Finally started the mini Simmons project I’ve wanted to do for almost a year now.
going through all the archives and researching online I’ve come across a few references mentioning a sharp pivot point about 18" up from the tail.
looking at photos I can kind of see it in some examples and not at all in others.
thoughts? I want to keep it original with slight personal variations. Was a pivot point in the outline original?
is it’s purpose simply to release water from those parallel rails?
thanks
If you want to start from “original” then here are a couple articles that can point you to what Bob Simmons was actually doing, 60 years before Richard Kenvin came along with his “Mini-Simmons”. You might take either or both of these accounts with a grain of rose-colored salt.
If want to start from the original Mini-Simmons that Kenvin and Joe Bauguess developed (some controversies in the different accounts of that partnership, too), then here’s what Casper looked like:
The Kenvin’s mini arguably consists of the original tail and wide point with a much shortened and slightly curvier template up front. They also updated the bottom and rail profiles quite a bit. The wide point is clearly several inches behind center and the board was/is foiled to be ridden off the tail without a lot of footwork. Most other shapers who have followed have moved the wide point forward to the center, which changes things considerably. I’ve even seen a few minis that have the wide point ahead of center.
I think pretty much all of them will work if you’re willing to adapt to their design, but they won’t all surf the same. IMO
Thank you for the links and conversation gdaddy. I came across that first article but not the second and those pictures (both the original 10’ and the cast one) is where I saw that pronounced pivot point about 18" up from the tail block.
My original CAD attempt had a nice continuous curve to the outline. I’ve since gone back and made the slight pivot point. I think this creates two things:
To achieve the pivot point the outline has to become more parallel
Creates a release point
Is that the idea or was it simply a sign of the times and limited equipment etc…?
I know Bob Simmons followed Mr. Lord’s writings on hydrodynamics. In Mr Lord’s book he states that a planing hull is most efficient when the angle from outer rail to tail is 17 degrees. Perhaps this is the reason for the sharp pivot point? To create that 17 degrees?
Agreed on the wide point. I currently have it at -2.5. I think the original was -3 or -4" but I’m happy with the -2.5" for now.
As I get to shaping I’ll have to ask opinions on the most over stated question: vee in the tail with double concave or single concave like the original? I’ve never surfed one so don’t know. I’d like some vee to loosen it up, but my #1 priority is catching those small mushy waves. How much does vee take that out?
Maybe im overthinking all this. Thoughts?
thanks!
I didn’t read the entirety of the longer article, but I’ve seen comments here on Sways that Simmon’s thing in the 1950s was that he wanted to go fast in big waves. That’s a different priority and design philosophy than what longboardind became later on.
The minis are still about maximizing their planing potential relative to their length, but to run them so short that their riders could overpower those design features in order to more actively surf the wave. Max volume @ minium length relative to the rider’s stature and ability. Some of the teenaged kids in his crew were riding 4-10 lengths. The idea was to put your rear foot right on the edge of that fat tailblock and just manhandle the tail during your turns. You lose most of that leverage when you get into the longer lengths, like past 5-6 or so.
Those moon fins suck, though. Very few people who can actually surf the minis likes the moon fin. They’re made to hold and resist their release, which isn’t the design philosophy of the newer fins where they’re going for the combination of hold+release. The later keels from the OG fishes and the later rocket fishes work a lot better for most riders. Or even a quad or twinzer.
One modernized variant of the original Mini-Simmons is what Tyler Warren has been doing with his Bar of Soap model. He uses a taller rocket fish type twin keel for those.
http://www.tylerwarrenshapes.com/soap
New question -
I went to copy my outline on a repurposed blanks that I didn’t shape and found that it wouldn’t support my outline.
Is 22" too narrow to make a proper mini Simmons? Planning on 6’ long (I know that’s long for a mini but that’s the best rocker on this blank I’m repurposing)
If it won’t work right then I’ll just save the blank.
thanks
The first ‘‘mini Simmons’’ was a balsa 60’’ x 20’’ with twin halfmoon fins, shaped by Alan Nelson, circa 1957. Twelve inches longer and two inches wider, will probably work far better than you might imagine. The key elements of surface area and lightness, will be present in abundance. Go for it.
People have been doing the Simms design in almost all lengths. One of my sons has an 8ft version with reverse D keels. That thing is a freight train. It’s far too big for me to control beyond setting a rail and running down the line. And don’t nobody wanna get in my way.
Another design track you could play around with is the McCoy Astron Zot and Nugget. Those include the wide point back w/fat ass, heavy foil under your feet and 3" thicknesses, the big difference being the round tail instead of the squared off tail block.
About 12 years ago I repurposed a 7ft egg that had delammed and died on me after many years of faithful service and redid it as a 6-0 x 21 length that was basically a McCoy/Simms mashup. I’d would have gone wider but the blank was limited. Fat round tail with lots of thickness under my feet and the McCoy style bottom, wide point behind center and an eggy nose with a semi-hull entry. Real flat rocker. The wide nose + wide point behind center resulted in some fairly parallel rails up front. I put bamboo veneers for the finpatch and a full bamboo deck. I initially ran it as a single fin and used that winged keel that Cheyne Horan had been using but it just didn’t have enough surface area for my stature. After 6 months I got bored with the single fin and added quad boxes and that board came alive. Pretty quick and super controllable even in faster conditions so long as you can handle the rocker. For me.
The point being you can mix and match and come up with some interesting combos.
Thanks Bill and gdaddy. I went forward with it started shaping. I’ll post pics as she comes along.
you’re right gdaddy. I just didn’t want to stray too far and thought if I was then I might need to relook other design aspects to make sure they were complimentary.
really like those quad fins. I’ve never seen that. What are they and what’s the idea behind them?
So here’s how she’s turning out:
6’3"x18.75x22x19.25
finished the bottom contours and measured rocker at 3.5"NR and 1"TR.
Wasnt sure what bottom contours I wanted - double or single concave and vee or no vee. So I just started shaping and let the natural flow take the planer. Let me eye “see” it and see what happened.
Turned out with belly entry to flat to single with a slight chime starting where the belly ends all the way back. I’ve never surfed one and no idea, but we will see and glad it turned out more traditional on the bottom. That’s what I was going for.
My only concern was the outline might be a little too parallel… but I’m going for longboard alternative in the 2’ mush so the parallel rails should aid in that.
One of the really nice improvements in the recreations that have come along the past few years(both in short and longboards) is that shapers have added a little more curve to everything. Not just aesthetics. A little curve and width works.
Simmons drowned in 1954 at what is now known as Simmons Reef, near Winansea.
I figured I’d wait a bit and evaluate the outline. Still have room to take some out and curve it up a bit, but leaning towards holding it as is.
I think what you’ve got is good for that length. You don’t need any more curve for a Simms.
What are you planning on doing for fins?
Finished her up except for final sanding before glassing (waiting on resin to come in now).
I’ll admit I kinda struggled with this one. Not sure why as in theory it’s pretty simple design. Just had difficulty in maintaining the thickness I was going for. Wanting 3" but kept having to take off to get things right. Ended up at 2.75" thick which might actually work better anyway. It comes out to roughly 44 liters and I’m normally in the 40-45 liter range. I was able to keep thickness in the tail and nose though so happy on that. I typically shape very thin tails and noses. Was a real effort to keep this one thicker.
Rocker came out at 3.5" and 15/16" so happy with that.
Overall loved the design and shaping though of this style. First one and won’t be the last.
Depends gdaddy. What do you suggest!? Ha
Again - never surfed one of these and was planning to go traditional so made these; however, I’ve since thought of going maybe more twin like or even twinzer… I like the keels on Tyler warrens bar of soap…
Searching the archives seems like 4-5" up and about 1.25-1.5" inboard is the norm. Concur?
Was also thinking that a keel with a bit of a cut away on the trailing edge might be better since I went parallel rails and a single concave without any vee
Thoughts? Open to opinions from those with experience on the Simmons.
You already have a plan and you’ve already made these keels - you should at least try it out. If your approach to surfing is to adapt to a board’s design rather than attempt to surf every board the same way regardless of design then I’m sure you’ll do fine with this combo, too. If not, just grind them off and try something else. Parts is parts.
They were mounting the moon keels (which are a little shorter in the base that what you have above) at ~3" forward of the tail block with the 50/50 foil, no cant and no toe-in.
Hell! Looks good to me. Looks like you did a good job on the bottom as well. A young guy dropped off four blanks at my shop the other day to be glassed. They all looked very nice. One of them had a pretty involved tail both deck and bottom. I was pretty impressed. These young guys are doing it.
Yes, you have to adapt your surfing to the design of the board you are surfing. Thing is that if you are a good surfer, you will always see an element of a surfer’s particular style in whatever he rides. As a younger man I rode a 5’8" Twin fin that many would probably call a Mini-Sims these days. Wide tail with fins on the rail wit NO Fish cut tail. Just a big wide Square tail. The fins were five inch rakes, foiled on both sides, no toe. I could pull the biggest spray cutbacks anyone had seen at that time. Really did the climb and drop cutback thing one day at Govt’s in the Ranch. Ran out that day by Floyd himself. Surfed a rarely breaks spot in the Pismo area one evening until dark. It’s kind of a point, but rarely lines up. Two of the best surfers in the area stood on the cliff and watched me for a couple of hours. Fast down the line and the occasional big cutback. This type of board works. Lowel
