Wouldnt it be ironic if unplanned human inaccuracy proves more important to the progression of surfing than the development of identical, mass-produced designs? What if the elusive "magic" of some surfcraft has absolutely NOTHING to do with perfect symmetry and a flawless finish? -- The human brain shares its functions differently from right to left side. The human body isnt symmetrical… with its balance, response and senses oriented differently from left to right side. The waves we ride are randomly formed, each one with different internal and external characteristics, i.e. distribution of power, curve, texture, etc. While traversing a wave, all objects are affected differently on right and left sides. –
Dale how goes it? Surely serendipity has played a role in what we know to be “right” today. No doubt it will be there for the future. I can’t help but think that a something like a taped off fin install that went askew was where fin cant came from or a rail gouge that became a wing. Was riding an under inflated surf mat the result of concious decision or just a pinhole in the lineup? Great stuff to justify hacking around in my shop! Tom S.
sounds to me, that you might be talking about an asymetrical surfboard? Carl Ekstrom did these back in the 60’s and they worked wonderfully , mainly on pointbreaks but were fun to ride on loned up beachbreaks too. Carl is/was a very intellgent guy who was too far ahead of the learning curve of most surfers … and to think of his ideas in the hands of most shapers is scary at best.
As shapers we strive for symmetry to prove that we are good shapers. Do you people realize that the last 20 years we have gone in CIRCLES? There has never been more than 5 years in surfings short history that something breakthrough has happened, Until the thruster came about. No, epoxy doesn’t count as a breakthrough. With the recent revisitation to retro single fins, the “re emergence” of Bonzers, etc., It’s proof that “progression” in terms of cutting edge design is no more than an attempt to refine what we’ve already refined before. The contest circuit will continue to dictate design for the mainstream. The mainstream will dictate design. Do we have a problem here?? 50% of my orders are for retro fishes. I think that sums up the current state of design. Sorry for rambling. I’m headed for my hideaway north of S.B. for a week to play with my quiver(2 bonzers, 2 fish, a thruster, a twinzer, a single fin egg). Oh and my beveled rail 5 fin . Oh yeah and symmetry is definitely holding us back. aloha, tom
waves break in circular fashion… come on tom- the reason people want retro is the fact that maybe those particular people were not born during certain time thruought surfing’s history- maybe the innovation lies in the re-study of older more established ideas.
dale s. wrote at the top of this thread… wouldn’t it be ironic if unplanned human inaccuracies … well, if what was ‘created’ back in the ‘days’ was so refined, why was it left behind? maybe in this big universe, what was created back in the day really was human inaccuracy driven by pure stoke- and when that stoke wore off or changed, as does our day to day lives, a ‘new’ concept was born; thus leaving behind a design that has truly not been refined. if those first designs were so refined; where is the proof? i see retro being reproduced for those said individuals that want that feeling of riding into yesteryear, however it does appear as beating the proverbial ‘dead horse’. websters ditionary reports the term retro as - back; behind. sometimes we need to take 2 steps back in order to take 1 step forward. i think it is nessecary for people to order what was hot back then, so that in the hope of one guy that tries this type of wave riding theory may become married to an idea that someone overlooked back in those days…
HA HA I SPELLED DICTIONARY WRONG- DOUBLE DOOOOOPHH!!!
BY THE WAY- INTERESTING QUIVER CHOICE TOM- HOPE YOU GET SOME SURF -SHAPER OUT-
Maybe one good reason for revisiting a modernized version of something like a single fin now is to see what might happen when ridden by an experienced thruster rider…drop a top guy from 2003 into 1973 and that person will have the benefit of knowledge undreamt about 30 years ago. Suppose the optimum size for a modern board - the dreaded 6’2" today - might be able to stretch out to 6’9" or 7’3" and maintain all the riding attributes of the 6’2" but could be altered in some way to allow real, honest-to-God trimming; hell, maybe even a foot on the nose. Somebody would have to know enough to ask for it or to make it. Most all surf knowledge comes from experience…retro = single fin these days but that term doesn’t have any unwanted baggage unless the riders hang it on themselves.
“Refining what has come before”… …Maybe it won’t be a significant change, but unless we try different materials, the results are going to be the same as before…Stagnation of design and the unimaginative pursuit for the highest quality of the ride… …Just how far can things progress, when surfboards are made with virtually the same materials as has been used since the late '50’s…???..It seems that few of us are ready to jump off the foam fiberglass merry-go-round that revolve around what Grubby Clark says we can work with, and explore what and where other materials and construction methods might take us… …Sure, the hollow wood board thing that I’ve been pursuing is a re-working of a very old idea…But, by using composite carbon fiber/epoxy interior structures, it opens up the potential to tune a boards riding characteristics in ways I couldn’t do with a foam blank…The serendipitous discoveries of the quality of the ride are refreshing and enlightening…Pre-conceived design theories are not always true…The sense of discovery is empowering, and leads to further quests for refinement of technique, and excellence of design… …Don’t let first impressions fool you…My hollow surfboards are way more than good looking boards…I build 'em to ride… http://hollowsurfboards.com 
Paul Jensen- Your hollowsurfboards.com website says “Around $200 per foot of length, depending on the details…” Have you considered building a hollow board based on pure function (less expensive- w/no fancy extras) for those of us who can afford such a board, but dont want to risk riding anything that spendy. A naked Formula 1 racer without numbers, graphics and logos. Youre on to something there: strangely sexual, combining carbon graphite with wood. Bizarre, dude!
talking about symmetry… you ride different frontside and backside. most people are more radical frontside because of the control factor. backside you tend to be a bit more modest during manuevers. wouldn’t it make sense to have differently shaped rails? of course every board would be custom to the rider and you cant mass produce these boards but doesnt it make sense? just an idea austin
Exactly my point, Austin… that`s one of the most promising, but least explored directions in surfing because it would require the creation of true custom designs. User-specific, low volume, questionable resale value. Boards would have to cost a lot more. All things considered, surfboard performance is hindered more by money than any other factor. Unless someone surfs switchfoot, prone, sitting or kneeling, symmetry in surfboard design has always been wide open to a some serious questions.
I had an early Morey/Doyle soft surfboard back in the 70’s that eventually tweaked on my backside rail/tail area. I always thought it was from pressures from being tied into the back of a small pickup, although more recent info about those construction methods and materials now makes me think it was just a twist as the board aged. Funny thing was once the tweak was in, that board cut back effortlessly and I could actually play with the sheet of spray during cutbacks, going for the full unbroken sheet of water, or spray. It’s been so long I don’t recall in detail, but the frontside turns were fine. To try to duplicate that now - the glassers would probably hate me.
velo had a tweak that George tried to duplicate on new boards, but could never get it just right.He reckoned that tweak was a major reason why Velo ripped, as duplicate, tweak-free boards didn’t seem to perform the same.
“Oh no, here he comes with his #¤%&… snowboard analogy again” In the early 90s there was alot of asymetrical snowboards. The theory was that with a high angle on the boots(toes pointing towards the nose) the sidecut would get shifted on the heelside. In addition you would have less pressure on the edges on the heelside and wouldn’t be able to lean over that far on that side, thus the radius was usually shorter. My first snowboard was asymetrical nad it did work. It had it’s flaws though, particular in a straight line when not riding on an edge it might be a bit wobbly. You don’t see alot of those boards now. Reasons: production costs and distribution costs. The factory would need extra forms and stores would need both regular and goofy boards in stock. Second, you get used to riding a symetrical board. It’s just not that different. Since you surf along a wave(left or right) for the most part maybe it would make more sense on a surfboards. regards, Håvard
Back in the early 80’s my company was approached by Windsurfing Hawaii to mold sailboards. We recieved the plug and, which was a finished custom board built in New Zealand. The board had been tested in the windsurf mags and had basically kicked all the other boards of that years asses. At reception we immediatly noticed that the board had a 3/8 inch twist. We decided that we couldn’t mold a board with such a major flaw as this and decided to make a copy sans twist. The copy was made, the board was molded and the day came for testing. Increadibly the original out rode the non-twisted version significantly. The original just glided over the water and was much smoother through the chop adding a measure of control not present in the copy. Years earlier I was surfing the North Shore and the general consences then was that a Brewer shape was uniquely superior in larger surf because of their smoothness in windy conditions at places like Sunset. There were two blanks generally used at the time for guns. The 7’4" Brewer and the 8’1" Brewer both produced by Clark Foam. Both were twisted and everyone knew this and everyone except Brewer took the twist out when shaping. Now the question is, did Brewer know that the twist was a design attribute or was he just being lazy?
interesting- after shaping and riding; the realization that it may not have made a diff to brewer so he left it- funny though- i heard a story about those blanks and was told that brewer actually shaped the master lop-sided to throw everyone else off - either way people made history on those boards.