Diving Board replacement - u-frame spacing question

[dcrowdus]

The house I bought has sturdy u-frames cast into the concrete deck that appear to be in good condition. The diving board is gone, and I'd like to get a replacement. The frames are set approx 66" apart. According to the SR Smith literature this fulcrum spacing corresponds to a 12' diving board, which seems huge.

My pool is a Type 3 and corresponds to an 6 or 8 foot board. Other u-frame dimensions seem to also correlate to a 6 or 8 foot board.

My question is, can I put a 6 or 8 foot board on a u-frame pair that is spaced 66"? Intuitively, it may have less "bounce" than a long board. But I can't think of how it would over stress the board itself, and seems like it should be fine form a load/stress/strength aspect. It made me wonder if the spacing listed in the sr Smith guides are meant to indicate a minimum spacing, as opposed to an exact prescribed spacing.

If anyone had some info or insight on this issue I would greatly appreciate your feedback.

Thanks,
Dan

 

[kimkats]

I think calling the manufacture of the board would be the best idea. I have not seen many diving board experts................well except for the cannon kind LOL

 

[dcrowdus]

Thanks. I figured I could contact them, but I also have a high expectation that they would take the CYA approach and recommend installing a new base per their published specs. They won't recommend anything that could come back to haunt them - even if it may be a perfectly safe alternate option. I was hoping to receive some empirical feedback... like if anyone else has a board mounted on a similar spacing and has not had any issues.

In other words, I'm not really looking for an expert. I know enough to be dangerous. I'm a civil engineer and can remember just enough from my structures and stress analysis courses to *think* that a larger spacing should put less stress on the board itself, and less uplift load on the anchor. That said, civil engineers only really learn about static loads, not dynamic loading. There's probably quite a bit more at play with dynamic loading.