doesnt response and sensitivity sound the like the same thing
To me, response it the way that the board behaves and sensitivity is information that is transported to the surfer so that they can react. By the way, I’m glad to hear you fixed your board! Was it difficult since it was a composite?
my biggest gripe with extra wide boards is the sluggish rail to rail action!
I’m with you. The trend in performance surfboards is narrower, not wider. But here we have Greg and Burt talking about boards for “the best surfers” and they seem willing to promote the idea of having to go wider in return for getting to go thinner. What we need is actual feedback from real live “best surfers” out there about these concepts. Anyone want to post some riding impressions to go along with the scientific info from Bert and Greg? Surely someone has surfed something like they are talking about right? I’m confused.
I may be proven wrong someday when one of these future dream creations actually becomes reality (or if already reality somewhere else then when it makes it into my town so that i can see and surf it), but as of right now I can’t imagine having any desire to surf something 24" wide no matter how light or indestructable it is. Heck, my 9’0" longboard is only 21.25"! I have one board that’s 22 7/8" and it feels way super wide (though still a lot of fun overall).
I also find the statement that mid-length boards paddle worse than shorter less-volume ones to be very strange and not consistent with my experience. If I measure paddling by three criteria, the first one being the normal speed when paddling on a long trip back to the lineup and the second one being the ease at which I can get it up to its fastest speed when paddling to catch a wave, and the third criteria being the actual top speed the board can reach with me paddling it, then of recent quiver the results are: best is 9’0" performance longboard (harbour simms slimmer model), second is 7’4" egg shape (harbour spherical revolver), third would be 6’2" wide and thick Al Merrick TwinFinner, forth would be 6’11" typical thruster, and way down the ranking in dead last would be my 6’3" x 18 x 2.25" shortboard. The rankings would stay this way for all three of the criteria I mentioned above (e.g. paddling for transportation back to lineup and paddling to catch a wave). Of course the 6’3" or 6’11" might get me out to the lineup faster on some days because of duck-divablility but no way do they paddle better overall than the floatier higher volume boards.
Meecrafty,
I hate slow rail to rail, but planing area doesn’t nessasarily have to be in width and a more powerful board can actually be smaller. There are numerous examples of this through the history of the shortboard the latest is reduction of volume through the introduction of the concave bottom. Planing area can also be introduced through increased length and provoided that length doesn’t carry weight, responivness can still be saved. Honestly, there are so many variables and I don’t have all the answers. It’s disappointing to me that there are so many fine craftsmen who have spent the last 20 years beating a technological dead horse. We have wasted an incredible amount of time and energy in persuit of this polyester dead end when we could be far ahead of where we are. Many of the answers we are asking today could have been solved long ago with the combined efforts of the many rather than of the few. Competition does breed advancment of ideas.
“Anyone want to post some riding impressions to go along with the scientific info from Bert and Greg? Surely someone has surfed something like they are talking about right?”
Over the last six months I’ve been diggin hard, looking for advice on maximizing speed/performance/fun in the common waist to chest high surf i get here…a few months ago I reworked the bottom of a finished EPS…changed contour and fin placement…it was like waving a majic wand…so i took it even further with my latest board…specs described above…extra wide and real crispy tucked under edge…
EVEN MORE MAGICAL. I rushed to get it done before a perfect size swell hit…waist to shoulder…this board is by far the best board I’ve ever owned for mush to semi-mush…effortless speed. For a 41 y/o smooth progressive surfer, simply brilliant! Fast bottom, loose outline, ideal fin placement, great volume.
The biggest difference: speed between maneuvers…combos are not easy in avg bb surf but this board made it soooo easy…on a regular shortie its like…accel, maneuver…wait a second or two, accel, maneuver. With this thing it like slash-bottomturn-slash-bottomturn-roundhouse…
I buckled it the next day at another ‘unamed’ break thinking it would be really small…but it was chest to head and thumpin…most of the others were bobbin…I get so amped in those conditions but I had a feeling it was risky cuz i took short cuts when builing it (season here is almost over). Stupid me with only one board.
My next step is to go even wider a la Bert…maybe 20.25" but only if I can go under 5.5 lb…im not getting any younger.
so what does this mean…I go to any pop surf shop now and look at shapes for fun…merrick, rusty etc…rails are just too soft…too much rocker…soft rails are user-friendly…good for the masses… thats good for feedback and word of mouth return sales…i could go further but i need another beer…
my $0.02
Bert & Greg…such a killer combo!!! And the price is right.
So far the best new material board design concepts I’ve seen here are Forstall’s Coda’s (especially those zap copies for solo) with those grooves to strengthen the rails and Bert’s boards with the reverse curve tail. Not real radical but none the less rethinking the process a bit to make use of the new material.
Greg
be interested in your comments analysis on these two “alternative material” strategies:
Surflight’s been around awhile and seems to be an opposite direction to the PPS concept where the center core is a stiff torsion box and the flex material is wrapped around it. I kind of understand the torsion box concept as atomic and many other ski manufacturers have used it for used in their ski designs with the reverse camber and deep side cut strategies. Jim andf Jeff are both well respected shapers out here so it interesting they are pursuing this. Surflight’s been pretty quiet since it’s inception but the few guys I’ve seen riding them seem to really like them. The really like the vibration dampening of the flex in paddling and turning. And they catch alot of waves…
Hydroepic seems to be on the extreme end of your PPS movement getting rid of the core altogethor and replacing it with “tuned” aluminum bracing patterns attached directly to the carbon/kevlar shell. I guess Brewer felt some deja vu since he signed up but he’s also doing the surftech thing too.
All these companies are putting alot of faith in their new ideas as is Chris Ruddy with his new venture. So are they just confusing and possibly discouraging the evolution process. Or are have they reach the next level of nirvana beyond the whole sandwich skinned EPS upgrade thing we all are now pursuing?
Oh yea and what about that article on the homepage of that guy in florida starting up the instant board factory you described to us way back when… Sounds like it’s all coming true down there in Florida like you predicted…
so much going on in this discussion …
so i will just say what came to mind first …
can you have an unresponsive narrow board ???
yes …
can you have a responsive wide board ???
yes …
its not the width that decreases sensitivity …
its things like energy transfer through different mediums , rail volume , outline , fin set up , bottom contours , flex…
forget the pros , 99% just wanna ride what everyone thinks is kool …
some of the older pros have a handle on whats happening …
was surfing d bah while the quickie pro was on , it was small shifty and mushy …
heaps of known names out there , didnt see much surfing that inspired me , i was riding 6-6" x 22 , didnt have a problem busting the tail or doing full round houses, appart from the occasional crazy air by a grom it was a fairly even playing field …
meecrafty doesnt need a pro to verify his new stick goes off for him , neither do i need a pro to tell me i shouldnt be riding a 22" wide board coz i weigh 220lb plus …
the width of a board is still subjective to the weight your putting on it …
for someone who is 150lb 19" is overkill …
same for my longboard , i need the width coz of my weight , but you definatly dont need volume , just enough area to suit your body weight …
as far as construction is concerned …
you have strength to weight issues , combined with performance issues …
i have no doubt a board can be built much stronger than even what im doing , but what performance are you willing to give up in return …
my number 1 criterea is performance first …
as time goes on at least customers will get informed choices about cost , strength , compared to performance …
a ferrari is no stronger than a ford , but hey it really goes …
thats what you pay for …
performance has value …
thats where this pro surfer mentality gives mixed signals …
its the rare pro that pays , most would rather ride free crap than pay for something that really works …
they say but im ________ i shouldnt have to pay for boards …
now if someone like kelly was seen buying a particular board at the going rate , now that would send a message …
ok that will do …
regards
BERT
This board is strong, light, and goes unreal. 6’0" x 18-1/4" x 2-3/16" Greg’s blank (edro) and Greg’s resin.
2 layers 4s bottom, 3 layers 4s deck. Blank is sealed with spackle. 5-3/4 pounds. Has a tight “ring” to it.
Surfers will need to step up to the performance. I bet surfing styles will eventually adapt.
Greg could sell a ton of these. I think he is still performing R and D however…
(If you want me to yank these photos Greg, just let me know.)
reading people’s posts about how stoked they are on their boards is one of the coolest things about this website! Thanks for sharing the stoke and showing pics. BTW, looks like you’ve got the fins realy, really toed in. any comment on that element of your design?
There is distortion from the wide angle lense. Fins are “normal” (pointed about 2" off the nose).
Hmm, noting the stringer “interaction” with the fin boxes… looks like a sweet breaking point across the tail of the board… I guess thats OK, seeing that there isn’t really any stress around that area of the board? Also- I think HydroEpic is out of business? Or just a rumor around this part of the woods? -Carl
“the width of a board is still subjective to the weight your putting on it …”
yes yes yes!!!..after last nights post this is where my noggin was headed…thats why I think something like 21" would be a bit too much for me at 175lb…at 19.75 it feels really good in that semi-mush…shoots it was pretty good in the pounders too. I’d go over 20 but I need to make a central american board now so i’ll be at ~19" with my current project…if I go over 5.5lb on this one I’ll be disappointed…count me in on the space race…just dont bet on me 
I’m with you Carl. All the boards I’ve snapped (surftechs and standard urethanes) have snapped 2 to 3 inches above the front fins. I’d be worried about strength there.
wouldnt you want to leave the perimeter stringer alone since that is whats giving the board it’s load limiting and board flexing characteristics?
I could understand the concern of holes in a board or discontinuities of the stringer creating a weak spot, that would be the first thing that I would think as well.
The elastic modulus of the wood stringer is much less than the glass fibers on and around it, so stringers contribute very little to direct tension and compression as prescribed by simple beam theory. However, the stringer DOES act to resist shear (which is at a near maximum in the center of the core).
The strongest stringer would be one of VERTICAL grain (like on some older aircraft wing spars) trouble is that it is very hard to shape. “Para-lam” stringers approximate this optimum config. It is theoretically possible to have air gaps in the stringer with little of no ill effects. It is very important to have adequate glass over the discontinuities in the stringer.
The added strengthening effect is the monocoque created by the glass-wrapped rail/rail stringer combo and as long as the fin is attached to this, (through the stringer or not), the load from the fin is transmitted by a direct load path to the strongest part of the board; the rail/stringer. The center fin is less critical in the load scenario as is the outboard fin.
Although slightly different in load transmission, one can see a single fin board with a fin box installed on the stringer as similar. The single fin case is actually less strong.
That board had been ridden hard with very little wear and no apparent stress effects. This confirms Greg’s intent with the optimizing of strength within theorectical bases. I am also sure that Greg has taken the concepts to the next level with the next generation blanks.
PlusOne, do you have any dealers in NJ? If so, would they have one of these parabolic stringer boards in stock? I’d love to check one out in person. I tried to have GL shape me one when he was back in town (Melbourne, FL) a while back, but he was understandably busy because it was tradeshow time and he was making boards for some pros. I figure if a store around me had one of yours in stock, using GL’s resins and techniques, it would definitely be worth a look.
Isn’t the monocoque created by just the Epoxy shell? Epecially with what your talking about, and I do agree with you. You could even go stringerless with these boards and most of your punishment will come from flex return, it would be too floppy or too stiff depending on how much epoxy is used(ST is stringerless) I wouldnt break the stringer line just for performance purposes but, hey, maybe it works out better for you this way, I’ve actually have never shaped a board with a break in the perimeter stringer. Another thing I was thinking about…I think it was futures who came up with some sort of suspension where the fin boxs are connected to the stringer. It was designed for a central stringer, but it gets you thinking, maybe a board where the fin boxes are connected to the rails or perimeter stringer would work really well. I would image it being super responsive transfering energy from fins to the rail/stringer…but if you smacked the fin good and rip out the box you might have bigger problems…has anyone ever tried the Futures suspension system?
Hey hackeysaky,
the closest dealer is Unsound in NY. We are looking to get into NJ, but unfortunately the board shown is a prototype in which Greg was kind enough to have us participate… Terribly sorry about that. Some good things are on the horizon.
Hey TurboJets,
you’re right on the money.
The more direct the transfer of load from the fin to the working part of the board; the better. This immediacy translates to some obvious advantages, it also does some more subtle things which are very important. The subtleties have to do with twist of the hull/rail. This system can be seen as a sub-monocoque within the main monocoque.
The parabolic stringer enhances the shear strength at the rail. The rail already possesses shape stiffness and the stringer really adds to the box spar effect. (Shape stiffness can be visualized is several ways. Imagine the outer glass layer is a sheet of plastic, like a credit card. The deck and bottom skins assume push and pull loads. Now imagine rolling the credit card into a ‘U’ cross-section. Try bending it; pretty strong. Try twisting it; sorta strong. (anti-clastic behavior) Now close off the open part of the ‘U’ section with some wood sheet. Try twisting it; bingo!)
There are some other factors, and I am sure those are being sorted out. I hope that every load scenario will soon come to light (I am wishing) so that we can start to optimize designs and put every fiber we use to work. Nothing wasted.
I hope that every load scenario will soon come to light (I am wishing) so that we can start to optimize designs and put every fiber we use to work. Nothing wasted.
everything is there for a reason , not the old saying " we build em like this coz thats the way weve always built em " without ever questioning why??
stoked to see minds working …
regards
BERT
Greg Loehr is an insperation to surfboard construction, Surf magazine should do a large article on him and other grass roots inventers, there out there !! and I don’t mean the ones who advertise the most !!! So heres my " good on you guys who keep plugging with ideas"
Aloha, Have a great surf ! Clyde Rodgers www.edgefins.kauaistyle.com
