Matty V wrote: ↑
Mon Dec 28, 2020 11:08 am
Not sure what you are hoping to gain by seeing boards I have built but hey.
Exactly what I was hoping for.
No TT in sight. And I did not see a wrapped rails on a TT ever. So really have no idea from where is this info coming from.
ABS for rails? No, its PU.
Wrapped rails? False on TT.
Topsheet is not a grindbase as u call it. Snowboards have a grind base - because its grinded, correct? Its Ptex, topsheet is not.
Topsheet is made by two main guys: Crown and IsoSport in Austria. Duotone makes boards there.
Carbon used is biax. Not triax.
Even visible carbon on your board is biax. Cheap as chips when buying in bulk. U could use a wide squares tho, sells better.
And so on ....
All together, cftt are profit makers with questionable benefits. Why? Because most of them are cheaply made, with one single CF layer.
If tomorrow CF price goes on by 200%, ppl would still buy it. Good for them. I will probably still jump higher with my 120cm wood core TT.
Not covinced? Ask Toby how he jumps with FS Radical board. That is the answer. The rest is theory which is very fluid, to many variables.
To conclude, with one single CF layer it is impossible to claim benefits of carbon. Only if is fully wrappef like Bro boards (iBeam, not wrapped rails), but wast TTs are not! Not a single one. Hence no idea how can we claim CF this or that. Sure its stiffer, but only that. Build with FG and will be stiff too. But heavy.
I mean the fishing rod is built by many layers.
Windsurfing mast is many layers wrapped in a few different degrees (have it in my shed). Plus, its different diameter - wider near the board. How on Earth can we compare this with a TT?
Again, skis have minimum 4 triax layers! Thats 300g/m triax. Plus core, plus....