Select to expand quote

sailquik said..

AUS4 said..
Except they are not dry and original weight while you're sailing. "Voila"

They always are at the start, . And then later only IF they do leak, and they would only do so if they are damaged. They are obviously designed and built not to leak, just like your Fanatics.
So how much do your Fanatics leak?

The hollow Patriks that I have seen here in NSW arnt damaged they have a cup of water in them after a couple of races.
FYI Fanatics arnt hollow.

Select to expand quote

AUS4 said..
The hollow Patriks that I have seen here in NSW arnt damaged they have a cup of water in them after a couple of races.
FYI Fanatics arnt hollow.

If they leak they have cracks. That IS damaged. You are surely not suggesting that they are designed to have leaks!
Your Fanatics aren't hollow! Well DUUUH! . But how much water is in them? They can leak (or not leak) JUST as easily as any hollow board, but because there is no plug to drain it, you would have a hard time knowing about it, especially if it was only a small amount.

I build a hollow board back in 1988. Cedar forms , inserts and stringers and a 1/8" marine-grade plywood skin, wrapped in two layers of S-Glass. It sailed well and was very light, but riding it in chop sounded like you'd thrown a cello down the stairs. Eventually I put too big a fin in it (razor sharp rails so it pointed really well anyway) and broke the box. The only place it ever leaked was at the valve I put in to allow me to empty it out.

Haven't heard anyone mention sound with the Patrik boards so I guess it's not an issue. You could hear mine from half a mile a way...

Select to expand quote

Awalkspoiled said..
It sailed well and was very light, but riding it in chop sounded like you'd thrown a cello down the stairs.

Now I just want to hear what that sounds like...

Select to expand quote

AUS4 said..

sailquik said..

AUS4 said..
Except they are not dry and original weight while you're sailing. "Voila"

They always are at the start, . And then later only IF they do leak, and they would only do so if they are damaged. They are obviously designed and built not to leak, just like your Fanatics.
So how much do your Fanatics leak?

The hollow Patriks that I have seen here in NSW arnt damaged they have a cup of water in them after a couple of races.

Condensation ...

I am very interested in some hands on experience.How is the durability of the boards?Can they be repaired by conventional methods?Are they worth the premium over the "normal" versions of Patrik?

Thinking about ordering the 91 to replace my ultrasonic, just waiting to here back about shipping cost.I figured they can't be more fragile than a lot of the carbon boards I've had, the weight if listed correctly is very good and so far all contact with them via email has been great,

Friend of mine bought last year's 112 Slalom...or around that volume.
Compared to my old 111 Isonic, it's lighter, much stiffer, has sharper less tucked rails at rear foot, and still very noisy. Seems not forgiving for high tide hop and refraction waters.

Select to expand quote

col5555 said..

sailquik said..

cammd said..
Make a Raceboard version please Patrik

Make me a mould off your favourite board and I will have a go.

Edit later: Actually, now I think obout it I have a couple of moulds I could experiment with materials and techniques. Hmmmmm.... I think I will have to look into getting a vacuum pump.

I have often wondered if you could make half moulds, lay up each half then glue the two half's together using an overlap seam. The mast track could be on the top side and the fin box on the bottom and ties into the structure with adhesive. There is high strength two part epoxy they use on Carbon fibre car tubs.

Pretty much what we did Col back in 1989. Was a project Peter Thommen and I developed building carbon honeycomb sandwich hollow slalom boards. Each half was done with prepreg material and baked in an autoclave. The two halves were joined around a monocoque support structure taking the mastfoot and finbox loads. Pretty revolutionary for the time but expensive. We sold a few boards in Japan but the bottom shapes were changing so rapidly it wasn't cost effective to keep making new moulds. Peter and I financed it ourselves and I've still got one of the boards we built. Here's a photo dated December 4 1989. May not have been a commercial success but the lessons learnt developing composite structures has more than paid off over the years leading to my current project developing the next generation of surveillance drones utilising composite 3D additive manufacturing methods.

Select to expand quote

duzzi said..
Condensation ...

Yes. That certinly is a factor. I built hollow surf craft for years and saw it many times. I had airtight hulls with a slight pressure release when the plug was undone and they still had a tablespoon of water in them after a session in cold water. We pressureised tham and found no air leaks when submerged. We eventually narrowed it down to condensation. It should not be more than a couple of thimbles full though.

Select to expand quote

Roo said..
Pretty much what we did Col back in 1989. Was a project Peter Thommen and I developed building carbon honeycomb sandwich hollow slalom boards. Each half was done with prepreg material and baked in an autoclave. The two halves were joined around a monocoque support structure taking the mastfoot and finbox loads. Pretty revolutionary for the time but expensive. We sold a few boards in Japan but the bottom shapes were changing so rapidly it wasn't cost effective to keep making new moulds. Peter and I financed it ourselves and I've still got one of the boards we built. Here's a photo dated December 4 1989. May not have been a commercial success but the lessons learnt developing composite structures has more than paid off over the years leading to my current project developing the next generation of surveillance drones utilising composite 3D additive manufacturing methods.

Nice! Those rib structures look like a work of art. I am guessing they were fiddly and time consuming to build? And they would have had to be very accurate.

I'm guessing it would be a lot easier these days to make a mould due to CNC routers/ Renishaw probes.
You could build up a rough mould from stepped layers of MDF then use a CNC router to cut the finished profile.
Nomex honeycomb seems reasonably priced ex USA.

Amazing you old builders are still around...a major positive for us.
Gary Young..Woodwinds..were built down the block from our shop in Sausalito Ca.
9'2"x23"x app108 liters weighed in around 13.75 lbs., making them just heavier than my 9' Seatrend protos but much lighter than Mistral Screamers..18.5lbs. and Ltd..16.5 lbs.
Those Woodwinds did well, but not against harness hooks and jumps.

Select to expand quote

Roo said..

col5555 said..

sailquik said..

cammd said..
Make a Raceboard version please Patrik

Make me a mould off your favourite board and I will have a go.

Edit later: Actually, now I think obout it I have a couple of moulds I could experiment with materials and techniques. Hmmmmm.... I think I will have to look into getting a vacuum pump.

I have often wondered if you could make half moulds, lay up each half then glue the two half's together using an overlap seam. The mast track could be on the top side and the fin box on the bottom and ties into the structure with adhesive. There is high strength two part epoxy they use on Carbon fibre car tubs.

Pretty much what we did Col back in 1989. Was a project Peter Thommen and I developed building carbon honeycomb sandwich hollow slalom boards. Each half was done with prepreg material and baked in an autoclave. The two halves were joined around a monocoque support structure taking the mastfoot and finbox loads. Pretty revolutionary for the time but expensive. We sold a few boards in Japan but the bottom shapes were changing so rapidly it wasn't cost effective to keep making new moulds. Peter and I financed it ourselves and I've still got one of the boards we built. Here's a photo dated December 4 1989. May not have been a commercial success but the lessons learnt developing composite structures has more than paid off over the years leading to my current project developing the next generation of surveillance drones utilising composite 3D additive manufacturing methods.

Nice work Roo. Agree the way the market operates has made it very difficult to pursue hollow construction. Certainly for class boards the numbers could stack up but like most everything with this sport we love, mainly driven by passion and good to see the Patrick product giving it a real go.
I don't foil but the advent of foiling is a big deal for board construction methodology. The board is now acting more like a modern racing vessel than ever before. Loads are more continuous-direct through appendages plus once in flight, the board is more a conduit for power transfer, like a boom or mast, without the need to be in a state of continual shock-absorbing when the board is in contact with the sea state.

With the hollow short boards I've built in the past I came to the conclusion end result was cool B U T... the noise! And anyone who says a board can't be too stiff has never sailed an overbuilt hollow full carbon board at full speed in chop. 30mns would cause ya teeth to fall out.

Yup, too stiff is only rideable in flat water for a short session.
At Wise Surfboards, we were asked a lot by Aquajet and later, Wave Hollow.
Got many prototypes to ride, suitable only in glass or slight offshore conditions.

Select to expand quote

LeeD said..
Yup, too stiff is only rideable in flat water for a short session.

I'd mistakenly put the shorter and shorter sessions down to ageing knees and ankles. But back in the eighties we sailed roto-moulded poly bomboras. Have boards just progressively got stiffer and stiffer since then?

Who's sailed an antique bombora recently? No that wouldn't be a fair comparison, it'd need to be a freshly minted bombora because plastics get stiffer and brittle with age. We'll never know for sure what it used to be like.

Have any RIB windsurfers been tried? Might combine the perfect combination of repairability, drainability and flexibility.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rigid_inflatable_boat

"RIBs can also generally cope better with rougher seas, although this may be partially due to an increased level of confidence in knowing that a RIB is hard to sink, and better absorption of heavy loads by the flexible tubes, which therefore make heavy seas less unpleasant.[10]"

^ One of these?

Select to expand quote

GasHazard said..
^ One of these?

That's an IB maybe a bit too flexible for those less than 70 yo. The R in RIB would allow the flex to be controlled but then it wouldn't fold up.

Select to expand quote

Ian K said..
Have any RIB windsurfers been tried? Might combine the perfect combination of repairability, drainability and flexibility.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rigid_inflatable_boat

"RIBs can also generally cope better with rougher seas, although this may be partially due to an increased level of confidence in knowing that a RIB is hard to sink, and better absorption of heavy loads by the flexible tubes, which therefore make heavy seas less unpleasant.[10]"

Not so sure about RIB's. I've been in a few Ab' boats that ride like a dream in stupid rough at stupid speeds. Offshore powerboat racers and Ab' divers dont use RIB's. They can have the same or better ride in a conventional hull. I think the only advantages of the RIB are great stability at rest and floatation if they capsize. That makes them great for rescue work.

It's the deep Vee that makes for the smooth ride, but it requires a lot more power to drive. Deep Vee in windsurfing boards has been tried and rejected as not being as fast.

My best riding, least punishing, boards in rough short lake chop have been old school polyurethane/Polyester boards. I had quite a few different Polyethelene Rotomoulded short boards, butit's so long ago, I cant remember much of a comparison, except that they were pretty heavy and not as fast. In epoxy boards, the wood construction (Staboard etc) beats carbon by far for dampening the ride IMHO. And IMHO, control is speed!

I have been lucky enough to ride a few of the hollow Patriks for extended periods and you find that they are actually extremely comfortable. Part of the secret are sections that are designed to flex. Like under the hull in the front section giving a soft ride in chop. Then combined with super stiff power transfer from the tail. There is a lot more to them than just thinking of them as a solid unit. The possibility of designing in multiple flex / twist characteristics is a huge bonus to in the construction method.

The other bonus is the lighter weight. Initially thought it would difficult in rough conditions with the board being too light and flighty. But you soon realise if the nose of the board does get knocked off line by chop, due to the reduced swing weight, it comes back in line super quickly. I still remember one of my first sails on the 115 slalom, bearing away in the middle of the river over messed up chop expecting the worse, but soon found myself laughing out loud how controlled it was.

I now have a Airinside foil boarding arriving soon

Select to expand quote

DarrylG said..
I now have a Airinside foil boarding arriving soon

Have you been dropped from the FTY team