from windsurfing 44

Stupid. It will weigh a ton.

Select to expand quote

Wood Duck said...

Stupid. It will weigh a ton.

I will wager it does not even come close to a ton.

I'm fairly sure Patrik has a set of scales and knows what he is doing.

Is the idea to get more leverage or to give a suspension affect to soften the ride. The blocks support the extension look a bit like high density foam.

You would they would catch on chop and cause drag.

good to see someone pushing the envelope a bit.

No air pipes either. Wonder what Steve and A2 were thinking...

Select to expand quote

TimB said...

I'm fairly sure Patrik has a set of scales and knows what he is doing.

Is the idea to get more leverage or to give a suspension affect to soften the ride. The blocks support the extension look a bit like high density foam.

You would they would catch on chop and cause drag.

good to see someone pushing the envelope a bit.

Looks like it, getting more leverage. Sort of like wings on skiffs.

quadrupel chiken straps aswel

It looks like the outrigger would make the board a litte wider. Isn't the regulation width a max of 100cm?

Now they've discovered how to decouple the footstrap positions from the 1 foot off width we might find the footstraps stay there, at 100cm, and the board gets narrower?

The foot pad mounts look rather bulky.
If they're not there for shock absorbtion i would have thought CF blade/struts would have been more aerodynamic for mounting the pads.
Pretty awesome though and good to see progressive thinking.

Interesting to see some different stuff tried.

This is my favourite - the heel recesses under the chicken strap



The flat board surface under the tradional chicken (both older single and newer double) force you to stand more upright, making it harder to use your weight to drive off the fin.

It will be interesting to see wether this works - not sure why the straps are angled

interesting. There is still "pipes" but they are a lot smaller. They are still persisting with the adjustable plates in the cut outs also.

All the straps + pipes + plates has to weigh a bit more?

Does Greenleader carry his camera everywhere?

One wonders if Patrick was caught out by *board offering 2 different boards, one of which has a super wide tail to help get leverage going upwind and as there is a cut off date and 2 year freeze on designs in the Formula class came up with the cantilevered pad as a compromise. Might need a bit more streamlineing to stop it catching on gybes tho' it should be pretty parellel to the flow.

Select to expand quote

yoyo said...

One wonders if Patrick was caught out by *board offering 2 different boards, one of which has a super wide tail to help get leverage going upwind and as there is a cut off date and 2 year freeze on designs in the Formula class came up with the cantilevered pad as a compromise. Might need a bit more streamlineing to stop it catching on gybes tho' it should be pretty parellel to the flow.

Not sure if Patrik would be caught out by 2 boards... he was the guy who actually did it first! When F2 released the FXVI and FXZ in the same year.

I can only assume the extension pads are for more leverage ... there's no reason you would ever want shock absorption in your rail pressure; you would just unload the fin all the time (that's what our knee joints are for). I haven't seen the weights of any produced PD boards, but Patrik was pretty suprised when he heard what the Starboards are going to weigh this year (ie, lighter than the HWR's). Also I think the idea isn't to run 4 chicken straps at once; it's just to show that you have 2 options on where to put them (forwards or neutral).

On the Starboard, the chicken straps are angled so that they fit the curve of the sail when you are sheeting in. So when you oversheet in a lull, the sail doesn't actually hit your strap like it does with straight straps. You actually stick your foot in relatively straight, despite the angle the straps look.

and who says windsurfing's for old men?

there's half a dozen young-ish blokes getting excited about FORMULA of all things

Select to expand quote

choco said...

Isn't that Nick Auston on the far right hand side?

too tall

Select to expand quote

Haircut said...

and who says windsurfing's for old men?

there's half a dozen young-ish blokes getting excited about FORMULA of all things

I'll bet there was no wind that day, otherwise they'd've been somewhere else!

^^^See the flag in the backgrounds not showing too much action

There's a bit more of a write-up about the PD II here -

bet-bonus-au.com

It does have air-pipes!

Wow!
Plenty of adjustability there.
I can smell "Paralysis by Analysis" from here.

Select to expand quote

SeanAUS120 said...

There's a bit more of a write-up about the PD II here -

bet-bonus-au.com

It does have air-pipes!

re pipes: So it does, I thought they were design details on the pads.

So with these kinds of adjustable features built into the hull, would it be within the rules if, say the next round of updates for 2014, they were adjustable on the fly?

My 162 is looking so old-school now

From the Formula windsurfing site

"As a result of a request to ISAF for a "class rule interpretation" - we have been advised that the use of heel plates may not comply with our class rules.

Heel plates are a device that when applied to positions for footstraps (using same inserts) enable the rider to position themselves above the normal hull deck and even further outside (off board) the normal sailing position. Only boards that come supplied with heel plates - ie as a standard option, and part of the hull design, as registered with ISAF - will be deemed class legal.

The use of custom heel plates is rare, and therefore the implications of this ruling are minor; but if you are in any doubt concerning this rule clarification"

ie so long as its part of the homologation process its ok - so adjustable on the fly would be ok on a homolgated board - but not a custom retro fit

Select to expand quote

Ben 555 said...

From the Formula windsurfing site

"As a result of a request to ISAF for a "class rule interpretation" - we have been advised that the use of heel plates may not comply with our class rules.

Heel plates are a device that when applied to positions for footstraps (using same inserts) enable the rider to position themselves above the normal hull deck and even further outside (off board) the normal sailing position. Only boards that come supplied with heel plates - ie as a standard option, and part of the hull design, as registered with ISAF - will be deemed class legal.

The use of custom heel plates is rare, and therefore the implications of this ruling are minor; but if you are in any doubt concerning this rule clarification"

ie so long as its part of the homologation process its ok - so adjustable on the fly would be ok on a homolgated board - but not a custom retro fit

So what we get out of that is... Patrik's heel pads are LEGAL, and the other brands who wanted to add some extras like this after the board registration closed and they'd seen Patrik's idea, are NOT LEGAL.

Im no expert, but this makes very little sense. I can't see how this is legal and if it is I don't see why it cant be retro fitted? It seems like they already have a ruling then I guess it is a foregone conclusion?
Fyi, Steve Allen modified his old fanatic at the euroeans one year with similar foot plates and they were ruled legal because they fell inside the current boards sheer line I.e didn't extend the feet farther away from the board, but they did raise his heals. The PD seems to do this now?

Sean - are you on the FW technical committee? can you give us a bit more on why this is acceptable?

I can see the reasons for only allowing homologated gear - even playing field etc - plus with a two year product cycle and limited board brands it makes for less obselescence and hopefully a bigger marketplace (thats the theory)

However it sits slightly at odds with the non one design nature of the racing - ie the discipline exists to push new ideas, however you may only bring this idea to the market for the next 2 yr product cycle

I guess to try and stop the gear war, a mixture of regulation (boards) and free expression (sails, fins) and limits on gear numbers for an individual competitor is necessary.

Anyway Brett if you feel that you need these heel pads on the new starboard I suggest that you employ Uncle Bruces' bush lawyering skills to argue your case.
His usual clients pay him in red wine from Central coast liquor shops (anti freeze mixed with red food colouring) so a half decent bottle should suffice as total payment.

Nice one with the wings - makes one board do it all! SB and JP have 2 boards - what to choose before registration? What about Gaastra? Anyone seen it? Pics?

km

Select to expand quote

Ben 555 said...

Sean - are you on the FW technical committee? can you give us a bit more on why this is acceptable?

I can see the reasons for only allowing homologated gear - even playing field etc - plus with a two year product cycle and limited board brands it makes for less obselescence and hopefully a bigger marketplace (thats the theory)

However it sits slightly at odds with the non one design nature of the racing - ie the discipline exists to push new ideas, however you may only bring this idea to the market for the next 2 yr product cycle

I guess to try and stop the gear war, a mixture of regulation (boards) and free expression (sails, fins) and limits on gear numbers for an individual competitor is necessary.

This wasn't something that was discussed with the FW committee actually; a request for rule interpretation was sent to ISAF and that's what they came back with....

So basically it is saying that any 'custom' heel plates/extensions etc are NOT legal, but if they are 'production' ones, they are fine to use. Patrik discussed this with ISAF/IFWC prior to registering the board (and kept it VERY quiet) and got the ok to put this in to production before the close-off date for registration of the boards (at end of September). Basically there's a bit of cat & mouse games that go on before the registration dates end; everyone is trying to keep secrets from each other as it's VERY easy to just copy a design of another brand a week before the dates close ... but at the same time brands need to market their boards around this time to get the importers to order them before the European winter sets in ...

To me this rule interpretation seems a bit arbitrary, but I guess Patrik did the right thing by clarifying this before he put it in to production ... guess we'll find out soon whether it's a real advantage or not!

Select to expand quote

Ben 555 said...

I can see the reasons for only allowing homologated gear - even playing field etc - plus with a two year product cycle and limited board brands it makes for less obselescence and hopefully a bigger marketplace (thats the theory)

Actually, not sure if everyone knows this but having 2 yr registration periods for boards almost cut the FW board market in HALF. Brands were selling tons of boards before this and now most of the market is only buying a board every 2 years which means there are generally only 2nd hand boards on the market every 2 years ... This caused a lot of brands to cut their teamrider budgets ...

That being said it does take the pressure off the development cycle and I think it's led to better ideas being created in board design (this current 2 year cycle has some pretty radical board designs as we've seen!) and it's nicer for the dealers to not have boards date so quickly ...

At every AGM we've had since introducing it, 2 of the major board brands have wanted to change back to 1-year cycles ...............