Life expectancy

As a consumer, how long do you expect a ski to last?
As a manufacturer, how long do expect a ski to last?

The reason I ask this, is because it seems that a lot of ski's that regularly head out through a solid break, don't ever go more than the first two years without some sort of repair, many less.

I would love to hear from the makers; what do they expect their ski's can cope with?
I also want to here from paddlers; what they expect their boats should be able to withstand without either immediate or accumulated damage.


Is it reasonable to expect that my ski can slam down the back of a wave after having the nose five foot in the air?
Higher?

What is the worst danger for a ski?
Is the weight of a barreling lip worse than a big slam down off the back of a 2m wave?

Are the current 'in' boats of infused fibreglass really strong enough to last going in and out of a break each paddle?

Is carbon really better?

Should we all just give up and go paddle in the dam?

The demand for lightweight skis has meant that they are more fragile, but a ski can last for years even with repeated surf entries if treated well.

In my experience the most common causes of ski damage in the surf are :

1. Pegging your nose in the sand when coming in, especially in a shore break
2. Getting hit in the crucial break zone by a hard breaking (often hollow) wave. Too often paddlers stay in their ski when this happens, and the likelihood of ski damage can be hugely reduced by baling out before the wave impacts you. This is especially true when "going over the falls"
3.Hitting a steep peaking swell at full speed while going out and doing a nice aerial: looks spectacular for the crowds, but if you land it flat you will most likely crack your ski. Backing off as you hit the crest is the sensible thing to do.

I've done the past 4 racing seasons in Durban SA (often in big surf) in the same carbon Fenn Elite without any ski damage. I've taken a pounding more than once, and been pretty impressed with what my ski has handled, but any lightweight racing ski will break if you get caught in the wrong place at the wrong time. Carbon is pretty good if you can avoid subjecting it to impact damage.

I can't comment on the new vacuum glass skis as they're still pretty new to the market and I haven't owned one myself.

Nige , I have a 3 year old Vacumed glass , "elite" ski and I will for now withhold the make to defer any "disgruntled" consumer rants from the topic . After 3 years 3-4 days average use in predominantly moderate to light ocean paddling conditions (harbor launch , so little beach break). Started seeing linear cracks in the paint and followed by soft spots in the laminate. On further investigation (stripping paint ) found some "things" related to age/use/longevity. This boat with soric core in the hull and core mat(cheese) in the deck. Two spots in the deck (gunwales) same side where the core material was pieced together , not overlapped and 1/4 inch gap of epoxy resin contained by cloth. The flexing of the deck causing the epoxy to breakdown =soft spot. Also with this type of construction ,1 layer of light to medium FG (4 oz.)on exterior of core , clean and readily faired repairs are a challenge to manifest. These soft spots were NOT where the boat rested on racks (I carry ski rails down on mini cell foam) SO.... I think the carbon stiffness may have advantage in less flex leading to breakdown in composite 'IRREGULARITIES" (i.e. epoxy filled gaps in coring continuity. And So.... imho boats with the higher quality control (i.e. no gaps in coring ) should have greater longevity (duh right ?) Trick is how do we know without being able to see the construction. I personally believe the answer for me is FG vacuum constr. with 2 layers cloth on exterior and MOST IMPORTANT , some confidence in quality control and at minimum demonstration of Mfg. warranty integrity (i.e. "stands behind product" ). The more flex in the FG composite , IMHO , although slightly heavier than Carbon , absorbs stress (assuming composite w/structural integrity) better. The stiffer carbon seems (pardon pun here) to focus stress to the seams.Light sure is fun but the well done heavier will of course demonstrate not only greater longevity but easier repair (from someone who does as best he can repairs in a cool poorly lit garage). always boils down to a compromise......seaworthy is a real good thing when paddling in the ocean eh?

Any discontinuity in a composite will have to endure stess concentrations. A discontinuity can be a void in core or laminate, abrupt density change in the core or laminate(core or laminate discontinuity), laminate edge overlaps, abrupt laminate schedule change from one area to another, feature lines, and of course, seams. On my eight month old boat, there are some instances of poor surface prep causing the start of seam failure. The ski has not seen any surf, nor rough handling and has been quite pampered other than some hard sprints and chop. She has seen only minimal, careful roof rack time.

Hi RAB,
Like many, I`ve got a soft spot for the break zone when there`s a wave on, especially if it`s surfable on a ski but not so much on a board. I love doing ins and outs on a spec ski, which are of course designed to be much stronger, easier to handle and to keep the nose up.
Of the two spec skis I have here on Okinawa, one is twenty years old and the other is thirty years old! They have both had a hammering and have both received `touch up` repairs over the years, but both are still very sea worthy. Unfortunately the same can`t be said of my old carbon ocean ski. It was a beautiful boat but at some point I suspect the stringer in the back had collapsed. A little later whilst heading out in chest high waves on a steep beach where the out-going swash was meeting the incoming wave I was forced into a position just like Nige has mentioned - me and my ski went high in the air, we landed with a slap and a huge crack as my back-side went through the bottom of the ski!
Anyway, my point is, it`s horses for courses. If your thing is ocean racing, then an ocean ski is the way to go, but you need to be sensible in your judgement about what amount of breaking wave treatment is acceptable. You wouldn`t take a brand new Vayron sports car off-roading if you it`s life expectancy was a concern to you. Same thing for your best bicycle road racing wheels.
These days (especially if you live in Aus) spec skis can be picked up dirt cheap. I`d say anyone who enjoys using a racing surfski in the surf should have one for this kind of playtime if they`re worried about the longevity of their expensive ocean racing boat.
I do agree with Sandy`s point though, that all buyers should be getting what they are paying for.
Happy paddling all.

The harried worker in China is doing the best he/she can , the fact remains they likely have no experiential concept of the demands put on the ski they are cranking out , the oversight of the designer/Brand/...whatever is the key and time and time again shown to be lacking. Us consumers only see it when it fails and then we are often hung out to dry by the ski "maker". Next ski...I'm buying "local" . You Saffers have a good thing with Fenn and Custom Kayaks etc. made in SA and the mfg.'s seem to be good about standing behind the product. I live in SoCal , so local = Huki , and they have a good reputation for backing up their product here. I really think that with quality construction and relative care a ski ought last at least 5 years without major issues ( obviously exclude abuse , either intentional are nature imposed). The ultralight constructions.....I can't afford to buy one anyway let alone gamble on the longevity....