I might have something here that would help revolutionize finless technology.Being that I’m so bogged down with enough stuff to fill 5 peoples life’s,I was wondering if you were intrested in my findings.Herb.
I might have something here that would help revolutionize finless > technology.Being that I’m so bogged down with enough stuff to fill 5 > peoples life’s,I was wondering if you were intrested in my findings.Herb. Yes, I`d be honored to see your ideas, Herb! Please share them here with everyone (c/o Michael Paler), or email me at: Dale
Yes, I`d be honored to see your ideas, Herb! Please share them here with > everyone (c/o Michael Paler), or email me at: >>> Dale …I’ve been experimenting with other ways of producing a drafting system to overcome the"canard thing",and to get as far away from the C-5 as I could.I started using tapered fiberglass tubing(cut off fishing rod ends),and ran them thru the deck to the bottom of the board to each side fin,now mind you this was on a flat bottom board maybe with a slightly cupped concave in the mid-tail section.I ran the tubes to the forward outside of each side fin thru to the deck by the tail.The bigger end of the tapered tube at the bottom with a steep angle approx 35 degrees.What I ended up with was a whole new ball game.When these tubes were plugged the board rode like normal(a thruster),but with the tubes un-plugged it created a suction to the face of the wave that I had never experienced before.It definately felt like I had way,way to much fin in the water,but it didn’t seem to interfere with forward motion,and may even have helped that alittle bit.So I removed the side fins completely,and to my suprize the board rode like a thuster,but flatter without added uncontrollable spin-drift problems.Unfortunately,I don’t have the time or the resources to have carried out this theory much further,but I believe that it could be incorporated in finless tech. with amazing results.I gained this “tube” drafting from two old sources 1)Old Moldy a long time Res. of sealBeach,and Red from the south bay area.They both used this tech. in reverse, to flow air from the deck to the bottom of the board,better know as a “jet board”.I’m working up some diagrams for you that will further benefit the system by focusing the flow,and locking it up better w/o killing foward drive.The only problem I had with this was when there was no wave movement the board then reacted squirrally/slippy.I think with what I have come up with and your neverending drive to creat a superior finless board might be the ticket,here.I also wonder if the Red-X fin system my have this ability as kind of a “contraindacation”(meaning:a DESIRED side effect)in a very small amount(s),being that the fin/boxes go thru the deck,and hey look at all the heavy weights using the Xs for even big,big wave stuff… makes me think,HUMMMM.Herb.
Herb? Is it time you “made that call?” (to S.A.)
Herb? Is it time you “made that call?” (to S.A.) John I’m not only a member…I’m the president!
Hail to the chief!
Herb, Hey, cool stuff! Ive also made those old air-lubricated designs in years past, but always encountered the same problem that plagues many hopeful surfboard ideas... a lack of consistent velocity. The law of averages all too often determines our course of action in creating surfcraft, whether we know it or not! What seems to work fine in weaker and smaller waves, can often become a dangerous nightmare in gnarly, powerful surf... Ive learned over and over, that the faster one goes, the more all those little angles and curves really start to add up and take on a life of their own… either for, or against, their rider.
What seems to work fine in weaker and smaller waves, can often become a > dangerous nightmare in gnarly, powerful surf… I`ve learned over and > over, that the faster one goes, the more all those little angles and > curves really start to add up and take on a life of their own… either > for, or against, their rider. Dale, would you clarify the above paragraph a bit please? Are you saying that a bottom with less “stuff” going on is consistently faster than one with more angles and shapes? Or for large fast surf the flatter the better? Thanks, your posts are definitely thought provoking.
Dale, would you clarify the above paragraph a bit please? Are you saying > that a bottom with less “stuff” going on is consistently faster > than one with more angles and shapes? Or for large fast surf the flatter > the better?>>> Thanks, your posts are definitely thought provoking. No, I was simply saying, the faster a surfcraft goes, the more critical are the elements that make up its form and overall performance. To generalize (a very dangerous thing), in surfboard design, you can often “get away with murder” in smaller, weaker surf… but, not so in larger, longer and more powerful waves. To stretch this idea even further, the shorter your board, the more every inch counts, whether it be intended for surf that is small or large… just my personal opinion, Nib, and nothing more.