I don't think that is quite right.
Bouyancy is equal to the weight of the water displaced.
So if you have the weight of the board and the volume, and you know how much you weigh, then you have everything you need to know.
I totally agree with Dontsink, but I think his main point is that in the quest for lighter weight, you can very quickly reach a point of diminishing returns.
Has anyone tried pricing out, say, 85 liters of aerogel?
As far as I can tell, aerogel IS unobtanium, except with a slight weight penalty
consumer wrote: ↑
Mon May 16, 2022 8:34 pm
Dontsink wrote: ↑
Thu May 12, 2022 4:40 am
If you made an 85liter magic board with alien unobtanium tech that weighed nothing it would support ...85kg.
My current board is 85l/5kg , it will "float" 85-5=80kg.
The main advantage of lighter materials is not more buoyancy , what we really gain is reduced inertia and much better handling.
IMHO what we need is a better foilbox construction,engineered to take the foil loads.The current 2 X US Box needs lots of reinforcement ,specially for prone and dockstart boards that will go through many pump cycles.
Well you actually bring up a good point ! We talk about volume of boards as if a 70L board has a similar floatation to another 70L board from another manufacturer, but you are right in considering overall floatation we need to also consider board density. (Flotation = displacement ~ volume * (Density of water - average density of board). The only reason volume is comparable between brands at the moment is because everyone is working with more or less the same materials.