Carbon vs Fiberglass hull

[mthomps]

My opinions strictly based on experience. I lost a lot of weight and also got a lot stronger at the same time. I'm a fan of the barbell....

I feel that 90% of riding is finesse and putting your body in to the right position to let the ski do the work and being lighter allows you to go faster while you do that. lol. My ski got faster after dropping 30 pounds of fat on my body.

 

[WB1994]

So if you weight 200 and you drop 50 lbs but loose zero strength your ski will feel lighter and more nimble? Yes the ski is subjected to less weight aboard it but its still a XXXlbs ski , it didnt change. Yes your ski might get up n go a little better with less weight on its back but its still XXXlbs. It still reacts and manuvers the same.

 

[mthomps]

Strength will give you the endurance to ride aggressively longer. So the ultimate combination I guess is a light ski with a light body that is also very strong.

 

[mthomps]

So if you weight 200 and you drop 50 lbs but loose zero strength your ski will feel lighter and more nimble? Yes the ski is subjected to less weight aboard it but its still a XXXlbs ski , it didnt change. Yes your ski might get up n go a little better with less weight on its back but its still XXXlbs. It still reacts and manuvers the same.

Again the engine does not distinguish between where the added weight is coming from. If it did that it would have a human brain. And even if it were self aware gravity is a mofo that would keep it in check.

 

[WB1994]

But the human has the control and a 30lbs heavier ski is harder to toss around. If its harder to pick up a ski cause its heavier than before , like waterlogged foam , its not going to be manuvered as good as when it was less waterlogged.

 

[makejetskiinggreatagain]

From what I have heard, fiberglass is stronger for surf. Carbon fiber is strong too, but stiffer and therefore breaks easier. Many pros run fiberglass since they need their skis to handle 20 foot drops. Somebody correct me if I'm wrong.

can anyone else chime in on this? I've always wondered about how the stiffness of carbon would affect long term reliability. Assume surf riding for the sake of this discussion

 

[mthomps]

Rider weight and ski weight is the same variable. How you deal with losing that weight is it's own equation.

 

[WB1994]

Rider weight and ski weight is the same variable. How you deal with losing that weight is it's own equation.

I really disagree. If you weight down a SJ to the weight of an SXR but your body looses that same weight that nothing will change in the overall ride of the ski? Carving , slides , reentries , rolls , flips .... all the same?

 

[SkiPro]

It don't look like this 150 pound dude has any problems..

 

[WB1994]

If what your saying is true , why the hell would anyone pay $3000 for carbon fiber? Why arent people freestyling SXRs? They handle better why not flip and roll better? Most freestyle hulls are started from splashing the bottomdeck of the SXR. the difference is weight. Lighter is more nimble. Far more nimble than loosing the same in body fat.

 

[mthomps]

Now you are talking about hull design which isn't factored in to raw power to rate ratio which the body and hull weight equal.

 

[mthomps]

can anyone else chime in on this? I've always wondered about how the stiffness of carbon would affect long term reliability. Assume surf riding for the sake of this discussion

I can relate on the terms of bmx bikes. Back when I rode in the early 2000's there was a big debate between titanium frames and 4130 chromoly. Theoretically the titanium was stronger but riders would break them before the 4130 frames due to the stiffness of the titanium not taking the impact of bad landings and overal impact.

 

[Sparkplug]

If 30 pounds is holding you back on tricks, or wearing you out lifting it, something is wrong, seriously. I have a waterlogged sj, and a backie chan, the chan is liger for sure, but I don't ever think about that bei a reason I bought it when I put it on the trailer, lol. Kinda like my 250f being easier to load than my 450f.

Carbon is lighter, and stronger in some ways, it's also like double or triple the cost. If that's a expense your willing to take, en yes, your ski will perform better than an equivalent glass hull.

Carbon is not the strongest thing in the world. It breaks too. People should research composites a bit.

Money can buy carbon, it cannot buy skills and balls. Remember that.

 

[davidk131]

Wb1994 is making some really good points I think ski weight is more critical than human weight

 

[Sparkplug]

I can relate on the terms of bmx bikes. Back when I rode in the early 2000's there was a big debate between titanium frames and 4130 chromoly. Theoretically the titanium was stronger but riders would break them before the 4130 frames due to the stiffness of the titanium not taking the impact of bad landings and overal impact.

Happens all the time in engineering things. Flex is needed most times, when things can't flex, they snap.

 

[WB1994]

Now you are talking about hull design which isn't factored in to raw power to rate ratio which the body and hull weight equal.

I can tell a waterlogged X2 from a nonwaterlogged X2 by the way it rides. Ive owned and rode more than I could begin to remember and all the waterlogged ones ride the same. If I lost 30lbs it would help nothing. That waterlogged X2 would still be a waterlogged X2. Its not going to perform better in any noticeable way.

 

[Sparkplug]

The engine can't distinguish between a block of steel, a human rider, or a chimpanzee on the deck. If there is less weight on the hull, it will jump higher out of the water given the same amount of thrust. If this isn't true, then why do people buy lightweight everything for their skis? It only matters if they are inanimate?

 

[WB1994]

Lets toss this crazy perspective out there. Your on a ski that weighs 300lbs and you weight 200lbs. Thats 500 total pounds. Then you put on an antigravitybelt that made you weigh zero pounds but you added that weight to the ski so now the ski weighs the full 500lbs , what would happen? Your saying 500lbs is 500lbs , I dissagree.

 

[Sparkplug]

Lets toss this crazy perspective out there. Your on a ski that weighs 300lbs and you weight 200lbs. Thats 500 total pounds. Then you put on an antigravitybelt that made you weigh zero pounds but you added that weight to the ski so now the ski weighs the full 500lbs , what would happen? Your saying 500lbs is 500lbs , I dissagree.

Ifmy body loses the weight, why is it adding it to the ski?

SKi weighs 300 I weig 200 that's 500, i lose 40lbs, that's 460' jumping higher with the same power

So if I get on my chan, ride, then my 350lb buddy gets on it, it's gonna perform the same? I'm confused on what point you're trying to make. Sorry. Dont mean any disrespect.

 

[mthomps]

I can tell a waterlogged X2 from a nonwaterlogged X2 by the way it rides. Ive owned and rode more than I could begin to remember and all the waterlogged ones ride the same. If I lost 30lbs it would help nothing. That waterlogged X2 would still be a waterlogged X2. Its not going to perform better in any noticeable way.[/QUO

I can tell a waterlogged X2 from a nonwaterlogged X2 by the way it rides. Ive owned and rode more than I could begin to remember and all the waterlogged ones ride the same. If I lost 30lbs it would help nothing. That waterlogged X2 would still be a waterlogged X2. Its not going to perform better in any noticeable way.

If you lost 30 pounds of weight on your body it would be the same as clearing out that waterlogged foam without doing anything to the waterlogged ski.