Minimum size to escape the "funboard curse"?

General Discussion
1

I understand the problem with midlength surfboards… Too much float to swim-paddle, too little float/wetted surface to “glide”.

I’d really like to make something longboardy, but I want to make it as short as possible. Flat and floaty for picking up waves outside with the loggers, short enough to turn like I’m used to, long enough to maybe step up towards the nose, but short enough to pump from the “sweet spot”, long enough to have a classic look, but short enough to easily pack and drive to the beach with. I’m sure somewhere in the history of board design there is a size/shape that I can draw inspiration from, but being that this isn’t really my area of expertise and I would like to solicit the advice of guys who have been there.

So, who can point me in the direction of a short- longboard that fits this bill? And asuming that the design is good, what is the theoretical lower limit to size before it becomes a midlength funboard?

2

Shwuz-

two things come to mind. First the question of minimal board with max wave catching. I’ve seen so many people get on a wide, thick, low-rockered twin-keel fish and get great waves while surfing amongst “traffiic jams” of longboards on those crowded summer days, that I thought it worth mentioning.

The second thing is what are your physical dimensions? This info would give a more solid design push for your concept.

3

Ditto, on item number two.

4

Good call on the fish, I do already have one, and I do find myself out past the pack on it most times… But then on my way back out someone on a longboard will cruise on past me, barely paddling… guess I have glide envy. :slight_smile:

As for my own dimensions, I’ll post them, but only along with the dims of some of my boards. Every board size recommendation I’ve ever gotten for my weight/age has been like a foot longer than I would have expected.

So, me… I am 6’ tall, and currently weigh #210. I ride a 6’1"x22.5"x2.75" classic fish, a 6’3"x20.75"x2.75" MR-style twin, a 6’10"x20"x2.625" singe, and a 6’5x21"x2.625" bonzer. The fish is 2lb eps/wood veneer, the next two are compsand with 1lb core, and the last is “standard” custom poly/poly construction. I don’t have any trouble catching waves on any of them, with minor adjustments, in virtually all conditions. Sorry about the lengthy explanation, but my size seems to incline folks to think that I need a bigger board than I really do.

Now, this hypothetical board will be a compsand with 1lb core, so thickness can probably be just a hair less than “normal”.

Now, with that added information… How small could I go, and still have the glide?

5

Size, weight and ability impact board design, of course.

And length, width aren’t so important without thickness, rail profile, etc, etc.

All that aside… A lot of clubs/comps over here (yes, dirty words but I suppose they have some use - in this case they can give us some rough guidelines) have defined them roughly like this:

  • 7'-<8' Funboard/hybrid/egg/minimal/whatever.
  • 8'-<9' "Super 8s"
  • 9'+ "Longboard"
Yeah, I think these groupings are arbitary too.

Like, the 8’6" I am building for my 5’5" wife is a longboard for her. And her 7’6" behaves more like a “super 8” when she rides it.

But I think they are working from an “average aussie male” perspective. So the idea is that the “super 8” has a lot of the glide of a “longboard” but significantly more maneuverability. And if you want more maneuverability I suggest you go in the 8’-8’11" range and fairly thin. Sounds like you are my height/weight so I say 8’6" and fairly thin.

Now, after reading all that do you think my wife is gonna get a chance to ride her new stick when it’s finished :wink:

6

Shwuz,

For me, at 200# +/- 10#, the ideal has been 7’ 10’’ X 21 1/2’’ to 22’’ wide, to a 7 1/2’’ wide hard square tail. Given my past experience, my concept of long/short boards is different than most current opinion. Given your similar size, and desire for ‘glide’, I don’t think I’d go less than 7’ 6’’ X 21 1/2’’ to a 7’’ tail. For me, 7’ 10’’ has been the all around do everything board. It may take a few tries to find a similar “ideal” board for you, but I think 7’ 6’’ may be a good starting point.

"The journey is more important, and rewarding, than the destination.‘’

7

Hi Bill,

Do you have any pics of the board you brought to Cerritos to post, that was a great looking board and it would be easy to see what you’re talking about. For me, at 155-160lbs, a 7’ egg has tons of glide, but is still pumpable.

pat

8

a 6’4"-6’8" diamond tailed Parmenter Stubb-Vector might be the call if you want classic lines.

They seems to span the gap between a trimmer and a carver.

Sidestreet’s a fisher and logger and seems to have enjoyed the 7’0" Parmenter vector I sold him awhile back.

Charlie might be able to get one shaped by Dave to wood lam for you.

I’m 5’8" 195lb the smallest I can paddle is my 6’4" Manny Quad but it’s 3" thick.

Alot of it has to do with the rocker and width. I have a 6’2" Bushman fish but I bought that at 165lb

I’ll be moving down to a 6’2" five-fin and 6’6" quad from Greg Griffin this summer but his fish designs paddle as good as Dave’s vectors. And Daves’ vectors paddle as good as most longboards.

I have a 6’8" Ricky Carroll Cheyne Horan replica from Solo but it’s not a real mush burger kind of board and I think you’re around Corpus Christie right?

CMP tried it and he’s like 6’4"-6’6" 210-220 but in the Ewa Beach empty lots mush all he could do was cheater-5’s. As ugly as some people find it, its really a high performance wave type of board than a cruiser. Same thing I found with Bonzers…

What are the waves like in your area?

Nuggets and Zaps are neat for the purpose your describing for two reasons.

  1. they are super thick and super wide so you can go pretty small but…

  2. they have no nose especially the Zaps so you surf off your back foot and you can whip it around way more effectively than something that carries it’s width all the way out to it’s nose. It’s a swing weight advantage. Simialr to what light boards provide to the performance equation especially when combined with tail flex.

In my kook (isn’t that what we’re being called over at Skurfer now) opinion that’s the ultimate demon of the funboard design. .

You always have a problem with that extra width up front in a whole bunch of places you don’t want to have that problem in. When you combine that extra width up front with extra length you compound the problem especially in those no-man land inbetween lengths. Best to either go alot smaller or bigger than getting stuck in the middle some where.

If you could get a version of that 5’10" Stech Lazer Zap as a 6’2" or 6’4" that might be interesting.

That Stech 6’6" McCoy microdisk 2+1 I hear is a real above the water paddler too. I saw one here for $350 recently. The 2+1 set up would give you alot of flexibilty to try a bunch of different fin setups too…

Basically a baby Nugget

don’t know if it has a loaded done though…

The problem with going super fish wide is that rail to rail is a bit more awkward so they end up being trimmers or projection devices unless a bit too small. Super wide with a bevel triplane bottom like greenough’s might offset the width and allow you to stay as short as possible.

It just seems to me lately that for performance you should always go as short as humanly possible and offset the reduced length using other techniques like thickness and width coupled with beveled bottoms and concave step decks… While the outline determines the arc you can draw along the face.

You looking to build this?

9

That’s all solid advice based upon a ton of experience. Just to make things more complicated, by the looks of your size and the dims of your boards, would I be correct in assuming that you surf “light on your feet”?

Would your style fit with glide, or do you want to still snap turns?

Since you are taking the time to make a COMPosite SANDwich, you could kill it on a board like Thrailkill describes, especially if you make it Ultra Light in weight. Being so light, you may be able to bring the length down a bit but keep the wider nose outline (parallel outline through the main part of the board) but maybe give the board finer rails, kinda like a shortboard. Maybe 6’10" to 7’4"???

My thinking comes from a day we were out riding longboards, and one of the guys says “wouldn’t it be cool to catch the wave with this longboard, then once under way, hit a button and have the board shrink down so I can hit the lip a few times”. I pictured big pieces of the board being jettisoned!!!

Anyways, you can make a board with low rocker through the middle of the waterline as you paddle and have quite a bit of tail rocker out the back. Once you catch a wave and an “opportunity” comes up (steep little section) you can shift your weight back, shed most of the wetted area and throw a sick turn.

Make the thing ridiculously light esp. in the front half. Your rails would be kinda shortboard-llike: the lower half (apex to tucked edge) would be tight like a shorty but the upper part would climb pretty quickly (just in the mid-zone) to make some useful floatation. By mid-zone, I mean the area deepest in the water while you are paddling. Thus the nose and tail rails would actually be fine, with not too much climb onto the deck.

We tested quite a few different volumes and rockers and found that the waterline while paddling will have a huge effect on the speed of the paddle. Very little volume can get through the surf quite well for what it is. Floaty boards glide insanely. In the midst of this range, certain boards paddle pretty poorly.

Lately, we’ve messed with the waterline a bit- making the rail volume subtley more as described above. This has been a concept used for decades but the location of the mid-zone/max rail volume had been around the chest. What we found is the zone seems to be around the navel or just below.

Can anyone please concur this, or refute this? This stuff is noticible by sensitive, or better surfers, but is hard to measure as a result. Separate testing would be beneficial.

Another thing we noticed is that there is ‘sprung’ and ‘unsprung’ weight with a surfer and board. In this scenario, the unsprung weight is most of the board, plus the surfers feet, some of his lower legs, and a bit of his upper legs. Unsprung weight is best minimized for small wave surfing. Aside from partial amputation, your best bet is to reduce the weight of the board (But this would be another thread) (sorry for crapping on…)

10

Pat,

Sorry, but I don’t have any photos of that board. The blue and yellow board was 7’ 10’‘, and the clear board was 8’ 10’'.

The 7’ 10’’ board was built in 1981, and is an example of the ideal board for my needs at that time. The 8’ 10’’ board, built last year, addresses my needs today.

11

My thinking comes from a day we were out riding longboards, and one of the guys says “wouldn’t it be cool to catch the wave with this longboard, then once under way, hit a button and have the board shrink down so I can hit the lip a few times”. I pictured big pieces of the board being jettisoned!!!

Who was it in Sprout that started surfing on a longboard and then bailed onto a smallish fish. Now THAT really caught my imagination at the time!

12
Quote:

Anyways, you can make a board with low rocker through the middle of the waterline as you paddle and have quite a bit of tail rocker out the back. Once you catch a wave and an “opportunity” comes up (steep little section) you can shift your weight back, shed most of the wetted area and throw a sick turn.

Make the thing ridiculously light esp. in the front half. Your rails would be kinda shortboard-llike: the lower half (apex to tucked edge) would be tight like a shorty but the upper part would climb pretty quickly (just in the mid-zone) to make some useful floatation. By mid-zone, I mean the area deepest in the water while you are paddling. Thus the nose and tail rails would actually be fine, with not too much climb onto the deck.

We tested quite a few different volumes and rockers and found that the waterline while paddling will have a huge effect on the speed of the paddle. Very little volume can get through the surf quite well for what it is. Floaty boards glide insanely. In the midst of this range, certain boards paddle pretty poorly.

Lately, we’ve messed with the waterline a bit- making the rail volume subtley more as described above. This has been a concept used for decades but the location of the mid-zone/max rail volume had been around the chest. What we found is the zone seems to be around the navel or just below.

Can anyone please concur this, or refute this? This stuff is noticible by sensitive, or better surfers, but is hard to measure as a result. Separate testing would be beneficial.

Plus-one. I’ve done pretty much what you described with this board, except for the rails: http://www.swaylocks.com/forum/gforum.cgi?post=248027;search_string=egg%20pinhead;#248027 My experience was that in small weak waves, it does paddle and catch waves incredibly well - better than any thing else in the water, and you can do fast shortboard type turns (and you can duckdive it) However I found that the soft boxy rails combined with the extreme light weight of the board to be problematic when power and size increase. With the twinser set up, the board would tend to take off in unexpected directions when I unweighted. I converted the board to a thruster and the tracking problem dissapeared ,however in hollower waves the board was still hard to surf. It would tend to get pulled up the face very easily. I think the rail profile you describe is what I should have done - finer but steep on the top, so volume is still out toward the rail for higher float without fattening the rail too much.

13

I’m 6’1" and 185 lbs…and I had a great 8’6" with a little concave in the nose, flat, and vee in the tail…triple stinger…7" cutaway with sidebites…that was the perfect combination of fun/longboard for me…

14

I think it was Dan Malloy in Sprout. Another really interesting think is Sprout is when Malloy surfs a potato chip finless. Read Bill Barnfields observations on fins and watch that segment.

15
Quote:

Now, this hypothetical board will be a compsand with 1lb core, so thickness can probably be just a hair less than “normal”.

Well than, with a compsand and the flex you can get with that, look at berts longboards he has posted. While I personaly am not a fan of the HP longboarding thing, if thats the way you want to surf ok then. I would go with a board arounf 9’2"-9’4". downish rails(if you want a HP).

here was an informative thread on the design of a balsa-compsand longboard.

and about flex in longboards, Midget Farrely made a stringerless log in the 60’s and it nose rode very well, but it was spongy in turns(no flex return).

http://www.swaylocks.com/forum/gforum.cgi?post=242726;search_string=balsa%20compsand%20longboard;#242726

16

hey remember this one,

http://www.swaylocks.com/forum/gforum.cgi?post=203204#203204

17

Shwuz, I think you still need to decide if

a) you want the smallest longboard-type board which will glide for you when paddling

or

b) you want the biggest ‘swimmable’ board upon which you can cheat 5’s & do some drop knee.

I’d say the key, either way, is very flat rocker and a wide tail. If a), I think you’d do well on a Takayama double-ender style in 8’4" to 8’6". John Mellor sent me a bitchin’ old Clark blank catalog (thanks, John!) from the early 80’s and there was an 8’6" Takayama blank listed as a “Noserider”. I can look up the specs if you want, its at home. Shorter than that and it won’t paddle with the true logs.

If b) you could go for the Walden Compact Disc style - around 6’10" but with 19" nose, 23" center, 17.5" tail…that would give you plenty of planing area.

I’m your same size, and I basically stay away from anything that starts with a 7 and it all works out ok :slight_smile:

I’m about to cut a 6’0" blank for a Compact Disc style that I might try a quad setup in. Super wide tail (like 18") with lots of vee. Totally eggy, like the peanut without the waist…

18

Hey Schwuz, do you know what I have been working on this afternoon? (And I had not seen your thread before)

It’s 8’4" x 23" with 18 3/4" nose and 16" tail. Will be around 2 5/8" thick, but you might go thinner with EPS. Very flat rocker with some tail lift. Not quite a longboard, not quite a funboard. Just an option.

19
Quote:

Hey Schwuz, do you know what I have been working on this afternoon? (And I had not seen your thread before)

It’s 8’4" x 23" with 18 3/4" nose and 16" tail. Will be around 2 5/8" thick, but you might go thinner with EPS. Very flat rocker with some tail lift. Not quite a longboard, not quite a funboard. Just an option.

Balsa, I think I just found my summer shaping project!

20

I had downloaded these boards pics but it took me some searching to find the threads…

you might some of this interesting from the keyboard of our now lurking Mr. BB…

Thread 1: http://www.swaylocks.com/forum/gforum.cgi?post=190582

Contents:

Quote:

6’-4" x 23 1/4 x 1 7/8 …

bobsie made a good point about his small friends not being able to get it on the rail …

leedd was right on with his size estimate with size 13 feet …

im 220 lb 6’-4" with size 13 feet …

this board goes off for me in small surf … normally i wont ride it in anything over head high …but ive been riding it for about a year now and last week surfed it in head and a half and it just handled it , surprised me …

the taller you are the easier you can bank a wide board onto the rail …

hal sose’s comments are only true if you keep to much volume …

this board goes rail to rail at lightning speed , i can go top to bottom in quick succession , even doing 2 quick off the tops without even a full bottom turn before the second one …

short fat guys are the hardest to make good boards for …

24 is not to wide if you have the height to get it on the rail …

Thread 2: http://www.swaylocks.com/forum/gforum.cgi?post=188716

I love this comment from Bert…

Quote:

short fat guys are the hardest to make good boards for …

Guess I’m doomed for mediocracy…

Need to find a short fat guy shaper I guess…