Select to expand quote

Gestalt said...

mkseven said...

KenHo said...

I read a bit more, about the work with Neil Pryde. It does not date it.
At the sail presentation day,Neil talked a lot about the new lamination process they have introduced this year to enable them to add graphic stuff within the structure of the sail, rather than added to the outside.
I'm not sure if that was done in conjunction with meyerhoffer.

Not sure what you meant- but dating the effect of his work wasnt hard. Cleaner lines of sails, metalised/coloured films, integrating them into the design of the sail.

From quick search-
Neil Pryde’s 2004 Sail Collection presents an evolution of the successful Neil Pryde “Frame Concept”. From its central themes of Pure Performance and Elegant Engineering, the Neil Pryde Frame Concept embodies a design process where from the very beginning the function of the sail is integrated with its look, materials and construction techniques. That is to say, the Frame Concept focuses on using the correct materials in the best and most appropriate places. Use of these different materials then forms the sail’s look. For 2004 the focus has been on Refining the lines and shapes of the Frame and improving the quality of materials and components used.

As he said all sails before that were designed by designing the sail, then adding on colours and stuff afterwards. Definitely it continues until today but I think pryde now have gone a bit too far down the pure graphics route and why not when printing is so cheap, colourful and readily accepted. Personally I think the designs of that period looked really good- more conservative and aesthetically pleasing, more... mature.

I dunno dave, I think his designs did speak for themselves and I understand more of what he wrote than anyone loosely involved with that sort of thing has posted here

simmer i believe may have coined the phrase "framework"

again, different philosophy, simmer used it in terms purely about function and not form.

I'm not sure how the art guy gets paid, but Dan is driving the brand from a design point of view and gaastra is using their distributors and marketing.

They have a good facebook page for updates and the website was just updated.

Dan is also doing Raptor making Moth sails and doing very well in the USA. I think we will see a lot of good stuff from him, hes into everything, Kites, Melges, Moths, ocean racing and windsurfing.

I have a lot of respect for the guy and I hear he's just about to spend 8 weeks in china in the new Gaastra factory away from his young family.

From where I see it he's doing a top job with less resources than a lot of the other companies.

The red text is mine.

You're right, he is quite an interesting character, with lots of interesting ideas

Select to expand quote

Gestalt said...

yes he is making a big deal about the design process. it's the design process that delivers the outcome. the philosophy is just the set of rules followed when questions are asked about the process. do the decissions made suit the philosophy? does the philosophy suit the brief etc etc.....

hmmmm... That stuff strikes me as ho hum but Mark is clearly impressed. I guess he hasn't heard it before. So perhaps it is meaningful to most.

Select to expand quote

from an end result point of view to me it does appear that the result with the NP sails is different and has changed the "rules".

Well its fashion. They have tried to be different and have spent up on the integrated designer approach. It has no doubt broadened their compass. I expect they'll continue to steam along with in house designers.

Select to expand quote

his wiki reader is merely a reflection of open source wiki. this is what wiki says, "In contrast, open purpose wikis accept content without firm rules as to how the content should be organized." so he designed a device without firm rules to house the content. i guess he defined the rules as being those created by the establishment and then broke them. that's all he is saying.

he he he I can see Ric Mayall having fun with this.
"Goodness look. Its a Wiki Reader and its all It’s all crooked, skewed, asymmetrical. I say, do you suppose he's trying to convey to us that Its from an open source not a perfectly closed system from a large corporation. Instead one that is open for interpretation by the user. And the hand is made to hold anything—branches, rocks, etc. Why make a perfect rubber grip every time? Ergonomics can be such a modern, clichéd contrivance." he he. I can hear it coming out of his mouth. Its pure comedy.

Select to expand quote

i agree dave, there are things you can't express and things that should be left unsaid. space is important and so is the experience or sensation and both of those things don't rely on words. but why not talk about design, it's a good way of exploring outcomes.

Why not indeed. I agree. Design, like structural mechanics, is one of those things that everyone should know something about and feel comfortable with.

Select to expand quote

"the word "philosophy" used in the context of design explication is utter wankery. Its endemic"

yep it's endemic, but if someone sets out to explain the rules they used they are called wankers and if they just associate a particular philosophy with their design so the rules are unstated they are also called a wanker. seems like a lose lose situation.

I don't have a problem with explaining the rules. Just don't call it "philosophy". I know strictly speaking it is correct usage to apply it to a system of principles, but to Joe Public "philosophy" is about elevated and complex systems of principles not the pedestrian and arbitrary rules of a design approach. I suggest "rules, or system of principles, or logical benchmarks" and the like are more suitable, being low key, straight forward and conversational. "Philosophy' is pompous. Its like using "fenestration" instead of "windows".

Incidentally, when I said before:
"Its as if designers feel they have to talk themselves up. The sad truth is they are probably right."
I did not mean to traduce designers, far from it. I have enormous respect for good designers. The sad thing is that most people don't get it. Which brings us back to (and validates) your point about talking about design. So go right ahead. I'm listening.

Select to expand quote

NotWal said...

Gestalt said...

yes he is making a big deal about the design process. it's the design process that delivers the outcome. the philosophy is just the set of rules followed when questions are asked about the process. do the decissions made suit the philosophy? does the philosophy suit the brief etc etc.....

hmmmm... That stuff strikes me as ho hum but Mark is clearly impressed. I guess he hasn't heard it before. So perhaps it is meaningful to most.

from an end result point of view to me it does appear that the result with the NP sails is different and has changed the "rules".

Well its fashion. They have tried to be different and have spent up on the integrated designer approach. It has no doubt broadened their compass. I expect they'll continue to steam along with in house designers.

his wiki reader is merely a reflection of open source wiki. this is what wiki says, "In contrast, open purpose wikis accept content without firm rules as to how the content should be organized." so he designed a device without firm rules to house the content. i guess he defined the rules as being those created by the establishment and then broke them. that's all he is saying.

he he he I can see Ric Mayall having fun with this.
"Goodness look. Its a Wiki Reader and its all It’s all crooked, skewed, asymmetrical. I say, do you suppose he's trying to convey to us that Its from an open source not a perfectly closed system from a large corporation. Instead one that is open for interpretation by the user. And the hand is made to hold anything—branches, rocks, etc. Why make a perfect rubber grip every time? Ergonomics can be such a modern, clichéd contrivance." he he. I can hear it coming out of his mouth. Its pure comedy.

i agree dave, there are things you can't express and things that should be left unsaid. space is important and so is the experience or sensation and both of those things don't rely on words. but why not talk about design, it's a good way of exploring outcomes.

Why not indeed. I agree. Design, like structural mechanics, is one of those things that everyone should know something about and feel comfortable with.

"the word "philosophy" used in the context of design explication is utter wankery. Its endemic"

yep it's endemic, but if someone sets out to explain the rules they used they are called wankers and if they just associate a particular philosophy with their design so the rules are unstated they are also called a wanker. seems like a lose lose situation.

I don't have a problem with explaining the rules. Just don't call it "philosophy". I know strictly speaking it is correct usage to apply it to a system of principles, but to Joe Public "philosophy" is about elevated and complex systems of principles not the pedestrian and arbitrary rules of a design approach. I suggest "rules, or system of principles, or logical benchmarks" and the like are more suitable, being low key, straight forward and conversational. "Philosophy' is pompous. Its like using "fenestration" instead of "windows".

Incidentally, when I said before:
"Its as if designers feel they have to talk themselves up. The sad truth is they are probably right."
I did not mean to traduce designers, far from it. I have enormous respect for good designers. The sad thing is that most people don't get it. Which brings us back to (and validates) your point about talking about design. So go right ahead. I'm listening.

I have to disagree.
To say that philosophy is about "elevated and complex" things is elitist and pompous.
I'm Joe Public, and I have a lot of philosophical ideas and principle that guide and inform my life and I'm hardly alone in that.
Pretty much every company that has a stand-out product or image has a visible or identifiable design philosophy that drives them. Whether that is deep or shallow is irrelevant.
Ducati makes everything red and loud, puts wood in your pants. So does Ferrari. Toyota makes stuff super-reliable, but rather dull. You put your faith in them, but the wood stays home.
Billabong and Guess cover everything in their own logo, all the time, which I find irritating and shallow, but it works for them. Oddly, Billabong makes great products which sell themselves despite the constant barrage of the Billabong logo in it's many forms. Guess makes generic crap which sells anyway because they own an image which they don't let go of.
Meyerhoffer clearly likes to design stuff outside the box.
Whether that stuff is any good is another matter, and it's probably important that some of it is total crap, because if it was not, it would mean that he was not really trying very hard.
Progress depends on people breaking the rules.

Select to expand quote

nebbian said...




The red text is mine.

You're right, he is quite an interesting character, with lots of interesting ideas

maybe you should write to him nebs and point out how little he understands about design.

hey dave, i understand you are not traducing designers. (geez i had to look that word up)


hey ken,

"it's probably important that some of it is total crap, because if it was not, it would mean that he was not really trying very hard"

bingo!

i gotta say though, i don't mind branding things with their name all over them. especially if it's really over the top or forms something more complex like dot art does. look at RRD. they completely rebelled from the boring graphics most board makers were using. RRD have really done it for me. bold and stylish all in one go. i'd love to spend a day with roberto.


Hi Gybesports,

it's interesting the 6 degrees of seperation in windsurfing. Dan even sounds like he's walking a similar path as amac at KA. both put function first, both design moth sails, both spend a lot of time in HK...... it would be good if the joe average sailors got to talk with these guys. like what the guys found in hawaii talking with the NP designers it puts a completely new spin on the sport when you get to have a one on one with the designers. see the passion in their eyes. i thought it interesting when myerhoffer referenced the automobile industry. KA grahpics obvious connection there also.


anyways, i'm excited with the direction of the sport.

Perhaps I'm turning into an old-fashioned curmudgeon, who knows nothing about web design (funny, you'd think I'd have picked something up in the ten years I've been exposed to it).

For me, good design is unobtrusive. It's like a well designed bridge. You drive straight over the top without ever realising what you've done. You might glance out at the water to see if it's whitecapping but that's about it. It's only when you get underneath and have a look at the trusses that you realise that a heck of a lot of thought has gone into making it so seamless.

The same goes for the Perth public transport system. Totally unobtrusive -- you have one card that gets you onto trains, buses and ferries. You don't even need to swipe it, just put your wallet on the reading pad and BEEP the gates open. Simple, effective, but I guarantee that a metric shipload of thought went into the design.

Same goes for icons. A well designed icon doesn't scream "LOOK AT ME", it shows graphically what the icon represents, in a common manner that is so totally obvious to the user that the user simply doesn't notice the icon at all. I've been doing a lot of usability testing lately with my web-work, and have found that icon colour, placement, and behaviour makes a huge difference to how quickly people can use a site. I've found improvements of up to 2000% (0.5 seconds vs 10 seconds) in the speed at which a new user accomplishes a task, simply by changing the icon location and colour.
The new layout of my system gets out of the user's way. It lets them do what they want, in such a seamless fashion that they don't even notice the design. They concentrate on their own work, rather than being hit in the face with mine.

Trumpeting loudly about all the subtlety of your own designs seems a bit juvenile to me. But then again I just did it in the paragraphs above

I guess I just don't know enough about design to appreciate his work.

I think there's a difference between being a good designer and trying to look like one.

You may have blown your own trumpet Nebbs but Ric Mayall couldn't use a word of it.
You'll have to go to posing school I'm afraid.

Select to expand quote

KenHo said...
......

I have to disagree.
To say that philosophy is about "elevated and complex" things is elitist and pompous.
I'm Joe Public, and I have a lot of philosophical ideas and principle that guide and inform my life and I'm hardly alone in that.
Pretty much every company that has a stand-out product or image has a visible or identifiable design philosophy that drives them. Whether that is deep or shallow is irrelevant.
Ducati makes everything red and loud, puts wood in your pants. So does Ferrari. Toyota makes stuff super-reliable, but rather dull. You put your faith in them, but the wood stays home.
Billabong and Guess cover everything in their own logo, all the time, which I find irritating and shallow, but it works for them. Oddly, Billabong makes great products which sell themselves despite the constant barrage of the Billabong logo in it's many forms. Guess makes generic crap which sells anyway because they own an image which they don't let go of.

Wikipedia says:

Philosophy is the study of general and fundamental problems concerning matters such as existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language.[1][2] It is distinguished from other ways of addressing fundamental questions (such as mysticism, myth, or the arts) by its critical, generally systematic approach and its reliance on rational argument.[3] The word "philosophy" comes from the Greek #966;#953;#955;#959;#963;#959;#966;#943;#945; (philosophia), which literally means "love of wisdom".[4][5][6]

I maintain that that is the common meaning of the word. To conflate that with the drivel you're talking about, although strictly speaking semantically valid, is a travesty.

Select to expand quote

Meyerhoffer clearly likes to design stuff outside the box.
Whether that stuff is any good is another matter, and it's probably important that some of it is total crap, because if it was not, it would mean that he was not really trying very hard.
Progress depends on people breaking the rules.

Progress happens by revolution occasionally but mostly by evolution. It has little to do with breaking rules. Thinking outside the box is an attitude you can bring to any problem including the problem of "How can I be famous".

See, just cos wiki says it does not make it true.
Further, I would argue that we are presently having a robust philosophical discussion, yet we are not solving the mysteries of life.
I would contend that the famous philosophers did not either. They just drank a lot of booze while arguing about stuff and a lot of the argument was facetious. Have you never heard of the Sophists ?
We are no closer to solving those mysteries now than ever, at a philosophical level. I feel we have actually come a long way at a scientific level.

Select to expand quote

NotWal said...

KenHo said...
......

I have to disagree.
To say that philosophy is about "elevated and complex" things is elitist and pompous.
I'm Joe Public, and I have a lot of philosophical ideas and principle that guide and inform my life and I'm hardly alone in that.
Pretty much every company that has a stand-out product or image has a visible or identifiable design philosophy that drives them. Whether that is deep or shallow is irrelevant.
Ducati makes everything red and loud, puts wood in your pants. So does Ferrari. Toyota makes stuff super-reliable, but rather dull. You put your faith in them, but the wood stays home.
Billabong and Guess cover everything in their own logo, all the time, which I find irritating and shallow, but it works for them. Oddly, Billabong makes great products which sell themselves despite the constant barrage of the Billabong logo in it's many forms. Guess makes generic crap which sells anyway because they own an image which they don't let go of.

Wikipedia says:

Philosophy is the study of general and fundamental problems concerning matters such as existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language.[1][2] It is distinguished from other ways of addressing fundamental questions (such as mysticism, myth, or the arts) by its critical, generally systematic approach and its reliance on rational argument.[3] The word "philosophy" comes from the Greek #966;#953;#955;#959;#963;#959;#966;#943;#945; (philosophia), which literally means "love of wisdom".[4][5][6]

I maintain that that is the common meaning of the word. To conflate that with the drivel you're talking about, although strictly speaking semantically valid, is a travesty.

Meyerhoffer clearly likes to design stuff outside the box.
Whether that stuff is any good is another matter, and it's probably important that some of it is total crap, because if it was not, it would mean that he was not really trying very hard.
Progress depends on people breaking the rules.

Progress happens by revolution occasionally but mostly by evolution. It has little to do with breaking rules. Thinking outside the box is an attitude you can bring to any problem including the problem of "How can I be famous".

See, I agree with much of what you say here, but by your own admission you can't follow your own principles.
I don't think there is anything wrong with marketing yourself in the modern world, cos really, economic survival depends on it. I also have no problem with you stating an objective measure of improvement. I feel no surprise that good web page layout improves speed. I've had a longstanding gripe with web-designers that they focus on "coolness" at the expense of function. I've left plenty of slow crap ones before they finished loading, and I'm glad that Jobby left flash off the iPad. Anything that contributes to the agonising death of that crap is only a good thing.
I dispute that good design is always unobtrusive. It depends on the goal.
The Box of Tissues is hardly unobtrusive, and despite the largely forgotten hue and cry over what a waste of money it was originally, it is Australia's most beloved design.
Ditto the bridge next to it.
I've been over the Gateway Bridge a bunch of times, and I notice it every time. The rise and fall, as well as the view is unmistakable. Now maybe you could argue that it should be flat, so I don't notice a rise and fall, but then the big boats would not fit under it.
Smaller elements of an overall larger design may well be unobtrusive, which is why you have to sometimes point them out to people so they "get it", or get that you are worth something.

Select to expand quote

nebbian said...

Perhaps I'm turning into an old-fashioned curmudgeon, who knows nothing about web design (funny, you'd think I'd have picked something up in the ten years I've been exposed to it).

For me, good design is unobtrusive. It's like a well designed bridge. You drive straight over the top without ever realising what you've done. You might glance out at the water to see if it's whitecapping but that's about it. It's only when you get underneath and have a look at the trusses that you realise that a heck of a lot of thought has gone into making it so seamless.

The same goes for the Perth public transport system. Totally unobtrusive -- you have one card that gets you onto trains, buses and ferries. You don't even need to swipe it, just put your wallet on the reading pad and BEEP the gates open. Simple, effective, but I guarantee that a metric shipload of thought went into the design.

Same goes for icons. A well designed icon doesn't scream "LOOK AT ME", it shows graphically what the icon represents, in a common manner that is so totally obvious to the user that the user simply doesn't notice the icon at all. I've been doing a lot of usability testing lately with my web-work, and have found that icon colour, placement, and behaviour makes a huge difference to how quickly people can use a site. I've found improvements of up to 2000% (0.5 seconds vs 10 seconds) in the speed at which a new user accomplishes a task, simply by changing the icon location and colour.
The new layout of my system gets out of the user's way. It lets them do what they want, in such a seamless fashion that they don't even notice the design. They concentrate on their own work, rather than being hit in the face with mine.

Trumpeting loudly about all the subtlety of your own designs seems a bit juvenile to me. But then again I just did it in the paragraphs above

I guess I just don't know enough about design to appreciate his work.

As soon as debate starts raging about web design, philosophy, the definition of philosophy, and references to the apple/adobe flash debate

... in a windsurfing forum

It's time to say boobs (.)(.)

Would you call this Design,Philosophy or smart marketing? she's selling lemonade by the way

Select to expand quote

choco said...

Would you call this Design,Philosophy or smart marketing? she's selling lemonade by the way

Lets see, a bit of design, a bit of smart marketing and a heap of moxie.

Talking about it appears to be philosophy

Select to expand quote

KenHo said...

See, just cos wiki says it does not make it true.
Further, I would argue that we are presently having a robust philosophical discussion, yet we are not solving the mysteries of life.
I would contend that the famous philosophers did not either. They just drank a lot of booze while arguing about stuff and a lot of the argument was facetious. Have you never heard of the Sophists ?
We are no closer to solving those mysteries now than ever, at a philosophical level. I feel we have actually come a long way at a scientific level.

Ok, who to trust, Wiki or Ken? Ken or Wiki?....

You may be correct but to call it philosophy is either a joke or a posture of some sort. Joe Public (other than your good self) wouldn't call it that.

dave, it's design philosophy, not philosophy, anyways.....

i've tried to avoid the debate that's moved it away from windsurfing but unfortunately have been dragged back in.

so here is my final take.

I think experienced designers stop short of criticising other peoples work.

they know it's a slippery slope.

they also know they are not informed of all the facts, ie the brief!
and that at some point someone is going to ask, so where's your work?

they typically try to look forward and celebrate the work that inspires

they also know it's a never ending journey and mistakes need to be made and there are always opportunities.

and at the end of the day they try not to listen too much to critisism and hold onto their beliefs and their design philosophies.

or in chocos case a box and a pair of limoncello boobies.

Select to expand quote

Gestalt said...

dave, it's design philosophy, not philosophy, anyways.....

i've tried to avoid the debate that's moved it away from windsurfing but unfortunately have been dragged back in.

so here is my final take.

I think experienced designers stop short of criticising other peoples work.

That's just politics. You know as well as I do everyone has an opinion :)

Select to expand quote

they also know they are not informed of all the facts, ie the brief!
and that at some point someone is going to ask, so where's your work?

they typically try to look forward and celebrate the work that inspires

they also know it's a never ending journey and mistakes need to be made and there are always opportunities.

and at the end of the day they try not to listen too much to criticism and hold onto their beliefs and their design philosophies.

or in chocos case a box and a pair of limoncello boobies.

Ok, forgetting the semantics I thought you wanted to talk about design.
Criticism is integral to design. In the left brained arts you can tell when you are wrong. It's obvious. Two plus two doesn't make 5. In the right brained arts the only way to tell if you are right or wrong is through critical acclaim/opprobrium, your own or others. I guess sales gives some indication.

Did you not start by saying Meyerhoffer is a genius? That is criticism and it invites the criticism of others.

You don't need to be fully informed to be critical. You don't need to be a good designer to be critical of design. That's a cop out just as the specious notion that you can't criticise if you can't do it.

That reminds me of that equally specious notion about teachers that goes "Those who can do. Those who can't teach." What crap.

When Meyerhoffer displays his design on the web I think it's safe to assume that he is trying to sell himself and putting himself up for (leaving himself open to) criticism. That's not a bad thing. I think his sales job is second rate. His texts for the most part read like first drafts and his web site is amateurish.

alright, one more post then.

i'm not politicing. i just don't think we should critisise someone who has won international awards multiple times.

not to say everyone isn't entitled to their own opinion.

p.s. did you watch the lautner doco last night?

Select to expand quote

Gestalt said...
i just don't think we should critisise someone who has won international awards multiple times.

Why not?
His surfboards have the silhouette of a stool

You might also like:

Select to expand quote

Gestalt said...

alright, one more post then.

i'm not politicing. i just don't think we should critisise someone who has won international awards multiple times.

not to say everyone isn't entitled to their own opinion.

p.s. did you watch the lautner doco last night?

You're a gentleman. That's your problem.

Didn't catch the Lautner doco. Wasn't he into modern school curvy stuff. I'll have to look him up. I saw something about Robin Boyd last night. Boy that took me back. But no, "the past is a foreign country". I don't like to go there any more.

Select to expand quote

Gestalt said...

Is that the latest fiendish hands off torture from Guantanamo?

Uber designers are like a cult that is supported by the publishing industry which needs to create stories that the design magazine/book buying public is willing to pay for. These design “stories” usually follow a particular story arc, designer is born, designer has unusual arty difficult upbringing, designer produces early work which is commented upon, celebrated by, the publishing industry. The celebrity designer is always male. It’s all very Harry Potter.

In reality design evolution is much more fractured usually the best designs come from small companies who are willing to take risks and try new things as they try to erode the market leaders. The market leaders are quick to see these changes in the market, they haven’t kept their position by being slow adopters.

Being large companies with a lot at stake they employ celebrity designers who are good at appropriating designs and repackaging them, winning awards, creating publicity and so on.

1. This cult of celebrity is slowly breaking down as new forms of media and communication replace the old ones.

2. This cult of celebrity is being reinforced as the amount of information that the market leaders can collect is increasing exponentially.

Two pages of design & philosophy & you still haven't drawn or built anything

Must be either advertising exec or arcitecks - engineers would have it built (not necessarily pretty) & working by now

Select to expand quote

Wineman said...


Two pages of design & philosophy & you still haven't drawn or built anything

Must be either advertising exec or arcitecks - engineers would have it built (not necessarily pretty) & working by now

Al Planet = Shoe Salesman

I thought builders built things and engineers gave us the Gulf of Mexico oil disaster. :)

Two engineering students were walking across campus when one said, "Where did you get such a great bike?"

The second engineer replied, "Well, I was walking along yesterday minding my own business when a beautiful woman rode up on this bike. She threw the bike to the ground, took off all her clothes and said, "Take what you want."

The second engineer nodded approvingly, "Good choice; the clothes probably wouldn't have fit."

Select to expand quote

KenHo said...
I think there are a lot of people in windsurfing who want to push the boundaries, but you only have to look a some of the threads here to realise that people are essentially very conservative, and blokes really feel threatened by anything a bit different design wise.

Interesting stuff, Ken, but from what basis can you say that "people are essentially very conservative"??? To say that people are "very conservative" or even "conservative" can only be done by placing people somewhere on a scale that runs from utterly rigid and terrified of change, all the way to completely terrified of anything staying the same.

If you look at the history of the world, and even the typical person of the 21st century, the modern Western individual seems to stand out as someone who is certainly NOT conservative, but actually suffering from a massive case of ADD. We are living in a world where change is arguably happening faster than it ever has before.

You only have to go back to the '50s, at the dawn of modern advertising, and you can see that people were much more "conservative" than we are today. Who can say that we are "very conservative" when we throw away so many devices that would keep third-world families in food for a decade, just because this year's model is faster and comes in the colours that are in this year?

And even matters like how often one wants design to change is affected by things like education and socio-economic status, which underlines how subjective it all is. There are, of course, people who have been at the forefront of development in one area who love old-fashioned stuff in another area (ie Jim Clark of Netscape etc is also fervently fond of old designs like his replica of a 1930s J Class yacht, or perhaps Laird Hamilton). Are they "too conservative" one minute and "just right" the next?

And, of course, if you work 9-5, have kids, and are "un-conservative" enough to take part in several sports and other activities, one may actually be able to "perform" better at sport and have more fun if you don't change gear every weekend.

BAsically, what is "too conservative"? How long do you have to buy a new board before you become "too conservative"?? Is someone who buys this year's radical new board (and therefore has to work longer hours to afford it) "too conservative" because they don't buy this month's radical new board? Do they have to buy a new board each month or week to be "just right"?? Or is the only person who is not "too conservative" the one who sells the kids to the white slave traders, invests the money in becoming a crack dealer, and buys 10 brand-new boards every morning?

Obviously the example is over the top, but surely being "too conservative" or not is completely subjective.

Select to expand quote

Wineman said...


Two pages of design & philosophy & you still haven't drawn or built anything

Must be either advertising exec or arcitecks - engineers would have it built (not necessarily pretty) & working by now

Reminds me of the maxim, "A camel is a horse designed by a committee."

Which further reminds me of this amusing parody, if MS Launched the Ipod.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=36099539665548298&hl=en#