Independent tests

I'm sure all of you hardcore folks have multiple boards. I'd love to see quantifiable tests on them. For example down the line speed. Every manufacturer says their board is fast! I've YET to read a manufacturers claim that said - Our Buffalo Cruncher x1000 is pretty slow.

So...a down the line speed test. Same boat, same individual...everything about the wake is the same. Have the test rider go out on multiple boards. Start off at say 9.8 mph and then gradually bump the speed up. The rider shouldn't pump, just cruise in the pocket and record how fast you can go with the boat before the rider slips out the back.

Pictures of the environment along with test results?

I'd ALSO love to have some testing on weight recommendations. Any ideas how we could add ballast to a rider without risking injury?

Come on folks, give me your tests!

Somebody say ballast.

OK, everyone send me one of each board, testing might be rough on the boards and they might not survive testing and so I might be able to return them

I don't know Jeff sounds like you want objective tests, which might be hard to do.
Years ago my dad was growing mums and entering them in competitions (I know competitive mum growing?). I asked him if the mums were hardy, the nursery man said they were, otherwise no one would buy them. Is board X fast, yes, otherwise no one would buy them.

The wake probably has an impact on board performance. I think I've read on line here that skimmers like short tall wakes, surfers like wakes with long pockets and nice transitions.

The weight and skill of the rider has impact as well. Several manufactures provide sizing guidance, others custom build for your size. I think weight, skill, and board size recommendations are important, for now it sounds like a few manufacturers are the experts and can provide guidance.

So what could you measure easily, maybe maximum sustained speed (boat speed) that you can ride a board; done that, but I haven’t done this test under a fixed set of conditions. However high riding speed might just be an indication adequate to oversized board to rider sizing. Here are my informal test results 14.7 - my weight is about 215 lbs and I've ridden for two seasons:
Trick Boardz Mojo XL 15 mph
Inland Surfer Red Tide mph - boat throttle maxed out
Inland Surfer Blue Lake 13.5 mph
Inland Surfer Orange – not sized for me
Hyperlight Broadcast 5.6 12.5 mph
Shred Stixx, Stixxstream – not sized for me

I think density (the weight of the board divided by the volume) would be an interesting figure. The Shred Stixx Stixxstream and the Inland Surfer board are amazingly light, very buoyant. It would be easy to measure density but I’m not sure how to use the information. Skim boards and unique boards like the Trick Boadz line don’t fit the same criteria, and for me the Mojo is darn fast.

Ed, I think that I want something other than manufacturers representations, which we all know will be biased, and rider's subjective reviews. If I look at the data above, we can probably safely conclude that in maximum sustained speed MSS? For YOUR specific environmental factors, the TB Mojo XL was faster than the IS Blue and both were faster than the HL Broadcast 5'6". AND the IS RED was faster than the boat I think that's meaningful info and can be used in making an objective decision.

As we know everything is relative, all the boards suitable for you were fast, BUT some more so than others. In fact the actual ranking by MSS was:

1) Red Tide
2) Mojo XL
3) Blue Lake
4) Broadcast 5.6

Thanks for the details Ed!

Who else has some meaningful comparisons?

I lost part of the IS Red speed text (14.7 mph) coping from Word to the post window. I rode the Red as fast as 14.7 mph, which was as fast as the Mighty Centurion could muster on that day and with whatever configuration I had then. So my MSS is 15 mph with the TB Mojo, and the IS Red was 14.7 mph but the Red didn't get a completely fair trial.

The IS Red is a fun board for me and an easy cruise, and even more fun at high speeds, but its not my board of choice. I bought it for beginners that frequently ride with me.

I really like the ride that I got on the Blue Lake, but I only had the demo board for a week or so, and in that time I had a problem with my boat, my boat was in the shop for several weeks. I only got one chance to ride some of the demo boards you sent for the Scioto Wakefest. Even though I could only get 13.5 mph out of the Blue, I didn’t have much experience with that board, but it feels like the right size surf style board for me and my current skill level. Its light and easy to slash around, but is big enough to let me use a lot of the wake, recovering from pretty far back in the pocket.

There might be a size rule something like: if you can ride the board faster than NN mph (maybe around 13 mph) then the board is too big for hard driving rapid maneuvers. The rule on the other end might be: if your top riding speed is 9 mph you need a bigger board or more experience. One of my crew is nearly my size maybe a pound or two lighter, he has a hard time free riding anything but the IS Red, skill is a big factor.

(Message edited by Bigshow on August 27, 2006)

I wouldn't suggest that all boards are the same. Obviously we could stick an 80 pound grom on a Shoreline Lakeboard Big Kahuna and he/she would be able surf as fast the boat could go. Put them on a TB surfskate and they'll no doubt fall out the back. In the examples above there were several boards that were 5'6" in length - IS's Red and Blue, the HL Broadcast and the Shred Stixx I shipped you was a 5'8". At your weight, wake type and skill level the longer 5'8" SS didn't work for you, while the others did AND the TB Mojo XL is much smaller than the others. Isn't there some evidence that the TB design, in your situation, is faster than larger boards?

I think having some of this data would really be helpful in making a decision on a board. Also, I think it points to some of the conclusion that folks in the KNOW have been saying for years...just because it's manufactured by HL doesn't make it a good board.

I think for testing purposes, it really has to be someone that knows how to ride and can adjust the weight, but again for our MSS test, NO PUMPING...just weight transfer so that we can get an idea as to which board and the board alone) has the fastest MSS.

I do like that shorthand. I can't wait to ask some manufacturer what the MSS of his board is

At those speeds I was working, not just shifting weight. Before speed transitions I like to get close to the boat to give me time to react to the change, and run way to pump and catch back up to the pocket. The TB Mojo is significantly different from the surf style boards, its one huge concave cannel. When we first started riding the Mojo we rode it one PP click slower because we deemed it to be a slower board – at that time we just had no idea how to ride it. The TB Mojo is one huge concave channel and has a lot of surface area. The large surface area must be responsible for the speeds that I've been getting.

Are we talking about developing parameters to help beginners buy a first board, for advanced riders, or both? For beginners oversized and stable boards would probably be best. The Shred Stixx board had three fins and was very stable. I had a first timer up on the Stixx board, three fins made the board stable and I’m sure that was very helpful. I’ve replaced the stock fins out of the TB Mojo with 1 inch fins making it more lose making it too unstable for a beginner.

Experienced riders probably want boards that will do something different or better, they’ll want a board that helps them pull off a new trick at a comp so they can score higher. Those point scoring characteristics would be good to identify and measure. How do you measure the willingness of a board to break free or jump up for an Ollie? The front and back rocker, the number of fins, fin placement, and fin surface area should effect dynamic performance.

I expect that a less-stable board would be more responsive and might score higher at a competition. An unstable board however would present problems for beginners. Friday we took two of my daughters friends out wakeboarding. My daughter and I set up our wakeboards without center fins. Our beginners did poorly the first set that we pulled them. We installed center fins before taking our guests out for a second set, they did much better.

What parameters do we have now:
MSS
Fin size information
Surface area
Shape of running surface concave, flat convex?
Depth of channels if any
Length
Weight
Density – buoyancy
Front rocker
Back rocker

Most of the above is measurable or observable but I think Jeff is looking for dynamic water tests.

How about other intangibles:

I want to get some legitimate results - comparative to other boards in a controlled environment.

Just like you were doing Ed, you stated your skill, weight and then maybe a wake size rating. If you then did a MSS test on all the boards you can get your hands on and posted that data...we could start looking for patterns. If the HL Broadcast always has the slowest MSS, then it's a pretty safe bet that such a board is suitable for folks that want a slow board.

Then I'm hoping we could distill some OTHER tests that would give us measurable performance. Or stability or whatever we felt was a suitable measure.

See, here is a quick note that clubmyke posted to Chip Conrad of Stripes Wakesurfers:

"chip,

thanks for saturday.. i really learned alot..

we took out the surfbouards today and the general consusus was ..
WOW !!! NICE.... REALLY, REALLY, NICE !!!!

the 5'7" was the fave.. very fast, responsive, yet easy to ride.."

With all due respect to clubmyke, this is pretty common and also pretty much useless information (albiet all clubmyke was doing was saying thanks to Chip). Very fast compared to what? Very fast means what? Responsive compared to my 4'2" fish? Responsive compared to SLLB's Big Kahuna? What exactly is clubmyke's measure of responsiveness?

I've been guilty of this too...so I don't mean to pick on clubmyke.

I think that the wakesurfing community is developing to a point where we could REALLY use some objective comparisons. I think the MSS as a measure of "fast" is valid.

I could also see some type of responsiveness measure based upon how many top and bottom turns someone can complete within a specific period of time - say 1 minute.

If these measurements are performed on separate but comparable boards, in a controlled environment...I believe that we can gain some useful info for making decisions.

I agree with you to an extent Jeff.

I agree that it would be nice to implement some type of standard test but it should have as many variables as possible. I feel that "MSS" by itself can be a very misleading form of comparison. Take my riding style for instance, I have absolutely no desire to ride a board in a straight line and when I think of "fast" what enters my mind is the board's responsiveness and how aggressive it lets me be- a factor that has almost an inverse correlation to down the line speed.

But like you said it's better then the current recommendation process.

You're right Sean, in order for any testing to be meaningful it would need to implement various testing criteria or some benchmark standards. Like you point out down-the-line speed tends to be inversely proportional to edge-to-edge responsiveness. Defining the useful benchmarks to test for is problematic, but like youa nd I both agree - "It's fast!" doesn't mean anything and tends to be more misleading than saying nothing at all.

If you have time, what do YOU see as attributes of a board that would be useful to test and compare? Edge-to-edge responsiveness seems to be one that YOU feel is important.

I will have to give this some serious thought and get back to you. (and I freely admit all my opinions comes from the type riding I like to do and doesn't necessarily reflect what the average rider is looking for)

IMO you're definitely on the right path with the "MSS" and responsiveness being the biggest contributing factors in how a board rides.

(Message edited by caskimmer on August 28, 2006)

jeff,

it is pretty much the same as the wakeboard board reviews under the boards forum... you kinda have to take it as a "generalization" (remember "parlay" from pirates of the caribbean)

ie, i ride a cwb marius wakeboard and it is know as a soft landing board.. well to about 80% it is (including me). to the other 20% it isnt.. so like anything, you should try for yourself before you buy.

in regards to the comments i made on the boards (here is where i am going to qualify my background - ex surfer of many years ago and so far have tried the following boards behind my 211 which has a decent surf wake)

liquid force skimskate 5.0
hyperlite broadcast
shoreline 5.6 (jessica's board)
walzer (dont remember -both were on the short side)
phase 5 (oogle and prop)
stripes (5.0 & 5.7)

granted i am not a expert but i like the stripes and the shoreline(traditional surf style boards vs the skim style... )

however with that being said the walzer was very unique.. it was in between skim style and the traditional surf style DISCLAIMER - IMO(please note this) it was shorter and narrower than the big phase 5 but it floated & rode better than it!!! (i want to try a 5.0 of the walzer board, i can see this semi-skim style as a second surf board)

i would like to note on the comments on the stripes 5.7 board is in comparison to the phase 5 that "we" typically ride. the phase 5 is a very difficult board for a newbie imo and is somewhat fast..however, the stripes 5.7 was much faster, predictable, and allowed "all of us" to fall back pretty far back and still comeback.. not to mention "we" were all were riding without the handle right up.. "we" all had a great time because it blew away the phase 5's that we were use to (the other 2 riders progressed with the stripes)

the conclusion i have come upon with my very limited exposure is "the custom boards ride soooo much better (speed,responsiveness,ease,and predictable) than the mass market boards"... the really nice part is the boards can be customized for you...

hope that helps..

mike (aka clubmyke - newbie wakesurfer)

Mike- we didn't realize until yesterday but somehow the fins got put on backwards last week on the diamondtail (right fin on left side)

the Walzer boards you rode were a 4'4" pintail and 4'6" diamondtail- both 3/4" cores with a slight 65/35 taper

(Message edited by caskimmer on August 28, 2006)

(Message edited by caskimmer on August 28, 2006)

sean,

4.4 and 4.6 ? that is it ? impressive !!

(btw, i am a slightly muscled 185lb and this the only sub 5.0 board i have been able to ride (as compared to the hyperlite and phase 5). most of them sink way to much and fall behind to easily.

the walzer is very, very high quality 3/4 core and floats incredibly well ( i have never seen anything like this). that is predictable and fast (predictable..a experienced rider can ride it as well as a newbie. you know what to expect)

have you guys got your new boards yet ??? has he mae any 5.0's yet ?

Steve's and Shannon's boards are being finished as I type this- Steve ended up having a 4'8" pintail built

how big of board is steve getting ?

opps.. add kicked in.

I also think that for a skimstyle board you would like a 4'7" 1" core board more than a longer 3/4" board.

IMO-that would compliment a surfstyle board very nicely in a quiver.

BTW-Sorry for thre thread highjacking. I like the idea.

(Message edited by caskimmer on August 28, 2006)