![]()
Just from an accuracy and precision
perspective...
The difference between accuracy and
precision is pretty much summed up in the pictures below.
Machines can aid in achieving both. And
by machines, I mean virtually any tool, from a piece of dragon-skin
to CNC. Of course it is possible to make a piece of crap that is both
accurate and precise. Without proper context, these terms don't
address function or design in general – considered in isolation,
they tend to be more about quality control.
So some customer tells you they want
such and such kind of board and they even give you some numbers -
length, various widths, thicknesses. What kind of accuracy and
precision should be associated with these kinds of numbers? Or to put
it another way, how much room does the designer/shaper have to play
with?
Chances are, you might be thinking,
'That's a dumb-ass question, it depends … ' or something to that
effect. But now tell me if you're answer changes if the board was
ordered from a milling shop -i.e. CAD/CAM?
Here's a rule which I just made up (if
it already exists my apologies), in particular it's from the
customer's point of view, but I believe applies in general: “Expected
accuracy and precision increases (exponentially?) with the
sophistication of the tool used.” Whether or not it's justified is
another matter -i.e. incompetency in tool use aside.
When paradigms shift, the shift is
never clean - things are always a bit fuzzy at first, and this is
particularly true of standards. The level of accuracy and precision
that one of your peep's will allow you when hand-shaping their board
is quite different from that you'll likely get from some relatively
anonymous customer, a non-peep or neep if you like. And this
tolerance is likely to decrease dramatically, when you aren't
hand-shaping -i.e. when you're milling, for both peep and neep.
(Okay, the 'neep' shit was an unnecessary diversion, but hopefully
you'll get my point.)
Right now, hand-shapers are allowed a
level of grace that CNC millers aren't. This extended grace can be
wrapped in all sorts of justifications, directly related to the final
product or not. But, in particular, this notion that somehow when you
reach for that more sophisticated tool something spiritually deep and
soulful will be lost, while at the same time, a hell of a lot more is
expected, seems a bit unfair, if not nonsense, not to mention
somewhat inconsistent and contradictory. Tools are tools. Competency
is, well competency.
Prototypes, in virtually any industry
are almost always hand-shaped first. The process is valuable on any
number of levels. But in this world, product is not about means, only
ends (as long as you aren't producing too much toxic waste in the
process.) And 'ends' are about function, -i.e. design. And the fact
that traditionally hand-shapers have been given such grace when it
comes to accuracy and precision probably says more about their
precise understanding of functional design than a boat load of
threads will likely be able to cover, but I guess that's another
topic.
It's likely that hand-shaping will
always be with us, for any number of reasons, but the paradigm is
changing.
Admittedly, there is a lot about
surfing which is transcendent. But, if the shape is up to the job,
whether or not a monkey, man or machine shaped the surfboard isn't,
transcendent that is. Then again there's a museum in Virginia (a
state in the US) that has displays suggesting that men and dinosaurs
once roamed the Earth together, because the belief in the Bible seems
to demand as much. So I guess opinions on what is and isn't
transcendent will differ.
kc
