I have just spent hours reading tons of threads, some great info on here as always. One thing which seems tricky to suss out is whether the stringer centrelilne V should be higher than the rail level, to make rail2rail stuff more fluid, or not. I thought that was the norm for a traditional bonzer (I am doing a 3 fin with long 10 inch runners). I know this is all about experimentation and choices etc, but i read a couple of threads where seemingly experienced shapers said that if the V was higher than the rails then the bonzer was shaped “wrong”. Other threads showed boards which looked very much like they were shaped like that and quite deliberately by the looks of it. Anyone care to comment? The stringer level with rails looks nicer to my eye so I am tempted to go with that, but i have a feeling it was the extra V which made those originall Bonzers so appealing for nice drawn out bottom turns. Is it purely a choice, or is there a right and wrong here? thanks
Pictures from surfysurfy.net (just a list of boards for sale to some, a catalog of visual information to me!)
Thanks Huck. Seeing that someone has made one doesn’t always make me feel secure, as I have seen boards I have made, and even worse, boards my friends have made! Some look pretty after a polish but surf like mash potato :D. Those pics all look like V is level with rail, with possible exception of dirty yellow one in second to last pic.
Is that Malcolm Campbell in first pic?
.
Eyeballs…To me looks like rail and vee spine are level at the front fin but as you go back the vee spine/stringer is straighter rocker than the rails so rail line ends up higher than vee at the tail. I’ve certainly been wrong about a lot though…
Ha, I had another look and I don’t think you’re wrong on that, could well be right. Hard to tell from pictures quite often as some people use those gopro things and can have it set to quite wide which can cause fisheye or curvature effect on some pics, that’s why I love pics but dont tend to take measurements from em if i can help it
hey HelterAgain, glad I was able to help, just wanted to respond to a few of your comments.
Just sharing some information on your chosen topic, sorry but whether or not it makes you feel secure isn’t really a concern to me, haha. What you get from the pics isn’t really my concern either, other than I hope you or somebody gets some insight regarding the topic of bonzers.
Pictures can be a useful way of gathering information. Yes, they can be distorted, and a fish eye lens will add a lot of distortion. A picture taken from a fisheye lens is usually pretty obvious tho, as straight lines will be distorted to a curve.
Every method of gathering and sharing information has its limitations. A verbal description can be fraught with interpretation errors: what is a spiral V? Is the V higher than the rail if its deeper in the water or shallower? In other words, if the stringer is deeper in the water than the rails, does that make the V higher than the rails, or lower? etc. etc. Even seeing and handling has its limitations: if you ever saw and handled a bonzer, then all your questions are answered, right? Wrong, because memory and perception are also prone to error. And so it goes.
People sharing comments are what keeps a thread alive, and keeps the conversation going. With that in mind, I shared some bonzer pics that most normal shapers would find useful for gathering insight into the way other (professional) bonzer shapers deal with the v in the tail. While it certainly seems obvious to me that the V runs deeper in the water than the rails (even with the Taylor Knox model which is much more subtle), if you see it otherwise, go with that. In the end, this is going to be your interpretation of a bonzer anyway, and you can refine further based on the results you get.
Huck,
Likewise I will reply to a few comments:
“sorry but whether or not it makes you feel secure isn’t really a concern to me, haha.” - That’s fair. I mis-wrote that, I should have qualified it with “secure in my measurements, not secure in my manhood or spiritual value.
“What you get from the pics isn’t really my concern either” - Thats good of you to admit that. If you post some pics but don’t care if I get anything useful from them, maybe best not reply huh? You clearly state here that you don’t give a damn whether it’s of any use, so maybe save yourself some time, why waste it on an exercise you don’t care about the outcome of? Strange.
“a fish eye lens will add a lot of distortion. A picture taken from a fisheye lens is usually pretty obvious tho, as straight lines will be distorted to a curve.” Absolutely correct. Hence why I didn’t state fisheye “lens”. I said “fisheye effect”. That’s not the same thing. It’s possible to have a very mild fisheye EFFECT with many of the modern cheap go pro copies (and many other cameras) when using not a full fisheye wide-angle lens, but slightly wider angle than the eye natural sees with. That can be enough to distort, and when decided whether two things align perfectly or not, or one is slightly above the other or vice versa, that’s more than enough to make a judgement from a picture risky in my opinion. I think that’s reasonable, and I can imagine making a board and saying I relied on pics, and plenty of salty crap coming my way about being a hack who shouldn’t just use photos, I have read some salty stuff like that on some of the old threads I am reading. That wasn’t the reason I didn’t do it, i didn’t do it because it’s not the BEST way to do it. In the absence of any other sources, I would do so. But I have other sources, people on here who could answer my question, hence the question.
My original question was whether the V should be higher than the rails. You responded with pictures. We discussed the pictures, and now in this long reply from you, you now state something you didn’t before:
“While it certainly seems obvious to me that the V runs deeper in the water than the rails (even with the Taylor Knox model which is much more subtle), if you see it otherwise, go with that. “
Now why didn’t you just say that in the first place? You don’t have to of course, I can only hope for advice when I ask for it and you didn’t have to answer at all. But you did, so I would assume that was designed to provide an answer (surely?), and then spent about 100 times longer posting photos without answering my question, rather than typing “Yes, V runs deeper in water than rails”, since you now suddenly state that its “obvious” to you. You took more of your valuable time, and left me to interpret photos which is fine in some circumstances when its all open to interpretation, but this isn’t, you said its “obvious”, that makes it a fact, yes or no. Instead you could have said what you now say with such definitive strength as it being “obvious” to you. It was that kind of expertise/knowledge I was asking for in the original question. As I said, I had already view tons of threads as well as other sites etc, including looking at pictures. I didn’t want to rely on pictures as that can be a recipe for disaster (anyone with an engineering background will agree this is not good practice generally) so I asked if someone KNEW the answer. You did, but only told me after all this above. It’s curious. Its as if you want to reply but without giving an answer, but then later you want answer to prove you’re in the know long after I gave up hoping for real answer (I assumed you didn’t have one, but now know that you did). I have already said in my post above “I love pics but dont tend to take measurements from em if i can help it” - note: “if I can help it”. In this case, I could have, and you could have made that possible, but chose not to. Is it wrong of me t find that a bit confusing, cos i do.
“Every method of gathering and sharing information has its limitations. A verbal description can be fraught with interpretation errors: what is a spiral V? Is the V higher than the rail if its deeper in the water or shallower?” This is true, but a disingenuous and weak argument at this point. Why? because you managed to put it pretty damn unambiguously with your “While it certainly seems obvious to me that the V runs deeper in the water than the rails” - BOOM, that’s a straight and clearly defined answer. No room for misinterpretation there, or if there is, it’s certainly a hell of a lot less than there is when guessing from pictures at not even level angles. You can spin it all you like, you had the answer, and you only chose to say it when you seemingly took offence at my polite rejection of the idea of making such a critical decision based on photos which don’t even show the board from the horizontal. Again leaving me scratching my head wondering what your motive was in posting originally, you have already stated it wasn’t to help “What you get from the pics isn’t really my concern either”. I won’t guess for long, I have a board to build and it concerns me about as much as it concerned you what I got from the pictures in the first place.
“People sharing comments are what keeps a thread alive” - Agreed, hence why I was after comments rather than photos. Again, you gave NO comment, just pictures. But later gave the comment you could have given, which was the exact one I was after, the jackpot answer. A much more experienced and excellent shaper giving a straight answer to a straight question. Funny, the old threads from 10+ years ago had loads of those quick answers helping people get on with their build and grow in the community of shapers. The more I read recent threads (and take part in them), the more I see there is a whole lot of other motives for people’s posts on here. Mine might be basic, but one thing you can’t say is there is any ulterior motive. I want info to build cool boards, that’s about it. Working out the myriad of motives, salty stuff, egos and god knows what else, is beyond me.
And just to prove how many threads I have been reading in search for the answer to the V level question (it’s probably out there, but not found it yet) - here is a quote from your good self on one great old thread I read: “Everything discussed here is a trade secret, seems to me anyway. Its not general knowledge. People on the street don’t discuss fin cant or s-cloth or resin accelerators. That’s what I thought this site is for. "Questions & answers, thoughts & theories on all aspects of surfcraft including practical & theoretical design, tools & materials, construction tips & techniques, and surfcraft history.””
I agree with how you felt when you wrote that post. I can find pictures anywhere, answers from people who KNOW the answer (as you did here) are what I was after and what we agree the site is about. I am grateful for your answer and it will save me time reading yet more threads in search of it so I owe you a thank you for that at the very least.
I dont worry what anyone thinks about it, I use pics a lot in my research. Your mileage may vary.
BTW, look up channel islands bonzer biscuit for an example of a bonzer fin setup on a board without the specific bonzer concaves. (Last pic)
Here is my bonzer, it worked good for me, I had some fun waves on that board!
“I use pics a lot in my research” - me too. I am currently using Smerk’s lovely bonzer (greeny blue one) as a guide for concaves. He posted a pic of the contours of the shaped blank which he did with a “radius stick”. I am going to have to try to eyeball that from his pic and don’t have any tools for the curve so need to either make some fine caculations (series of dots measured from stringer, joined up with bendy plastic curtain rail i use to find an outline I like) or find something lying around my neighbours farm which has the right radius! Actually, I may have some old warped lengths of 3x2, if they are warped enough, they might do. Ha ha, all I need is Reverb to pop in now and call me a hack! (and he would probably be right)
Nice bonzer there. The biscuit is nice too, I love those glassed on fins, would love to make some. it doesn’t look like pure clear glass, that green hue is lovely and as my boad will be dark green tinted, they would look a peach on this board. I have ordered some 3mm ash wood to make some fins, but may try some with just resin and no wood core. I want to keep weight down, and also thought it would be easier to make them with wood core than pure glass, but i think i might be wrong there considering the wood needs shaping, then the fin needs shaping after glassing. Hmmm, they sure are sex those glass ons. Doubt I could pull it off that pretty
Yeah I liked the glass ons, I made my own. I know it was on another thread we had talked about Bonzer fins without the channels, but there are a few examples out there, as well as quite a bit of variation in the execution of the channels as well. The online description of the Biscuit Bonzer sez it has a standard spiral V which works well with thruster fins or bonzer fins. The Taylor Knox model has subtle channels, but the fins do not look like standard bonzer fins. So there is a lot of variation in what’s being done under the bonzer heading.
Also found this channel explanation diagram (disregard the “venturi” reference)
yeah, thanks for pics, that last one i actually have printed off and hanging next to the stands to refer to. I am aiming for a fairly traditional bonzer bottom contour, not totally decided on whether to go curvy (Smerk) or straight, as I just remembered I am using 3x10" runners so maybe curved won’t work as well on a B3 like it does on a B5. this is where pics come in handy to see what others have done so I am going back through the sites you suggested now for a good bit of drooling 
thanks