*


All times are UTC + 1 hour



Post new topic Reply to topic
 [ 36 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: IKA new course racing equipment for 2013
PostPosted: Sun Jan 27, 2013 5:50 pm 
Offline
Medium Poster

Joined: Tue Feb 02, 2010 1:15 am
Posts: 147
Location: Maui
Quote:

I was under the impression that most of the issues regarding the approved race boards was poor manufacturing quality and continuity rather than strength of the actual boards? (fin box misalignment, delamination in fatigue prone and high strain areas, bad dimensioning etc.).

Upping the weight is most likely just going to change the design envelope for the board designers as they now have more mass to play with. Some of the things that are probably holding back the dimensions (in non restricted areas) is the weight concern, upping the minimum weight could lead to even larger and just as fragile designs.

Also adding more material to current designs might not gain any significant durability advantage and can if poorly implemented cause an even weaker design. There are also the clear cases where the durability issues arise after misuse of the board, like jumping and so on.

I am all for a good box rule, but I think this may miss the target and make boards even more expensive than they are today contrary to the intentions (I guess).

Some interesting things could be:
- Imposing use of standard components for boards like: fin boxes, strap attachments etc. (not one manufacturer, but one standard)
- Structural demands on aft part of hull where the majority of forces act (all boards must comply to a set of load tests, these are very easy to implement)



Poor Manufacturing makes boards weaker and greatly affects the the actual strength of the boards. Poor Manufacturing is the main problem with strength related issues on boards. Other issues are poor combinations or implementations of reinforcements in high stress areas. I might be misinterpreting what your thought was here?

Adding minimum weight factors does not add mass in terms of width or longer boards as there is already set limits for width and length. Adding minimum weight is supposed to help manufacturers put more reinforcements like carbon, glass, PVC, Wood, or whatever to high stress areas.

Adding more poorly implemented materials usually is stronger than less poorly implemented materials in general. For instance, 2 layers of Carbon under your heels is weaker than 4 layers of Carbon even if there is a delam under the heels when manufactured. The 4 layers will hide the delam longer than 2 layers of Carbon.

As for your "standards in board building" using all the same inserts and boxes might sound like a good plan in Theory but in actuality every board builder is using different materials and is using different boxes and inserts. The big factories actually make there own inserts and boxes in many different ways and molds to save costs for the brand and end consumer. Some actually build the boxes while molding the board.

Set of stress test implemented? That sounds good but would actually add even more money. That would be a hard one to perfect also. Making a machine that repeatedly pounded on the footstrap heel area sounds very expensive.

The new weight limit is 5.5 kgs which is extremely hard to attain and keep the boards from Falling apart or denting everywhere at the current 70 x190 size. If you actually put a board on an accurate scale, very few will be 5.5 or even 5.8 and last in normal usage for a year.


Top
Profile
 Post subject: Re: IKA new course racing equipment for 2013
PostPosted: Sun Jan 27, 2013 8:30 pm 
Offline
Medium Poster

Joined: Sat Nov 24, 2012 3:33 pm
Posts: 120
alex a wrote:
Poor Manufacturing makes boards weaker and greatly affects the the actual strength of the boards. Poor Manufacturing is the main problem with strength related issues on boards. Other issues are poor combinations or implementations of reinforcements in high stress areas. I might be misinterpreting what your thought was here?

Adding minimum weight factors does not add mass in terms of width or longer boards as there is already set limits for width and length. Adding minimum weight is supposed to help manufacturers put more reinforcements like carbon, glass, PVC, Wood, or whatever to high stress areas.

Adding more poorly implemented materials usually is stronger than less poorly implemented materials in general. For instance, 2 layers of Carbon under your heels is weaker than 4 layers of Carbon even if there is a delam under the heels when manufactured. The 4 layers will hide the delam longer than 2 layers of Carbon.

As for your "standards in board building" using all the same inserts and boxes might sound like a good plan in Theory but in actuality every board builder is using different materials and is using different boxes and inserts. The big factories actually make there own inserts and boxes in many different ways and molds to save costs for the brand and end consumer. Some actually build the boxes while molding the board.

Set of stress test implemented? That sounds good but would actually add even more money. That would be a hard one to perfect also. Making a machine that repeatedly pounded on the footstrap heel area sounds very expensive.

The new weight limit is 5.5 kgs which is extremely hard to attain and keep the boards from Falling apart or denting everywhere at the current 70 x190 size. If you actually put a board on an accurate scale, very few will be 5.5 or even 5.8 and last in normal usage for a year.


I was just wondering whether it is the low weight that is the primary cause of boards breaking or just bad manufacturing quality. And of course it is a combination of the two, I am not much into kite board building so I do not have the same knowledge about where dings and delamination occurs as you have.

If 5.5 kgs is hard why not just set the minimum at 6 kgs?

But say there is a standard insert for fins or pads, which is well designed and can be mass produced, that could drive the costs down if all manufacturers have to produce them to the exact same specification.

A deflection test could be done if the board is clamped in a certain position and then an actuator or a set of weights are added to certain parts of the board. Deflection at areas of interest could then be measured with the clamping rig as reference. It is not easy, but I do not think it is super expensive either. Fatigue tests would be costly and impact testing as well.


Top
Profile
 Post subject: Re: IKA new course racing equipment for 2013
PostPosted: Mon Jan 28, 2013 10:17 am 
Offline
Frequent Poster

Joined: Fri Dec 26, 2003 12:52 am
Posts: 227
Location: Australia
IKA are not here to enforce quality issues, they are here to set out design standards that the industry and fellow kiters believe is good for the future of the sport.

The market will ultimately dictate what brands are good quality and what are bad.

If a brand chooses to only make board with 2 layers of carbon and they fall apart everyone will find out which brands use 4 layers and they will become the dominant market leader.

If a brand has leaks and another doesnt the market will find this out, some brands will die and some will prosper :wink:

This has been happening for a long time, it happens with cars, boats, houses, machinery etc and the kite industry is no different.


Top
Profile
 Post subject: Re: IKA new course racing equipment for 2013
PostPosted: Fri Feb 08, 2013 10:40 pm 
Offline
Medium Poster

Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2012 9:32 am
Posts: 96
Location: Tauranga, New Zealand
Why don't they remove the minimum numbers required for a year or 2 just to let the designs develop, or perhaps set them easy at 15 or so.
there are a few shapers that I know of that have some awesome designs, but dropped out when the required numbers of production got too high.

The whole min weight and strength thing seems a bit bullsh*t too, a board hand made by a shaper can be lighter and stronger.


Top
Profile
 Post subject: Re: IKA new course racing equipment for 2013
PostPosted: Mon Feb 11, 2013 12:29 pm 
Offline
Medium Poster

Joined: Sat Nov 24, 2012 3:33 pm
Posts: 120
Bradn wrote:
Why don't they remove the minimum numbers required for a year or 2 just to let the designs develop, or perhaps set them easy at 15 or so.
there are a few shapers that I know of that have some awesome designs, but dropped out when the required numbers of production got too high.

The whole min weight and strength thing seems a bit bullsh*t too, a board hand made by a shaper can be lighter and stronger.


Well it would be awesome for people buying if there was some form of construction standard that the board manufacturers had to comply with. Even some of the higher end brands are putting out designs that from a laminate construction point of view are very ill conceived.

The aim of IKA should be to build a class where there are a lot of different competitive designs while keeping cost of ownership down for the people active in the sport. At least if you want to get a decent youth program going and eventually be accepted into the Olympics.

If it turns into a nasty cost spiral the ambitions to become an Olympic sport will be very hard to achieve. And to some extent that is happening right now with the next generation of race kites where everyone is chasing marginal returns by using thinner less durable lines for example. This is also going against the spirit of the regulations as it is a safety issues with more fragile line systems.

It is going to be a PITA to control all these things, I hope that IKA are on top of it :)


Top
Profile
 Post subject: Re: IKA new course racing equipment for 2013
PostPosted: Thu Feb 21, 2013 6:48 am 
Offline
Frequent Poster

Joined: Mon Sep 27, 2004 7:35 am
Posts: 304
tautologies wrote:
how much does it cost a brand to *register* 1 board, or 1 kite? I can kind of see the point with the board, but what is the point registering the kite?

just curious :-)


Finaly found out. 5 € pr. produced kite and the same pr. produced board...I geuss this ammount scares the producers more than the buyer. Even the buyer probably pays a higher amount in the final end...


Top
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic
 [ 36 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4

All times are UTC + 1 hour


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests


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 post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group