Downloaded this 4’7" Lis Fish template in PDF format a little over 10 years ago. This half-template is 10.5" wide X 55" long (total width 21").
Thought some of our members might be interested.
TSJ-Steve-Lis-Fish_ActualSize.pdf (318.2 KB)
Looks like this:
BTW retro Fish shapes typically have some vee in the tail.
Thanks for sharing. I think a 4’7" will be well beyond my ability but it’s always interesting to look at outlines, you can often use the curves in other boards.
I believe this 4’7” Fish template was one of Steve Lis’ originals. Lis made it for knee boarding. As the story goes, he later made a 5’5” version for his friend Jeff Ching to ride stand up. And the rest is history.
You can always re-size a full-size template:
And you can move the wide point:
Ahh that makes sense. I’ve seen the info on resizing, it’s interesting for sure. Opens up a multitude of options once you find a few outlines you like! Hadn’t seen the one about moving a wide point, thanks for sharing that!
I got this template from Surfer’s Journal years ago. I stretched it out to 5’ 3" and made an XPS board. It was a bit too short for me but I gave it to a friend and he loved it.
Is there a rocker or two that pairs well with this planshape?
The 4-7 template is/was a kneeboard.
There is a rocker shown in the Kinstle book, for a 5-5 Lis Fish.
Very low angle nose/entry rocker.
(These numbers can be mathematically re-distributed/re-calculated to create a more traditional rocker read out.)
Or just re-proportion a modern retro fish rocker.
BTW tail width for this 4-7 is a bit wider than newer Retro Fish SB tail widths
The Kinstle book rocker/profile data for a 5-5 Lis Fish kneeboard, plotted as stated above, looks about like this:
There seems to be a flip in the nose rocker and a lack of dims for thickness near the ends of the board. Was that how they were really made, thick and flat out back? I probably have a bias from making too many l-o-n-g boards with near continuous rocker.
I was hoping someone had a ‘known good’ rocker to go with the 4-7" plan shape from TSJ to avoid having to re-invent it with a lack of history or knowledge to do so.
Or did I just do it bass-ackwards?
Here is thickness below a deck rocker (bottom image) instead of above a bottom rocker (top image)
Last one, compared to a file online, the Lis rocker data looks ‘better’ when shown next to an example with a more complete nose and tail curve.
You could view it from 2 perspectives.
My predawn & first cup of coffee assessment of last night’s activities:
The combined rocker and thickness data from the book will get you into the ballpark once the system is understood, but is missing important thickness data close to the nose and tail that would better define or ‘sweeten’ the curves. Some of the issues may also be related to how the rocker and thickness were measured (too coarse of units and not plotted often enough).
@stoneburner I would not bother trying to calculate the book’s 5-5 data into 4-7 data for me but I do appreciate the offer. (Edit: I agree with your second statement that the curve is intended to be gentle)
I can take the sweeter data shown in blue above and resize it in most 2D CAD systems by typing:
scale
[one mouse click to select]
0.8461538 (55"/65")
or go back to a shaping program and use either a new board or resize board feature to change one or more dimensions of the board. The danger here is that I ’ do not know what I do not know’ and could make something that looks good on paper so to speak but would not be a go-getter in the water.
The Lis Fish thickness values are at 12” intervals, 12”-60”.
Rails were down rails.
The nose was 100% down, forming the “beak.”
Don’t forget tail thickness at zero is zero for the “wing tips” (butt crack).
The rocker re-size I presented is for a 66” Retro Fish (Surfding’s). So the the re-size ratio would be 55/66 = 0.833.
For me, I would just use the re-scaled rocker of Surfding’s Retro Fish for the 4-7. Surfding’s design had a flat bottom with tail Vee .
BTW the Rocker Scale-down ratio method preserves nose entry and tail exit rocker angles.
Same lift angle for nose.
Same Coanda Effect angle for tail.
As the board gets shorter, less rocker is needed, e.g., 42” body boards have no tail rocker and approx. 1.75” nose rocker. Speed.
The Surfding drawing is well done.
Here is my scaled Lis-like figure compared to Surfding’s design scaled uniformly to the same length.
You have steeper lift and Coanda effect angles in your red bottom rocker.
Steeper lift angle = harder to paddle, plowing.
Steeper Coanda angle = more tail pull down (steeper waves).
IMO short boards are already difficult enough to paddle fast (up to planing speed) without adding steep nose and tail rocker angles.
You can calculate the lift and Coanda angles with trigonometry.
Inverse tangent of max rocker height at nose and tail tips divided by distance to zero curve point
BTW you are still calculating Surfding ratios for a 65” rather than 66” length.
However, curve steepness affects lift and plowing too.
