Wow! Mindblowing thoughts oneula! ;D
C’mon, man… Share your thoughts with us… Pplleeeeaase!
okay since I’m munching a nice hot tempura udon now for lunch I’ll bite…
Let’s break it down piece by piece.
I know you two are focusing on what and where to put stuff but how about if we take it back to the concept of shape and develop a baseline we can work around.
seems like silly, bert, meecrafty, jjp and myself have settled arounf a “flyer” type outline with a tail bump and reverse curve the last 18" or so. Others have done funboards like jimmy’s or fishes. But I think there must a fundamental plus to starting with a “flyer-like” design as a baseline and start monkeying around with thickness profile like meecrafty or perhaps rail contours as well which I haven’t seen discussed too much here.
Aside from the bottom and deck stuff what’s the best outline to start with and how much should the curve chnage after the bump andf where should the bump be placed in relation to the fins and should there be more than one bump and why. And what do you do about the tail? Diamond, Squash, Moon, Bat, swallow or rounded pin…
once we get that then we can move on to flat or concave decks, flat or concaved bottoms and then what and how do we put on the outsides…
I think this go back to my bro and my belief that there just a couple basic shapes that are fundamental that most stuff is a derivative of. If we can isolate and get to the core shape then we have a baseline to start altering the various components
to test the effects. I think alot of us here would agree that its good solid methodology sorrounding this baseline that will get us the best results.
So starting from the ground up I toss it back to you two/three/???.
well ive decided to use the flyer shape cuz its a dependable shape it would appear.
it can work in a broader range of conditions and suits an older/heavier rider.
the width of the flyer shape naturally lends itself to compsand construction becuase they are generally a bit wider.
so more volume can be achieved without going to thick (also a bit more planning area)
going thick makes it difficult to control flex parameters. unless the rider is really heavy or a power surfer and can use the extra thickness.
im talking under 1/4 inch makes the world of diference imho.
i believe most boards are to thin at the nose incedentally more volume in front allows
to lay further forward on the nose. without burying the nose in water.
this means your not pushing so much water with the rocker curve
is this theory correct? or am i barking up the wrong plantation balsa tree.
i intend to from now on use this as a a base for my flex experiments.
so the next one is a rebuild of my second board i have peeled of the bottom skin and will put a new skin with
diagonal balsa . althoug i wont be ablle to have a deck lapping the stringers.
it will have thinner harder rails and smaller fins.(kfin template)
also it will be 1/4 inch thinner with a slight concave deck.
i have been thinking about a 1/4 to 1/2 inch flip in the tail.
the outline and fin position will be identical.
i imagine it although less floaty. should perform better
than ill make one thats in the middle
this board will utiulize new theiry as discussed in this thread regarding
density and grain orientation
hopefully ill have a better understanding of timber pretreatments by the time ive finished this board
also have one other project for a friend who wants to try this constructon for himself.
we wll build something pretty standard in this case .
Hi Paul
sounds like every one is having fun
With were you are at now,do you now see why ive been doing two of each board
same rocker same plan shape but one thick and one thin
I can pretty much make em flex the same now
and the ride I can now get fairly similar , only now one has a different feel moving round the line up but the same ride on the wave its opening up new doors
As you guys have said some new rules for compsands
There are some formulas for achieving flex results
notice the word some- there are many more ways than just one
All involve steps -get your ideal steps with the construction system you use and it all starts falling into place
Don,t you just love it when you can sit on the board out in the line up and just lift your bum a couple of inches off the board then let yourself fall back down on to the board and you can feel the spring!!
Mike
Oneula,
Yeah, I think a baseline is a really important place to start. And, as you say, some are simply going to be more suitable than others. That said I really do believe that a sound understanding of well known applied physics and practical mechanics is crucial in going past the point of “art”. Not denigrating the artistic approach, you understand, but it’s not (wholly) the way psyche works.
As to solid methodology, with a few outstanding exceptions I haven’t seen a whole lot of methodical, cyclic change approaches on here (and yes, I do understand some of the reasons behind that). Shall I block my ears whilst the screaming commences?
Paul,
I agree with what you are saying about the flyer… Tho it’s probably going to be a while before I approach a shortboard design.
The rebuild sounds good, but how much are you really changing? The more you (unnecessarily) change in one hit the more fuzzy the “data” you’ll get (basic principle). That’s not to say change A might necessitate change B, that cannot always be avoided.
Keep us posted on how all of these turn out!
Mike,
I think I mentionned above “some notable exceptions”, and you are one of the ones I had in mind. 
I have always appreciated your motive for doing two as-identical-as-possible-except-one-difference boards at once. I won’t say you inspired me to do the same, but I have independantly decided on doing the same as a minimum 
Rules… It’s an interesting word, rules 
What’s a rule? “Wrapped rails create a stiffer board, or section of board” might be a rule. And I think we have touched on some… Like “a more radiused curve resists flex at acost or durability, unless otherwise compensated for”. Maybe even “spackle is evil” ;D hehe! Our “rules” are things that are inviolable. They can’t be “broken” without a certain result (not to say we can’t necessarily compensate in some way, but that might be quite significant compensatory action). Everything else is formulas of tradeoff, tweaking things within the parameters of our rules. The rules are always there, even if we don’t consciously know them. I want to figure those rules out. And get a list of formulas togethor for operating inside them.
And then there’s… How many ways to skin that cat? It’s pretty big But I think we’ll find some ways are better than others and hopefully come up with a shorter, more refined list. Which might be a pipedream… But I gotta dream
Thanks all of you for responding!
hey mike
im convinced your way ahead of me .
i guess a boatbuilding background ,you dont have to worry to much about hands on problems
so you can focus more on construction and design parameters.
yes i can see why you build two.
how about 6 of the same
id love to hear your ideas regarding thick cores
pm me if you feel like divulging some info to us novices.
my latest is a paddleing machine but lacks the flex im looking for
in saying that though its not to bad .its a good board (light strong and fast)
maybe i just expect to much
Quote:
Rules… It’s an interesting word, rules
What’s a rule? “Wrapped rails create a stiffer board, or section of board” might be a rule. And I think we have touched on some… Like “a more radiused curve resists flex at acost or durability, unless otherwise compensated for”. Maybe even “spackle is evil” ;D hehe! Our “rules” are things that are inviolable. They can’t be “broken” without a certain result (not to say we can’t necessarily compensate in some way, but that might be quite significant compensatory action). Everything else is formulas of tradeoff, tweaking things within the parameters of our rules. The rules are always there, even if we don’t consciously know them. I want to figure those rules out. And get a list of formulas togethor for operating inside them.
i too feel a list of formulaes to be a good goal
however im not too keen just to hand around lists of compsand rules
without a basis of understanding .
like threads that start with "is epoxy stiffer foam then polyester tee-shirts "
or " i dont like like how poly rides so i think ill get a new girlfriend"
if you guys wanna pm it thats sweet by me
but pm,s kinda go against the spirit of sways.
still if it was all handed to me on a plate i wouldnt have learned anything.
all i know is my first board which is 8ft
has the magic flex
any thing shorter imho is a pain in the ass
im convinced your way ahead of me .
Ahmen…
yes i can see why you build two.
Ahmen! Actually the first thing I really noticed about Mike. And I truly believe that it’s something that’s helped him develop at an accelerated rated.
how about 6 of the same
id love to hear your ideas regarding thick cores
pm me if you feel like divulging some info to us novices.
Oh you have no idea how much I feel the same! Tho I haven’t been shy on here about voicing what I know/think, I don’t feel I have any right to ask for something like that.
my latest is a paddleing machine but lacks the flex im looking for
in saying that though its not to bad .its a good board (light strong and fast)
maybe i just expect to much
And that’s what I am still working towards…
i too feel a list of formulaes to be a good goal
however im not too keen just to hand around lists of compsand rules
without a basis of understanding .
Uuu-hh… Yeah. Nuf said. I don’t want to hand things away on a golden platter. If people don’t think through/work on it themselves, they don’t value it. I am not suggesting that should be a publically available thing… At least not yet.
like threads that start with "is epoxy stiffer foam then polyester tee-shirts "
or " i dont like like how poly rides so i think ill get a new girlfriend"
Oh gawd save me… Please “I pray thee send a storm of fire on these blasphemers”.
if you guys wanna pm it thats sweet by me
but pm,s kinda go against the spirit of sways.
still if it was all handed to me on a plate i wouldnt have learned anything.
Oh agreed. At the risk of spouting further blashemy… The big difference between here and the early internet (non-sways) crew is that people here expect to have everything handed over on a silver platter. The early internet crew knew they had several layers of “competency” to go through. It really picked up the level of posting. Maybe internet surfboard design just doesn’t have the critical mass of skills to hold that up…
silly/ doug
This is the best thread for a while, lots of thinking going on between you guys, been following with interest.
I am afraid that I am not very analytical like doug and craftee, no engineering background.
I just love building stuff and tend to dive in and change too much at once!
all i know is my first board which is 8ft
has the magic flex
any thing shorter imho is a pain in the ass
All my boards (15 compsands to date) have been under 7’2", and all have been unitentionally overengineered WRT outside glass on deck, and rail thickness/height.
I think you are right, the shorter the board, the harder it is to make it flex enough. I think that the ride characteristics I have been liking are due to the low weight/swing weight of the compsands and haven’t got close to dialling in flex.
I have done the upside down spring test on a couple of kneeboards and they are nowhere near to flattening out, loads of return spring though.
The next board I make will incorperate some of the ideas you have been discussing, makes sense to prefab the skins as DanB has been doing (just waiting for my RR epoxy), thin the rails down to 12 mm and my bottom skin to 2mm.
I am pretty sure Bert overlaps the rails with the deck balsa to avoid splitting on the rail join, I don’t see how you can totally isolate the bottom from the rails though unless 1 layer of 4oz is isolating it enough?
I jumped in with the concave decks to see what happened, just love how comfortable they are to lie on, but ironically think that they have less use on a kneeboard than standup board.
They obviously locally stiffen the board, but short/wide kneeboards with quite a lot of rocker tend to be pretty stiff anyhow,
also, I think that kneeling spreads the load over a larger area of board, so a kb needs to be springier than a standup.
My thinnest board is 1 3/4" (5’9"), and although the flexiest yet, I think is too stiff still.
Can’t even start to put springers in to the equation!!
I agree with the statement about Bert, the 3000 boards has more relevance that what he doe’s ore does’nt put into his boards!
Keep up the good work guys
Hi Doug and Paul
Im not sure that im way ahead
I think i started with a different goal in mind
Heres a brief explanation
I was building pu boards- epoxy no reason other than im more at home with epoxy compared to poly
I wanted to make a better performing and lighter board and had decided that this would only be possiable, if i could repeat a board exatly, other than the next change i wanted to try
Hand shaping on stands was just frustrating me, sooo many variables
So i started using a profile table
Now i could replicate rockers and deck rolls and thickness
But then when it was glassed on stands, again too much room for change
Then just when i was allmost there by my self, infact I was just starting one
Enter vac baging on sways ok so it can be done and it works
Finally cut it shape it glass it bag it and suck that sucker down to a known former
Ah replication that now allows me to see and feel just the change i want to see with out it being disguised by other factors
But there is no free lunch
Pretty soon i realised that unless i stuck to a build system even with the sucking down on to a known former there would be change in the way it moved flexed etc
So once again it was down to refining the system with the goal of repeatability
This is where the rules come into it
They are not compsand rules
They are your own construction system rules
They include all things from how you spread resin for a glue joint to how you get your resin to glass ratio
Its all a bit anal i know ,but if you cant follow your own construction rules you cant achieve repeatability
Rules are made to be broken
Yes! breaking rules in a known way, is how you can achieve repeatability with known change
Paul depending on how much if any glass there is inside the rails or glue etc there is still hope
Give it some time
These boards are moving for flex to happen bits need to have movement
I have found on some of mine that the thicker ones improve with use and age
Bert also said that he has noticed this
So the path ive taken has now led me to where i can make boards of differing thickness perform in a similar fashion
This is now taking me to another area
Now i am still developing riding performance step by step
But also paddeling performance with out affecting riding performance
Because as you get older these two must start to be matched
Its hard to ride well if your kackered from paddleing!!
The problem i see with long build discriptions and letting various cats out of bags is that
there are many many variables which need to be taken into account
If anybody is serious about building better boards like you guys are
They need to understand the whys hand hows
Otherwise they will build boards much like a lot of others do, where one is good the next maybe better maybe worse because they do not have the systems inplace to achieve repeatability
I think that we can discuss changes well because we understand our build systems and can know early on through experiance how differences affect our boards
I think there is a basic level at which compsands can be compared and discussed but after that the knowledge base needs to be much stronger
So public discussion is still good but others have to learn that its all part of a big jigsaw
which can not be put together in one piece
It takes time and experiance, Paul and I ahve both learnt the gains in pulling boards to bits after a while to see whats been happening
So many answers found that way
Paul and Doug if you want to compare build systems im game pm me
Mike
Mike
I think the one advantage you have over most is that you spent the time to build Ken’s table to be able to punch these out in a controlled manner. That router shaping table you have makes a big diff.
Kind of like having your own CNC APS 3000 in the back yard to punch out some shapes… Doing that by hand is awfully difficult. Be nice to have a real cheap CNC available for the backyarders to use. Or maybe that’s why Miki and Jimi distributed out their software so you could design them and send the specs over to someone that has one of these things.
The other problem I have in all the analysis is that in actual real world testing the reports back have absolutely sucked. The oh yeah feels this and feels that says nothing cause it’s all a subjective description. If there was a way to tighten down the real life testing so some real analytical answers could be expressed then I think it would be easier to give some credibility on how these things actually work versus how someone “feels” it’s working.
If anything this would be the one thing that would make the biggest positive difference in they way these new boards are being sold to the rest of the world on this forum. Good solid one for one comparisons on doing exactly the same move in the same conditions with different equipment to understand how the differences in technology, design and construction are either improving the situation or making it worse.
There’s been alot of taught of how to build the stuff but very little as to what they are exactly doing when you ake them in the water, where all thi is supposed to make a difference anyway…
Just a thought and request…
I love all your guys work… it my inspration to hang in there when I see how bad mine come out so bad.
I was going to highlight things that you said and comment about them, but I realized that I was copying and pasting everything that you said. I completely agree with everything you said! It wasn’t until my last set of boards that I had my own philosophy of how things interact. This only happened after I started approaching boards building in a much more controled, compartmentalized way.
Quote:
I think there is a basic level at which compsands can be compared and discussed but after that the knowledge base needs to be much stronger
So public discussion is still good but others have to learn that its all part of a big jigsaw
which can not be put together in one piece
This one quote says it all.
allright what ive decided to do form this point is to try and disscuss theory and concepts in the forum .
and keep build techniques in the pm.
everything mike and doug have said in this thread lead to a fairly straitforward approach.
ie build it
build it again
and again
build it the same way every time with very small variations
and 1 step changes in the design
Quote:
I am pretty sure Bert overlaps the rails with the deck balsa to avoid splitting on the rail join, I don’t see how you can totally isolate the bottom from the rails though unless 1 layer of 4oz is isolating it enough?
hi marky v
as dicussed with doug.
lapping the bottom, the structure becomes more monocoque.
if its a sandwich skin it makes a huge difference.
if it is just a layer of 4oz would be very small percentage of monocoque nature
i guess this is one of the rules
i imagine it could be in reverse as well with the bottom overlapped a bit and the deck not
although im not sure what his would do.
theres a whole lot you can teach me with regards to finish as your boards look beautiful.,
hey mike
Quote:
But there is no free lunch
Pretty soon i realised that unless i stuck to a build system even with the sucking down on to a known former there would be change in the way it moved flexed etc
i agree .
i guess though, that i had to figure out so many basics
i have been constantly improving my approach.
maybe its time to level out.
over the next couple of weeks ill write out my steps and pm them to you.
Quote:
Paul depending on how much if any glass there is inside the rails or glue etc there is still hope
Give it some time
These boards are moving for flex to happen bits need to have movement
I have found on some of mine that the thicker ones improve with use and age
Bert also said that he has noticed this
another technique orientated result i take it?
i have never put glass under the stringers
are you sugesting this to be useful?
theres a pic oif me doing the rails i posted in the thread called “tuki tuki”
could be way off, but at least i can do them exactly the same everytime.
hows this for some home work
if we all did a build step essay (minus your secrets if you have any .i dont) with pictures
and shared them around in pm to compare notes.
dont feel you have to give anything away.
but id like to think i can add something to the mix.
still. other than the way i do my stringers i dont think theres much that i do really jumps out at me
as being unusual or advanced in any way.
and even the stringer technique might be a dead horse as well.
Quote:
So the path ive taken has now led me to where i can make boards of differing thickness perform in a similar fashion
thats it for us oldies aye.
easy paddle. yet rails we can bury
hey oneula
Quote:
The other problem I have in all the analysis is that in actual real world testing the reports back have absolutely sucked. The oh yeah feels this and feels that says nothing cause it’s all a subjective description. If there was a way to tighten down the real life testing so some real analytical answers could be expressed then I think it would be easier to give some credibility on how these things actually work versus how someone “feels” it’s working.
i guess i use these terms becuase im an average surfer in constantly changing conditions.
id have to take 20 boards to the mentawais to be more objecive in my performance descriptions.
but your right .since ive moved to hawkes bay and am getting more water time i can be more honest.
theres no doubt now that 2 of my boards sucked .
partly design .partly missue of materials.
what i do know is .ive really taken the first step of understanding.
it took 7 boards just to get to a vaugely constant build technique.
at least now as sabs point out the importance of repeated buld technique,
im in a position to take the next step.
Hi Oneula
I dont use that table any more,now i use templates and hotwired foam block rocker tables
The templates are not just rocker they include rail rocker, plan shape,finplacement and many many others
The templates must be from stable material
its all about repeatability
then you can tweak knowingly
The ride
I said in another thread that I felt that there needed to be learning steps in riding these boards
A lot of people will just find them a bit weird compared to a “normal” board it takes steps to get the feel for where and how to find the differences
This was brought home to me when i rode my first compsand a little while ago
Other people have ridden it and all say it feels alive and good
I rode it for the first time in ages and it felt horriable compared to what i am now riding now
I used to think it was great
It was a shock to me as it showed just how far ive come without realizing it
This has made me even more aware of how important my ongoing two board testing program
is because it provides the learning steps
How you relate this to any one else in words vs feel etc
I dont know
I should probrly get someones new pu board and have some rides to try to compare
may be some where like Rags where it a predictable point break with two boards and two people
Ride one wave swap ride another wave swap etc
mike
Woah! Hey Paul, we ain’t alone on this thread any more! ;D
Mark,
Thanks for the compliment Truth is, tho, I don’t come from an engineering background. More of a lay-engineer. The underlying physics and practical mechanics fascinate me. That’s why I thinnk that there are underlying rules that must apply. And I see this forum as the perfect place for discussing those. The actual exact detail may or may not be appropriate for on here. Repeatability lets you change one small thing at a time and see what the impact is. That lets you make cyclic improvements.
If you reduce the skin wrapping over the rails you’ll get more flex. Elinate it altogethor (quite possible and pretty easy to do) you’ll HAVE to use a springer and/or tophats and/or a load of extra glass on the rails.
Mike,
Check you PMs please I feel like you are way ahead of me. I am struggling to get #1 off the ground - got my cookie tray done and building my rocker template now. You’ve made… How many? Stacks! I agree with you 100% about repeatability, tho. That’s the only way we can achieve cyclic improvement. At least, without building 10,000 boards this way!
I also agree with you 100% re construction techniques, etc. THATS the place to be anal. But I can’t agree about there being no underlying rules (maybe “laws” is more appropriate term) for these structures. Aeronautics and aerospace scientists believe that there are underlying laws. And so do I. Relativity is real. Gravity is real. Monocoquial structures are real. Skins are real
We are also like-minded on understanding hows and whys! Very important, IMHO.
Like I said, my build system is only complete in my head… And some things aren’t complete there either. But it’s all coming togethor… Be doing my first pre-formed skin in, oh, the next week (I hope).
Oneula,
Lots of good points. Not sure what I can do/say to help, tho
Dan,
Deja Vu! Been there too hehe!
Paul,
Agreed re theory vs technique. Check your PMs please.
I have some funny ideas on glass inside the rails, skin, etc. But I have some tests to do before I share publically (want solid, repeatable results first).
easy paddle. yet rails we can bury
And I’ll add get into the wave easy
Thanks Mike
be interested in understanding why you dumped the profiler.
too much hassle?
anyway I actually found genesis…
kind of meloncholy looking back at it but it was september 2004 when Shwuz asked me simply and innocently if I would write up my experiences riding my new Jeff Alexander twin nose Gemini.
Below is the post and the rucus that followed. The same rucus that steered me to Swaylocks through the direction of Shwuz and Chipfish and my introduction to CMP who later that year walked me through the process of wood lamming another Jeff Alexander CNC machined gemini I made as a christmas present for my brother Shark Country… Pretty amazing post if you think of all the things that became of it including the $20,000 I blew in 2005 playing around like a fool trying to learn all this sh*t. If I knew what I know now, that would’ve been one hell of alot of nice boards…
Anyway I submit it as a possible example as to how I would look for a recap from someone riding there compsand and trying to express the experience to the rest of the world… Take it for what it’s worth… kind of weird looking back to day one…
http://forum.surfermag.com/forum/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=562447&page=&view=&sb=5&o=&fpart=1&vc=1
Thanks guys
Told my brother I wasn’t going to post anymore, you guys are too nerdy about all this stuff. I guess I’m addicted to it now.
Oneula and CMP made me a gemini for xmas 2005. It was the only way oneula could get me to ride the damned thing. I used to ridicule him for buying his. I have a 6’4" balsa over poly version. I’ve ridden it out in large town (up to 10’ faces), but usually 4-8’ faces. It’s easily the fastest board I’ve ridden in a while. But then, I haven’t used the 7’2" BK gun for a long time and I haven’t used the Bushman fish in good waves for a long time either. Those boards were both pretty fast when I last rode them.
Well one weekend oneula and I went out and I used his gemini in 4-6’ faces. I almost fell off that board, it was much faster than my gemini. The board accelerates out of turns better than anything I’ve ever ridden. Being that his is a bit longer, I could make longer arcs and cover a lot of distance. I also know that his board has deeper concaves, and that may have been a big factor for the speed. I can get my board to spin on a dime if I want, but I couldn’t do that with his. His board felt really solid. It was fun to drop down fade slightly and make a huge frontside turn, then just go blowing by someone hoping to drop in, or give them a nice salt water shower. I think it helps that most of the waves were overhead to head high, so the walls were big enough for me to make hard turns.
The only thing we don’t agree on is the nose. I don’t like the “devil board” look, and all my friends make fun of it. I want to try to make one of these with a semi normal nose. I think it can be done. We just made 2 more, but being that they weren’t for me they both have the “devil board” horns. I purposely didn’t finish the nose on the last one, but he went and cut out the horns. I think he gave that one to CMP to try.
If you’ve never tried one of these boards, you should. You will be blown away. Just be prepared for the first turn. Don’t let yourself get thrown off the back coming out of that first turn. It would be good to try a couple different lengths too. You may decide on a longer one than what the website says to do.
eh…
go home…
like you said you don’t belong here among the nerds being one of “DA BOYS” in the lineup…
jus kidding…
maybe now is a good time for me to slide out
I feel sorry for you guys cuz da animal is in town (hahaha!)
this guy has no problems running over 6’2" 210lb drop in dorks and then yelling at them to go in…
same guy will drop in on anyone including pro-hos at “his” beach (hahaha)
be afraid
be very afraid hahaha (LOL)
And eh
shutup Shsssh
no one here needs to know our little secret
the less devils in the water the better in my opinion as well as good ol tubedog('member)
this is so funny…
Anyway looking for some good water reports from the sando experts.
And if I know him, Chippies waiting for dem reports too…
meanwhile I promise to try and ride and compare my compsands to my surflight for some additional data…
theres a whole lot you can teach me with regards to finish as your boards look beautiful.,
Thanks Silly
I have put a lot of effort into trying to get the finish as good as a pu/pe board as regard to cosmetics.
I too have also concentrated on a construction ‘system’ that i have employed on the last 10 or so boards, this has allowed me to get build times down and materials pretty consistant.
The rocker table has been of great help there, means I can get more boards from a block, and don’t have foam rocker beds clogging the workshop, takes about 1/2 hr to set up from board to board.
I am in the process of setting up to preform my skins again, this time with more success!
Don’t have a lot of time for swaylocking!! but would like to chip in where I can.
I am happy to share build tech with you guys, but agree too that lurkers shouldn’t have too much of a free lunch!
Hi Paul
When i was in Perth I saw some of Berts boards
Im racking my brain here but im sure that the deck skins overlaped the rails and the bottom skins only overlaped in the front two thirds
In the tail section you could see the rail bands and they join up with the tail blocks
It was interesting to see
However to me it would just add more work
I think that most likley its his construction system that rules this ie tail blocks joined to skins prior to baging rather than performance reasons
Mike
PS Chip(Ben) if you are reading this i think that tere are a couple of Berts boards in the shop down the road from you so you might be able to confirm if it was deck side or bottom
pps before i started the whole baging thing i was going to build a gemini type board Ive still got the pu blank sitting on the shelf I should go back and do a balsa eps one
So many boards so little time