I’m open to suggestions…
Length - 5'6"7/8"
Nose – 18.75”
Wide – 24”
Tail – 21”
Thick – 3.25”
Nose Rocker - 3.25”
Tail Rocker - .75”
To be ridden:
Prone
Stand up
this …
oh Magoo, you’ve done it again ! I think this was what that dufus chipper was probably going to post ? [they’re not to scale thoiugh ]
cecil
Greenough stage?
What about making it a twinfin with such a wide tail?
If you want a singlefin: have you ever tried the Greenough “paddle fin” before?
If you’re going to put a fin box i’m sure a Starfin is WORTH a try… i love it.
Sorry, but i can’t decide…
Coque.
Is this the Swaylocks version of “Pimp my ride?”
I’m thinking twin… low wooden keels. somthing like 4" high and 9" base. Not too thick - 5/8’.
Light drag inducers (the aussies will have fun with that phrase…), not catchy, keeping looseness but giving some direction.
then again I like less fin for a wide board - all the flat and boyancy - forcing the rail into the face like a boogie.
Let us know what you do please. That’s an interesting hws shape indeed.
EJ
How about a starfin ?
Hoop it…
Hey Paul,
IMHO putting a twinzer like set-up on it will give it more zip than anything else. I say this because of the board’s width and rocker pattern. I don’t think it would be well served by a single.
No Worries, Rich
Wondeful toy!!! That’s the way I like it! I would do a parallel twin keel set, single-foiled or assymetrical foil (slighter on the inner side) or a small quad setup, like mandalas quad… how lotta area in tail, huh?
JP
not a question that merits a response
obviously this is to bee a finnless freeglide
…ambrose…
what would Maude Frickert
do in a situation like this?
take it out in the water quick
…another fine yob yensen…
…anoter fine yob…
ats what makes us proud
Paul,
I would set it up with modified keel fins like on a fish. The reason I say this is based purely on a statement Corky Carrol made in an article he wrote called “What’s Fishy About Fish”. You can read this on corkycarroll.com to make your own assumption about this.
Corky Carroll said, “The reason that the twin fin design works as well as it does in certain surf conditions is that the tail has a tremendous amount of floatation and this leads the board to plane on the water more than other designs and allows it to keep speed in flat sections where some other boards slow down. And, due to the fact that they were short and wide they would turn in a real short radius. combine short turning radius with continuous speed and you had something like driving a Porsche up highway 1. But, when you cut out part of the tail to make it a swallow or fish tail, it actually takes away some of what made it work so well in the first place. but, and this seems to be the way of the world in general, it does look cooler and is probably why the “fish” design became so popular… the twin fin… works excellent in thick waves that have a lot of face on them, but not all that great in really steep hollow waves… if the “fish” tail was filled in the board would float better, paddle faster, catch waves easier, and go faster.”
It sounds like it would be worth a go!
-Dave Falkenau
619-757-0100
Stubs LMAO
Twin, 4" deep keels, no toe-in, no cant (I think I sent you some volan puppies a few years ago that would work perfect). Put them right on the rail about 4" up from the tail block (measured from the back edge of the fin). Probably too late for a box but use one if you can 'cause I kinda like Ambrose’s idea too.
Nice job Paul! Get your belly right on the S-Deck hump, arch your back to keep your feet out of the water and put your hands out in front of you; you’ll get rides that will redefine “close-out”.
Interesting point ambrose. In your opinion, what would make the board suitable for a finless ride? Only lower tail volume with exagerated vee would be enough?? Lower rails, just to create a water flow over de tail deck? As I read your lines I’d just imagine a double channel thing.
Just guessing…
JP
…0001.JPG"]
