Walker Carbontek

[st68]

I am considering getting a TWP board made with the Carbontek... does anyone have one of these? I am not very familiar with what the difference is b/t the regular board they make versus the Carbontek except that the Carbontek costs a lot more and it appears to be much lighter and less prone to dings. I am trying to understand and any input is appreciated.

[Surfdad]

Up until last year my son James rode for Mike and we still have a ton of TWP boards. The Carbontek is billed as dual density foam wrapped in carbon fiber. The Comp X boards, of days gone by, were an EPS core with Corecell (an SAN high density closed cell sheet foam) glued to it. The Corecell wasn't laminated, instead GG glued to the EPS. The only vulnerability was the lack of Corecell on the rails.

IF the Carbontek is a dual density build, I'm sure it's based upon this construction. Corecell has amazing properties, super stiff and springy.

Beyond that, it's Carbon fiber, single layer top and bottom. Most boards are covered in fiberglass which doesn't have any glaring weaknesses, but it doesn't do anything well either. It's cheap and clear under most resins, so that the reason it is used most often. If white carbon fiber were plentiful and cheap that would be the reinforcement of choice for boards.

The carbontek can be lighter, because of it's increased strength over fiberglass - requires less of the stuff to be stiff and strong, hence less fabric and less resin.

Mike builds a quality product, not sure that Carbon would be my choice, but that is such a seriously cool look!

[DieselPWR]

How does his new flyboy model with IS compare to his TWP board before?

[Surfdad]

Hey DieselPWR, thanks for asking that question, I'll most likely put you to sleep with my answer, but I do appreciate the opportunity to talk about it.

The TWP JWSM is a great board, but it required a LOT of effort to ride on faster wakes. It turned aggressively and would loft with ease, but the rocker on that board and most of the high end surf style boards currently available, placed the apex too far back. Those boards are spin-offs from ocean style boards and not all of the design elements make sense for behind the boat. Now apex is an odd term we collectively understand that it's the furtherest point out on a curve, but on the underside of a wakesurf board, if you raise or lower the nose in relation to the tail, that "point" would change. So I won't get into the discussion of how to measure apex, but instead say that we "moved" that point forward on the board so that it was closer to the nose. In so doing, it created a much faster board. We didn't move it as far forward as a skim board, such that the board was basically flat. Instead, just far enough forward so that it wasn't plowing through the water.

THAT is one of the most significant changes from the TWP JWSM over to the IS JWSM.

Another significant change is in the concave. The TWP version had a pretty standard semi-circle concave. That is it was a constant radius arc from one rail to the other. On the FlyBoy and now the IS FlyBoy Division JWSM (is that the ISFDJWSM ) this concave isn't a constant radius. Out at the rails, the arc is much sharper, then mellows through the middle of the board. We call it a "hooked 'cave". We found this increased speed significantly because the middle of the board is basically flat. But also, by leaving the rail line with the standard rocker, we were still able to retain all of it's turning ability, in fact it increased some because there is less volume out at the rails to sink into the turn.

We also made a slight change in the placement of the fins from all previous versions of boards that James has ridden, but that's a pretty minor point.

The final significant change is in the rocker line itself. As mentioned above the center of the board is basically flat. That gave us tons of speed, but a strictly flat board, we found, didn't roll up the wake for aerials very well. So we stole a page from wakeboard development and created a 3 stage rocker. If you take a level and slide it from the tail forward, you'll see very distinct flat areas on the tail rocker. This allowed the board to roll up for airs, but without requiring a huge long curved tail rocker. In our experience, the greater the tail rocker, the more the board tended to stick and go slow. In fact nose riders for the ocen have exaggerated tail rockers because they tend to stick in the wave. The TWP JWSM has a contnuous very smooth flowing tail rocker which is Mike's signature, all of his boards have nice smooth flowing curves.

The only other semi-significant change on the exterior is the toad skin bottom. The TWP JWSM model had a sanded finish, which is really good, but the ISFDJWSM will have a textured Toad Skin bottom to aid release. The textured surface will aid release better than a sanded finish. It's harder to create, but works somewhat better.

Internally, the FlyBoy and the ISFDJWSM are a composite sandwich. SUPER LIGHT - SUPER STIFF and SUPER RUGGED. The Last TWP JWSM we had was light and had a perimeter stringer. But the stringer on that board was almost directly under James heel and after about 2 or so months, the deck fiberglass ripped and basically the board was junk. So while the perimeter stringers are really sweet, that style of construction has a very short life.

It was that incident that motivated us to start working with the composite sandwich construction (low desnity EPS core with high density skins). The ISFDJWSM will have this construction. We "borrowed" the idea from Surftech, as thos boards are super stiff. In fact that was the argument from most ocean surfers against that brand - it was TOO stiff. We wanted stiff, in fact way stiffer than the comparable eps/epoxy boards that were available.

I don't know that I've heard anyone say - wow that's too light OR wow that's too stiff, but those are two attributes the board has.

Ssssoooo...to recap, significant differences between the TWP and the IS would be:

1) Rocker
2) Concave
3) Apex
4) Fin placement
5) Construction and materials

I hope I didnt put you to sleep!

[DieselPWR]

Right on, thank you for that! Very interested to try one out some time.

[ragboy]

Your kidding me right?

ISFDJWSM

Now I have to use that acronym? ;-) TWP JWSM was about the longest I can handle. I hear-to-forth would like to dub the ISFDJWSM as the Inland J-Dub, or the IS J-Dub. I like the "Inland J-Dub". For the record, I didn't come up with the term "J-Dub", but I really like it.

To DieselPWRs question, from the less initiated...

My short answer to that, is that the FlyBoy is very different, but also felt like an evolution of the TWP JWSM. You know like when a car has yearly updates, and then has that year, where its totally redesigned, but still holds to some of its roots?

As soon as you hold a flyboy in your hand, and in the other, any other performance board, you will get a great sense of what a leap this board is.

[majestic]

I am excited to try a Flyboy! Maybe I can ask RJ to let me have a ride on his next week?

[ragboy]

No, sorry. ;-)


Absolutely. Hopefully Jeff and Inland will make a bigger version next year.

[Fiveflat]

For the record, I didn't come up with the term "J-Dub", but I really like it.

Hey, that's my sons' nicknames... T-Dub and G-Dub Been using them for 8 and 4 years now I actually spun those nicknames off "Dubya" for GW Bush

[majestic]

No, sorry. ;-)


Absolutely. Hopefully Jeff and Inland will make a bigger version next year.

Was that a fat joke directed at me?

[Surfdad]

It's not an acronym, you really need to think of it phonetically:

Is Food Jewels Ma'am?

I think works fine: "DUDE! Have you ridden the new Is Food Jewels Ma'am board? It's so sweeeeettttt."

Talking with the folks at Inland yesterday they are working hard to insure the final weight hits the 4 pound mark. The "toad skin" bottom surface can be applied to the bottom mold surface and that will be imparted directly to the bottom of the board when it pops out of the mold.

There isn't any appreciable weight savings doing that, but it cuts down significantly on labor requirements and also each board is then identical.

I'm really looking forward to the first ever 4 pound Inland Surfer!

[DieselPWR]

Whats the weight limit recommended for that board IS Flyboy?

[Surfdad]

I think the catalog is showing 200 pounds and it will handle folks heavier than that, but to get a high quality responsive ride I would recommend no more than 190 pounds on a SOLID wake and 150 to 170 is optimal. The other issue is height. This board is 4'5" long and it was originally designed for James who is about 5'8" tall. He has a fairly wide stance, but folks that are close to 6'0" will have some issues with their stance...the board will require taller folks to narrow their stance.

I'm not sure how I feel about that really. Shorter, lighter boards are incredibly responsive and allow you to do tricks that you've never imagined before, but I don't like the idea of a stock board dictating how you should stand.

So...if you have a wide stance and are over 5'10", but weight in the 160's the board will ride well for you, but most like will make you change your stance.

Check James at the end of this clip - the first two airs are pedestrian as he's thinking about doing the 540. It's an air 180, to stall, to baskside switch 540 with the board revert. It doesn't land it in this vid, but he did later in the day when someone who will remain nameless (but starts with a D and ends with AD) turned the camera off! Made me sick when he landed it and I have the camera sitting on the seat.

Amyway...James is 150'ish and 5'8" and that is the size of the rider the board is designed for.

[Surfdad]

Shoot did I do something wrong with the embed? I never get that right!

[jbort]

no video.........hmmmmm