. It would seem to make sense to make it square aka a cube. Then numbers could be caculated to determine positive and negative space for the overall volume.
And as previously stated, this is a formula for volume only, not rail contour as the minute removal of an edge, or the repositioning of apex in relation to top and bottom frame will have a direct relationship on how that particular volume will react in water.
If the concern is for overall volume of the rail area, it should probably be more like 3" or the metric equivalent to 3" is in from the ‘right frame’…
This thread should be title ‘Rail Volume as percentage of thickness of the board’. But even that is entirely misleading.
Actually this is not a volume calculation, but an area comparison calculation.
Your formula is not very straightforward. But lets look at it and what is trying to be accomplished.
You basically want to compare a rectangular area at the center of the board to a somewhat comparable imaginary rectangular area at the rail.
They are comparable because you assume that both rectangles will share a width of 30 centimeters, but differ in height.
thickness of board at center : 55 centimeters
so 55 x 30 = 1650 sq. centimeters
comparable imaginary rectangular area at rail:
36 x 30 = 1080 sq. centimeters
1080 / 1650 = .6545
take .6545 x 100= 65.45% for a percentage and you get the area of the imaginary rectangular area at the rail is 65% of the area of the rectangular area at the center.
Actually that imaginary rectangle out at the rail is really not there, it more approxiametly exists as half of that imaginary rectangle out at the rail(sliced at the hypotenuse), giving you a percentage number at closer to 32%
In addition, although the rectangle at the center of the board is a full rectangle, your picture dimensions for the imaginary rectangle out at the rail, dont cover the full real estate of the rail. Its quite arbitrarily reduced.
This doesnt’ pass muster, past the analysis of any mathematician. Its logic is full of holes.
I dont either particularly see the usefulness of this measurement, but if you can use it, thats all that counts.
In addition, I
dont see the avg. customer being able to give accurate measurements for
this. Unless they are equipped with a couple of specific calipers.
A ruler or yardstick in the avg. customers hand is not going to cut it.
OK, so now at least I see how I was looking at it incorrectly. I didn’t realize from the opening post that it was a sort of comparison to the center rectangle, but I do agree, quite a difficult measurement for a customer to pull out without a least a decent level, yardstick/ruler, and a tape measure at the bare minimum.
ok lets keep shaping boards(including measuring them) as a black magic art… where only the divine chosen one can compare the shape with his dear departed forefathers protuberence in the right moolight. ok theory aside then, if you dont see the base use and the benifit for customer/shaper relationship good luck and carry on with your ways…
i remember volume being ragged on when it first started being used…
lets give customers a pair of calipers with every custom order…
if you get into it and try a few ways the numbers are pretty consistent, measeured roughly or accuratly… as long as its done the same way for each board…
I think its a great idea Dave!! I use this E-bay pair of $7.50 callipers to measure rail thickness when cutting rail bands, so your idea to have rail thickness as a percentage to me makes a lot of sense. Well done, keep it up!!
Dave there is no need to get upset.
This is what Swaylocks is all about, you put up a thesis and it gets reviewed by your peers. A current valid theory is then achieved.
The real answer though is to keep questioning everything.
I remember when I first started showing a computer driven surfboard design program called DAT Deadly Accurate Templates by Ian Gower, this was in the mid 80’s, WTF was the answer, computers were a rare item.
Mickie used to tell me that a hand driven profile machine was all that was needed as you had to give the shapers some work to do to get paid.
Ian Gower told me that all that was needed was a 286 chip to run any CNC machine now or in the future.
Rod
Cheers Dave, I remember when we had the behind-the-scenes discussion about this a couple of years ago. I think it's great to quantify whatever you can because there's so many things we can't, lol. This method may be simplistic, but that makes it do-able for all.
And marsh..... My dial calipers are missing from my shaping room. How did you steal them and get them all the way to Oz?
…Im still waiting for your explanation on how the customer take measurements and communicate the stuff
thanks
reverb, if a customer wants to measure an existing board for reference, they just get a set of dial calipers with a 30mm throat and slide them on the rail. Or get calipers greater than 30mm and shim to 30. Express that # as a % of center thickness.
Reverb… its pretty easy. you get some calipers ad measure the rail 30mm in from the apex in the centre of the board and you also get the measurment from the centre… most boards have the centre measurment written on the board… albiet as accurate as the shapers calipers or magic pencil…
I’m still curious to hear why the rail thickness @ given distance from the edge matters as a percentage to the thickness at the middle/stringer.
What's Man's preoccupation with having a mathefucknmatical explaination for everything ?
30 yrs of wrapppn my hands round the things goes good for me
callin Tom Morey.....
carry on wrapping around things with your hand then sir, no need for you to do any math…
