You had a fairly decent design to start with! Now you’ve let the experts muddle it up. Overthinking And experts that can’t resist temptation. Just go down to the local Surf Shop and buy a board off the rack.
And then I wouldn’t learn anything.
What’s wrong with the changes they suggested?
Here’s some food for thought. If you ride a 6 ft 6in surfboard, and it’s going 20 MPH (which ain’t all that fast) a single water molecule travels the length of the board in just .0022 seconds. LESS than 1/4th of a second. Here’s the math: 20mph = 105,600 ft/hr = 1,760 ft/min = 29.33 ft/sec. With a very ‘‘busy bottom’’ on the surfboard, you are asking the water to really cover a lot of ground, in a very short period of time. All of this argues for keeping it simple, eh? A shorter board will decrease the time needed for water to travel the length of the board. Think about it.
I’d be happy if you’re suggesting I go with a flat bottom, because Im seeing the complexity of adding even just single concave throughout. I undestand your point on speed potential and I suppose the solution depends on what sacrifices I want to make. To start, the shape of this wave is steep so I know I need a higher rocker than my previous builds, one that emulates the wave face better. Im willing to reduce the length to cut down on skin friction drag, provided I have the power I need to paddle it. The only thing I have for reference on this wave is my 7’6" that doesn’t work well there, with vee, boxy rails and a single boxed fin. I made that for smaller mush days. Perhaps this new build a flatter bottom with the glassed in fins, even though the board length is shorter, may not be as hard to paddle as I suspect. I dont know. Regarding bottom contour on its own, I see now that singe concave has lower form drag than my initial plan of single to double, and Im glad you guys led me away from it. Im wondering now if the quad fins, tucked rails, and higher rocker all work together to enable me to allow me to carve turns faster. If the answer is yes, then I could gain speed by going with a flat bottom throughout. I’d lose some lift but from what Im hearing this isn’t a very thin board, so I dont know.
Good news is that I feel Im headed in a better direction and there’s no rush. Currrently, the board is on the rack with the rocker cut into the bottom stringer edge. My visual references above aren’t valid anymore, as I tweaked them a bit. This is because when I transferred them to masonite and cut the template, they needed smoothing to avoid a flat spot in the middle. I have new measurements based off the physical template if you want to see them. I hope these are retained after glassing because I spent a lot of time on it, as the stringer edge and template marry up perfectly when I butt them up together. The end ponts are still 2.4 in tail and 5.3 in nose, and I was relieved to see that the blank did indeed have enough room for all of it. If the board length reduces I figure I can do it at the tail and just take the tail rocker down a bit to hit 2.4. Later today, I’ll flip it and shave the top side of the stringer edge hitting the target thickness numbers. I’m adding an extra 1/4" so that if I decide to keep the concave, I have the depth. Tomorrow I’ll level both top and bottom to match the stringer geometry and then cut the outline profile with my jigsaw. The Tyler Warren fins were just shipped from TrueAmes, but thats for the end. Thanks again for the help so far.
Hello, I do not overthink anything fella; that is the way to shape a board. The protocol: pre shaping and shaping. starting from one side and do almost all before flip over to the other side.
I am not suggeted anything wrong; only mentioning pre shaping and answered his question about if was too thin in the tail.
I mentioned about flow lines, as most know. Checking the blank that you have to develop an eye and see what s going on is a must; so nothing overthinking there.
I also mentioned that he can maintain the thickness on the middle (all along) and go with thin rails; mentioned that 50/50 is not so good in these shapes.
I mentioned that the entry rocker in the part that you really use it was low but too much on the tip for that range.
Mentioned that fusion boxes are better than futures.
All fair valid points that most shapers do.
I also try to maintain this labor correct, so passing or suggesting information is one way to go. He wants to learn and is looking for answers not for responses like “looks good” without nothing behind.
Flowing lines in the bottom and outlines are a must. Plenty of shapes that do not have that condition.
Understand the distribution is other thing too. Understand that the multi fins is used as a cluster is another thing, that for the pictures here and in Internet, plenty do not get it.
Keep it real is not be groovy mowing foam without thinking (and with the easyness now to have a great base by the pioneers so gobs of developed basic stuff that are well proven)
Of course the close tolerance blanks helped a lot…and the machine of course. Nobody wants to keep with this labor. I mean, there are plenty of young guys that have the techniques like in some glass shops. Really great workers doing high quality stuff but the shapers are doing obsolete stuff and not so high quality (but aided by those shops) then you have the machine and almost all are riding with HPSB made by those; so in the end the labor is that. I am not against these other hippy shapers but be real is not only doing obsolete shapes and letting the cool glass works to a great shop but also understanding what s going on with the design in the last 40 years.
So here Jackaroe, trying to learn to have understanding and to put his ideas on that blank; and that is good in my book so I suggested couple of things…and who am I to do that? well, this is a design forum and I have been doing this for long time and tried my best with the minimum so I thought that I could enter the conversation to try to help a bit.
Guys, I cut the rocker and outline today, and these are my current rocker numbers as physically measured. How do they look? Should the rise between board middle and end points be a perfect radius? I’m not sure I completely understand entry rocker concept. left some room on top in case I need to adjust.
I watched they rocker videos by McCoy and Stretcher today, and realized there is no absolute formula for this. I might just keep it simple by using a continuous/spherical curve, with a bit of flip in the nose
Somewhat in line w Reverb (more expert than me by far & over more than 1 post in this thread), I do think yr overthinking this a bit, and I’m not the kind to critize anybody for overthinking anything bc the main hurdle we all face (on earth) in getting to the next rest stop (in all things) is people being too stupid or lazy to think merely “enough” (i.e the bare minimum to “get a clue”).
Personally I like yr idea of doing a flat bottom bc then you can redo the same design not flat bottom and then draw your own conclusions.
In a board w no fins, you’ll feel every change you make to the bottom if you surf decent (“int-adv” or better). Same board with fins, you’ll feel the fins and layout more than the board - how they interact w the board design, but once you put fins in a board the role of the fins is decisive and the 1st hurdle - e.g. you can make a bad board design work w the right fins & layout (probably some will disagree).
But the only way to convince yrself, if yr not a rube, is to run scientific method (however stringent or lazy) until yr satisfied you answered yr own questions.
As for my own impressions, I share my (ignorant, noob) reactions bc if yr “legit” - passionate, not an idiot (regardless of current development stage) ALL authentic impressions are useful.
The key is focus, to always listen to every one, and not automatically believe any one.
IMO relative to the type of design you started with, McCoy rockers are not as relevant as, for example, CI rockers. His shapes are often wide point very back and foil very much (exaggeratedly) volume to the tail. His rockers have to work with that.
That makea his rockers extra-interesting as a subject for overall exploration/experimentation but not as relevant as a short term practical model for what you’re doing
I dont entirely understand that but I’m sure I’ll refer back to it at some point in the future, thanks
Got it. I learned a bit in this thread, so thanks everyone. I’ll adjust the entry rocker as reverb suggested and then move forward.
Hello; my response was to McDing.
Yep, I saw that. Thanks man.
Of course Fella. Overthinkinking is stressful. Figures.
Yeah well you know paint by numbers is easier to start out with, unless of course you were born picasso
I just started shaping the domed top, pics here if anyone is interested. I figured ID keep the middle 8" portion somewhat flat:
:D
Interested to hear the story of what you did, finally, and how it rides in what waves. No smoke blown. Never get tired of that, even in cases where my eye hates the board (even more interesting then - some will surely relate, some not so much lol)
Not a “neg!” To be taken at face value w any luck \m/
Oh Boy!
The foil taper (assuming a few more sands) and rocker look very good for an early attempt board – I have seen much, much worse, and recently (very recently) did a board with a much worse nose foil. Very good for not having someone present to hold your hand, IMO.
One thing I still typically do is leave too much volume over the transition from rail to deck on first draft – not always a bad thing. One thing that beginners often do is pass on putting the energy into doing the rails, and just call it a day while they’re still haphazardly blocky (not intentionally square) or boxy; the rails end up looking like what they are: unintended. Almost all shapers I’ve seen who don’t totally suck at the beginning is that the early efforts usually end up looking like 80s boards: flat decked, sudden down rails. IMO you can cut a big part of your learning curve shorter by just paying a lot of attention to how rails on boards you like are executed, and spend as much or more time on the rails as you do on the bottom and deck, now.
I didn’t at the start, but now (next board is #79) I always make rail templates when measuring boards I either want to copy or tweak to make them work better for me. On the one hand they will help to dispel delusions about where you’re at with the rails you’re working on, relative to what you were trying to accomplish beforehand, but they will also force you to learn to execute an intention against a static ruler.