hey guy i need some help, currently i weigh about 185-190lbs. and ride a 6’6 -12 3/4 -19 /1/2 -14 1/2 -2 5/8 It is a gloss polished swallow tail, but my problem is my board is kind of boggy feeling. What dimensions would i need to float me in the 6’3 to 6’4 range, im looking to lighten up my board and be good for waves 2ft. to overhead. thanks for any help.
Add more wave juice, your board will feel fine.
Stand farther back!
Hi,
I’m roughly the same weight as you and have a board of roughly the same dimensions(6’10"x19.5"x2.75"), but possibly a narrower tail. I hate it in anything but great surf(not neccesarily big but with some power/nice form). Might the rocker be the problem? a board of the same size with flatter rocker will be less boggy for sure, or you could go 1" wider on the entier template for a contemporary fish. OR get an old school fish, (6’2"x21.5"x2.75" 16.5" nose and tail, 1.25" tail rocker, 3" nose rocker, twin or quad). It’s a different feeling altogether, but it will be good for 2’ to overhead if it’s not super powerful.
regards,
Håvard
Joshmjosh,
I’ve had good luck going with a wider board. Maybe 1 to 1 1/2" wider.
Check out this thread…
http://www.swaylocks.com/forum/gforum.cgi?post=226888;search_string=thruster%20dimension;#226888
Good luck and let us know your results. -Matt
I started a thred in the vein of ‘geriatric shortboards’ which produced which produced some lively discussion.
I also remeber seeing one about ‘thrusters for the over 40 brigade’
try searching: geriatric & brigade
each of these contained some on-and-on re: dimensions for your quest.
For me, it has always worked best to really come to grips with what I like, and what I don’t like, about as many boards as I can keep track of, to try to intelligently explain my ‘tendencies’ to a good shaper who actually listens and wants to work with me, and let him fill in the blanks…
i.e. what you wrote + “I do/don’t like flatter boards, I wouldn’t mind going shorter/longer, I prefer singles to twins or whatever”
hope this helps,
I’ve written two papers, one on volume rating (volume rating system or VRS) and the other on scaling. What they are is a mathmatical way to estimate board size for different size guys. I’ll try explaining how this works as simply as I can, let see how I do because the originals were very long.
First is volume rating. The simplest way to estimate volume is to multiply length (in inches), width and thickness. The resultant number is a volume rating number which has no meaning other than a gauge.
So, example, I’m going to volume rate a 6 foot surfboard that is 18 inches wide and two inches thick. 72 X 18 X 2 = 2592. 2592 is my volume rating for that board.
Now the 6 footer is owned by a guy who weighs 125 lbs and I’m shaping a board for his dad who is a well conditioned 200. The dad wants similar performance so the kid isn’t blowing him away so I have to come up with the numbers that will work for him.
First I have to make sure the dad has at least as much float as the kid so I’ll take the 2592 volume rating and divide that by the kids weight, 125, which equals 20.736 and then multiply by the dads weight, 200, which now equals 4147.20. The dads board must have a volume rating of 4147.20 to float as well as the sons.
Now this is when scaling comes in. When scaling you can do a straight scale on all parts of the board EXCEPT for width. In other words if I scale a kids 6’ X18" X2’ board to a 9 footer for 300 lb. Kimo, for him to ride at Sunset point on weekends I can scale all the measurements straight. 9’ is 6’ times 1.5. So Kimos board will be 9’ X 3 inches thick (2 times 1.5). The kids board has 5 inches of nose rocker so Kimos has 7.5 (5 inches times 1.5). The kids tail rocker is 2 inches and Kimo’s has 3, etc. But if I straight scale the width from 18, Kimos width will come out 27 (18 times 1.5 equals 27)and unless he has feet like Shaq’s he won’t be doing many turns. So in scaling width we had to figure a different scale and what we came up with was 18 for a 6 footer (kinda traditional for the past 15 years) and 22.5 for the 9 footer (somewhat traditional for the last 40 years) Here’s where there’s more math, take the 36 inches between 6 foot and 9 foot and divide that by the 4.5 inches between 18 and 22.5 and you come up with .125 or 1/8th inch. For every inch of length, you adjust the board width by 1/8th inch. This keeps rail to rail transition the same through the scale. Rail to rail transition is the constant that must be maintained throughout the scale. It’s a long story why and I’ll write that some other time. Just take my word for it for now.
And in case you wondering that doesn’t mean every 6 foot board will be 18 inches wide. Maybe the original design was 19 inches and I want to scale it to a 6’4". That would mean the 6’4" would be 4/8ths wider or 19.5 wide.
So back to the dads board. He would really like to ride a 7 footer so that’s 12 inches he’s going to add over the sons board. That’s 12/8 ths we’re going to add, right , which is an inch and a half which makes his board 19.5 inches wide. Hope this is all making sense.
Now we know his board is 7 foot by 19.5. We now only need to get the thickness and we can use the VRS for that. Remember that his volume rating needed was 4147.20. Now you simply take that number, divide it by 84 inches (that’s 7 feet) and you get 49.371428 (my but we’re getting accurate here) and then divide again by 19.5 (that’s the width) and you come out with 2.53 and that’s the finished board thickness so dad can feel the same as his kid.
I hope this makes sense. I developed this for use in the shaping room and it isn’t perfectly accurate. But it’s simple and that was the goal. You can’t compare a Lis fish to a gun and have it be even close to accurate. But for simple scaling in the shaping room of similar boards, it’s certainly better than the next best thing which is dead reconning which ain’t even close. It can also be used to figure different ways to come up to the same volume. Like what if I made the board an inch wider? What would I do with the thickness? Or changing length? What would the numbers be? Now you can estimate somewhat accurately without resorting to calc.
I hope Bill reads this. A bit of math … an engineers dream. So unlike surfing, huh?
Funny, Greg. Someone must have read your (LxWxT)/M paper. There was two threads discussing that exact formula & some variations over on the Longboardnet forum.
Click here: http://jamlongboarding.com/forums/view_topic.php?id=1549&forum_id=1
and here:
http://jamlongboarding.com/forums/view_topic.php?id=1548&forum_id=1
Thanks Greg
Best damn post on this website in the past 2-3 weeks…
you explained the concept so simply I can’t believe my ears…
gonna save this for my reference book…
I wrote it almost 15 years ago. At one Surf Expo I gave Pete Johnson a copy and low and behold Rusty came out with the Desert Island Series. Nice to see simple concepts being used to make boards better.
but my problem is my board is kind of boggy feeling
what do you mean exactly?
greg,
great stuff…i’ve done similar things, using ratios/dimensionless numbers, in other non-surfing apps…very useful stuff…never really quite needed to apply it to surfboards cuz im only makin’m for myself and i know what i like…but definitely a bookmarker, thanks again
…use the aps3000 software for the volume…
Yea that’s right. Some of the computer software can figure volume accuratly, right to the square inch. You know it’s kinda funny to me that most boards today have this read out of number pensiled into the bottom and what’s not included is volume and weight. Probably two of the most important idems. Most shapers don’t have a way to measure volume and don’t even have scales to measure weight. We have so far to go …
You could always submerge the board in a tub of water and measure the amount of water displaced to find the volume (The volume of water displaced = the volume of the board) Not necessarily easy but it would be fairly accurate. Just remember any thing put into the tub to hold the board down would need to be subtracted out.
Joshmjosh,
Go wider. 21 to 22 inches.
That works for me.
Also, you need to remember that even if your board is scaled properly, wave power is still needed to push a bigger guy. We have more resistance and pressure on the water and thus we need more power.
Steve
Greg - your simple rationale is very attractive but assumes that all variables are equal - the consensus on this board seems to be that they ain’t - ie width and length have a greater impact than thickness.
I think that in your kid/dad example - the light kid will still have a wave catching advantage as the planing weight:planing surface area ratio is is his favour - big time!
I could be talking bollocks tho’ - correct if i’m wrong…
.
Quote:
Yea that's right. Some of the computer software can figure volume accuratly, right to the square inch. You know it's kinda funny to me that most boards today have this read out of number pensiled into the bottom and what's not included is volume and weight. Probably two of the most important idems. Most shapers don't have a way to measure volume and don't even have scales to measure weight. We have so far to go .............
You just can’t resist any chance to criticize other pro shapers, huh? “So far to go”? To where? Is there any point in any of this surfing/shaping activity rather than to have fun or connect to nature? We’re not curing cancer here.
The trial and error method of surfboard development has one major advantage over the laboratory calculation method: it involves surfing! And since even a bad day surfing is better than a good day at “work”, I suspect this method will always be the most popular. Thank god.
Hey guy!
Forget all high tech stuff, computer aid, etc. I know big guys who like thinner boards, and very skinny ones who feel good in thicker boards. It’s a very personal question. So, if you can experiment both worlds in a short period of time, you will find the answer you’re looking for in short. But, if I could share my knowledge a little, I would say that the exact floatation comes with time in a kind of refinement of an approved shape. Sometimes a simple fin adjustment could solve the problem. Other options would be taken in consideration as rails volume, foil (mainly in the nose), nose and tail areas, etc. I know it can be confusing you, but it is the way things are. But I reinforce my argument saying that you should have a basic shape in mind, and make the changes in short steps.
Quote:
hey guy i need some help, currently i weigh about 185-190lbs. and ride a 6’6 -12 3/4 -19 /1/2 -14 1/2 -2 5/8 It is a gloss polished swallow tail, but my problem is my board is kind of boggy feeling. What dimensions would i need to float me in the 6’3 to 6’4 range, im looking to lighten up my board and be good for waves 2ft. to overhead. thanks for any help.
Based after what your riding now and assuming your board has med. rocker.
Take the same dims and make it a 6’3" go to 20.5 in the mid and drop the nose rocker about .5 .
Tell us your results.
Good Luck
-Bassy
Josh, take a look at Murray Bourtons ‘Pipedream’ site for ideas on this one. I am a bigger guy and he has always made good boards for guys that don’t want to just hit the lip but smash it! Just because you’re heavy don’t mean you’re a kook eh. read http://www.pipedreamsurfboards.com/102010.php The psuedo fish.
Many shapers seem to have problem scaling performance based rockers from what they learn from their formula 1 team riders to bigger guys. So even when you scale all the dimensions right the most important part gets forgotten. Same seems to happen for boards for little groms that can turn as well. Kind of need to take the seem curves and extend them over the greater distance.
Good luck with it mate.
i checked out the pipe dreams link to the pseudo fish …
i had to agree with the overall design philosiphy …
even tho your original dimensions match closely those recomended by murray in the link …
you said 6’-6" x 19 1/2 was your original board , thats about the right area for your body weight in surf with a certain amount of punch …
if you wanted to come down to 6’-3" or 6’-4" then you would need at at least 20 or 20 1/4 to have even a remote chance of having enough area for you body weight , then if the waves are softer you should looking at more area again …
this board is 6’-2" x 21 1/4 it would offer a guy your size enough area to catch waves , still a curvy plan shape and flatter rocker , for speed and tight twitchy rail turns …
even tho i agreed with murray about the concept of the pseudo fish , his recomended dimensions fit in line with my standard all rounder dimensions and started to get proportionatly narrower as the board got longer , so to me it lost its overall theme as it was scaled up …
my personal opinion is stick with your original dimensions , go thinner and flater in the rocker , if you insist on going smaller than go at least 1/4 inch wider for every inch you drop in length …
still go flater in the rocker regardless …
something between your original measurements and the pic ive showed and your in the ball park …
appart from that at least it was refreshing to see a site where at least the advice was decent and a bigger guy certainly could rip on those boards , the dimensions he recomended for a 6’-8" are basically my favourite all round dimensions , so i was impressed with that advice as i know exactly what works for me and i work the other way and scale my boards down to suit smaller guys …
gumby , is that the sort of board you ride ???
looks like a nice package for the goldy …
ive noticed ive had to re-evaluate all my nose entries since living here , just about everything i hated about standard curves back in west oz actually work real well here …
the waves here are like nothing ive surfed before and require there own sett of curves in a board to work well , those same curves back home just dont fit …
im finding my self leaning towards curves that i had always considered just plain wrong , but here there actually the best package for the waves …
stuff i would only ride in knee to waist high back in west oz actually work well here as an all rounder , unless the points are firing …
regards
BERT
