http://www.surfline.com/video/contests/dream-tour-09-what-will-slater-ride_22543
Thanks Otis!
The idea behind redistributing volume is what I have been working on in my designs for a while now.
Of course I am no where near the caliber of those guys, but I am encouraged that my thinking was in that direction before it became a public thing.
Mahalo
I believe this is calling reinventing the wheel…
And I´me sure that I woud´nt make any wave with that board as he does…
Well, I don’t know about that Luis.
I did a 5’10" thruster utilizing some volume redistribution theories and it was spectacular! There are some pics of it on an older thread. My normal board is 6’3" and I have never been able to ride any speed shape under 6’2".
One of my team riders was ripping on it…and he’s 6’2"!!!
It’s actually not “reinventing” anything. There are a few shaper that have been doing this for quite some time now.
Mahana and I just had a long talk about that very topic yesterday. He has a board he calls his “surfskate” that he has been riding for a number of years. It’s really cool!
(hey Mahana! I hope you know I’m TOTALLY going to steal your idea! LOL!!!)
Mahalo
I’m stoked on these ideas. Seems like that shape is sort of vaguely pulling an old 70’s single fin influence back into modern shortboards… Or does that seem way off base? The narrower tail with a lot of volume up front in considerably wider noses… I’m sure the foil and rails are totally different but the basic outline put me in mind of those classic boards. It’ll be nice to watch these evolve further and get surfed more and more.
Maybe these boards won’t ever be practical for the majority of surfers; that’s the big test really. As has been pointed out many times on other threads, guys like Kelly can surf just about anything and make it look good. I’m excited to see what he does with it.
I’m with you on the redistribution of volume not being new… New to the modern pro tour, but not new.
I’m more interested in what he’d done with rocker. He says flattened rocker, which makes sense loosing all that length and sticking with a much larger board’s template in the business end of the board (back two thirds), but when he refers to the board’s reduced rocker, he waves his hand over the tail. I can see flattening the entry rocker a bit to make up for reduced length in order to catch waves better. But, I’d like to know what, specifically, is going on back there. The old concept of more curve fitting into the pocket better is obviously being challenged. A lot of the waves in the vid are not exactly huge, gaping barrells. On a few, he’s barely fitting in the tube. So the curvature of the wave must be pretty tight. A flattened tail rocker on a short board is something you see in boards for much weaker surf, but he’s obviously tranlating that flattened aft section into flat out speed and MAKING it fit the wave face.
Hi BCKyle.
Actually…depending on the design it can be easier to ride than your traditional thruster. If I can ride a board at 4-6" shorter than my norm and still get the performance(or better)…anyone can. In my case, it really was about both the redistribution of volume and surface area.
I totally agree with your Kelly satement though. I always say, “Kelly could ride an ironing board and make it look like the best Merrick ever made.” I stand firm behind that.
In this case though, I think there is some real merrit behind the theory and the application.
Of course, only time will tell.
Just my 1.874 cents
Hola Todd!
Yeah I think I sounded like my opinion was a bit too cut and dry… I agree, I think bringing more volume and width together in such a way as to be able to ride shorter boards effectively (instead of straining to catch - and stay on top of - waves with little potato chips) is a good step in design and definitely a useful one for lots of surfers. I tend to like thicker forward and shorter in general in my boards for sure! I guess what I was thinking of was more what njsurfer touched on, the potential extra difficulty of surfing a lower rocker board like that in fairly rough heavy barrelling waves. But I suppose the shorter board coupled with still having a narrow tail might help to fit the flatter shape in there…
I’d like to give that board a try on some waves that complimented it. I’d be interested to hear about where and how you redistributed your volume/surface area… in a similar way as here, further forward and wider nose? I’ll try and hunt down the thread you mentioned that details it.
I think not only is there some real merrit behind the design, there’s also some real Merrick behind it. 
Not neccessarily more volume…just an equal volume.
By adding a little more width you can get as much if not more surface area with the same(or only slightly more)volume.
Here is an example…
the board on the left is the 5’10", on the right is it’s 6’2" counterpart.
The outline looks a little out of whack because of the angle of the pic.
It is essentially a longer outline with a full nose and the tail pulled in sharply.
It worked well from calf high crap to overhead peelers.
I have shots of one of my team riders(he’s 6’2") on calf high waves just tearing it up.
Slaters final statement sums up the whole concept or concepts"nothing is right or wrong ,whatever feels right to you" the evolution of surfing is moving at such a pace, too ride boards like that at Pipline cannot be fully appreciated as he makes it look effortless the reality far from that.Take his words of wisdom and make it work for you.Truly a gifted young man. Aloha…
I thought he said they added tail kick. Tail kick means that nose rocker can be flat and not pearl.
Nice trade off, too, in having a board flatter and narrower tail. Use the narropw tail to control the speed characteristics of the flat rocker.
Volume under the chest means you can paddle in. (flatter nose rocker helps, too, if that’s what’s been done in the KS board). Forward volume also means that you can move the nose to tail foiling forward so you get speed out of buried rail (front foot surfing).
An unmentioned side effect of the KS discussion was that wide point moved forward as a result of the narrow tail teplate (and rocker low point might have too) - pretty typical thinking for a “gunnier” board.
Be nice to know if they kept the 7’0" bottom contours in the tail?
Nice thinking - “how to make a 5’10” gun".
PS I was particularly interested in KS saying that he does not change the rear fin - just the sides. But that’s a different design discussion.
Todd those both look like beauties. I’m stoked that you took the time and care to those boards directly comparable. …I will be making a shorter wider board this summer. Do you know anything about the Bing Synchronizer? I like the lines of it a lot.
How wide is the 5’10"? …I haven’t found that thread yet, been busy and away from the comp. 19.5, 20?
Thanks for the compliment.
I’m not sure on the width. I think it’s 19.5" I haven’t really looked at it since I snapped the tail off.
I snapped the tail being greedy. I was surfing ankle high beach slappers and I dug the trailer fin in until it stuck and it collapsed under the weight on my back foot.
I’ll probably fix it just because…but I’m sure it wont surf the same ever again.
Haven’t seen the Bing yet…but I am curious.
Mahalo
thx for the reply Todd! and sorry to hear about the tail’s fate. we all get a little greedy now and then… one of my local breaks has a classic big old rock that ends up smack down the line at the right (wrong, I guess) tide and swell size… I’ve come within an inch of ripping off fins on it, trying to stay too tight on the wave instead of getting well out on the shoulder there like I know I shoudl… and I’ve taken a bit of a chunk out of a rail on it once on a less lucky day. Can’t always let that little extra wave go…
Hope that tail comes out alright!