Comments for Surfski Shootout at http://www.surfski.info , comment 0 to 20 out of 26 comments http://www.surfski.info Fri, 04 Jul 2008 15:16:58 +0100 FeedCreator 1.7.2 http://www.surfski.info/content/view/202/156/#pc_746 Just logged on to the website, and was glued to this article for the last half an hour, excellent stuff that obviousy got everyone's (sometimes caustic)juices flowing. I paddle in Dubai along with about 300 known paddlers (some 40 odd regular) and found the test to be extremely interesting. What with the numbers growing here about 30% per year, I am going to put a link onto our site to this test site so the guys can get an insight into the options. Unfortunately we have a fairly limited, although quality, selection of product here (mostly Fenn and more recently Epic and Red7), the demand and the question of which product is becoming more important. I would like to see the tests completed, along with some of the extra's proposed in the various mails above. I think the option of doing some comparative short course paddling along the same lines as the original test in the surf would be a great addition to the results.Now all we need to do is get some other ski options into the land of the sand. - DSKC member Wed, 23 May 2007 19:28:18 +0100 http://www.surfski.info/content/view/202/156/#pc_381 hi guys i am new to this web site, i think its great i been paddling my ski for about 9 years and have just got the racing bug did my first little race this pasted may a 2.5 mile sprint which i did in 22:30 min. i have my 2nd race this weekend the bay 2 bay which will be in San Diego. i have been training very hard and feel i am in good shape, i am only doing the 6 mile. i am looking for a faster boat and the info i have found on this site has been a big help. looking for a V-10 SPORT (by the way i push a Futura II I know HAHAHAHA). i live in Tempe Arizona and i belive i am the only one with a ski in the state. thanks for all the help - MASTERBOB Thu, 08 Jun 2006 05:55:29 +0100 http://www.surfski.info/content/view/202/156/#pc_376 Could you guys put together a similiar comparo on the SA double skis available? - neilc Wed, 31 May 2006 13:43:45 +0100 http://www.surfski.info/content/view/202/156/#pc_373 Well done Rob for the best, most entertaining write up that I have read. It\'s unfortunate that the objections or comments raised by a few of the so called elite are often done in a condescending, \"holier than thou\" manner. Luckily, we lowly serfs of the paddling world know this and brush it off. I am certain the guys involved in the test would have gained the most out of it. I on the other hand started on a Fenn Mako and then moved to a Millenium. Not having the luxury ...or cash...to try out a variety of boats, it was a case of getting used to what you had. Cheers - Martin Wed, 31 May 2006 07:16:54 +0100 http://www.surfski.info/content/view/202/156/#pc_341 Holy cr@p! What an article. Robin next test, toss in Hayden, Huki, Red 7 etc. Nice can of worms you have opened. Good luck with it. The greater the data, the less chance for error. Excellent website. - speedbump Fri, 05 May 2006 17:42:46 +0100 http://www.surfski.info/content/view/202/156/#pc_338 Thanks Rob and crew for a great starting point for comparison. This is so much more valuable than it appears because there is no other comparisons out there that comes close. Sparky and others should all concede that being an elite paddler today is a point of reference only for now and next year that may be different. Many paddlers have been in and out of several categories over the years. Take an old war horse like John Woods who in his day was streets ahead of others and could paddle the pants off most elite guys well into his 50\'s. He may not have been classified as elite after say 1980 but was one of the best ever. The kind of advice from such a source is probably more valuable than any elite paddler could give. A paddlers performance is a combination of so many factors and the relationship between all these factors is often just a bit different for each person. Some people respond very well to particular shaped hulls and are able to paddle extremely effectively on these hulls especially in certain conditions (e.g. Oscar downwind on an Epic). They may however be less competitive/dominant in different conditions on the same hull. In essence it is quite conceivable that a particular paddler may perform better is downwind conditions on an Epic and better upwind on a Fenn or visa versa. Boat speed is largely dictated by drag and not weight as is highlighted in the articles from these links http://members.cox.net/concretecanoe/understanding_drag.htm. http://www-atm.physics.ox.ac.uk/rowing/physics/weight.html. This shows that the percentage loss of speed is one sixth the percentage increase in weight. A rowing example: assume a rowing 8, total weight 800 kg (=8x80kg rowers, 50kg cox, 100kg boat, 10kg oars). An extra 10 kg (=22 lbs) represents 1/80=1.25% increase in weight. So the boat moves 1.25/6=0.2% slower. Over a 6 minute race (eg 2000m) this corresponds to 0.6 sec (0.16% in terms of time), or 4m (about 1/5th of a boat-length). Hull shape will very definitely determine drag because of the surface area of the hull. This has a large impact on the speed of a hull. This can be affected by the weight of the paddler and to a smaller extent their stability (due to rocking), but assuming that all paddlers are reasonably stable in all boats (a big assumption I know), the shape and length of the hull should be the major factors. Another factor that affects the drag of a hull as mentioned in the above articles is the skin drag or water tension of the material. As most skis these days have quite similar skin drag (in the big picture) due to the use of similar resins this is not a major factor. If however manufacturers started exploring substances like Ian Thorpe?s swimsuit (shark skin like surface), things may change. Until then, lets disregard this factor. In addition, even a small difference to the geometry of skis may affect one paddlers synergy with that ski and thus performance. A small incompatibility in the legwell set-up can diminish a paddlers performance greatly. This is a problematic part of testing several skis with different sized people. I agree with a previous comment that elite paddlers normally are sponsored or have special deals on certain ski\'s and these may not even be the best suited ski to their physiology, comfort and performance, but nonetheless they still paddle them. After an elite athlete reaches their peak, they invariably decline in performance as their level of training declines. This decline in performance may even cause their suitability to one brand or model of ski to change in preference to another. In contrast the lower grade paddlers are even more susceptible to these changing capabilities and thus in the ideal world a change of boat. Paddlers often also improve in their ability and performance over time (most not rapidly) as their training load increases and so their ability to propel a particular craft may improve up to a point where a change in craft is required to step up to the next level. A change in brand may suit some paddlers and not others. Ideally, one would audition all the potential skis that one is considering buying, but practically this is difficult and normally doesn?t happen. This is particularly difficult with new models where there may only be one or two in the country. To add to this there are paddlers that are in Durbs or CT and cannot just pop down the their ski shop who has 5 or 6 boats to try. A good point of reference for the vast majority of paddlers is a test such as this that uses reasonably capable paddlers with a wide variety of craft. The only way to get more accurate results would be to expand the sample data, more craft, more paddlers of different capability, different conditions, different distances and more repetitions of each run by each paddler. In addition, the sequence in which skis are paddled by testers can skew results especially over sprint distances where the fresher the paddler the faster the time and thus the first 1 or 2 skis to be paddled may show faster times over very short distances. There are ways to reduce the impact of freshness though. Regard these as my suggestions for future testing. This all would however take a huge amount of time and effort and IMHO would only result in a marginal improvement in the quality of the data/results. To Mark Lewin - to put a paddler in a ski and measure their time over a specified distance is about as unbiased a comparison as you can get. Sure your boats may suit some paddlers better than others and for them would be the best boat but for the three paddlers in this test it seems clear that they were attempting to compare without bias. You however have a very definite bias and that is obvious to all. In short, well done Rob and gang and keep up the great effort. - aussiegazza Fri, 05 May 2006 08:07:24 +0100 http://www.surfski.info/content/view/202/156/#pc_334 It is great to see the great and positive interest that our comparative testing has generated. Many commentators have raised the point that sprint testing is of limited value as racing takes place at lower speed. I would question this. The science underlying the approach is founded on the general principle that in the case of displacement hulls drag increases as the square of speed. The difference between an efficient ski and a less efficient one is therefore that the drag curve of the former is flatter. Because of the geometric relationship between drag and speed sprint testing should accentuate differences but produce the same relative standings. This is helpful when measuring small differences. The results suggest that a Fenn XT should be about 4 ? minutes slower in the hour than a V10. This is in line with my general experience but raises the question as to why we get the ?right answer? if the results should exaggerate the difference. I would guess the explanation is that XT?s tend to be paddled by less experienced (slower) paddlers. Don?t get me wrong ? I am not arguing for one minute that our tests are the final word. Far from it, I am sure that the process will evolve hugely but in the meantime we have some indicative results. Whether Mark Lewin likes it or not comparative testing has arrived and the numbers will become progressively harder to challenge. - dalemaxski Thu, 04 May 2006 08:43:52 +0100 http://www.surfski.info/content/view/202/156/#pc_332 Please give the readers some credit. We all know that a ski\'s speed and stability in a flatwater sprint is only a minor part of the whole equation. For example, I prefer my millenium over my Icon in most flatter conditions as I find it more stable. However, when waves are over 1 m, my Icon seems far more stable than the millenium. And, minor differences in flatwater hullspeed are irrelevent on rough water. Just as important in the results is what it \"disproves\", arguably and subjectively, of course, i.e. the V10 is not super slow in the flats as some suggest, the millenium is not far and away the fastest ski, and stable can be fast, too. Real-life conditions in testing bring in multiple variables that are difficult to control, and therefore, numbers and times may carry less weight. However, subjectivity does matter. If you get a group of paddlers and skis together and test something, each will form a certain opinion on each ski, and this is oftentimes more relevent than what the numbers show. For your next test, it might be interesting to try a longer piece on lumpy water to have the results factor in the combination of speed and stability. After all, this combination is really what matters for the majority of paddlers. This was a great test. It was honest. It didn\'t try to really prove anything. It was entertaining. - e.borg Wed, 03 May 2006 07:50:07 +0100 http://www.surfski.info/content/view/202/156/#pc_330 Every race is a comparitive analysis between skis whether we like it or not and the shootout tests can be seen as that, with the benefit of all competitors paddling all skis. I can understand from a manufacturers point of view that a less than favourable ranking can have a significant effect on sales. But I would like to think that every manufacturer would have such confidence in their product that they would submit it to any comparitive performance test. Keep up the comparisons. Continue the testing. We do it every weekend anyway. And a few more categories for analysis that might make interesting reading - price, quality and customer service. - Red Wed, 03 May 2006 00:34:38 +0100 http://www.surfski.info/content/view/202/156/#pc_329 It\'s also true that no results should ever be taken out of context. We\'ll never get tests that show how a ski will perform for everyone under all conditions. As you say, there\'s probably 3 skis for a person at a particular level - but then you need a comparison study in order to identify which skis those are e.g. a list of beginner, intermediate and expert level skis. For most people that would be defined by the stability. So we need an independent review to compare the stability of the skis. Then people want to be reassured that the money they\'re about to spend is going to go on getting the most competitive ski possible. And that\'s where speed testing comes in. And even then, the tests are just one input into the decision process. Buyers should also be encouraged to go and speak to experienced folks like you who can advise and guide (\"those test results are rubbish\" - if you feel that way - but give them the info and let them make their own minds up). I don\'t think that there\'s any credible argument against testing per se, but there\'s plenty to be discussed about the best way to do it. We\'d truly welcome suggestions from you on how to carry out better testing. - robin.mousley Tue, 02 May 2006 13:01:17 +0100 http://www.surfski.info/content/view/202/156/#pc_325 I am glad my comments are met with Questions and not closed minds. It is important we share knowledge. I just believed the results you put out would spread the wrong information on a number of the ski\'s tested. I have no commercail interest is selling ski\'s. I am a surfski coach and am just concerned that there is too much missleadind information out there. I see to many people buy the wrong thing because they got bad advice. I may be an elite paddler now but 7 years ago I was a total novice and started on a hammerhead so I do know about balance. I have gone though the same learning curve anyone else has. Stability is still important to me. The more stable you are the harder you can pull. Everyone is different so everyone will choose a different model ski. The only way to choose a ski is to paddle the ski\'s in question. Normally a guy will have the choice between 2 or 3 ski\'s that suit his ability level. Try each one and see which one is most comfortable for him. Beg and borrow as many ski\'s as possible to make an informed decision. Buying a ski without paddling it first is a disaster waiting to happen. Yes I think manufactures are biased. Each one wants to sell his boats and may not give the best advice at times. I do agree with Rob it is hard to get your hands on demo boats in Cape Town. Gordon Trip (Tripper - retail store stocking all ski\'s), Oscar or Mark Lewin demo boats on request to customers in Durban. I have seen all 3 doing demo\'s in the last week. I suggest for you push you retail outlets to carry demo\'s like Tripper has. When Gordon does a demo he has 5 different manufactures ski\'s on the beach and is unbiased as to which one you choose. They will bennifit in the long run by providing a better service and a greater offering to the consumer. - sparky Tue, 02 May 2006 11:40:49 +0100 http://www.surfski.info/content/view/202/156/#pc_324 Well done on this comparison Rob et al. It certainly needs to be done. Even cars are compared. But lets not forget the build quality or the price. Some of the skis sent over to Australia from South Africa are not the best quality. Even from the so-called top brands. For B, C and D grade paddlers, we\'ll also consider these issues when we decide to pay over our hard earned moola. Also what about the variation in weight of all the skis. A difference of 17.1 to 18.3 is quite a difference for what amounts to the same article. XT or Mako6. Is this acceptable to those paddlers out there. Just asking!! Thats a lot of extra resin!! - rumpster Tue, 02 May 2006 08:46:04 +0100 http://www.surfski.info/content/view/202/156/#pc_323 I find it hard to believe that someone would label your tests a \"total joke\" Rob. As far as my peers and I are concerned that report is by far the most informative ski comparison I can find. In fact it\'s the only one I can find!!! I think it\'s a credit to you guys to take the time and effort (on what looks like a pretty average day) to get the skis together and make a comparison. Noone else is anywhere close to you guys with regards to providing the info paddlers need and want, how anyone can critise you is beyond me. SimonH is right, it\'s the lesser mortals who purchase the skis, not the elite guys, they sit in what ever is given to them. Found the report very helpful, sitting here in Perth I am no able to hit the beach with a Mako 6, V10, Icon, Robberg Express and make a comparison. I am looking to by a new ski for next season and the report was all I needed to make a choice. Keep up the good work lads, everyone over here raves about your site. If others don\'t appreciate your work they should find another informative site to log on to. If they can find one? - Dave H Tue, 02 May 2006 05:14:21 +0100 http://www.surfski.info/content/view/202/156/#pc_321 Parksy, you just said it???.. Your engine was faster on a V10 than on a Millennium and then you write, ?I AGREE WITH SPARKY IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE SKI? Clearly, Hank would be quicker on an Icon than a Mark 1 and there?s a host of paddlers that would beat Hank if he were on an XT but Hank will beat most, if not all, if all were on similar ski?s. Once the engines sorted, the boat plays a huge part in the ability of the engine to perform. Parksy you?re ideally placed to do a comparative test iro heart rate vs. ski performance as you already have good V10 and Millenium data. How about borrowing an Icon, Mako 6, Robberg Express, Mark 1, or whatever over the season and letting us all know your result, you?ve got my attention! - Mako Mon, 01 May 2006 11:53:57 +0100 http://www.surfski.info/content/view/202/156/#pc_320 I agree. We were hoping that it would tell us something about the general performance of the skis though. Perhaps we were wrong, but the other purpose of the test was to stimulate discussion. That\'s happening - and isn\'t that great?! I really like your method of comparing speeds between Millennium & V10. Lots of data to average out errors. Can we do something similar but that doesn\'t take so much time? Eg A 1km course, using a HRM and GPS? We go at constant HR or constant speed and then compare average heart rates? Would the relative heart rates not tell us something about the relative effort required to keep the ski up to speed? - robin.mousley Mon, 01 May 2006 11:20:32 +0100 http://www.surfski.info/content/view/202/156/#pc_316 Hi Sparky, As timekeeper of the surf ski shootout, ?C grade? paddler and webmaster of surfski.info I welcome your comment. Some wording saddens me a bit but elsewhere you make a good point. So how should a newcomer go about picking a surf ski that suits him/her? This is one surf ski question that most needs answering and you might be one of the best people to answer it. Bear in mind that most surf skis are bought by ?B and C? grade paddlers. I invite you to continue to share your experience and knowledge on this community website. Clearly you care about this sport and the credibility of surf ski information so send us a useful article or positive comment when you can. Kind regards, Alain. - Alain Jaques Sun, 30 Apr 2006 22:49:10 +0100 http://www.surfski.info/content/view/202/156/#pc_313 How about we seek input from paddlers around the global community in this project? Can we set some simple criteria (i.e. 50 m sprint for peak hull speed by GPS or time) so that paddlers in other locations with access to 2-3 different hulls and skills can help complete the data? I think we can round up some bodies here and at least a few Mako Millenium, Mako XT, Epic V10, Huki S1-X and S1-R hulls. Alan - AlanC Sun, 30 Apr 2006 04:31:45 +0100 http://www.surfski.info/content/view/202/156/#pc_312 Wind, current, tide? Conditions were pretty constant (miserable) the whole time. The three B grade paddlers all have a fair amount of boat time, all have done long-distance races like the Cape Point Challenge. We\'ve been told on the one hand that the tippy skis (like the Millennium, Mako & Icon) should only be paddled by A-grade paddlers (ie we were underqualified) and the other that the majority of paddlers are C & D grade and that we were overqualified! Still, we intend to do plenty more testing (using elite and beginner paddlers too) which will either show that we were on the right track, or that we\'re full of $%^T! - robin.mousley Sat, 29 Apr 2006 07:31:47 +0100 http://www.surfski.info/content/view/202/156/#pc_311 Was there any wind, current or tidal changes of note in the testing? As a further thought on data control; can hull experience be controled for? Or what is the experience of each paddler re boats? Often training in a tippier hull allows a paddler to move faster in that particular hull than if they had no experience in such hulls, while going from more stable to tippier is almost never a speed benefit at first. Here in Canada we find flatwater paddlers can handle most hulls in the flats, while non flatwater paddlers require a lot more time in a hull before becoming proficient in it. Alan Alan - AlanC Sat, 29 Apr 2006 04:37:01 +0100 http://www.surfski.info/content/view/202/156/#pc_310 I would be curious to see if the lighter carbon versions have any speed benefit in open water. It would seem that the heavier glass skis would carry the momentum through the chop more effectively. In still water a lighter ski would ride higher, displacing less water, thus being faster. Any thoughts? - york Fri, 28 Apr 2006 18:13:14 +0100