anyone from firewire feel like telling me how the project is going? Not grumpy at all that Tal went to you guys. I’ve probably done more design development in last year than any years before! (so nice not shaping for pro surfers anymore) Ha, funny that. Bert, you have said some questioanable things abou structure being more important than shape! Bet you regret that one…Greg Loehr, would love to have a chat mate, love your work as you know…Hello to Bill Hartley John Tyrril my lawyer, (old bald dude) was on a boat and met you in the ocean somewhere, with Shaun, Mark Warren and some others…Just want to say hi to you blokes…no eed for big letters. Catch up some day…Greg Webber
Can’t even spell Taj! It is 2.30am in Aust what on earth am I doing…Just read a thread on Bert leaving Firewire…oh well…there’d be at least a handfull of ways of looking at that…Greg
Gregg I was checking out your website and saw what you were doing with the deep double concaves.That is is a very interesting.I would think that with such deep concaves it would make the board very stable but hard to turn.I hate how rusty took you design that sucks for sure.I have had a couple of your boards and was really happy with how they went.
hey Greg , how are ya ??
no , not in the least do i regret that saying structure is more important than shape … i still stand by it …
good shape - bad structure = bad board …
bad shape - good structure = bad board …
bad shape - bad structure = bad board …
there is only one combo left ,good shape - good structure …
which of the 2 is most important ??
good shape has got us this far , thanks to guys like yourselves Greg …
put good structure on top of good design and it goes forward again …
my take on saying good structure is more important at this stage is because , shape is a known variable for most established designers , change the structure and shape starts to get cloudy again …
so if you want to get consistent results and give crew good equipment then its important to know how the structure relates to shape …
but to be completely fair …
shape and structure are equally important …
i call structure an important part of the equation because to many people are jumping on the composite and expoxy bandwagon and making woeful stuff …
the shapes are exceptable based on years of refinements , but on bad structure , the shape does nothing …
if more and more people are going to go composite etc , then structure is what needs to be understood most …
hence my reasoning for saying how important it is …
Greg, have you still got the same email ?
gwboards@—?
as far as FW updates , GL is your man , ive got someone assigned to look out for every comment i make , so saying anything , has the potential to cost me …
Greg , you will hear from me before the end of the year , i was planning to contact you …
going down a completly different road in regards to the established way of doing things …
ive actually got loads of stuff i wanted to discuss with you …
where are you based these days ?
what are the chances of catching up in person ?
ok good to see your still doing what you love …
regards
BERT
Hi Bert, rugby Aust v All blacks on in a minute…so will answer your points later…good to hear from you mate…would be funny to catch up and have a laugh about this industry…Greg
Thanks mate, I guess it’s been a while in the development, so they just went for it. Copying and or developing further is fine, just claiming it as your own is not so cool, when neither surfer or shaper were even thinking about it. The young guy in question even told me he effectively qualified on the thing. But I don’t sponsor him, so what could he or they do. They can’t acknowledge that it came from someone with profile, that would degrade their marketing impact. They couldn’t even call me cos that would leak out into the industry. I guess they guessed I’ll just write some pathetic little whinge on a website forum…I’m not worried at all, this is standard stuff in most industries. Thanks for the sentiment though…to the design itself, the fact that it’s a double will cloud my influence on whether it gets big or not, in that there have been doubles before, as there were singles before I did the singles. Some proportion of people will always love to say “oh that’s been done ages ago”, these people usually never create anything novel in there entire lifetime, and actually retard development.The key point each time, wityh any big jump, is what was the vast majority of shapers doing at the time. When simon did his three, there was a history of three fin combinations, but it was a quite different combo to all the twins with stabilisers, and the singles with small keels of little outriggers. When McTavish did the vee, most bottom shapes had roll but way less and not flat sided. When I did the single nose to tail, guys in Aust like Terry Fitz, and Al Byrne had single concaves in the nose, running into vee, with or without channels. The key difference is what was done with the rocker before the concaves were put in. Most design development changes one variable while holding all others locked. Find the limits then pull back. This method blocks big jumps because sometimes two things have to happen at the same time, and constant refinement just wont get there. making two big changes, like a 1/4 concave from nose to tail and adding an inch of rocker to the nose and the tail, are two big jumps…#@&%! this is going on way too long…Next time…Gregw
Hi Bert, sorry for the delay. On shape verses structure, I still hold shape as prime but suggest that the two actually merge, so it can’t really be a battle to prove a point. Here’s an example thru an experiment I did once: Shape a board 5mm too thin and glue a smooth shiny sheet eva to the bottom of the board. Cut the fin bases out of the foam, put in 5mm bigger fins, cut the foam to create edges at the tail, tilt the edge gradually to 45 degrees towards center. Like flex in a board, this too was flexing but in a very localised way, merging shape and structure as it distorted.
Here’s another one: Shape a full concave nose to tail, hollow the deck line so that it is almost as curved as the bottom, use the same old materials but feel the flex! This was one key part in the banana concave, and it went un-noticed. Two things happened:one the centre was thinner than most boards, and two, because it was so curved then then the shape of the foam sandwich (which the whole board represents in essence, even though not a stiff one) was further diminished in it’s ability to resist force, because both sides were heavily curved. It was like a board already half flexed. A straight deck line will resist flexing just due to it’s alignment to the flexing forces which are trying to push the two ends together. Shape has a huge influence on the very same dynamics which structure influences. it is the heart of engineering on earth. In nature they are fused. This discussion is classically human, so it’s still fun.
As for your statement that shape has got us this far, I’ll contest the degree to which we know what the fuck shape is doing though…So what Bert, you know what adding structure to the mix will do now? Make it even less clear as to what we know about shape. I’m one of the first in the world to take a risk on structure at the expense of my entire reputation. First well known performance shaper to go to both Surftech and Salomon, but have always come back to PU to assess the value of any structure…So far I’ve never needed structure to add performance to my shape. That’s because I would rather have a suer responsive shape and a more neutral structure. If the shape isn’t quite up to it, the structure will help heaps. It’s like whacking a turbo on a family sedan. Sure there are great shapers doing great boards, but i question whether anyone needs more response than we have…we need grip if anything…On the face surfing hasn’t improved since 1992, so we don’t need speed or response, we need grip…and shape will give it in abundance…more curves…bottom shapes and fins…( I’ll go over your other points next, it’s abig one hey) Oh yeah same email as old one… Greg and yeah lets catch up and video this instead!
Greg thanks for the reply.I think I have a video of shane herring riding one of those super rockered out boards on the great barrier reef was that one of your boards?
yes the two do merge indeed …
there is a saying ,“form follows function”…
this can be applied here as well , the function of the materials and the structure can lead to new shapes and designs being formed …
you dont need to change shape (a known winning formula) when structure remains static …
when aspects of structure and materials change , so do performance characteristics …
you know when you make a change and one aspect gets better , but you end up with a trade off and something else suffers …
but then you have a dilema , as the one aspect that got better, is soooo much better that you can never go back , so then you say , “well what else can i do , to fix the aspect that got worse ?”
shape and structure , are linked and cant really be seperated out as one being more important than the other…
its undertsandable that you would always reference back to P/U ,as its the medium you developed your design and shaping skills in …
in years to come , there will be less and less emphasis on shape in general and more emphasis on shape in relation to build method …
i was very fortunate to learn to shape and build boards in a range of constructions , so its clear just how much performance can change by changing structure …
when you have 3 identical boards/shape and they all go different due to variations in structure , then if you want the same feel from all of them , then either shape has to change to meet the materials or change the materials to meet the shape …
if you change the materials , then essentially you have 3 boards made the same , shaped the same , surf the same …
if you change the shape , then essentially you have 3 boards that are built different , shaped different , but feel the same …
chasing the same feeling was one aspect , because P/U has a certain feel that many like , but when you change structure and all of a sudden one aspect is soooo much better , then its difficult to go back …
what im saying here has become evident even in Tajs boards …
if i look back at stuff you were doing him Greg , then in general , his average board now has got an inch shorter and 1/4 to 3/8 wider , thinner in the tail …
so right there you see shape evolving to meet what the materials are doing …
they are both changing …
letting go of known curves that have been developed over a lifetime of surfing/shaping/designing can be difficult …
too many shapers place all the emphasis on the shape , but if that shape is not matched to the materials ?
so it makes sense that to assess any new design on its merits , then we would come back to a medium or structure we are familiar with as a static base to start from …
but then how do you develop curves and functional shapes in other mediums ??
you have to create , customise and feel those other mediums , then assess the shape and make changes according to what is being felt in the materials …
going back to one medium of structure wont allow us to broaden our design knowledge across the whole range of available materials …
unless a construction technique can be fully customisable , then we can never really reach the pinnacle of design and performance in a particular build method , if shape and design are being assessed and refined in another medium …
so branding Surftech and Salomon would have given you an insight into how materials can make a board fell different , but also offered very little chance of refining and improving on current design via customisation in those new materials and build method …
so again its clear why you would come back to P/U as a reference point for design , as its still the status quo for customisation , hence our best chance of understanding design …
yes , lets catch up …
im down in Sydney in a few weeks , you around ??
regards
BERT
Nice to here from you Greg. As far as FW things are going very well. Taj winning another is a good indication. Lots of new avenues as well with new developments on the horizon. Nice to have a team in place that’s interested in pushing limits. Growing pains are still part of the mix but less so that previous. Going from 0 to 100 in a few months isn’t easy. I can certainly relate to relaxing without pro’s. After many years with BH we got into a dispute on some shapes. He was taking things way too far IMHO and it was showing in his performance. I critisized that and he was gone. Great talent though still even on the other side of 40.
Bert have you gotten any of the boys interested? They should be getting the signal by now. This ain’t no ST now is it? Are you doing a thing in Thailand , I heard so?
Shape vs. structure … not really a good place to argue … It’s all important isn’t it?
yeah, that was on a medium rockered full concave in late 92 I think. The face surfing of Herring at South Avalon and at dee Why point in that film has not been achieved by any of the top guys yet. And you know what, the last time I saw anything that totally blew me away like that was on another early full concave, which Bill hartley on a Greg Loehr, at Angourie in 1985! I’ve watched the best in the world for twenty years and I think the modern board has blocked face turns in the interest of flattening the board off to break out the fins. Cutbacks still have to be done further out on the face just like Curren in the early 80’s…Same lines, on the same part of the wave. With flatter rockers you get too much lift as concave depth increases because too much board has to be dominated, to get it to bite. So lowish rockers like today can’t have deeper concaves. Sure, you need rocker for average waves, I’m just talking about what the best surfers in the world could be doing on clean waves over head high.
Hi Greg, That’s a pity about Bill and you not maintaining the link, but it sure can be tiring on the shaper side of the surfer/shaper relationship. How rare for the shaper to just say “I’m not going to shape your boards anymore” verses surfers not only being the ones who do the leaving, but rarely giving any thanks. I didn’t even get an email from Taj, although he did write me a text after I told him no hard feelings. Yay…Funny how you split over something pretty trivial, I remember Richard Cram asking for a swallow tail after always having squares. I asked him why, to see what direction he was heading in, he said he just wanted one and shouldn’t need to say why. he never ordered a board from me again. Spoilt children the lot of them. Not that shapers arent a self indulgent lot. We all think we are the best in the world!
I didn’t even know he won anything, sorry. I’m completely dissinterested in the results that come from competative surfing. Although watching the actual surfing is great. I’d love to be wealthy enough to just pay them to all go surfing together. Drop in on eachother, two on wave, or two in a tube, gumby style, cruising along doing nothing, ‘ripping’ 80’s style, whatever they feel like. So I rarely link the standard of any board to a result. EXCEPT, when the board is so good that the surfer just gets in rhythm from feeling so natural with the wave and the sets, thereby offsetting the stress level that competing unnecessarily puts on them in the first place. And when that happens it’s almost always due to the degree of link between the big curves. Of course when Taj won any event I would take as much of the credit as I could get! Ha! I have seen some photos of him that look great, but no video at all. Aren’t they a bit jumpy???Do they have some dampening in the structure? Oh yeah how come no-one asked me if I was interesteed to be a part of it?
You’re right about Bert and I trying to prove how smart we are, fun though. ie your point being it’s all important isn’t it. For sure. What Bert did was say “shape is dead” or something like that, or “shape isn’t important.” It was in his big interview of ‘shaper of the year’, and I found it to be silly, on one hand and disrespectful to all the shape changers out there. What am I thinking, it’s just a magazine!
Hoi Greg W,
I met you one time while doing the rounds of factories in Mona Vale in the 90’s. I talked with you and Martyn about work and you complimented a 6 channel I had with me.
I’ve worked with Bert for 2 years now, first building some sandwich boards at home in Torquay before moving to Qld to work for … and now making Sunovas.
After such a long time shaping with the skinny piece of wood down the middle, then to change to the rail wood, man, it blew the door open and I’ve never looked back.
Certainly there’s no disrespect intended in that article from Bert…indeed as you suggest, its only a magazine.
Greg, I’ve always thought of you as a remarkable case, a free-thinker with whacked-out designs (…that thing in the Torquay surf museum…) and yet capable of the refinements to get a version of these ideas out to the public. Forgive me while I piss in your pocket for a moment, but for the first and last time!!!
I believe you would get along with us guys…I’m playing with double-concave DECKS right now…With aware design, the stuff that sandwich construction can add to performance is truly exciting.
I can’t claim to be able to be able to teach you anything on the design side of things, but, man, with composites, your stuff would rock!!! You seem open-minded enough that I’ll give you this spiel before I would dozens of stick-in-the-mud foam mowers.
For me the debate that either shape or structure is more important is the silly part. They obviously go hand-in-hand.
This is it:- Take a refined design, with rails, rocker, outline, edges all in tune, and then a structure in which the core of the board is no longer merely a benign filler. Consider what you have control of when you can alter the role of that core, rails and lamination, to influence flex and spring.
With those things in mind, I will bet that given a couple of goes, your composite boards would emerge with interesting, subtle but critical differences to the polyurethane.
That bit in the shaper of the year article…“shape is dead”:- no, it was more that a shapers familiar curves are not necessarily going to stay the same as you shift the stiffest section of the board from the middle to the rails.
Josh
Hi Greg, That’s a pity about Bill and you not maintaining the link, but it sure can be tiring on the shaper side of the surfer/shaper relationship. How rare for the shaper to just say “I’m not going to shape your boards anymore” verses surfers not only being the ones who do the leaving, but rarely giving any thanks. I didn’t even get an email from Taj, although he did write me a text after I told him no hard feelings. Yay…Funny how you split over something pretty trivial, I remember Richard Cram asking for a swallow tail after always having squares. I asked him why, to see what direction he was heading in, he said he just wanted one and shouldn’t need to say why. he never ordered a board from me again. Spoilt children the lot of them. Not that shapers arent a self indulgent lot. We all think we are the best in the world!
Pro guys are tough. And I’m not sure worth dealing with. Bill grew up with the silver spoon so he had issues about being spoiled anyway and didn’t understand my situation as business was concerned. He never knew how little money I was making. But again a good guy and we had many very productive years and made some contibutions. As for feeling the best, when I discovered the Theory of Balance that kind of opened up my eyes to what a crap shoot the whole shaping thing is. I never felt that surging confidence again. A bit of knowledge can be a very effective at centering the ego.
I didn’t even know he won anything, sorry. I’m completely dissinterested in the results that come from competative surfing. Although watching the actual surfing is great. I’d love to be wealthy enough to just pay them to all go surfing together. Drop in on eachother, two on wave, or two in a tube, gumby style, cruising along doing nothing, ‘ripping’ 80’s style, whatever they feel like. So I rarely link the standard of any board to a result. EXCEPT, when the board is so good that the surfer just gets in rhythm from feeling so natural with the wave and the sets, thereby offsetting the stress level that competing unnecessarily puts on them in the first place. And when that happens it’s almost always due to the degree of link between the big curves. Of course when Taj won any event I would take as much of the credit as I could get! Ha! I have seen some photos of him that look great, but no video at all. Aren’t they a bit jumpy???Do they have some dampening in the structure? Oh yeah how come no-one asked me if I was interesteed to be a part of it?
I always thought pro surfing should be more like pro wrestling. Interviews on the beach, fights in the line up, caddies throwing a chair into the “ring” … post heat brawls on the beach … you know, just like real surfing is. Something should be done. CT surfing is like watching grass grow right now. People think baseball is too slow, have you actually ever sat through a prelim heat in the CT? I don’t find the boards jumpy at all but then I never did with epoxy boards. Actually most people don’t. Today’s pro’s are so vetically challenged that they aren’t really normal humans if you know what I mean. Bert’s contribution to the mix really changed the whole stucture to make it more pro friendly. Then there’s the whole weighting thing which is just a more intelligent way of tuning. Used in lots of other sports as a means to succeed. Nascar uses it, every team. Race cars and surfboards are so similar in construction and performance it’s really amazing. Yes, you’ve been mentioned as someone who they like to involve but that would be down the line. I haven’t even done any designs yet and I’ve been involved since day one … well maybe day two.
You’re right about Bert and I trying to prove how smart we are, fun though. ie your point being it’s all important isn’t it. For sure. What Bert did was say “shape is dead” or something like that, or “shape isn’t important.” It was in his big interview of ‘shaper of the year’, and I found it to be silly, on one hand and disrespectful to all the shape changers out there. What am I thinking, it’s just a magazine!
I didn’t get “shape is dead” out of what Bert said. What I got was that shape is only half and the other half has been ignored for a half of a century and that this was now the place to look to get the greatest rewards. I agree with him (but then I would). I still think there are contributions to be made on the shaping front as well and if you involve tech, that changes shape and gives shapers new paths to follow. Magazines … mags … they used to carry such a huge club … it’s a twig now. In the 70’s, I’d mention a new design in a mag and I couldn’t make enough. A few years ago I came out with a new design which was featured in almost every mags editorial space and we backed it up with ads. NOTHING! We sold 10 all year. WTF. This space right here has more impact.
well isnt this a nice cosy conversation …
funny GL , appart from one time we disagreed on something , we pretty much share the same philosiphy on most things and whenever we get together its like stepping into a time warp , as we talk surfboards till time has no relevance …
yes GL there are plenty of bites coming from CT guys (there managers ), but making boards for pros wont get me anywhere at the moment , so even tho saying no is painful , its the most practical thing i can say for now …
were still on a mission to create a production and start making an income again …
no point building boards for pros , it doesnt pay the bills unless you got something to sell from the press and interest they generate …
so we will pop our head back up when all the ducks are lined up …
seems like a chore to have to go through the same process all over again , but at least were not having any growing pains …
just a systematic roll out …
GW , i fully agree on the face surfing comments …
a comment that came to mind was judging criteria …
it went from length of ride …
to radical turns in critical spots …
now there is repotoire and variety of moves …
judging criteria will have an influence on the designs that will best allow the surfers to get the scores and do the moves the judges are looking for …
if the criteria is repotoire , then that would be very difficult on a board that was more designed for top to bottom face hugging turns deep in the pocket of a 3 foot plus good wave …
when you brought out the heavily rockered single ,GW , loads of guys near me got them too , they ripped in solid beachies and bowly waves , but in open waves with dead spots , couldnt connect a basic round house to connect to the next power zone …
but you know what , when you introduce an emphasis on structure back into the mix , you can make a board that does both …
flat and fast on dead bits , then morph under load to fit into tight parts of the wave …
the best part is , there are a host of proven curves and concepts that we know work for certain conditions , thanks to the design charge from the past , so we have a material/medium change that allows flex , but also allows us to engineer certain flex/morph responses to load ,to create the proven curve , but only when its needed …
so on one hand shape as we know it might be dead , but knowing what shape does in certain parts of the wave is essential if we are going to make the most of understanding a new medium and how to get the best from it …
so taking design and performance to new levels will still be in the hands knowledgable designers …
ok , i am putting a serious dent in my day sitting here , gota fly …
GW , if i dont catch you within the next 3 weeks , no biggy , as it would have just been a hello and maybe run a few concepts past you that would be years away from getting set up anyway …
are you still working with Randy ??
GL , nice to see you around again , i was saying to Speedy the other day , " i hope everything is good with GL coz i havent seen him post on sways for a while " …
so it all looks good …
regards
BERT
Hi Josh, sorry not to remember mate, if you were a Joshina with certain curves and a delightful manner, maybe I would! Nice response, and I see what you are with playing with structure and I admit that altering shape around much greater control of flex is possibly the whole future of design, but have two concerns. 1. We don’t understand shape yet, and I will prove why to the shaping world in a few months, maybe a year, and 2. If we were to increase flex to a degree which required a significant rocker decrease to provide a range of curves or twists, I’m pretty sure we would find it far too dynamic for the human mind, and come back to a far more neutral mix. I’ll expand in my answer to Bert’s or GL’s, or I’ll be repeating myself. However, if I’m completely wrong then that’s great too. Love the double concave deck, I’ve designed a file on the APS 3000 or whatever it’s called now, with a double dome deck to match with the deep double concave bottoms I’m doing now, but the cutter can’t really do it and I’m not that excited that I’ll hand shape one! Maybe someone else can try one. My guess is we should be thinking more about the one half that’s in the water, than being tied by the need for it to look like a mono hull. Ive seen some great leaves that would go pretty well!
As for making the rail stiffer than the centre, not sure about that, I’ll have to think about and try it. One of the retailers has some Firewires so I’ll have a few goes and see. As an overiew to this entire thread, I think were not on the shape we will be using in future anyway. The fins are wrong, they will be bigger less of them and curved, the planshapes will be wholely different, as well as small rocker and thickness distribution changes, as well as one almost unknown design relationship. Todays structure talk is like talking excitedly about a new tyre compound in F1 pre '81 before Renault brought the turbo in. With pro surfing leading the way, and the only great alternative surfers more worried about looking cool with silly flat fish designs, there is no shape evolution happening at all. Look at the massive range in shape today, from some super flat wide thick keel finned slab and the most refined curved concaved rockered pro’s board. The range between the two shapes performance wise, is far greater than the range of flex we can use within each shape. The day any structure can make the same shape board feel as different as the two shape extremes I have just mentioned then it can be said to have more influence on performance than shape. Hold structure and change shape and look what massive range of feel we have. Hold shape and change structure and it’s noticeable but not as far reaching while still functional. Look at the great range of craft we can ride today. If you just talk about structure at the top level with pro boards you tend to think that that’s everything, and it is a narrow range of shape in that realm. But that’s not all of surfing, so write off shape and you are writing off the breadth of shape at the same time…that is why I got a bit annoyed with the argument. GregW
Mate, some funny stuff you write, by that I don’t mean questionable, just plain funny to make you laugh! So what’s the Theory of Balance?
Yeah, the CT thing doesn’t work, the need for a winner helps it heaps though. As if the range of factors that go into winning an event are considered when the guy is on the podium, ie the draw, the waves that just came to you while your equally talented opposition didn’t get them. If you showed a group of great surfers a video of every wave in an entire contest in random order they would never know who won. However, ask the same group who they thought was surfing the best that day and they would probably end up with the same surfer.
As for the weighting thing, and the rail flex character, Ill try a Firewire and see how wrong I am!
As for structure, I’ve experimented in the other direction nearly 20 years ago with acrylic foam, which was super hard, quite stiff and heavy, making a 3/1 core to skin ratio. And guess what!? It was terrible. Point being is that it made me realise how key the ratio of shell to core was. I’ve got a feeling this factor is pretty up there, but once you go in one direction with structure and it get all exciting and responsive, then it is very distracting and almost tricks you into looking back. Imagine the first stone age man who fluked smelting some bronze, only to go “nah…I’m not into this ridiculously hard new material, I’m going to stick with the old stone axe and put up with it smashing all the time” The brain almost cant do it. Because of this factor I have constantly gone backwards in whatever way I can to ground myself in the whole nature of the dynamics we are on. Most people would think I only try to see the future, but that’s so exciting that it gets pretty blinding when you don’t force yourself to go backwards as well. eg I went away from curved fins back to flat, to develop shape with no distractions and to understad flex in flat fins, before I went into the new shape, with flexing curved twins. Structure changes will only make it harder for me to get it dead right. I’ve also surfed flat bottoms and vee bottoms for long periods to make sure I don’t get blind on concave. Now I think we can merge the two shapes with deep doubles either side of vee. Heaps to try yet. I bet I could take you and Burt and any structure nut on a surftrip with a wild range of shapes and you’d forget about cores completely. Then sure, we could find the prime shapes we liked and come back again another day and do them in different structures. First things first. You can’t do it the other way around. Only nature changes everything all at the same time. We better let this rave end soon hey…It’s getting on a bit.
One thing I have been experimenting with is stringers on the surface between centre and rail Did it ten years ago for Trent Munro, and just now for Jody Perry on a banana concave twin, which he seems to be addicted to as a combo.
I don’t think these tiny little 4" fins are what we will be on soon anyway, so how big an influence will shape have if that is true? 7" fins biting deep into the face, with even flex creating even pressure and massive grip. I have had light footed 60 kg(130 lb) surfers snap these fins out of the board due to the loads they are getting. No stiff twin of the same height is doing it. Speed is huge. Hold is huge.
Like you said Greg, all the profile in mags without a top 5 guy riding it means absolutely nothing. So who cares what I think.
i think we are all making a bunch of observations which ultimatly support the same ideals …
the interpretation of the comment “shape is dead” has a certain subjectivity …
your comments about the breadth of design , pretty much drives home the point that for the wider surfing community outside of pro surfing , anything goes , it all works to some degree or another , pro surfing has about as much influence on design as formula 1 has on influencing the family sedan …
but take a bunch of high performance identical boards and try to give one guy an equipment advantage ??
F1 , why does Ferrari constantly win , when every car looks exactly the same from the outside ??
also , i miss something when you talk about not knowing what is going on with shape ??
its all just basic physics and mathematics , which does get complicated as more variables get thrown in ,but not so complicated that an intuitive board builder couldnt get close to the mark even by adding some unknown variables …
the exciting part or the mysterious part is that the tools dont exist to gather the data and assign a value to each variable , so the sharmans can still call the shots on what is reality and what isnt …
also , agree on the fins …
but that subject can be saved for another time …
you wont find what your looking for if you ride a " flexible board " …
the reason i am doing Sunova again ,is so i can continue where i left off , no hollywood , no marketing agendas , just development and science …
riding the off the shelf version , is comparing Honda F1 to a Honda civic …
anyway its all good , loads of exciting stuff going on , just like GL said , its happening here …
the dynamics of the way the game is supposed to be played are changing …
hey GL , will you be in CA next january ?
wanna do some snow again ??
regards
BERT
This was one key part in the banana concave, and it went un-noticed. Two things happened:one the centre was thinner than most boards, and two, because it was so curved then then the shape of the foam sandwich (which the whole board represents in essence, even though not a stiff one) was further diminished in it’s ability to resist force, because both sides were heavily curved. It was like a board already half flexed. A straight deck line will resist flexing just due to it’s alignment to the flexing forces which are trying to push the two ends together. Shape has a huge influence on the very same dynamics which structure influences.
Hi Greg, welcome to the forum.
Have you ever experimented with step deck, or humpback foils? Where the foil looks like a modern archery bow…thin in the ends and thick in the center, the two thinned end sections being dished out.
Just asking seeing that youve tried so many things…
Theory of Balace … something I discovered about 30 years ago. There are some basic physics which control the way a surfboard rides … certain balances. It explained a lot to me and gave me some understanding that I needed. Did mitigate the ego though. I’ll have to write you about it. It’s very simple and yet it’ll take me some time to write. I need to do a new version anyway.
Bert, SNOW, Hell yea. I’ll be there, we’ll go.