My broad template, 9-10 pintail has a modest continuous rocker and 60/40 rails that go hard over the last 18" or so - elements that say speed to me, within the general size/shape of this board. But it also has a concave nose. Concave: for tip riding drag to help slow the board I would think. But trim it mid board and it accelerates briskly. These details don’t strike me as the best recipe for a superior nose riding machine (but I have modest surfing skill and zero shaping skill). I wonder what the shaper was aiming for? Is this a little odd, or is it just one of a normal and infinite combination of compromises that work for specific conditions and/or riders? In this case maybe, a fairly fast and forgiving big’ole LB, with a little bit of design aimed at tipwork? (Con Classic Pin)
Not finding fault, I’m not qualified, I’m just curious about the thought process behind this shape.
I think the shaper intended for an ‘‘advantage’’ for riding the tip, while having a design that gave speed and maneuverability, for other conditions. Actually a common compromise.
people who don’t know better think nose concave is a necessity on any longboard… my best guess is the shaper was making it for whatever random passer-by was feelin’ it up in the shop, as that individual would surely ignore any longboard without a scoop under the tip.
I feel that nose concave is just for the individual. I don’t put it in my personal boards but in some of my customers it is a common request. It may be for nose riding, weight reduction, who nose. I like to do a nose concave to a single channel to a double concave. It trims turns and hangs. Then how the punter rides the wave comes in to it. Flat on the face or in the pocket , all has imho got todo with the shape of the board. Rolled vee, displacement. all has effect on the ride.
That does seem to be common (the mandatory concave).
I like the board; it’s pretty responsive and predictable, pretty quick, but I have an easier time getting near the nose on my 9-4 Anderson Traditionalist (more rocker, pinched rails all around, thinner). It sucks into the wave easily - all the design elements were aimed for that I think. I keep wondering if I’d prefer the 9-10 with the foam instead of the concave. I tend to think the extra pearl resistance/float would have allowed more forward take off trim that would have made it better at catching the less steep way outside stuff on the Florida East Coast in summer, without really giving up anything else it already does well.
No biggie, just thinking and wondering out loud. Need to work the driver’s skills.
Bill is correct, it is a combination of semi-performance (rails) and noseriding (concave), but these two features limit each other. Many current rack boards around here are done this way to reach a broader customer base, and they are a good all-pupose design. In my own opinion, the nose concave slows you down and any performance features are really minimized. You didn’t give the thickness, number of fins, or bottom contour. Really thin boards of this type don’t work as well as those at least 3-1/4" for noseriding.