Value for money

I am interested to get the general consensus out there of whether or not a carbon ski, at roughly double the price of a standard glass ski, is worth the extra money?

What type of increase in speed can one expect to gain for parting with all that extra cash?

And lastly, has anyone recently bought a carbon Red7? If so, what were your impressions of the manufacturing quality?

Thanks,
Paul

It all depends on your current level. For a beginner / intermediate paddler it is not worth it but the top guys need to have the lightest and stiffest boats to get as much advantage as possible.

I have just received a Carbonology Atom in fibreglass and as far as I know, Carbonology also make Red7's carbon boats. My glass ski is under 14 kg and feels strong and very well made so I would expect a carbon red7 made by the same guys to be even better!

Cheers
Andrew

There's a sweet spot where cost and weight are in pretty good balance. The Epic performance layup and the Think glass layup which are about 14 kg are a good compromise. The Fenn glass skis are too heavy (about 18 kg) - I like their carbon skis, but not the glass ones. The custom Hukis can be made at a good price/weight point, too. Dont' know about other manufacturers where you are or what the Red7's price/weight is.

I'm not convinced that you'll find much extra speed in the lighter layups compared to the mid-weights. But, an 11 kg ski will be faster than a 18 kg ski without a doubt - how much? that's difficult to measure. My experience tells me that the glass ski won't really be "slower" but racing it will tire you out sooner. The trade-off with the lightest ones, though, is that you will get a livelier more tippy ski that might throw you off or make you less able to paddle as hard. The light ones are awfully nice carrying to and from the water, though.

I suspect there isn't too much difference in top end speed between a carbon and a glass boat. The biggest gain is probably in acceleration. Carbon boats seem to get a boat length on you before you get up to top speed. In a downwind race this is a big advantage. Carbon is strong but tends to not like side impacts. If you want longevity go for a midweight or the green 7. Like Nell said it is a good trade off between cost and speed. I have a glass red7pro which isn't finished as well as the chinese boats ......but it aint broke yet either. The new ones are reputedly finished better but I haven't seen one either.

I'm a newbie and paddle an old Red7 Surf 70 which I weighed at around 19.5kgs (yes, heavy!) and I currently weigh around 85kgs.

If I had a nice, light, carbon ski at around 11kgs and lost a few kgs myself, I could probably cut my total weight by around 16-18kgs. This is the weight of another ski!

Imagine paddling a carbon ski with the weight of another glass ski strapped on the back ... not a great thought.

In this case, I'm pretty sure I'd be faster with a carbon ski and losing some flab.

But it all means nought if the ski is too tippy and you can't paddle properly.

There are two sides to this question.

Are you so competitive that a carbon ski will make the difference?
If you are not elite, then it is hard to justify the cost.

On the other hand, if it feels that much better to paddle and it inspires you to get out more, then it may be money well spent.

For me personally, not being elite, value for money is the key.
My inspiration is not lacking.

Something to be said (IMHO) bout the ability of the glass skis to take a little more abuse (ie strapping onto cars and bashing through surf/bumping onto beaches. Every time I have seen major seam delams it's been a carbon ski , the stiff is good for speed but not that great for dispersing stress. Saw a buddies Carbon kevlar sea kayak split the seam stem to stern under a nasty(but not huge) dumper , he came through upright with the boat split and sinking , pretty funny sight !

Thanks for the replies, but I now have more questions than I did when I first started thinking about this

Firstly, with regards to weight. Will dropping 5kg of extra weight from yourself have the same effect as dropping 5kg from the weight of the boat? I would imagine that you would see a bigger improvement from being 5kg’s lighter yourself since the weight is saved at a central point and not distributed over the ski (just a stab in the dark)?

Secondly, I don’t understand how a glass and carbon ski can have the same top-end speed but the carbon be faster over a distance. Surely a person has a certain amount of power/energy and that can be used either to make the boat go faster over a shorter distance or maintaining a certain pace for longer? In other words I would think that if you are going faster over a distance (say 10km where your effort is roughly flat-out and your speed pretty constant) and you are putting in the same effort on a carbon ski as you would on a glass ski – then I don’t see how you are doing that without increasing your top-end speed?

I think this would be a good topic for another ‘science of paddling article’.

With regards to 5kg of personal weight - that is probably my personal objective more than anything else, but would you carry a 5L bottle of water on your back if you didn't have to? Probably not ... If it was 5kg of extra muscle and power, then the answer might be different! Where that weight is distributed will make little difference, except for turning and pitching movements of the ski, and perhaps how you punch through (or over) waves.

In relation to boat speed, a carbon or glass ski of the same make has the same hull shape. The hull shape will have a maximum hull speed which will essentially be the same for both skis. However, the carbon ski will sit a little higher in the water and so have less wetted surface area which is translated into less drag than the heavier glass ski.

I think there is an exponential relationship between the effort you put in and the speed of the ski, such that to go from 8km-10km might takes (say) 20% extra effort, but to go from 10km-12km average might take 40% extra effort (figures purely illustrative).

So, at the very max, a carbon ski might be a bit easier to keep moving at your top speed given maximum your effort.

Someone else noted that acceleration will be much quicker, and that will make it much easier to catch a wave (and the next one, and the next one after that and so on). In waves, I would expect the weight saving will make a big difference.

In terms of value for money ... I think that's a purely personal question and depends on how much extra the carbon is, how much paddling you'll do, how it will make you feel when paddling and how long you expect to have the ski.

I've been considering the same thing, Value for money for the V12, glass v's carbon.

I agree with the above in relation to it being a personal question in regards to value for money. I want the fastest ski which still has enough strength that if it washes up on a sandy beach it won't break, if a wave breaks on the ski while paddling out will the ski last long? etc.... If the ski is more likely to get damaged from what I've mentioned then can I afford to fix or replace it? No I personally can't. Some of the other replies have mentioned seeing carbons ski's sink after being hit by a wave. Personally I can't afford for that to happen since the only way I can get out in the ocean is by paddling out through waves (Au, QLD, Gold Coast beach breaks).

So for me it's not value for money, the con's out way the pros financially, mainly due to possible damage.

my 2c

Dropping 5kgs of flab will drop actual weight by 10 kgs. More actually as relative density of sea water is about 1.3.
5x1.3 =6.5kgs of water that is not displaced by overall weight.
Therefore, 5kgs of lost flab + 6.5kgs of reduced water displacement = 11.5kgs all up.
www.surfski.info/images/stories/2009/06/...ing%2C%20Pt.%201.pdf

the article makes more sense than me and worth a read.
Cheers

From recent experience one also needs to keep longevity and the ability to take a knock; be it wave or sitting on the ground, off the water. I bought a near new Synergy Hybrid (epoxy version) which didn't survive a small wave (didn't hit anything solid). It caved in and all the seams burst as well as being torn in two. Manufacturer feels that at one and a half years old what can you expect. Probably should have saved a grand and bought a more robust brand or model?

Since posting to the thread I have been contacted by the manufacturer of the Synergy who states that he has been misquoted and did not infer that 1.5 yrs was acceptable at any time. With this I want to make it clear that he never actually said this and it wasn't intended as a quote but merely my own inference. Some of his companies skis have been in competition for more than 10 years and this is an isolated incident. Which is most obviously apparent by the fact that he is still in business after all that time and his skis are sold all over the world They are also paddled by some very capable paddlers.He also stated that he is very busy at the moment with business and racing commitments and I had not given he enough time to look into the whole matter.
Apart from this one incident I was very happy with my Synergy and found it very good value for money when I bought it. Logic does point to this being a one of incident, so I would have to say the Synergy is a very capable ski for an Intermediate to advanced paddler