Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Board Sizing Experiment

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Board Sizing Experiment

    So... I'm on call for work this weekend so this project was started somewhat out of boredom and the fact I am kinda stuck at the house all weekend. I'll toot my own horn alittle bit and say that I am a fairly athletic person so I've been able to ride some boards that are too small for me but only stay in the pocket for a short period of time. As a fairly new boat surfer I have also struggled with staying in the pocket because of lack of experience but also being a bigger rider I've consistently rode boards that are too small for me. So, I thought I would do some research on rider lbs vs. board length. I also thought it would be cool to have some empirical data to the question of what size board should I get.

    I started with board length setting up a grid from 0 to 72 inches. I used an arbitrary ceiling weight of 300 pounds. I took 300 and divided it by 72 to get an inch per pound scale just to get a baseline to see what it would be. This gave me a 4.16 pound per inch ratio. I then made the calculations to assign a weight to every inch from 0 to 72. I found that for the longer lengths near 72 the weights appeared pretty solid but the weights for the small length boards were way off (too high)

    I next got the idea to take as many board manufacturers as I could and research recommended MAXIMUM weights for board lengths. I found 10 wakesurf board companies that gave weight recommendations for all the sizes of their quivers and 3 companies that gave recommendations on only some of their boards. There were 8 companies that did not list any weight recommendations what so ever, basically saying (one size fits all) or did not list it at all. So those companies didn't help with the research data. The data consists of companies that are purely productions boards and companies that are special order. There was no consideration taken on board construction.... ie surf vs. skim.... foam vs. compression. I solely looked at length vs. weight.

    After I had compiled all of the data from the manufacturer websites I added and averaged every length category to give myself a general MAXIMUM weight number. The shortest board with recommended weight data was 3.5 and the longest was 5.8. When I looked at the averaged data it provided good insight to general ranges but I thought I could make it better by making an increasing range. The lowest posted weight range was 90 lbs at 3.5 length and the highest was 309 for a 5.6. I used the range from 90 lbs to 309 lbs which gave a total weight range of 219 lbs. I used 28 different length points, starting with 3.5 and ending with 5.8. This gave me 7.82 lbs per inch of board starting at 3.5 and 90 lbs. This gave me a MAXIMUM weight range for each inch board length. In the spread sheet I highlighted the length and recommended weights in yellow.

    I then started looking at the data and was pretty satisfied with how it came out. My family owns a broadcast in 4.8 and a Ronix Koal in 5.1. The weights for these lengths were 207 and 246 receptively. I had to take my own experience into mind when analyzing the data and I will focus on he Ronix Koal 5.1. I rode the broadcast last year at 260 lbs and fell out of the pocket consistantly after 20 to 30 seconds or so. I moved to the 5.1 Koal this year and I am able to free ride it but a couple minutes or riding before I fall out the back is all I can manage. If I was to drop weight to 245 I am absolutely certain that I would be able to rip on the 5.1. I was overall happy with the calculated ranges. I think its fair to say there's a 5 pound deviation either way for each range.

    I have attached the spreadsheet for your review. Let me know if there are any problems viewing it. I can also look at doing weights for skim vs. surf but I am pretty happy with how the ranges turned out. I think they are probably 90% accurate. Any ideas on improving it would be welcome as well. I could not figure out how to imbed the excel worksheet so the link is below.


    http://1drv.ms/1t9D3LZ

    #2
    I like the concept, but I will give you the typical discussion regarding the data. Garbage in garbage out. Weight recommendations are not empirically derived in 99% of the cases, nor are they length dependent. Length is a factor, but only one determining factor when two models are produced in different lengths.
    Width and thickness have a far greater impact on volume, and volume is the most important factor when looking at weight recommendations. And, of course, it is where and how that volume is distributed that is important.

    That is not to say that this approach wouldn't work for a group of boards of similar proportions or if you have a data pool large enough to deal with the wide range of board types out there.

    This is why your recommendations are skewed toward unnecessary lengths. Your mid-lengths are reasonable in that you have a decent data set, but at the polar ends the recommendations fall apart because of a lack of data.

    Comment


      #3
      How about rocker line, fins, rail shape?
      You'll get your chance, smart guy.

      Comment


        #4
        Originally posted by Chaos View Post
        I like the concept, but I will give you the typical discussion regarding the data. Garbage in garbage out. Weight recommendations are not empirically derived in 99% of the cases, nor are they length dependent. Length is a factor, but only one determining factor when two models are produced in different lengths.
        Width and thickness have a far greater impact on volume, and volume is the most important factor when looking at weight recommendations. And, of course, it is where and how that volume is distributed that is important.

        That is not to say that this approach wouldn't work for a group of boards of similar proportions or if you have a data pool large enough to deal with the wide range of board types out there.

        This is why your recommendations are skewed toward unnecessary lengths. Your mid-lengths are reasonable in that you have a decent data set, but at the polar ends the recommendations fall apart because of a lack of data.
        I definitely agree with you. A larger sample size, especially on the polar ends of sizes would definitely give a lot better weight ranges. The spreadsheet is by no means all encompassing, I think it is a good start to a "guide" Skim vs surf.... thickness, width etc are all things that would need to be included.

        Nicky, you make good points too. I'm with you on rocker line but I'm not sure I agree about fins and shape as I think those correlate to how the board handles more than anything... I will agree that they do incorporate into the concept of speed of the board.

        I'm gonna have to brainstorm how to figure in other factors. I thought it was an interesting start though.

        Thanks for the input.

        Comment


          #5
          You should read this.

          http://flyboywakesurf.com/length-doesnt-matter/

          Lots of interesting stuff to consider on that site. Jeff has been around a long time and I've learned a lot from him.
          You'll get your chance, smart guy.

          Comment


            #6
            Thanks for posting the link, definitely a good read, lots of good information. The man obviously shapes boards for a living so he knows a thing or two about them. However, he contradicts himself in his write up somewhat. He says that staying in the wake for a bigger rider is about more surface area "more water contact," and I completely agree with him. He makes a reference, saying that longer boards just put the length in the nose. That's not really true...it isn't even true in the boards he shapes for Inland Surfer. Here's some examples of same rocker and different lengths to accommodate weight.

            Fly Boy Boards:
            James Pro Edition 4’6” x 20.5”x 1.5” - 5 lbs. Twinzer fin system. (weight range 100 to 200+)
            Big Boy Edition 4’8” x 20.5” x 1.5” - 5 lbs. Twinzer fin system. (weight range 100 to 250+)

            The boards are exactly the same but the big boy is 2 inches longer. How did Jeff create more surface area for the big boy without changing the board.... he added 2 inches of length. Rocker line stays the same... adds length... allows for 50 more pounds of rider.

            4 Skim Boards:
            4 Skim Sean Cummings 4’ 2” x 20.5” x 5/8” - 4 lbs. Tri fin option. (50 to 170 lbs)
            4 Skim Caro 4’ 2” x 20.5” x 5/8” - 4 lbs. Tri fin option. (50 to 170 lbs)
            4 Skim Ooze 4’2” x 20.5” x .75” - 4 lbs. Tri fin option. (50 to 170 lbs)
            4 Skim Keenan 4’4” x 21.5” x 3/4” - 3 lbs. Tri fin option. (80 to 180 lbs)
            4 Skim Black Pearl 4’ 8” x 20.5” x .75” - 4 lbs. Tri fin option. (50 to 200 lbs)

            5/8 to 3/4 is relatively nothing... its not like thickness is going from 5/8 to surf board thickness of 2 or something. The 21.5 increase in the keenan is definitely something to look at but look at the black pearl vs. ooze. Why the 30 extra pounds of weight limit...... because the board is 4 inches longer. Same rockers ************* they all have the same "rocket rocker".

            Jeff says length of board doesn't matter.... he shapes Inland Surfers boards and he increases length to allow more weight allowance given the same rocker..... If the boards had a different rocker line then his theory holds true, length doesn't matter if the rocker line changes but it this case it does not.

            Look at other board manufacterers.... why are boards offered in 2 or 3 different lengths. Take the Ronix Parks carbon thruster. Same rocker, 3 different sizes..... why the different sizes.... increased surface area through length.

            Lots of people have theories on thickness and "float" as well but based on Jeff's comments.... it's all about surface area.

            My table would need to be broken into skim vs surf construction to be more accurate for sure. I'm not tying to be argumentative or say that Jeff is wrong or that my table is right so no one else is right.... Jeff is definitely not wrong... his article just contradicts his shaping and the product inland surfer sells. Board manufacturers incorporate different kinds of rockers, rails, fins etc to achieve speed/water release but if we are just talking about surface area.... length is certainly valid.... given the same rocker is used.

            Comment


              #7
              Just to be clear, the only board Inland has ever sold that was shaped by Jeff is the Flyboy. Even that isn't exactly true. He builds prototypes. Then he has those protos turned into a quality board by Stretch and then Inland sends a couple copies to China to have them built there. I'm not 100% on that last exchange of info but, that's basically how it goes down between Jeff and IS. He does R&D on the Flyboy and that's it.
              You'll get your chance, smart guy.

              Comment


                #8
                I really dug the history less on the flyboy, its made up of a bunch of posts but I think I got most of them in order below. Its an interesting read.

                I know when I first started looking at wakesurfing, I thought Walker Project was Jeff and James Walker but its not. Then I found it interesting that Walker Project made their boards for a while.

                I still haven't had a chance to ride a Flyboy or Big Boy yet! I have heard they ride really nice and are durable for a high performance board.

                http://flyboywakesurf.com/the-histor...kesurf-part-1/
                http://flyboywakesurf.com/the-histor...shaping-begin/
                http://flyboywakesurf.com/the-walker-x-2-years/
                http://flyboywakesurf.com/walker-x-2-part-2/
                http://flyboywakesurf.com/the-formative-years/
                http://flyboywakesurf.com/2010-and-winning-the-wwsc/
                http://flyboywakesurf.com/the-inland-years/
                Mods: MLA BIG Ballast System (1800+ Custom sacs, 2 500 W705 sacs under bow), Duffy Surf Flap Mod, Trimmed Swim Deck, Top-Mount Starter

                Comment


                  #9
                  Ok doing a bit of digging, I found what I was looking for.

                  A) Stretch builds CAD files for the production boards.

                  B) the BigBoy isn't just a longer FlyBoy. http://flyboywakesurf.com/introducin...akesurf-model/

                  I like what your trying to do but, you can't just sling inaccuracies about. There's enough misinformation out there already.
                  You'll get your chance, smart guy.

                  Comment


                    #10
                    Thanks for posting up the articles, they are some good reads for sure. I did the spread sheet in a boredom experiment to see if there was a correlation between the two factors. I think I established there is a correlation but to make it exact there needs to be more factors put into it.

                    I haven't slung any inaccuracies, all the information I have put in my posts/spreadsheet have been taken directly from posted internet literature on board companies websites for their production products.

                    To support your opinion, you post an article that is from August 2013 from flyboy's website that talks about a prototype board in it's initial stages. Yes the article says the board is wider (1inch) and longer (4 inches) and they moved the apex of the rocker. Well, according to inland surfer's website, this particular shape of the board never made it to production. The board that was put into CAD then authorized for production is a version that has the exact same dimensions as James Pro board but its two inches longer. The fly boy article says that James board is a 4'5, well that was extended to 4'6 for 2014 and the big boy is 4'8.

                    Inland surfer's website even goes as far as to say that the Big Boy was designed to allow for a better stance for a rider that is 5'10 or taller and over 200 lbs. They believe a rider up to 6'4 and 260 could ride it.

                    I'm not trying to be argumentative here, just like I said in previous posts, this is a great forum and I welcome open discussion about the OP, but let facts be facts. The initial prototype for the Big Boy was 1 inch wider and 4 inches longer.... a 4:1 ratio to achieve the bigger rider board. The production board ended up being the same size as James Pro Model and only 2 inches longer than James' 2014 pro model to accommodate a larger rider, a 2:0 ratio. In all reality the board it 3" longer than the original 4'5 board.

                    Chaos said it perfectly above.... length is not all encompassing but when comparing 2 boards of different length that are in same production, length is one factor, not the only factor, but a factor nonetheless.

                    Comment


                      #11
                      Jeff is having some trouble with his log in here. He asked me to post this up.

                      "RZR's worksheet is a great idea. The conclusions drawn round the bigboy vs signature are based upon some bad info published on the Inland site. The big boy is longer and wider than the signature. Both of those boards are manufactured in Thailand and are spec'ed in metric, so both boards dimensions are off on the Inland site. Pictures attached.

                      Thanks!

                      Jeff"
                      Attached Files
                      You'll get your chance, smart guy.

                      Comment


                        #12
                        Good thread.
                        You'll get your chance, smart guy.

                        Comment


                          #13
                          Thanks for the post on the behalf of Jeff, let him know I appreciate the insight. I hope people don't drop 7 or 8 hundred on a board not knowing the sizes are incorrect on Inland Surfers website. That would be a bummer. It looks like places like EVO.com have the board size listed the same. They should update the info on that bad boy.

                          Comment


                            #14
                            Originally posted by RZRCO23 View Post
                            I hope people don't drop 7 or 8 hundred on a board not knowing the sizes are incorrect on Inland Surfers website. That would be a bummer.
                            I guess it's a good thing they are sold out then.
                            You'll get your chance, smart guy.

                            Comment


                              #15
                              I would also listen to what Chaos is saying, I think he has been shaping/building surfboards for like 20 years.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X