Say…I just came across an interesting “beater” board which had two routed grooves on it’s underside…1 foot down from the nose, and running parallel to each other-approx. 2 inches in from either rail …and the grooves filled with either resin or bead urethane…to act as (what I figure were like) pseudo rail stringers. Any of you know the deal?..have any of you done this with any of your boards?..ultimate results? Thanks, Tom!
Tom you didn’t mention how long this board is but I posted a question similar to this some time back. I ran across a longboard that had some appendages added to it. A 9’0" with what were labelled “nose blades”, a bead of resin on the underside of the nose area, inboard from the rails. They were applied as micro-edges to use while nose riding for improved control. Not unlike a chine or bevel. Just an interesting feature that seemed to have some validity. Maybe the ones on your board were similar? TS>>> Say…I just came across an interesting “beater” board which had > two routed grooves on it’s underside…1 foot down from the nose, and > running parallel to each other-approx. 2 inches in from either rail …and > the grooves filled with either resin or bead urethane…to act as (what I > figure were like) pseudo rail stringers. Any of you know the deal?..have > any of you done this with any of your boards?..ultimate results? Thanks, > Tom!
What you are refering to is a feature used a few years back to strengthen boards(usually thin ones) from snapping. Power Rods were the generic name for this. The problem was it had a negative effect on flex, so most people decided they would rather have a weaker board that was able to flex in the proper manner. aloha, tw
What you are refering to is a feature used a few years back to strengthen > boards(usually thin ones) from snapping. Power Rods were the generic name > for this. The problem was it had a negative effect on flex, so most people > decided they would rather have a weaker board that was able to flex in the > proper manner.>>> aloha, tw I own a board with resin grooves along the rails. I can’t say that it appears to affect the board’s performance. Also, if I understand my engineering, an I-beam without a top (ie, T-beam) shouldn’t really prevent breakage either. I don’t understand the point of the grooves
It’s like the “TOMS” club, over here…Yeah, Tom W., I think you’re right…I believe the board was a “power rod”, by Blue Hawaii, if I’m not mistaken. Thanks for the feedback…Tom Sterne,…I still haven’t come across the “nose bead” deal, yet…(water redirection, displacement application for noseriding?!). thanks, bros, appreciate the response- “T-TOO”
It’s like the “TOMS” club, over here…Yeah, Tom W., I think > you’re right…I believe the board was a “power rod”, by Blue > Hawaii, if I’m not mistaken. Thanks for the feedback…Tom Sterne,…I > still haven’t come across the “nose bead” deal, yet…(water > redirection, displacement application for noseriding?!). thanks, bros, > appreciate the response- “T-TOO”…WOOOOHOOO I’m crashing the Tom Club. I saw a funshape a few years back that had some rail grooves in the last half of the board. they were say 3/4" x 3/4" wide/deep and about half an inch in from where the rail tuck ended. Never got to try it, but the dude who owned it swore by it and said he would never have a board without rail grooves. Scott.
Scott, You may be referring to a shaped design feature rather than a glassing\strengthening procedure. aloha
Scott,>>> You may be referring to a shaped design feature rather than a > glassing\strengthening procedure.>>> aloha …Yeah Tom, you’re right, it was a shaped in groove. Thought it was interesting and along sorta the same lines as the nose blades. Does this mean I’m out of the Tom Club? Have a great weekend and catch a wave. Later, Scott.
Scott, We’ll have to change it to the Tom Scott Club. Actually I did catch a wave(several), Lowers was fun tonite. aloha
What you are refering to is a feature used a few years back to strengthen > boards(usually thin ones) from snapping. Power Rods were the generic name > for this. The problem was it had a negative effect on flex, so most people > decided they would rather have a weaker board that was able to flex in the > proper manner. More important than it’s negative effect on flex, was it’s negative effect on surfboard profitability, coupled with it’s negligible/zero improvement to board strength. I bet they enter the ‘new kewl surfboard innovation cycle’ along with tons of other things. Next seen in: 2003 Miss Cleo [wink]>>> aloha, tw http://www.kklmachine.com
More important than it’s negative effect on flex, was it’s negative effect > on surfboard profitability, coupled with it’s negligible/zero improvement > to board strength. I bet they enter the ‘new kewl surfboard innovation > cycle’ along with tons of other things. Next seen in: 2003>>> Miss Cleo [wink] just saw an ad in surfer with corylopez riding a Lost… board at teahupoo with power rods. now every little grom’s prob gonna want em. seems if the stringer’s gonna snap the resins a gimme.my first board i grooved next to the stringer ala’ the jc video and my glasser gave me a little talking to…classic beginner naivete…