firewire

Gotta agree on the curved fin thing. Have you ever seen a bird with straight wings? Never. Even the new jets all have curve now.

I see where your at with the material thing. I just changed 25 years ago and to me EPS/epoxy is the normal matrix and has been for so long. The materials gave me so much freedom over the years that I couldn’t imagine using Clark. Clark was so restricting … and I was able to control the shapes and the structure with EPS so much better. I also got ahead at points in my shaping carreer and I just couldn’t wait around for the blank guys to catch up. Then I got black balled from making plugs and they got even further behind. We were basically doing modern pro three fins at Ocean Ave in the mid 80’s. Clark didn’t even have the plugs for those till '93. We started the epoxy thing in '81 so the boards evolved there in that medium. But I can see your point.

Did some stuff with one of the pro guys years ago with 5 inch side fins. Way more drive and speed in small surf. Had trouble hitting the combination again and so it kind of died. Bigger fins don’t have any slop room so they have to be more accurate in placement … this is what we learned. Get it right and you really have something but it’s so much more critical. Boards today tend to have a lot of slop room that robs performance but allows better success ratios.

slop room , my greatest hate …

thats what quivers are for …

that is so common , generic boards , they go ok in everything , but dont go off in anything …

but a board designed for specific conditions , then you feel the magic …

bigger fins and placement …

think of it in terms of leverage …

stiffness/looseness in a thruster is related to the distance from the leading edge of the front fins to the trailing edge of the tail fin …

place a larger side fin on the same fin mark and you effectively move the leading edge further forward , so automatically its stiffer …

this means 3 options , if you want the positives of the big fin and not the negatives …

pull front fin posistion back , so the leading edges are relative to where they would be with smaller fins …

move tail fin forward …

make tail fin smaller …

or you can do what GW did and get rid of the pesky tail fin all together …

funny how many potentially great ideas , just dont quite get over the line ,because of the effort and time involved in the debugging process , then , there are never any guarantees anyway …

regards

BERT

Bert, agree on the slop room. With three fins the combinations are about endless. I personally have always thought they can be used for adjustment. Changing the balance of the board for different conditions. Like you said, so many potential ideas.

Hi Craftee, sorry no step deck experiments, plenty of concave decks though. Gregw

Hi Greg and Bert, been fun chatting, might get back into it soon. Bert if in Sydney just email thru my website and lets catch up. webbersurfboards.com

GL re the balance thing, lets keep that one quiet, sounds valuable! I have something definable that might be the same thing…GregW

hi gregw

great to have you on swaylocks

welcome

i recommend you try the humpback foil on a flat rockered design

make a few, same outline and rails

no concaves

on one, step the foil into the tail

and one leave normal

its possible you may find that the thinner tail makes it too flexible and easier to break on PU construction

but im sure you will notice a distinct ride difference.

crafftee put me onto it ages ago around the time i inadvertently built one through lousy shaping skills

now i find it a very useful tool for predictably controlling flex in composite surfboards

Hi mate, well I don’t at all know the shape you are suggesting. Any images? As far as flex, I’m not super into any flex which is localised. ie just at the tail. Only into whole board flex really. Greg

Im not suggesting its holy grail…just wondering if anyone else does them.

MikeD has suggested Im not the only one and its been done for while now.

Anyway, I really like them in adv composite boards.

Here is a crude sketch…

thanks for the plug Silly.

thats the one dave

yeah it doesnt work as a hinge effect greg

its a smooth transition of flex

http://www.swaylocks.com/resources/detail_page.cgi?ID=2005

This is making for great reading guys!

Greg W, I loved the banana board era, drooled over your boards back when I used to buy ASL magazine.

As far as i’m concerned, shape and structure are pretty much complementary…

The main issue is being restricted in what you can shape when using traditional materials.

With composite sandwich boards, suddenly theres the freedom to explore shapes that wouldn’t last 2 waves when built in poly/polyurethane with centre stringers.

Drop the thickness at the stringer too much and they snap… glass too light and they snap…

Structural advances simply remove the constraints on shape. If shape is where the greatest gains are to be found, then freedom to experiment has got to be a good thing

But i’m pretty keen on the other aspects/benefits of structure as well!

Kit

Dug out another one. Its a Nick Palandrini shape, another 10’0. Not nearly as extreme, but works pretty dang well too. bottom rocker is a little smoother - less staged - and even has a little concave under the nose too.

Maybe this is one of those things that longboard-specific shapers do more of than people realize? And the benefits of placing flex as well as creating it can be expanded to other shapes as well?

thanks for getting off topic i was really interested and learning from what Greg had to say about his boards and shaping

well if your here to read monolouge from your favourite shaper, your in the wrong place mate

this is a “DISCUSSION” forum

benny you must scared greg away

lmao

btw

the topic is firewire

well here is the only spot he posts, now he doesn’t cause everyone got off topic

im probably the youngest on here and is great reading what people post and what was great reading from Greg is now gone cause he doesn’t post anymore?

Greg is a good shaper but not my favourite

Quote:

well here is the only spot he posts, now he doesn’t cause everyone got off topic

your a wide open target mate, with that reasoning

can you read minds or something?

its more likely gregs busy

over 2 or 3 years a patterns emerges

industry players tend to hit run

get the goods and gone

no ones off topic

the discussion was over a basic relationship between shape and material

a step deck is design element which is largely unexplored in shortboards due to material limitations

just because you didnt get it

doesnt mean its not relevant

Quote:

As far as i’m concerned, shape and structure are pretty much complementary…

The main issue is being restricted in what you can shape when using traditional materials.

With composite sandwich boards, suddenly theres the freedom to explore shapes that wouldn’t last 2 waves when built in poly/polyurethane with centre stringers.

Drop the thickness at the stringer too much and they snap… glass too light and they snap…

Structural advances simply remove the constraints on shape. If shape is where the greatest gains are to be found, then freedom to experiment has got to be a good thing

KKSurf …

that was awsome man …

very impressed with the way you worded that …

regards

BERT

No I haven’t been scared off at all, as someone said, just busy. Homeschooling my 7 year old and filming the 12 yr olds practice and soccer matches plus doing some odd boards and doing contracts on wave pools plus checking out female curves as a form of grounding. As for the personality conflicts these forums create, pretty funny!

back to the structure/shape thing. I take the best points in defense of structure made by Bert ad KK, as very true. This is to do with the shape not even being possible if not for structure, and is totally valid. An exciting area to explore, but limited by the need for volume irrespective of density.(ie when going lighter than now not heavier) eg make a board that weighs a tenth of the standard board, and even though it weighs next to nothing, it doesn’t mean you can make it a tenth of the volume and have it float the same. The water which is displaced is key. My issue is with the tension and ‘fighting’ which goes on with light cores and super strong shells. It’s nice to ‘feel’ the water, as it goes under your board, and this feedback is least amplified by PU and and poly. I can’t stand some aspects of PU so don’t think I’m for it at all, or that I secretively have shares in some PU factory. It moves while you shape it and continues to move after shaping, and has density variations within each blank which limit perfect finishing.[here’s a quick story to highlight the degree to which it can move: 20 years ago I bought a 7" thick ski blank and started shaping my second finless board with 5" concave. As I shaped away on the nose rocker it seemed that the rocker wasn’t increasing as I kept cutting. (it was stringerless)…the more I cut the more confused I got…what the f*#& is going on here! Then I realised what was happening, had a laugh and put it on the roof of my bay. The nose rocker was bending back the opposite way, the more I was cutting from the bottom. Two months later I checked the thing and was even more confused, until I realised that I was looking at the board upside down. Not only had the 8" of nose rocker dissapeared, but 12" of reverse rocker had been created!..yes in the opposite direction! 20" total deviation]…

That radical distortion made me slump when I realised how the subtle stuff we design and shape is negated a bit due to this effect. However, if the curve change due to this effect is nice and even, which it is, then this effect wont ruin a board at all, it will just give you no control at reproducing.

The main thing I am excited about with new structures is solely to do with identical reproduction of the master. The more you start mucking around with rails and millimeters of sandwich foam, the more finish shaping will have to be done by someone who is not the master designer. PU/Poly or EPS/epoxy or even PU/epoxy are only adding a tiny skin of resin and fibre. Sorry this could go on further…

I want a perfect shape to be reproduced perfectly. If one if ten boards for a pro are considered great, and one or two in a lifetime considered magic, and of these magic boards, many people of different size and style all agree they are magic, then shape is still not understood. For these pro boards to be so close yet to ride differently enough for them to reject them, then these tiny shape changes from one board to the next (of boards meant to be the same) hint at shape being so critical it’s ridiculous, whatever the structure…back at this point again!

Oh yeah, love the humback foil idea, not attractive but yes a valid direction to try for sure. Mad looking things!

Quote:

It moves while you shape it and continues to move after shaping, and has density variations within each blank which limit perfect finishing.

is there foam that is the same density and light enough to use for shaping?and if there is does this mean the magic board can be reproduced over and over again