Active Topics |  Search

Login or Register
All Forums > Windsurfing > Gps and Speed talk > HOW WIDE IS THE SKINNYEST SPEED BOARD THAT WORKED
Author HOW WIDE IS THE SKINNYEST SPEED BOARD THAT WORKED
Page: of 2
WA
131 Posts
Posted 18/06/2012, 7:50 pm        Report Show Profile
Well it got me thinking when i seen decrepits new custom speed board that he made himself whitch i must say looked very sweet how narrow have people gone ????
WA
6746 Posts
Posted 18/06/2012, 8:33 pm        Report Show Profile
In WA over the last year they have gotten narrow to ridiculous levels Some have been below 76cm's wide
324 Posts
Posted 18/06/2012, 8:43 pm        Report Show Profile
Well back in the day when speed sailing hit the scene I think 12" or 13" was one of the smallest I saw, it was a Jump City custom from memory. Problem is with such small boards they never see much use and are hard to get going and are too narrow in most cases to really become unstuck and fly for most. As to wether they worked, well if you consider getting it on the plane I guess they worked. At the time if you could do a mid-high 30 on it would also give it "worked" cred'. Things have changed a bit since and when you pull 34's on a 12'6" SUP, 37's on a 104L Quad and 41 on 75 wide 119L you know most boards these days work being a bit or alot wider. I'm sure a few other old salty's may enlighten us all with maybe some narrower ones they rode or seen in their time. here's us at Sandy Pt a long time ago in an easterley on one of Byron M's old boards, think it was a 15 or 16". Seconds after that pic was taken the 'A' box in it split and let go ending in a good crash, was a nice ride but never had the conditions to give it a good hammering, then speed sailing died....
VIC
1357 Posts
Posted 18/06/2012, 8:51 pm        Report Show Profile
The smallest i had was a 14'',rolled the box and it was never the same after that. I think Mal had a 12", not sure if he ever rode it. It might still reside with Daffy.
NSW
1236 Posts
Posted 18/06/2012, 10:20 pm        Report Show Profile
the way i see it is the fin and straps are much further back now, i would say you dont need to have a needle its the way the board tracks, i would also say keep the rails nice an boxy and parallel, from my experience speed boards have to much volume for the width and can be like riding a log in chop at high speed, i would also say keep a bit of width in the nose for stability, and theres no reason you cant go 240 300 from the tail, have a look at my avitar and you will get the picture all you need is a decent fin that works and you can trust at 40+
WA
802 Posts
Posted 18/06/2012, 11:55 pm        Report Show Profile
Nice work Spotty, Jump City was Ben Pridham. (please correct me if I'm wrong) He was based in lonsdale SA. He made some good boards for the time. I think the smallest speed boards we've built are 42cm. They look pretty skinny. Fast though.
NSW
1026 Posts
Posted 19/06/2012, 5:37 am        Report Show Profile
keef said...
speed boards have to much volume for the width and can be like riding a log in chop at high speed, i would also say keep a bit of width in the nose for stability, and theres no reason you cant go 240 300 from the tail, have a look at my avitar and you will get the picture all you need is a decent fin that works and you can trust at 40+
I've experienced that "riding on a log feeling" and, now that you mention it, that board you built for Leo doesn't have it. It's very comfortable. I'd put it all down to the footstraps.
NSW
1236 Posts
Posted 19/06/2012, 7:25 am        Report Show Profile
keef said...
Ian K said...
keef said...
I've experienced that "riding on a log feeling" and, now that you mention it, that board you built for Leo doesn't have it. It's very comfortable. I'd put it all down to the footstraps.
not sure about the foot straps ian but definitely the 25ml foot recess and mast track sunk at 30ml gives the board a very low aspect, or it could be the fin its 15ml forward, not that 15ml is a lot but at 40+ it has to give the board a bit more stability, im not sure of the measurements of that board but the narrowest section at the back of the mast track is about 400 not sure "edit" its also my opinion there concentration to much on the graphics trying to make the boards too pretty, with some boards the non slip is SO light its gone in a season, what you need is the grubge look just strait white ,with 1mm deck grip of divinicell and carbon fillings , "anything you can sweep up off the floor" for a board to go fast it's gotta look "angry" so when your out there yelling and screaming at the fu..er too go harder its gonna know what your on about, pretty boards just arnt the same, your to worried about all the water washing over the deck and wondering if your going to slip off when you attempt a jybe at say 35nknts
WA
1677 Posts
Posted 19/06/2012, 9:34 am        Report Show Profile
Stroppo i have owned a F2 Missile small 63L x 48wide and now have a CASP50 they are both smillish and good for WA conditons. The CA50 is way better as its 81L so you get to use it a bit more over here. I have have just picked up CA SP 40 for the 1 or 2 days a year we got 25+Knts. It's tiny so IMHO i dont think you need anything narrower that 40-44cm.
SA
South Sandwich Islands
2423 Posts
Posted 19/06/2012, 10:12 am        Report Show Profile
new Mistral 41cm
QLD
3182 Posts
Posted 19/06/2012, 10:21 am        Report Show Profile
choco said...
new Mistral 41cm
Does Chris L know you borrowed his from the carpark the other day
NSW
1236 Posts
Posted 19/06/2012, 10:25 am        Report Show Profile
noice chocko, those heal dents look real comfy
SA
South Sandwich Islands
2423 Posts
Posted 19/06/2012, 11:19 am        Report Show Profile
sausage said...
choco said...
new Mistral 41cm
Does Chris L know you borrowed his from the carpark the other day
nah not mine, got pics off the net, looks nice
NSW
1249 Posts
Posted 19/06/2012, 1:44 pm        Report Show Profile
looks like you have to put the fin in before screwing in the back footstrap. What a clever design feature.....not!
NSW
1236 Posts
Posted 19/06/2012, 2:42 pm        Report Show Profile
sick_em_rex said...
looks like you have to put the fin in before screwing in the back footstrap. What a clever design feature.....not!
rexy you need one of these with a hole
SA
536 Posts
Posted 19/06/2012, 4:14 pm        Report Show Profile
hoop said...
Nice work Spotty, Jump City was Ben Pridham. (please correct me if I'm wrong) He was based in lonsdale SA. He made some good boards for the time. I think the smallest speed boards we've built are 42cm. They look pretty skinny. Fast though.
Only seen an old jumpcity speed board last week in the bck of a mates shed, has the fin glassed in and now sure of the width but I think around 13. have to be from the middle to late 80's. will pull it out and take some photo's next week. do remember his boy ripping on it with a old 3.5 camspeed (the old ones with 8 battens and 5 cams on all sizes)
SA
12 Posts
Posted 19/06/2012, 4:54 pm        Report Show Profile
Still got my 13'' strapper
NSW
1236 Posts
Posted 19/06/2012, 5:18 pm        Report Show Profile
sick_em_rex said...
looks like you have to put the fin in before screwing in the back footstrap. What a clever design feature.....not!
rexy tryed to neutralize your red thumb but theres still one up there, im with you if your going to stick a strap over the screw hole, supply a strap with the board that you can access the screw, how dumb
SA
212 Posts
Posted 19/06/2012, 11:00 pm        Report Show Profile
Nice one Hammer ! what else you got hanging in the shed ? I Remember Ben's speed boards but also remember that (here in SA) Shane O'Callaghan had some tiny speed boards, narrower than Ben's Jump City..
WA
509 Posts
Posted 20/06/2012, 9:12 am        Report Show Profile
sick_em_rex said...
looks like you have to put the fin in before screwing in the back footstrap. What a clever design feature.....not!
Silly me, its obvious I should have specified a US box so that riders would be saved the enormous task of dealing with that whole extra fastener. And they could use all those awesome speed fins from the 80s. I've seen a few nice polycarbonate ones around. Going from 2 to 3 screws to attend really does take the shine off the world. Seriously? The alternatives are custom finbox, or custom footstraps (eg with a hole in). Neither are acceptable solutions for a production board. Having actually used this system on previous boards also, its not a biggie. If anyone sees one of those boards up for sale please let me know. Mine was taken off the beach last week in safety bay while I was sailing
QLD
2235 Posts
Posted 20/06/2012, 9:53 am        Report Show Profile
Mr Silly, lift your game Disappointed you haven't got your board back Chris, must have been a real brain surgeon to flog that one
WA
2678 Posts
Posted 20/06/2012, 10:18 am        Report Show Profile
choco said...
sausage said...
choco said...
new Mistral 41cm
Does Chris L know you borrowed his from the carpark the other day
nah not mine, got pics off the net, looks nice
Does that mean the Mistral boards are actually available at last?
NSW
1249 Posts
Posted 20/06/2012, 11:36 am        Report Show Profile
slowboat said...
sick_em_rex said...
looks like you have to put the fin in before screwing in the back footstrap. What a clever design feature.....not!
Silly me, its obvious I should have specified a US box so that riders would be saved the enormous task of dealing with that whole extra fastener. And they could use all those awesome speed fins from the 80s. I've seen a few nice polycarbonate ones around. Going from 2 to 3 screws to attend really does take the shine off the world. Seriously? The alternatives are custom finbox, or custom footstraps (eg with a hole in). Neither are acceptable solutions for a production board. Having actually used this system on previous boards also, its not a biggie. If anyone sees one of those boards up for sale please let me know. Mine was taken off the beach last week in safety bay while I was sailing
Hey Chris, can I ask then what your reasoning was behind this setup. Fanatic, JP and Starboard, arguably the 3 biggest suppliers of mass made speed boards to the market, all have double footstrap designs on even their smallest speed boards enabling easier insertion and removal of fins. It seems only Carbon Art (your old designs) and your new Mistrals use the single strap. (please forgive me if I am incorrect here but I did try to research this a bit) I know that if I am sailing I want maximum tow and so don't want the annoyance of having to undo my footstrap screws just so I can change over my fin. I know in your opinion it is a small inconvenience to have to do but can you enlighten me as to why you only set the board up with a single strap? I presume the main reason will be the shape of the back of the board dictates only 1 but it would be good to get it from the horses mouth. (and I'm not saying you are a horse ) Thanks.
WA
Austria
1248 Posts
Posted 20/06/2012, 12:52 pm        Report Show Profile
stroppo said...
how wide is the skinnest board that worked
When Antoine Albeau did a 49.09kn 500m breaking Finians record on the canal his board was 37cm wide. I think Finian's was 33cm. Finally, please describe the kit you used on 'the run'? Antoine: I was using a Starboard custom board 37cm. Robert Stroj made me the same design RS Racing 5.0 sail but in 4.8mē and the fin is a special Deboichet custom for the canal. Farrel sailed the canal at the same time, also on a 37cm wide board but this time a Patrick Diethelm F2 custom... an interesting read about it is here.. http://www.speedworldcup.com/interviews/interview-with-farrel-oshea.html
SA
South Sandwich Islands
2423 Posts
Posted 20/06/2012, 3:24 pm        Report Show Profile
sick_em_rex said...
slowboat said...
sick_em_rex said...
looks like you have to put the fin in before screwing in the back footstrap. What a clever design feature.....not!
Silly me, its obvious I should have specified a US box so that riders would be saved the enormous task of dealing with that whole extra fastener. And they could use all those awesome speed fins from the 80s. I've seen a few nice polycarbonate ones around. Going from 2 to 3 screws to attend really does take the shine off the world. Seriously? The alternatives are custom finbox, or custom footstraps (eg with a hole in). Neither are acceptable solutions for a production board. Having actually used this system on previous boards also, its not a biggie. If anyone sees one of those boards up for sale please let me know. Mine was taken off the beach last week in safety bay while I was sailing
Hey Chris, can I ask then what your reasoning was behind this setup. Fanatic, JP and Starboard, arguably the 3 biggest suppliers of mass made speed boards to the market, all have double footstrap designs on even their smallest speed boards enabling easier insertion and removal of fins. It seems only Carbon Art (your old designs) and your new Mistrals use the single strap. (please forgive me if I am incorrect here but I did try to research this a bit) I know that if I am sailing I want maximum tow and so don't want the annoyance of having to undo my footstrap screws just so I can change over my fin. I know in your opinion it is a small inconvenience to have to do but can you enlighten me as to why you only set the board up with a single strap? I presume the main reason will be the shape of the back of the board dictates only 1 but it would be good to get it from the horses mouth. (and I'm not saying you are a horse ) Thanks.
Looking at it the single strap probably keeps your heel from dragging in the water and gets your foot centered more over the fin but i could be wrong.
TAS
390 Posts
Posted 20/06/2012, 4:08 pm        Report Show Profile
It's not rocket science, on my Ca sp40 for my back screw I replaced it with a bolt and use a 1/4" drive socket wrench to change. Doesn't take any longer than a normal screw.
Sweden
9 Posts
Posted 20/06/2012, 4:21 pm        Report Show Profile
There isn't any smaller (production) speedboard on the market than the sp40. Lots of other brands have, just like CA, a 44 cm wide board with double straps at the back - however, i'm not sure if that is possible to have on the sp40 due to its narrow tail? But as Chris said it's not a problem. I actually have both the CA sp40 and the Mistral speed 41 and the trick is to open up the actual footstrap, not unscrew the strap, open up the the footstrap, then you're able to put the fin in the box afterwards just simply close the strap again. In the picture CA sp47 and the Mistral Speed 47
WA
1257 Posts
Posted 20/06/2012, 6:16 pm        Report Show Profile
I also have the ca 40 and have no complaints with the fin bolt issues,the time you take to screw in the strap is offset by the time you save not having to screw in an air plug. Using double straps on the 40 (for me at least) Is not really an option as you will find your heel dragging.In addition,in my opinion, you can get away with a smaller fin as the load (torque) is less with the foot over the fin and not against it,thus less drag.Designed for sailing downwind! Just wish i can use it more often
VIC
93 Posts
Posted 20/06/2012, 8:01 pm        Report Show Profile
Here I am worrying about converting a dual strap to a ingle rear strap . Having size 14 feet doesn't give me alot of room up the back. I would get both heel and toe drag !
WA
509 Posts
Posted 21/06/2012, 12:08 am        Report Show Profile
sick_em_rex said... Hey Chris, can I ask then what your reasoning was behind this setup. Fanatic, JP and Starboard, arguably the 3 biggest suppliers of mass made speed boards to the market, all have double footstrap designs on even their smallest speed boards enabling easier insertion and removal of fins. It seems only Carbon Art (your old designs) and your new Mistrals use the single strap. (please forgive me if I am incorrect here but I did try to research this a bit) I know that if I am sailing I want maximum tow and so don't want the annoyance of having to undo my footstrap screws just so I can change over my fin. I know in your opinion it is a small inconvenience to have to do but can you enlighten me as to why you only set the board up with a single strap? I presume the main reason will be the shape of the back of the board dictates only 1 but it would be good to get it from the horses mouth. (and I'm not saying you are a horse ) Thanks.
Yep- its not wide enough to accommodate 2 normal straps without putting your heel onto the water. Foot length isnt so much the issue- its more the distance between the front of your leg where it goes into your foot, and the heel. As for the original thread topic I used to have one of Mal's old specials which was under 13" wide, but the widepoint was way forward. The tail was so narrow there was only enough room for one strap on the front too... total weight with straps was 2.5kg. I only got it going once... I saw it in Steve Stratfold's collection before he moved sheds.
United States
294 Posts
Posted 21/06/2012, 4:39 am        Report Show Profile
The first board to break the 40 knot barrier over 500 meters was a 11" wide Mudshark shaped by Jimmy Lewis, back in November 1988. Erik Beale was the rider and always had the narrowest boards but 11" was his smallest.
 
Page: of 2
All Forums > Windsurfing > Gps and Speed talk > HOW WIDE IS THE SKINNYEST SPEED BOARD THAT WORKED
12 Next >> Last
^^^ Return to top of page ^^^