Why there are no 135 by 50 TT boards?

[sergei Scotland]

Beginner's question obviously - but really-why?
Being wide a 135x50 or 135x 48 would probably work well in lighter winds and for beginners. After all it has 20% bigger surface area compared to 135x40.
It would presumably work well in higher winds too as most people say that shorter boards are better in stronger winds as they curve better and sit deeper in the water with less of a tendency to skim sideways.
Instead one has to go to 148 to get 48 cm wide board and most /some people say this is too long for powered conditions.

[FLandOBX]

Sergei, the Epic Oxygen is 135 x 47. It's a great light wind board. Here's a link to a description of the board that corresponds fairly well to your comments. I don't know of any other 135+/- boards with that much width, but I agree that there should be some more choices.

https://www.epickiteskiteboarding.com/g ... -v3-board/

[andrewjohn]

My first board was a Lost Cause from 2007/08 I think. (lostcauseboards.com) .
I think it’s 137x50.
Worked great as a beginner board and still my go to board in light wind.
It’s super light with just a foam core and fully glassed rails. Not much rocker but a big scoop of concave in the middle.
It needs a bit of love on the heal side rail now, but i’m loathed to replace it cos it works so well. I can be getting nowhere on my regular TT, switch to this and have a good session.
We can only imagine the boards Colin would be making now if he was still with us.

[Matteo V]

Beginner's question obviously - but really-why?
Being wide a 135x50 or 135x 48 would probably work well in lighter winds and for beginners. After all it has 20% bigger surface area compared to 135x40.
It would presumably work well in higher winds too as most people say that shorter boards are better in stronger winds as they curve better and sit deeper in the water with less of a tendency to skim sideways.
Instead one has to go to 148 to get 48 cm wide board and most /some people say this is too long for powered conditions.

Scaling, and your desired dimensions are at the edge of the optimum.

TT length is related most directly related to height of the rider. As the rider height gets taller, the board gets longer to allow for more distance between their foot positions. Since "pearling" or "sinking the nose" becomes a problem as the feet are moved closer to the tips of the board, more board is added at the tips. Thus a taller person typically needs a longer board.

TT width is related to foot length (toes to heel) as this is the lever arm by which force is applied to the board. As foot width goes up, more force can be applied to the heel AND toe edge. Or that can be looked at from the other way - the wider the board, the more force the heel (or toe) edge generates. Thus a longer foot is needed to hold down a wider board.


When you scale a persons weight up, typically you get more weight as you grow in height and foot width. As you scale down in weight, you loose height and foot width. That is not to say that there are not tall lightweights out there, nor that that there are no short heavy riders. But those are the extremes and that market is niche that may not warrant production of a size range this far out of the norm.

If you are 5'-4" tall, with size 12US feet, and weight 220lbs, you may need to look into custom boards. And that would likely get you to the board size you mentioned.

There are other ways to get to this board size too. One way would be to move the foot pad placement closer to the heel side edge. But this sacrifices toe side edge capabilities. Another way to get to this board size is to always be underpowered enough to where the extreme width at the edge does not overpower a smaller lever arm (foot). But if the wind suddenly picks up and a smaller footed rider is on too wide of a board, edge control is lost and the board cannot be safely managed (or just becomes no fun).

[edt]

For sure there need to be 135x50 twin tips. Kiteboarding is a niche sport so you can't always get what you want. There are a lot of custom board makers out there tho so talk to them and they can build whatever you want.

[jumptheshark]

Once a board gets to a certain width, it takes a step or two to get the best trim and corner hard.

[Eckhardt]

I know of a 138-47. That's is close enough I guess? Look for the minimalist at
http://www.fluidkiteboarding.com/boards.php

[norcom]

My Shinn Speedball W18 is 132x47 with some rocker. I don't think it's a good beginner board. It's upwind isn't that great but that could be due to the rocker. It's very playful and slippery, even with large fins. Back when I started out, longer, flatter and wider was easier for me as it just went upwind. I think making a similar design shorter and flatter would just make the board dig into the chop.

[grigorib]

Sergei, I think at 50cm width you won’t be happy in stronger winds. 170x50cm for a true door, or 144x46 as a door for a light rider or “larger” twintip for gusty winds would be choices I’d be looking for.

My chubby friend got Epic board mentioned above for travel purposes, but I think 144x46 would do too

[sergei Scotland]

Matteo says that edging a wider board is much harder then edging a narrow one. I can see this to be a problem on a snowboard as one has to lift himself off the ground. But on the water the edge of the boar sinks under your weight. I agree that a long (!) board is hard to edge as it won't sink deep enough under my weight an will skim sideways. But for a short board if say 50 cm wide or 40 cm wide the board wil sink exactly the same amount under the same conditions-for example 30 cm of the width will be underwater in both cases. So what's wrong in my reasoning here?
Effectively it looks to me that a short wide board should be much easier to edge without skimming than a long board of the same width-just because it wil sink deeper.
That's why I think a wide normal length board might be as good light W. board And almost as good for strong W. as a 38 cm wide one?