This is an experimental board of mine, codename: Fatbolt. The outline pays homage to the “Lightning Bolt” shape of the 70’s.
After reading a book called Surfing: A Handbook, I was inspired by some of the theory the author wrote about on boards designed for smaller waves. In this book, the author talks about creating–and enjoying–a 6’5" long, 4" thick, and 26" wide board for smaller days.
A friend of mine also told me to read Lord’s Naval Architechture of Planing Hulls. I have heard that Bob Simmons applied much of the theory in this book to his boards. Browsing through the book, I came across this page~
Both books suggest that a wider hull planes quicker. This is what I want–a quick-to-plane shorter board that is good on smaller days.
My board embarks from the parallel rails suggested in the books because I want to incorporate some manouverability. I like the flow my rounded tail boards tend to have. My surfing style also tend to be pretty front-footed, which is another reason why I kept the widepoint forward. (I’m 6’5", 165lbs). Bottom contours are flat, with a hard/ tucked-under rail.
WHAT DO YOU THINK? Do you think this board as a quad or twin-fin setup would be successful in smaller surf? Does it look fast? Is 26" too wide? Blanks are on the way–any suggestions and helpful advice is GREATLY APPRECIATED!
Go for it you may love it , there are others who make wide thick boards ACE who posts on this site is one and Joe Blair makes a line of big guy wide thick boards .
First on the priority list, is a board that paddles and planes quickly for smaller days. To accomplish this goal, I am keeping the board wide, rocker flat, and foam thick.
Second, I want a board that I can pump down-the-line. With this goal in mind, I shortened the board a bit, and plan on keeping a defined tucked-under rail edge.
Third, I want speed. To accomplish this, I’m keeping the board a twin-fin (less fins, less drag).
Fourth, I like to ride up on the deck. I also like the way a rounded tail feels. It’s for this reason that the widepoint is forward.
These were my prioritized goals in designing this board. With your experience, are there better ways to accomplish them?
I like it a lot... Go build it...23 1/2 is as wide as I have ever made one and it worked well. Could barely get my arm around it so carrying it was a bit of a pain especially when it was windy.
This is my favourite topic, it will work, I ride occaisionally a 12ft x 26in wide Softop and am seriously contemplating cutting it down to about seven ft 6 in as I have a SUP now as well as a number of other longboards. It is definitely an effort to sit astride a 26 inch board. Great way of improving flexibility. At 6’5" you would have no problems. I would make it a mini-Simmons with a wide tail, it would get you into a wave effortlessly as the wide tail picks up the energy inside the wave. Probably a single stroke combined with a sink and pop up movement.
It was watching a guy rip heavy head high Acid drops on an SUP, and listening in on his subsequent discussion with his shapper, five years ago that got me on my current path. I'm still amazed at some of the good surfing I've seen done on supper thick and wide SUP's...
You seem to be tall and lean. I reckon if you came down to 6’2" x 22 or 23 at most, and thinned it out to 2 1/2" thick, you’d have much more fun. But by all means, do it, never know til you try!!
I out weigh you by 50 pounds, and that thing is too much for even me! 26" wide, you’ll never get your legs around it. 1 inch tail rocker by 4 inches thick, you’ll never turn it.
The best advice I can give to an aspiring designer is don’t go too far from what you know. Take what you are riding now and tweak it. Also, if no experienced shaper is doing anything like it, you are probably on the wrong track.
Bring it back to what you know. 1 inch changes in width are large modifications. 1/2 inch changes in thickness are equally large steps. 1/4" steps in rocker are big steps too.
But before you change anything, go ride a board that has something different in it. Ride a board an inch wider than your normal, and see what it does. Experience is your best teacher.
And no, it doesn’t look fast. It looks like you’ll never get it to turn down the line. Never draw a high fast line. and definitely never pump it for speed.
First, Plastic Fanatastic did some similar boards, back in the Bolt era, of about the same rocker and rails and with a similar if narrower outline shape. They worked very well in smaller waves, say up to overhead and change.
Next, while the ‘sea sled’ planing hulls Lord uses as examples were pretty much parallel to the water surface, surfboards in use don’t tend to be, give or take a moment here and there in turns and on takeoff. And so the wetted area doesn’t tend to be symmetrical about the centerline as is found on the sea sleds. Rather, it tends to be an asymmetric wedge shape offset from the centerline and the center of gravity winds up offset from the centerline of the board but closer to the center of effort of the …well, let’s call it ‘planing force’, which I suspect is itself not uniform through the whole of the wetted area.
Right, now that I said all that, I’d still say build the board and have at it. I think it will be usable, it’ll work, and I’d be very interested in seeing some photos or videos of the thing in use.
However, the board is not being designed from ideas out of thin air. William Nelson, author of Surfing: A Handbook, writes,
"My 26 inch board works beautifully. It catches waves easily, turns with very little effort, and is a real pleasure to use.[...] I have to spread my legs wider than usual to accomodate the extra width while I am sitting in the lineup, but this is not uncomfortable.[...] Several older surfers of 170 pounds or more have tried my wide board and have experienced a rebirth of interest in surfing."
-From Surfing: A Handbook, p.54
Because my California home break is punchier than Nelson’s typical East Coast surf, I’m adapting his original design.
Definitely outside the box. I have no idea on fins. But am hoping you keep us posted, with pics, as it progresses. Including ride report, if that's not too much to ask. BTW, are you from England? Austrailia? New Zealand? No one from California writes manouverability LOL!
