I’m thinking about building a 6’0"x22"x2.75" egg/double-ender. The idea is to for the board to have a symetrical outline and rocker, with the rocker being low, 3" on each end. Right now I’m leaning toward going with a single fin. Any thoughts? I’m sure this has been tried before, does anyone have any personal experience with a design like this?
We did one at Surf Systems, 8’ long as I remember. We did a hard low rail in the tail, and a rolled up high rail into the nose. We topped the whole design off with an FU box at each end. Single fin going both ways. That was 1971, and the board is still owned by the original owner. He say it works really well, both as a noserider in small waves, and as a “regular” board with low rail in the tail. Fast, and FUN. Emphasis on the fun part. I think your project has some real potential. Go for it.
Not sure I’ll put skegs on both ends, with the short length and low rocker it might make it difficult to turn. I’m hoping for a rail-to-rail, skateboarding effect, like a fish, except with the ability to turn of either the front or back foot.
the first board i ever made was basically that outline, with the wide point 3" ahead of center, and a wide thruster set up. love that board still. used the 6’3" fish kit from foam.ez, and rode it exclusively for over a year. ended up with a vee in the last 1/3 of the board due to my lacking shaping skills, but was super fast, and the round tail held in the big stuff too. rode it in 1’ slop to overhead reef and can’t wait to make another.
dims are as i remember: 6’1/2"x20+/-x2 3/4" with hard down rail up 1/3 and soft 60/40 the rest. fins were: center up 3" from tail, and sides were up 15", in 1 1/4" and toed about 1/8+/- 1/16".
a sinlge fin would be super fun too… maybe put some plugs in for side bites for some juicier waves.
enjoy
I have done a few like that, the smallest being 7’ x 18" x 1.5" (1995) and my latest is 9’ x 27" x 2.5" (2005) . . . . . they are exactly symmetrical, double ended, completely reversible, whatever you want to call it. . … the reason I still make them is because I like them !
My first true double ender, the 7 footer, is in the ceiling of an antique shop in Bow St, Raglan, with a stuffed wallaby perched on the nose. . . .it’s got a black graphite bottom and isn’t for sale.
Hee’s the 9’3". . . I had a problem finding the fin internal blocking for setting my fin in (which is only at one end) because I couldn’t figure out which end was the nose and which was the tail. . . THAT’S double ended !
BTW aboard with the wide point three inches up isn’t a double ender.
I’m not suggesting you use two boxes. Just pointing out that we pushed a “double end” design to the extreme, and had good results. An extremely popular board design in 1958 and 1959 in La jolla, was the Burland Double Ender, shaped by Wayne Land. It’s a concept that has been around quite a while. I will be shocked if you have ANY difficulty turning the board you described. The rocker as described is very ample. Most 9’ 6" balsa boards in the day, had about the same rocker. Way less as a percentage of board length, than the board you are planning. Use an FU box, because proper fin placement will be crucial to maximum performance. Adjustability is a must! Have a good time with your project. Post back to let others know your results. (me too)
Hi Bill, just being pedantic I suppose but a TRUE double ender also has the same rail shape in the nose as it does in the tail. . . . it is actually reversible. . . the one you built had a nose rail and a tail rail. . . . which isn’t the extreme of double endedness !! Not criticising, just claiming it. . . . I have built true double enders,and I am interested to know if anyone else on the planet has . . . anyone ever seen one ? I mean a TRUE doubleender mind you !
Since what you describe as a TRUE double ender, is what was being built in the late 50’s, you are unduly proud of duplicating it. I guess that puts you about a half century behind the times. Just because you believe something, or create your own definition of it, doesn’t make it so. Or true, for that matter. Better to remain silent, and be thought a fool, than to speak and remove all doubt.
Quote:
Roy,
How’s this?
Swaylock
That double-ender is very interesting. The video shows the “inventors” doing 180’s in knee-high surf, I wonder how the board performs in bigger waves?
Quote:
Since what you describe as a TRUE double ender, is what was being built in the late 50's, you are unduly proud of duplicating it. I guess that puts you about a half century behind the times. Just because you believe something, or create your own definition of it, doesn't make it so. Or true, for that matter. Better to remain silent, and be thought a fool, than to speak and remove all doubt.
Bill, there is nothing in “tom’s” post that says he thinks he is the only one to ever do it or that he is unduly proud of duplicating it. He simply told us about his double enders and asks if anyone else is building such boards. So why all the attitude? Calling someone a fool is not constructive behavior.
yeah…seems a tad harsh.
I have that exact board you are thinking about making. I love it.
Quote:
I have that exact board you are thinking about making. I love it.
Whats the fin setup on your board? Do you know how much nose and tail rocker it has?
Not exactly sure about the rocker, but not much!
Rich
“…why all the attitude?”, you ask. When I get unwarrented attitude, I give it back. Just that simple. And since it went over your head, “Tom” was attempting to DEFINE for all of us what a TRUE double ender is so that he could be RIGHT, by making someone else wrong. Is that your idea of constructive? It’s not mine. And as you picked up on, I’m not very tolorant of it either. “Tom”, who is in fact our favorite person ROY, is not exactly a paragon of dignity and decorum with respect to this forum. Am I just imagining the he got himself banned from posting here? Why is he back? And how did he get back? As far as being harsh is concerned, it’s just not true, I was still being civil. Still am for that matter. I believe the original topic of this thread deserves to be addressed, and not be taken down the road you’ve turned it on to. As to my post that got your panties in a wad, I stand by every word of it. I look forward to more constructive discorse with you in the future.
for what its worth, i think your reply was spot on.
BTW tom, i know having the WP 3" ahead of center is not a true double ender too… i said “the first board i ever made was basically that outline, with the wide point 3” ahead of center"
satori, nevermind the debate here. make the board. it will be super fun, i would almost gaurantee it.
edit: oh and to be pedantic, he is putting a fin on one end, therefore it has a tail, and therefore, by definition, is not a true doubleENDER.
Now that’s really double ended. . . because it has fins at each end. . . my ‘true’ double ender is only double ended as far as the board goes, so I get blown out of the water. . . 
Oh, I see that Mike posted that board with fins at both ends, (Hi Mike)
Hi Bill,
I’m just a funny sort of a bloke with a tendency to be a tad pedantic, but what I was doing was just exploring the idea of double endedness, and it seems (to me at any rate) that just as a symmetrical surfboard is the same on both sides, a double ended surfboard is the same at each end, and this probably means having identical fin setups at each end so if that’s the case neither of our double enders are absolutlely double ended !
It’s just a fun concept and I like to play with fun concepts without arbitrary limits. . . . the natural limits, geometrical or physical, are what I really dig !
. . .(that’s a smile BTW)
Quote:
edit: oh and to be pedantic, he is putting a fin on one end, therefore it has a tail, and therefore, by definition, is not a true doubleENDER.
Right on mate, or should I say ‘Tooshay’ ?
