i currently have a board nearly finished, still want to scoop out the nose, but am wondering about the thickness. the board is 6’7’’ x 10 5/16 x 19 1/2 x 14 3/8 x (want your peoples input). this is my third board and so far its pretty bad ass. when i figure out how to put picks on this thing ill do so.
the thickness of the nose needs to be in relation to the foil of the rest of the board. if you go too thin, which is a mistake every one makes when they start out shaping, it will look strange. just check the foil from the side and make sure its all blended in smoothly.
220 lbs., go 3".
180 lbs., go 2.65"
150 lbs., go 2.35"
Less, less…
im 220 and ride 1 7/8ths …
thickness is for float …
area is for paddling …
you dont need float in a surfboard its a myth …
you just need the right area for your weight…
regards
BERT
Quote:
the thickness of the nose needs to be in relation to the foil of the rest of the board. if you go too thin, which is a mistake every one makes when they start out shaping, it will look strange.
Are there no other ill effects then the nose looking strange and that’s the worst that could happen? Coz I’m pretty sure I’ve felt bad effects both from too much and too little volume in the nose (in relation to the rest of the foil of course).
regards,
Håvard
Bert…
Assuming 6’7" and 19.5, poly construction, NOT lightweight epoxy/styro.
…i think when a heavier paddler guy (heavy for paddle; think earlies ´90´s when boards were too thin…) in a PU board needs more thickness…
Don’t forget that board thickness is a general term. a 3" thick board can feel thin and a 2 1\4" board can feel thick. It’s all in the foil.
Another misleading general term is rocker.
5" of nose rocker in one board can be completely diffrent than 5" in another board.
C
Bert - I get what you mean about planing area being more important than thickness - yes I agree.
BUT don’t bigger guys need a thicker board to decrease the amount of flex (or at least increase its rate of return) in the board? Maybe with your construction method you can make a more rigid board but thinner - to suit heavier guys.
Maybe I’m talking bollocks but when I owned a “tombstone surfboard” - with carbon fibre “I” beam instead of stringer - I felt an improvement in wave catching and drive…
thats a completly valid comment …
if you had two indentical boards in every aspect , except flex …
the flexier one would be harder to catch waves on . you would get a lag just as you went to stand up , as you pushed off with your hands , it would flex and slow a little right on the spot you need to stay flatter to carry you in …
bigger guys do need stiffer boards , that happens naturally with extra thickness …
but 99% of shapers think thickness will add to the boards ability to catch waves …
so when shaping a board for a bigger guy dont take the area into consideration and only calculate volume …
if your 25% bigger , you need 25% more area …
its a simple area to kilo of body weight ratio …
if you dont get the 25% more area , you will need a bigger wave to get moving …
an increase in area gives the right amount of extra volume also …
but flex in conventional construction , is stiffened or loosened via stringer thickness or thickness in general …
coz your stringer is doing all the work resisting the bending …
even a thick stringerless will fell quite floppy …
so traditionally with p/u a bigger guy was forced into more thickness to avoid flexing , but add that to the right amount of area needed for body weight and you get boat value …
when i was riding p/u 2 1/2 was the limit for me , i had thin rails still , but that left me with an ugly domed deck …
but with stiffer construction you can go way thinner …
im contemplating something really different at the moment …
and im sure i can do 1" thick …
your right about drive to especially when your loading into your board for a length of time drawing around a section ,thats where stiffness helps , but to much and it wont bend into the pocket when needed and feels bumps and other negative things …
take away the conventional stringer and you take out a lot of dramas …
coz now tuning a board comes down to the right area for his weight , coz an increase in area gives a corresponding increase in the boards ability to resist bending …
because the whole board acts to resist flex not just the stringer …
o and i forgot to mention that if your rails are to thin on a p/u it makes you lag on the take off as well …
i know we keep having this same discussion but its not the curves …
its the materials .
so many shapers are so lost in curves , that when presented with something outside the box , it goes beyond there range …
because everything points back to the same basic curves working coz thats what works in conventional p/u construction for a lot of valid reasons …
i think one day we will finnally have looked at every square inch of a board , and then it may start to make sense …
shapers can only respond to the intuitive comments of there customers and teamriders …
so certain changes are logical …
but when building in different mediums , logic takes you in different directions , coz the same problem can be solved another way , which means you discover new ones again and so on …
till you end up with curves that dont look like they should work , because they dont work in conventional construction …
so when i come in and throw a comment in , at least more crew can now recognise that a different construction is behind where im coming from …
so much more range out of the same space …
regards
BERT