| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
cgoudie1
Joined: 10 Apr 2006
Posts: 2599
Location: Killer Sturgeon Cove
|
 Posted: Fri Aug 14, 2015 10:30 am Post subject: |
 |
|
And if your answer isn't liked, sometimes you get antagonism, which is
okay too.
-Craig
| isobars wrote: | | coachg wrote: | Is it just me or does anyone else feel like this?  |
I suspect many of my posts trigger that response.
If it's just in bystanders, remember: reading them is optional.
If in the OP whose question I'm answering, no sympathy here; if ya don't want to read a thorough answer, don't ask the question. 
Mike \m/ |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
bmoore98
Joined: 05 Apr 2004
Posts: 76
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 14, 2015 2:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Gurgletrousers, I've had my CarbOne for two years and it is fabulous but here is my unintended consequence of upgrading from a Kona One. The Kona One was my everything board. Rail rides, light wind freestyle, high wind or loaning it to friends. I never worried about it. The CarbOne lives in a board bag and is very carefully removed and placed in the water, avoiding any rocks. Then the sail is attached and off I go doing nothing but back and forth sailing because I'm afraid to ding this beauty. I love it when it's powered up with an Ezzy Zephyr but you could argue that I was getting more joy from the Kona One. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
GURGLETROUSERS
Joined: 30 Dec 2009
Posts: 2643
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 14, 2015 3:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Thank you very much sir. I recalled that you had bought the Carbone a couple of years back, and had written about it. You echo precisely what I would be worried about if I used it for knockabout cruising duties, as I do with the present Kona, which is outstandingly good in that role.
It would seem more logical, therefore, to keep it, and buy the Phantom, which can then be treated with kid gloves and not abused, just for those mid-wind blasts about the bay, and perhaps rekindle a few of the old racing skills. (And I promise Joe, I'll use a bigger sail in doing so!)
Thanks for your reply. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
joethewindsufa
Joined: 10 Oct 2010
Posts: 1190
Location: Montréal
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ittiandro
Joined: 22 Nov 2009
Posts: 294
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 14, 2015 11:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| boardsurfr wrote: |
You'll be hard pressed to find someone who agrees with you that the Mistral Equipe has a "V-shaped hull". .
Your problem seems to arise from believing that the Techno 293 is a longboard, comparable to Mistral Equipe. It's not. It is more than 2 feet shorter, even 3 feet shorter than the longer race boards. It's also primarily oriented towards planing. Yes, it does shlog better than a shorter board, especially if you know how to rail with the daggerboard. But it is slower than longer boards.
| ittiandro wrote: | | Finally, with all due respect, if any debate implies a difference of opinion, arguments don’t become more convincing by being bombastic... |
You call it "all due respect" when you call people "bombastic", or "surmise" that a simple formula for hull speed is "too academic"?
This was not a debate. You asked a question about hull speed. You did not state clearly what you were apparently most concerned about - your BIC 293. Instead, you mentioned a "12 foot longboard".
At the same time, you are displaying an amazing level of ignorance:
| ittiandro wrote: | | Frankly, I don’t even recall that there have ever been flat-bottomed longboards in the 80’s and 90’s. |
I happen to have two longboards from the 80s and 90s in my garage. I have participated in several longboard races, and I am actually organizing races where we see lots of longboards - most from the 80s and 90s, some even older, some newer. The vast majority of these longboards (including the 2 in my garage) have as "flat" a bottom behind the mast track as any of my shortboards or slalom boards. Of course, the actual shapes are never really "flat" - there are Vs, concaves, triple concaves going into Vs, and more. But the boards are definitely made for planing, as well as for efficient light wind sailing.
. |
I don’t call people bombastic or the like just because I disagree with them. I have used this term only with reference to those who have no better arguments than “ bloody nonsense” or use a derisory language like “ You are trying to be funny” or, worse, accuse people of having an amazing level of IGNORANCE
Regarding your statement that I am displaying an” amazing level of ignorance “ in saying that I have never seen flat bottomed longboards in the 80’s and 90’s, I do want to believe that you are using the word” ignorance” in the purely etymological and neutral sense of “ not knowing”, of which we humans are ALL afterall, guilty, in different respects, including, I am sure, yourself. If this were your intended meaning, I’d have hoped that you had a better command of English and perhaps enough respect for those who think differently( or are perhaps wrong ), to refrain from using that kind of excessive phrasing . Probably “ lack of information” would have been a more apt word. I want to give you the benefit of the doubt, though, so I won’t turn these words back at you..
Coming to the substance of your remark, this time it is you who contradict yourself: you argue with me that, contrary to what I said, there were flat boards already in the 80’s and 90’s, altogether similar if not identical to the modern shortboards, but then you go on to say
Quote The vast majority of these longboards (including the 2 in my garage) have as "flat" a bottom behind the mast track as any of my shortboards or slalom boards. Of course, the actual shapes are never really "flat" - there are Vs, concaves, triple concaves going into Vs, and more. But the boards are definitely made for planing, as well as for efficient light wind sailing.unquote
Well, if you acknowledge that the actual shapes were never flat and they were either Vs, concaves, triple concaves, etc, then you agree with what I have been saying all along: truly flat-bottomed boards did not exist in those days : the hulls of yesterday’s longboards cannot be said to be identical to today’s shortboards because they were of a totally different kind: however flat they nay have looked like, they were displacement-type of hulls with different hydrodynamic properties.
Incidentally, I just bought a Mistral Competition SST longboard . I tried it out yesterday and there is no doubt that its sub-planing performance is far better and radically different from the Bic 293. I don’t see what they have in common to be both called longboards : aside from the center board and the almost similar length, the two boards still behave in a radically different manner in spite of this apparent similarity
You are right in pointing out that the Mistral Equipe does not perhaps have a V-shaped hull: even though clarity of expression in English ( which is not my mother tongue!) is always a very high priority of mine, this time I slipped a bit into a less than accurate statement. I won’t say inaccurate, though: yes, technically the Mistral Equipe does not have a V-shaped hull .. Perhaps I should have said rather a..U-shaped hull, but the point is, as you can readily see by looking at them, that the Equipe’s hull differs drastically from the Bic 293: the latter, precisely because designed primarily for planing , is flat bottomed ,while the Equipe , designed for sub-planing and light winds, has a slightly rounded, double concave hull which fits into the category of displacement-type of hulls.. You find almost the same type of hull in the Competition SST I just bought.
On the other hand, I don’t think that you are right when you say that I believe that the Techno 293 is a longboard comparable to the Mistral Equipe and that this is the problem I have. . In fact it is the opposite that I I think: to me the Bic 293 is not a longboard because it has a flat bottom. I have argued this point all along and I have been accused of creating my own definition: these people maintain that according to the commonly accepted definition, what makes a longboard is its length and the centerboard, implying that the hull shape is irrelevant. It is precisely because I don’t agree on this definition, that I can’t see the Bic 293 as a longboard.. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jingebritsen
Joined: 21 Aug 2002
Posts: 3371
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
techno900
Joined: 28 Mar 2001
Posts: 4172
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 15, 2015 10:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
itt said: | Quote: | | I have argued this point all along and I have been accused of creating my own definition: these people maintain that according to the commonly accepted definition, what makes a longboard is its length and the centerboard, implying that the hull shape is irrelevant. It is precisely because I don’t agree on this definition, that I can’t see the Bic 293 as a longboard.. |
Is there an official definition of a longboard? I don't think so. As a result, each of us have our own definition, but I would think that bottom/hull design is normally NOT a factor in defining a longboard.
I started windsurfing on a borrowed Windsurfer in 1984 and have progressed through lots of equipment over the last 31 years. My definition of a longboard is something that is 335 cm+ length (11 ft.), less than 75 cm wide, and with a dagger board. When it comes to bottom design, there generally is only one defining point, which is a rounded bottom, Division 2 board, and then there is everything else, which includes both gliding and planing hulls. But all are longboards.
The Bic 293 is not included in my definition of a longboard because it's too wide and too short. It's a hybrid design to incorporate/compromise the elements of both light wind slogging and higher wind planing. It does nothing exceptionally well, but does everything OK.
Obviously, there are no hard and fast rules that define the limits of length and width that define a long board, but I would guess that my suggestion is pretty close what the majority would think. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ittiandro
Joined: 22 Nov 2009
Posts: 294
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 15, 2015 12:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| techno900 wrote: |
Is there an official definition of a longboard? I don't think so. As a result, each of us have our own definition, but I would think that bottom/hull design is normally NOT a factor in defining a longboard.
The Bic 293 is not included in my definition of a longboard because it's too wide and too short. It's a hybrid design to incorporate/compromise the elements of both light wind slogging and higher wind planing. It does nothing exceptionally well, but does everything OK.
Obviously, there are no hard and fast rules that define the limits of length and width that define a long board, but I would guess that my suggestion is pretty close what the majority would think. |
Interesting! You agree with me that the Bic 293 is not a longboard, even though your reasons are different ( for youthe Bic 293, unlike for others, is still too short to be called a longboard. You are absolutely right, but there are other, to me more fundamental, reasons.
I’ll only say that definitions are not a question of words which we whimsically choose … No ! If we want to give to two objects the same name or definition, they both must have COMMON and ESSENTIAL properties underlying them. In our case, I fail to see what boards like the Bic 293 have in common with the " other" boards which I call longboards, beside the properties which make them both windsurfers and justify being defined as such. Aside from its shorter length and even if the Bic were much longer, I can't really see how it can be called a longboard!
To say so, is a bit like saying that an ostrich is a human being because they both have..two legs, one head, a brain, lungs, etc.. Stated differently, if we want to pursue the zoological analogy, both a whale and an ox belong to a common genus ( mammals) but to two different species. We cannot call a whale an ox, their similarities being limited to their common characteristics of mammals, but as species they are vastly different. In the case of our longboards, we may say that their common genus is that of windsurfers ( the mammals) but the Bic 293 and its flat-bottomed siblings, the planing boards no matter how long they are, are two different species, which does not warrant calling them by the same name of “ longboards”: their basic similarities as windsurfers having both a centerboard and a considerable length are overshadowed by their vastly greater and more essential differences: their different hulls and hydrodynamics.
Ittiandro |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
coachg
Joined: 10 Sep 2000
Posts: 3560
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 15, 2015 1:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Let's use the KISS principle here. Keep It Simple Stupid.
Long boards. Any board 3 or more meters long.
Short boards. Any board under 3 meters long.
Centerboard is not a requirement for a long board, width is not a requirement for a long board, hull shape is not a requirement for a long board. Only length is a requirement for a "long" board.
Now all you have to do is classify the type of long, or short board you have.
Is everybody happy?
Coachg |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
techno900
Joined: 28 Mar 2001
Posts: 4172
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 15, 2015 1:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Itt,
My definition is based on a historical sequence, which in the 80's included three styles of boards. Long board, short board and a transition board.
The transition board was either a big short board, or a small long board. The purpose was to "transition" from the long board to the short board, or to have a high wind long board. I had all of them in the 80's.
Bottom/hull design had nothing to do with the definitions we used in the 80's and 90's, except for the Division 2 boards.
When the hybrid boards came along, they were designed to do everything, and were not known by any of the three definitions mentioned above, so they became a fourth category.
Today, there is just about every possible design on the water, so grouping them by definition is a little more fluid, so I can see how you came up with your definition of a long board. There is no right or wrong definition.
Your fixation on hull design is understandable, and if you want to include it in defining a board category, that's fine, but I believe you are making it too complex. Anyone that's been around windsurfing for 20 or more years could walk up to a variety of board sitting on the beach and group them by the following categories.
Long board
Short board
Hybrid / Race board
Formula
These boards are grouped more by function than by hull design.
I am sure that others may see things differently than me, and my aim is NOT to change anyone's perception or understanding of how boards are categorized, but only to offer my own view of the issue.
Last edited by techno900 on Sun Aug 16, 2015 8:40 am; edited 2 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You can attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
|
|
|
Search
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Register
