thanks Bill , for sending me these [they have now been resized , cropped, and lightened , ready to post here …]
…enjoy !
ben
What kind of fin system houses the side fins?
very cool bill!
Chip:
Did you hollow that out from a solid or a laminated chunk of wood, or did you lay it up from sheet stock? Because to my eye, the shape of that stringer just cries out to be laid up as a monocoque backbone…
-Samiam
hopefully , Bill will check in here tomorrow and answer these and any other questions for the viewers at home …
stay tuned , don’t touch that dial , and most importantly
"have a nice day "
Scott,
The stringer is a single SOLID 2X6 piece of redwood that has been routed out to reduce the weight, after the rocker had been cut into the stringer. I did my first one of those in 1964. The original owner still has that board. You are correct in suspecting a monocoque function of the stringer. The hollow stringer responds to load much the same as a hollow wooden mast does.
Sirwank…,
The fin system is one I developed in 1971 to be able to put into new boards in the hotcoat stage, and also retrofit into existing boards. The setup pictured, is one of several we used ‘’ back in the day’', depending on the design of the surfboard in question, and the performance desired. The ‘‘BOX’’ is molded in place in the board out of colored resin and fiberglass cloth. The fins are made of injection molded Lexan. I like to think that I was way ahead of the development curve on this kind of setup. I did my first three fin glass-on setup in 1964, in the same configuration that is ‘‘standard’’ today.
Bill,
Thanks- that board is beautiful, the stringer is some serious craftsmanship and it’s a trip to see the proto-widowmaker setup. It’s stuff like this that makes the Sways time so worthwhile
I would like to second the above. Beautiful board. Not many boards stand out well on the computer screen. This one is an exception, at least, to my eye. Nice work!!!
Sirwank…,
In further response to your question about the fin system, as stated, the ‘box’ is molded in the board using a sizing plug. The fin fits in the box with a friction/press fit… no tools required. Never had one come out.
Thanks, Bill.
Very interesting.
Bumping this up as an easy way to answer questions about that early fin system. The first removable system on the market. No tools, bolts, or screws needed.
Bill
Bill, Offsetting the web struts of the stringer is genius. More strength with the same weight as if you had done it like most and just plowed straight through. I’m not sure how many caught that.
Hey Bill.
I’m interested in the fin set up itself - Greg Griffin’s recent thread also has his fins all in a row (using similar sized fins though). What was your experience with this fin set up? I’m guessing it will have more “hold” than a single fin but without the 'leverage" of a thruster? Or altenatively (with three similar sized fins) the “looseness” of a twin fin but with some “centering” action that twins normally lack?
Cheers
Rohan
The fin setup pictured has no toe-in, and no cant. Yes, there is more ‘‘hold’’ than a single fin only. With an outward cant to the side fins, there is also more hold than a single fin only, but LESS than the straight up fins pictured. The real eye opener was when the side fins were switched to canted toward the stringer, the hold, and increased drive, was phenominal! Again, most importantly, there is no toe-in. (Nor should there be.) The closer a fin is to the rail, the smaller it can, and MUST be. Though I will NEVER ride Pipeline again, if I did I’d use a single fin squaretail with a small (one inch) fin back in each corner of the tail, canted towared the stringer.
Bill
Amazing. The more I learn the more I realize I don’t know.
Thanks muchly for the insight Bill. I’m guessing that there is probably a limit to the outer fins height if you are canting them toward the stringer instead of the rail.
70 Chevelle? Whatever A Body that is its f’in sweet