People draw ideas and inspiration from a wide variety of sources, no one answer is right or wrong. Just different ideas that point in different directions. Its the variety that keeps it interesting.
People draw ideas and inspiration from a wide variety of sources, no one answer is right or wrong. Just different ideas that point in different directions. Its the variety that keeps it interesting.
huck is right on here!
surfboards are pretty simple. a clean shape will draw a clean line.
tomo surfboards are made for playful waves that are good for doing tricks on. you are not going to ride a wakeboard style board on a really big wave or on a really heavy wave or if you just want to cruise and draw a clean line.
he flat out rips but if you watch video of him you can see him dig rail here or loose speed there or get caught up in the lip when he is riding those really small boards. he would be much more fluid on a more conventional board but that is not what he is into. he likes taking those little boards to do moves and get the feeling that you could not get on a more conventional board.
like others have said a really good surfer can rip on a really hard to ride board and an uncoordinated surfer can make even the most elegantly designed surfboard look like it is dragging an anchor.
at any rate....he is cool and his boards are cool and he has a bunch of cool buddies who do whatever the hell they want and make crazy looking boards and rip on them. this is the essence of the surfing 'cool' that started with edwards and dora etc when surfing started to become mainstream! if you like that then you can buy into it, if not then do what you want.
surfboards are such simple crafts that operate in so many different variables for such trivial pursuits - is there really any advantage to scientifically/mathematically prove a certain design? the constraints of surf riding would have to be severly narrowed to do anything.
paddleboards maybe where the objective is so singular.
fins seem to have taken advantage - borrowing from aerodynamic principles. although a template/foil made by trial/error by tuned in craftsmen get pretty damn close anyways....
ships/boats usually have a clear set of constraints to design towards. they also cost so much money to make the research ahead of time is necessary.
taking overall scientific/mathematical concepts and applying them to surfboards to get a certain type of ride seems an appropriate way to use the information........
[quote="$1"]
surfboards are such simple crafts that operate in so many different variables for such trivial pursuits - is there really any advantage to scientifically/mathematically prove a certain design? the constraints of surf riding would have to be severly narrowed to do anything.
...
ships/boats usually have a clear set of constraints to design towards. they also cost so much money to make the research ahead of time is necessary.
taking overall scientific/mathematical concepts and applying them to surfboards to get a certain type of ride seems an appropriate way to use the information........
[/quote]
Grasshopper - thanks, seems like you and I are def. on the same page here. Its the playful nature of our sport, and wide latitude for design parameters that makes this so much fun. I get a kick out of most shapers when they talk hydro engineering, because even 'tho I'm no engineer, I think I can smell bs when I'm in the same room LOL.
But I'm cool with it - pseudo engineering is more fun to me anyway, as an artist, than real engineering with all the math and testing involved. As a builder (construction contractor) I tend to view most engineered solutions as "over-technical, under-practical" (to borrow my brother's favorite expression - he works with engineers all day long).
Regardless of what the computers say, you have to build it and paddle out on it, to really know. And the dreamer who just makes stuff up out of his head can do the same thing, relatively easy and cheap (compared to airplanes, jets, and racing boats).
I think its more fun to not take surfboard design too seriously - its just a water toy, after all. I like this quote from Deus ex Machina shaper Chris Garrett aka Phantom, in Slide magazine "I never really research anything. I just dream it up and make it." - This from a guy with thousands of boards under his belt.
IMO you shape enough boards and then paddle out and ride them, you start to get a feel for what works and why, even without an engineering degree or a computer design program.
Not to say it doesn't take smarts, I believe there are some very smart people designing surfboards.
…hey fella, there s not such thing as forward thinking in designing an squared board…may be for you, that seems you are a newbie with surfboards designs and building.
Also about snowboarding in relation with surfboards, please check those Meyerhoffer longboards, I do not see any advantage in performance at all.
Hey Huck, that guy you name that have thousands of shapes under his belt…well that s not totally correct; please re check your source of data.
-If I start with a circle to use as a surfboard, after some surf I ll see that I have a super loose board but lack on projection, intrinsic speed, control, etc, so possible I ll change a bit the outline and length, after more surfing, I ll see that changing the WP affect the riding and projection, but wait, also I have to change the rocker…hmmm, I think I should change the angle of the fin or better use multi fins; after several tweaks, trial and error process, I ll discover that there s a compromise in every design to perform in such way, if I want to get rid of that compromise, so I ll need a bigger quiver a real big quiver…
So; yes, you can have fun tweaking here and there but in the end you ll finish with something VERY similar to what s going on right now (with the materials we use, AKA the same materials) again see those mini Simmons, …
Hope you guys understand what s the points in design and what s the point in hype and all the mid points in between.In my opinion, this guy is in one of those mid points, as I commented previously
—I commented something like this few years ago, but I do not remember what thread; something like the design will change ONLY if the materials change, I do not see any new materials except for those plastics and synthetics fibers, but we need a new core material and new techniques, then may be, the design will change following the materials properties and possibilities.
So please, how not begs for new designs on: WETSUITS?? totally lack of progress in that field; still heavy, thick, same material and disposable, yet expensive.
OK, I guess it comes down to how you define "new design" or "change". Yeah, any design tweaks will result in something similar to what was tweaked - thats kinda the definition of a "tweak" - a small change in design. As far as "whats going on right now" - current design is all over the spectrum, which I think is great.
Tweaking is really all we need, we don't have to reinvent the wheel from the ground up, its been currently discovered that the round ones roll pretty good, but that doesn't mean people who sell wheels or tires or bearings or otherwise have a vested interest in wheel performance aren't always tweaking things, eh?
Not sure the significance in regards to the point being made, but as far as my reference, it was the current issue of Slide magazine, if you know something otherwise please share it.
Other than that, pretty much agree with what you're saying, but its fun to work with the options, and a small tweak that produces an improvement in even one person's surfing experience is still pretty damm exciting to me!
…Huck, what I tried to say with the tweaking part is that if you start with a “shape” or “form” that is in the antipodes of something (planshape) that is tested that is work due to decades of tweaking…in the end you ll finish with something similar of what s currently used like hpsb, etc. You ll finish with something similar because to perform the best way possible you should change the planshape to have certain basics that are obviously better; example: you know, makes non sense to put fins, no matter the design, sideways (from rail to rail), obviously stuff
If you have the wheel but some one insist in start with a squared wheel, the guy will finish with something similar to the wheel, in the end; in the meantime, he ll makes fun, followers and may be a good living.
-For some readers, maybe better to read my previous comments to not misunderstand what position I m trying to make if not seems that Im not into any changes or like that…
Reverb - I’m guessing you didn’t even read my post past the word “snowboarding” based on your reply considering I was using snowboarding as an analogy for introducing a new idea into a design that has been relatively the same for decades, and having it be met at first with this same “WTF” mentality you have here, only to have it be proven later to actually be a huge leap in a positive direction. And by the way, those parabolic boards you’re referring to are a failed attempt at taking one technology and transitioning it to another - but without those failed attempts, how would we ever know if something works or not?? Not to mention, if done properly a shape similar to that could be a great noserider if you design it in a manner that allows water to build on the deck, but concept is only that until someone makes it into a physical object and tests it out. Thats actually how one of those technologies I mentioned came to be - powder snowboards now have reverse-sidecut and rocker instead of camber, a design borrowed from surfing that translated excellently into another medium.
I’m sure when Nick Aipa and Buttons Kaluhiokalani started chopping stolen longboards down into short boards before anyone had ever even seen one, all the old uncles looked at them like they were completely out of their mind for thinking a board so small would ever work. But the truth is they worked incredibly and now they are the dominant shape in our sport. Without bold thinking and drastic departures from the norm like that, we would never progress
Yeah I think I get it, a lot of stuff gets misunderstood on internet, assumptions are seldom exactly correct, and the meaning is misconstrued. Lost in translation. I'm sure the longer you've been around, the less impressive "new and improved" seems, when its just a re-hash of yesterday's news. My comments were made in general, not in specific reference to the topic of the thread, so my bad for wandering off the path. Always admire your work, you need to post more pics lately!
I think it’s the age we live in…the line between hype marketing and reality is invisisble to many people , more so on the internet…we keep going back to the simlper designs , not because they are familiar and comfortable , but because they work ,and work best… cumulative advances of all the subtle changes , have far more effect and influence than any supposed “quantum leaps”…but the “quantum leaps” attract far more attention , and are far easier to market and sell…
I made one of those nano mph designs for myself, low rocker, belly in the nose to deep single, parallel rails and straighter fin set. It works pretty good and there is some merit to it but it's far from ground breaking. The next gen wakeboard ones seem pretty gimmicky to me, what are you going to do with channels in the nose? I don't see anybody riding fakie, or using it like a twin tip wakeboard or snowboard. I don't see anything more compelling than what is being done now on a HPSB. Some of the surfing done on these next gens looks pretty wonky and lacks flow.
That being said the throwing around of big, vague and fancy terms that deal with hydrodynamics and the look of those funky shapes will get people to bite. Hell it's already started, TOMO just signed a deal with Firewire to produce a few of his models. The funny thing is what's all hubub about, aren't all surfboards planing hulls that deal with hydrodynamics?
Before we get too serious, check how far one mate of mine will go to have fun,http://www.facebook.com/pages/The-Radical-Rodents-Surfing-Mice/228849957175841, if you dont laugh at this, go and have a good look at yourself in the mirror. On Daniels designs, you have Kelly riding a door, looking resplendent in a nice suit, horses for courses mates, remember Shaun walking down the beach with his pink over rockered pinny at Pipe? Even all these lower rockered fatter wider boards, try giving your full power to a snap in a decent wave on one of those.
cheers H.
aw shux I guessed surftechia.
what a foolish guess.
I shouda guesses Firewireavania
that quaint industrial giant in the
carpaltunnels of eastern europe.
They are surely the far seers to pick up the
revolutionary gauntlet cast to the arena sands.
praise the inspiration ,may its purity of spirit
survive beyond the production ethic.May the
team riders win the laurel wreaths of
''THE CONTEST" unstaged yet run nonethe less.
…ambrose…
what would hamlet say?
''There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.‘’
and yet marcellus says; ‘‘something Is rotten in the state of denmark’’
Unless your talking about materials, I don’t see a need to go much further than basic Newtonian mechanics, Bernoulli, Archemedes, and Coanda. I don’t feel quantifying everything is necessary, but I do think things need an explaination in order to move forward. Sound application of basic principals seems to do that job well.
People have said that if you start with a theory, and from that theory, develop a design, then test that design, then collect the data to support the theory, that’s good science. But can’t you start with design, see how it performs, then from there, look for theory to help explain what you feel? Why can’t the process begin with an experience, rather than a theory? It seems more logical to start with something concrete rather than something theoretical.
I know the argument can be made that you can’t separate “materials” from “design”… so just put that aside for now.
Well said NJ - Especially at this point in time we are starting with designs that work and exisit, and many people who surf don’t seem to care to understand the basic principles behind why boards work.
[quote="$1"]
Well said NJ - Especially at this point in time we are starting with designs that work and exists, and many people who surf don't seem to care to understand the basic principles behind why boards work.
[/quote]
There are " Surfers that do care. Then there is a mass of the board buying public that only goes for the hype and what the latest surf hero is riding. Most of us started out that way. Some started thinking and testing the theories presented. We all have our own prejudices and found things that work for us. In the end it really is only a grown up toy. Fun in more ways then it's intended use. Fun to discuss, to dissect and build. Fun to admire and appreciate
I hear ya Artz.
Some times I feel about hydrodynamic features the way some of our master builders feel about materials and techniques - it’s painfull to hear/read/see misunderstandings and plain wrong info, and it can be a source of desire to correct when people espouse falsehoods. Mostly, since it is a toy of sorts - granted, when one starts putting oneself in sittuations with potiential for serious consequences, then some things may matter more - I can’t take things too seriously. Plus the fact that waves, people, and their approaches to the afore mentioned vary widly, “facts” about surfboards can be dubious…
Wow, do I ever know what you mean. Misuse of terms, misunderstanding of what many well trained people are trying to say ( note, I’m not one of 'em) . More than annoying, kinda makes me want to go…if not postal, at least lay about me with a blunt instrument.
The thing is, surf stuff is, as I may have mentioned before, is roughly where airplanes were…in 1860. Little if any real understanding of what’s really underlying it all, a lot of hand-waving mumbo-jumbo and some ( as in what started this whole thread ) who are essentially akin to faith healers, no science, no engineering, but ya gotta believe, say it to me again brothers and sisters, you gotta BELIEVE. No matter how far it fell out of the back end of the bull.
And people like the Wright Brothers who ( pardon the almost play on words) rewrite our understanding, come up with the basic research and the basic principles… they’re not here in surfing yet, though some have tried. Yeah, surf stuff is simple, to a point. And yes, Slater et al can really surf a door…six panel door at that. But that doesn’t mean it can’t be so, so much better.
I mean, only one guy I know of has actually tried to measure how fast a surf craft goes instead of ‘Duude, it’s like, rippin’. ’ with a GPS setup and data collection. Let alone all the other things that could make it all so much better, so much more functional. And that’s at least sad.
And with all the adulation of Simmons - if he was around today, he’d be catching grief here for not being as ignorant as the masses. My god, he’d want to measure things, put those horrible, unartistic numbers on stuff. How unstoked is that, duuude?.
alas…
doc…
Surfers are like mushrooms. Keep 'em in the dark, feed 'em bulls#it and horses#it and they are happy. Unfortunately, you can’t slice 'em thin, saute in butter and serve 'em up on top of a steak, unlike what I had for din-din.
There’s a big difference between planes and surfboards Doc…surfers actually ride their boards…whereas with planes , people climb inside em , and let the pilot have all the fun.