weve all read the "gear guides" these surf magazines come out with...but how helpful are they in actually telling you about a product? not at all...theyre just pictures of things that sponsors give to the magazine so they can take a picture and print it...this may be fine for board shorts...flops...and such...but where are the real reviews on boards in particular...i propose a blind taste test...take the logos off of the boards and actually go surf them...give them to pros...have a demo day on the beach...ask for input...come up with a questionnaire...something...but let us know how the board performs instead of telling us "check the store to see how you can refinance your house to pay for this channel islands slaterchado special" i want a gear review...not a guide
as an educated consumer you should know better than to just look to a gear guide. what is too stiff for you might be just right for others. Questionares are qualitative, and surfboards are qualitative not quantitative so having a ride description is damn near useless with out a standard. Know which features do what to the way a board rides and look for that in the description, know what you like. Check one out in a shop. It is the companies way of getting what the have out there.
I have to agree and back up wroboman on this one. Coming from a motorcycling background ( particularly motocross) I find it pretty annoying that a gear guide in a surf magazine is nothing more than a catalogue. Do some tests, get as many people from different backgrounds and skill levels to test a board. Tell us about its fit and finnish, its weight, balance etc. Is it worth the money. Same goes with wetsuits. How do they fit? is it quality finish? does it hold up? does it do what it is supposed to do? Waxes.. what's the best for certain conditions? Give us some knowledge BEFORE we go to the surf shop or god forbid..shop online.
Why I bring up my motorcycle background is; pick up a copy of DirtBike, Dirt Rider or MXA. They test the bikes, the tires, the helmets, the gear. they give you the skinny on them. They do long term tests, mass tests and of course shootouts.. putting 5 bikes ( or helmets or gloves or whatever) up against one another. They tell you whats what with the products, and how they compare to their competitor, so we know whether its worth spending out hard earned dollars on.
Whats wrong with doing this with boards? fins? waxes? wet suits? booties? hood? boardshorts?.. hell even board racks for bicycles?
most surf magazines are crap, funded and therefore somewhat controlled by advertisers.
i have been asked to submit a board to a magazine recently for their 2010 board guide “ad-vetorial” so what does that tell you?
My plea would be for them to use paper that can be re-cycled much more directly.
Only time I even look at a surfing magazine is on the can and the paper they use is much too glossy for wiping one’s arse effectively.
As a disclaimer I only look at surfing magazines for the pictures.
Here’s a link to Australia’s Surfing Life’s board bible test 2010 which has videos you can watch as well.
http://www.surfinglife.com.au/boardbible/cms/
Difference between surfing and motorcycling is subjectivity VS objectivity and egos.
The discovery of Swaylocks means wasting money on surfing magazines is no longer needed.
**Tap into the knowledge…
**
The "Buyer's Guides" are generally nothing more than premium ad space sold to the advertisers. They feature manufacturer provided photos and manufacturer provided sales pitch.
"Difference between surfing and motorcycling is subjectivity VS objectivity and egos"
Absolutely LOVE to hear the explaination for this one..........
Shapers pay for their board to be in the ‘Board Buyers Guide’ so they can’t really say anything bad about them.
The closest thing that ever came to a real gear review was when clark closed and all the mags ran an article on the differences between the different materials that were then on the market. Also with surfboards being tailored to the customer and the variance of conditions that customers. Again surfboards are qualitative, I have gotten on boards my friend thought was too slow and thought that it was plenty fast. You can measure horsepower, wheel baselength the stiffness of the suspension on a motorcycle and have a basis to go from that anyone can access. I am not saying gear guides are good, I am saying that they are F—ING hard to do in the sense that other sports can do them.
How do you objectively measure Stoke?
9’6", 22, 3.75?
5’11", 18.75, 2.5"?
6’6" 20" 2.75"?
Fish?
Quad?
Gun?
I have these boards, all are “Magic” on their day - they make me smile in the water. None were ordered based on a “Gear Guide” (the fish is from a dumpster dive!). IMHO, too many variables to put together anything comprehensive:
Height,
Weight, (Fitness to weight ratio ;-D )
Ability
Goals for that board (wanna bust air? Nose Ride, Barrels, cruise; Just looking for something different?)
Definition of performance - A hull and a HPSB both ride waves, just very differently
Of course the playing field has to be considered…
No need to plea the mags. They are a joke.
The best place for gear reviews is the internets.
Problem with surfing gear reviews is that it is way too subjective.
[quote="$1"]
My plea would be for them to use paper that can be re-cycled much more directly.
Only time I even look at a surfing magazine is on the can and the paper they use is much too glossy for wiping one's arse effectively.
[/quote]
And then there's the nasty paper cuts on the nether regions.
[quote="$1"]
As a disclaimer I only look at surfing magazines for the pictures.
[/quote]
I used to say just the opposite about Playboy , back in my mis-spent youth.
[quote="$1"]
Difference between surfing and motorcycling is subjectivity VS objectivity and egos.
[/quote]
Concur.
<Rant Mode set to 'on'>
Motorcycling has specific measurements, like 496cc, 9:1 compression ratio, 0-60 in X seconds, top end of Y miles per hour, Z miles per gallon.
Surfing has specific and concrete statements by trained test pilots like "Whoa, duuude, like ,like, duude, like, gnarly duude, gnarly, duuude, you know?"
I have a Honda CX500D motorcycle with a transverse vee-twin engine, five speed ransmission, shaft drive, water cooled, single disc brake forward and drum rear, electronic ignition and a 19" wheel forward and 16" rear. an air-over-oil front fork and a number of other technical specs that are available through many sources and can be relied on. It has a tachometer to tell me how fast the engine is turning over ( and how much power it is generating) and a speedometer to tell me how fast it is going. There are lights to tell me the oil pressure is low, the temperature is high and the electrical system isn't working properly.
Surfboards - look, there isn't general agreement to what a f@rking fish is, or whether or not a board is a 'hull' or not, even though they are all hulls of one kind or another. How fast does a board go? Nobody knows. Is one faster than another? Nobody knows, we just have people saying one is or one isn't. What makes them faster or slower? Nobody F@rking knows, though if there's a hundred surfers there's at least two hundred opinions.
What is concretely known about a surfboard? You might be able to measure the length, the width, the thickness and the rocker and count the fins, but there is no hard and fast knowledge of how the fins work or even the way that a surfboard moves across the water. Want performance numbers? In your freakin' dreams.
Hell, the Wright Brothers knew more about what made airplanes work in 1903. They had done measurements, gotten numbers and developed disprovable theories (proper scientific method, that) of how they worked, lift per square foot of wing for a given shape, turn forces, thrust.
As opposed to the gibberish that passes for 'surf science' with very few exceptions.
<Rant Mode set to 'off'>
[quote="$1"]
The discovery of Swaylocks means wasting money on surfing magazines is no longer needed.
Tap into the knowledge.......
[/quote]
And it's nice to see some projects afoot here to do some real measuring instead of the rather sad imitations of testing that the surf magazines have put out.
I will say that back when, there were some useful things in the surf mags. For instance: http://www.rodndtube.com/surf/info/Hydrodynamics.shtml reprinted from 19-sixty-freakin' nine and pretty much ignored by the mainstream of surfing ever after.
And of course there was Murphy: http://kurungabaa.files.wordpress.com/2010/02/murphy.jpg
doc...
In certain cases, using the pages of a mag for TP would actually improve the content. Articles written by one “SB” for instance.
With the possible exception of TSJ, all surf mags are nothing more than advertising vehicles for surf corporations and the dog and pony show they support, known as “pro surfing”. The target readership for these publications is between ages 12 and 25, and semi-literate.
Even TSJ has slipped a bit in recent years. They’ve stooped to giving coverage to people who can’t even surf (a singer with the intials JB comes to mind), and don’t bother to fact check some of the things they print.
hey rob i got that one too
did you get the one from surfers path too?
there was some difference in advertising price!!!
I believe it was frank zappa who said the original quote but I think it can easily be modified for surfing “Surf journalism is people who can’t write, interviewing people who can’t talk, inorder to provide articles for people who can’t read.”
Well quoted Rider....
I feel the same about the lack of board testing in the mags.The only mag that I have read that actually had some board testing was australian surfing life.That is a cool mag.
There would have to be some regular guys mixedin with the pros to give it more credability.
What kind of bike do you have?I read all those moto mags to and I love to see the bike tests and product tests.Goin to ride this weekend I hope?
To use an old motorsickle saying: “If I have to explain. You wouldn’t understand”.
I think that’s what He Who Must Not Be Named was trying to tell us. In his own way …
congratulations Rob and Paul! regardless of what you think of the mags and what they wanted to charge its nice that they recognised you