great to see JP making inroads into more sustainable boards. notice their latest range includes rPET sandwich and paulownia veneer.
also notice they are using rPET stringers and parabolic stringers on their wave boards.

seems you've got some issue when it comes to starboard and cobra.
additionally with bio products there is a global rating system built around certification.

so putting that aside, lets be real clear.

your boards are probably the least eco boards on the planet. so probably best to not through stones at others.
claiming your boards last longer does not make them any more eco than another. there is a global rating system and your boards wouldn't even be let in the room to be reviewed, because. again. there is absolutely nothing eco about them.

unless you can actually add to the eco part of the thread why bother posting further.

is it possible you could start an i hate starboard and no other boards are as good as mine thread in the general forum to pick up from here.

Been reading through this thread, I have to agree with Bourke, a product that is considerably more durable has to be more eco friendly in the long run when you consider not only the use of a few "eco" materials but all the inputs in a products lifecycle.

You might not be able to "virtue signal" in your marketing but the reality is if your product is still in use 20 years later that has to be better than an "eco" one that is in land fill after only a few years.

if you can build something as durable as the best but using eco products than you really do have an eco board.

I just watched the Starboard guy interview and at 1:20:50 he agreed with Witchcraft that definitely the longest lasting board is the best for the environment . It makes sense to me .

Imax1 said..
I just watched the Starboard guy interview and at 1:20:50 he agreed with Witchcraft that definitely the longest lasting board is the best for the environment . It makes sense to me .

you have really cherry picked. prior to that he says that manufacturers using single use plastic should be banned from events. he also says that 10x carbon neutral is his ambition.

you guys can argue about this all you want but the reality is that eco friendly products are not scored on longevity.
no one can guarantee the longevity of a product and there is no point destroying the planet to build a product that lasts a long time.

long and short there are international iso's around this stuff.

nuclear energy lasts a long time... hows that working out for the Japanese.

to get this thread back on track this is the current accepted industry guideline for determining "eco"

A measurably reduced carbon footprint.
Renewable, recycled and/or up-cycled material inputs.
Uses materials and processes that reduce toxicity during manufacturing

Nope your wrong Imax - Reusing is not an acceptable industry guideline for determining eco

cammd said..
Nope your wrong Imax - Reusing is not an acceptable industry guideline for determining eco

maybe read what i posted 3 times previously. you gotta read it and understand it to enjoy a really good conversation.

Renewable, recycled and/or up-cycled material inputs.

Eco-labelling | UNEP - UN Environment Programme.
The ECOBOARD Project - A program by Sustainable Surf

choco said..
If you're that worried whether a board is eco friendly or not do the environment a favour and stop windsurfing,sup,surfing.

if you don;t care then why bother even posting here. what have you done.
me personally i've done a lot and have lots more to do. this thread is an example.

Imax1 said..

cammd said..
Nope your wrong Imax - Reusing is not an acceptable industry guideline for determining eco

I get what your saying , I'm just thinking that a longer lasting board is better for the environment that a short lasting one . We're going around in circles . I'm out.

yep i'm out too.

i'll just get on with trying to build a board and leave it with this quote from a great article. "The perils of short-termism: Civilisation's greatest threat"

the paper. Long-term Trajectories of Human Civilisation, attempts to "formalise a scientific and ethical field of study" for thousands of years hence. As they write: "To restrict attention to near-term decades may be akin to the drunk searching for his keys under the streetlight: it may be where empirical study is more robust, but the important part lies elsewhere."

cammd said..

Gestalt said..


20 years is nothing. how many windsurfer one designs went into land fill around the world and they are bullet proof.

Hardly the fault of a manufacturer if a customer choose's to dispose out their perfectly functional product is it.

Beg to differ, computer mobs like microsoft & apple phone & TV companies like samsung or LG build their buisness model on people disposing of older perfectly functioning gear. They are completely to blame for a rampant consumerism by drip feeding improvements one model at a time, they are some of the worst eco bandits arround.

peterowensbabs said..

cammd said..

Gestalt said..


20 years is nothing. how many windsurfer one designs went into land fill around the world and they are bullet proof.

Hardly the fault of a manufacturer if a customer choose's to dispose out their perfectly functional product is it.

Beg to differ, computer mobs like microsoft & apple phone & TV companies like samsung or LG build their buisness model on people disposing of older perfectly functioning gear. They are completely to blame for a rampant consumerism by drip feeding improvements one model at a time, they are some of the worst eco bandits arround.

I disagree with the notion that someone else is completely to blame, we each make our own choices. attempting to "completely blame" others for ones personal choices is a cop out.

Building a brand new board from eco products has a greater carbon footprint then using one that already exists. That's pretty plain to see, that's why I think bourke presented a good argument about durability being a good environmental outcome

Gestalt said..
concrete is high in durability and it is one of the least eco friendly building materials around.

eco means sustainable. nothing in bourkes boards is sustainable. eco also talks to low footprint life cycle. nothing in bourkes boards has a low footprint. eco also refers to biodegradable. nothing in bourkes boards is biodegradable.

20 years is nothing. how many windsurfer one designs went into land fill around the world and they are bullet proof.

in the context of a board eco friendly can also be defined as below.

A measurably reduced carbon footprint
Renewable, recycled and/or up-cycled material inputs
Uses materials and processes that reduce toxicity during manufacturing

none of the above points can be applied to witchcraft boards. it's pretty poor form to throw stones at other manufacturers on this topic when those other manufacturers are much further down the road of producing iso and eco rated equipment

I agree with you that boards are not environmentally friendly. But so is nearly everything we do. I also do not call it that, I think it is misleading. That is why I say they are the least damaging for the environment. Which at the moment simply is the best we can do without going back to the stone age. Windmills and solar panels still have to be made and transported as well. An airplane made from carbon fibre is more fuel economic than one made of aluminium, so what is better then? And ships are by far the worst. I have seen designs of freight ships using wind power that would do a lot more than the whole windsurf industry together. But that should not stop the industry from doing their part. The tree planting thing is just marketing in my opinion. Off course planting trees is good. But it will be added on the price. What if someone wants to save that money to invest in solarpanels? Or planting his own trees for that matter?

Even you are still using recycled EPS and many other non sustainable stuff, including the transport to get these materials. So if your board lasts as long as a "normal" production board from say Cobra (where 90% of windsurf boards are made?) and is of the same weight, you are only allowed to use 25% non sustainable material compared to a board that lasts 4 times as long as a normal production board. Can you do that? I doubt that very much. And if you cant you are the one that should not throw stones. And certainly not till you have actually PROVEN you can do it. I am pretty sure that with todays available "ECO" materials, if it is the same weight, it will not last by far as long as even a normal board. Or if it does it will be a LOT heavier. Even if you personally would accept that weight penalty, it would be unsellable unless the competition (is forced to) does the same and it may stop many people going windsurfing at all. In the end maybe that is where we will have to end up any way to "save the planet" or better said: save humanity. But that is something we will have to do collectively. Some will have to lead for sure but those will have to make sure others will follow. That is why I was saying such a rule for the PWA would be good to start with. Customers can push brands to follow. If Starboard really thinks it is better and performance and durability is the same, why still offer normal made boards? Now for sure that is +90% of their business. And the "ECO" offering is marketing.

The same for these "ECO" labels for surfboards. I had a look into that a while ago. As long as a part of such boards is still made with non-sustainable materials, longevity should be taken into account. And they dont. If you use an X% of "BIO" materials, you get the label, if it falls apart many times faster or not. So it is marketing. At the moment I have a 9 foot long board in for a small repair which is 23 years old, weighs 5.3kgs and shows no sign of fatigue.

Actually I know how to a board as well.
you are beyond irrationally.
do you actually read and comprehend

is English your first language?
duzzi?

duzzi said..

Bouke-Witchcraft said..

Hmmm in the early 2000s there was a brand making boards with Dyneema. But whenever I saw such a board in half, I didnt see any Dyneema. ...

And before Duzzi starts complaining again: I do not need to make promotion here and secondly, every one can see where it is coming from and make up their own mind. We have a waiting list which is increasing as it is. If I get PWA riders asking for sponsorship I turn them down.

Good, there is a difference between a forum and advertisement, and if it takes complaining to stop your not so subtle advertisement so be it. If you could also stop the refrain that you are the only person on the planet who knows how to build a board and the boasting and especially your bad mouthing of other builders it would be great.

So in your opinion, who is the best? With best meaning least damaging for the environment. Just because Witchcraft is not in magazines or the PWA, doesnt mean anything, apart from that it doesnt seem to fit in your picture. I had a call yesterday from a customer from Holland about his new board. He said that in Wijk aan Zee, next to Amsterdam, one of the most popular wave spots in Europe (or the world) with on good days over 300 people out. They also go there from Germany. Germany, France or the UK alone are bigger windsurf markets than the entire USA. And Holland, as small as it is, is close behind. It is a wind swell spot with, next to the Amsterdam canal, a break water going out to sea stopping the current and cleaning up the waves but you need minimum 25 knots to get decent waves unless there is a rare swell coming in from the north. He said that every 4th board on the water is a Witchcraft. Some of them are 15 years or older. In other spots in Holland, Belgium or France it is a similar story. So in your opinion, is the biggest brand who produces the most boards or who has the most boards on the water? I can give you his contact if you want.