What must be a least a year (or more) ago a Waltie swivel fin system (unistalled) showed up in one of the local shops. The shop owner, perhaps not anticipating a sale, gave it to a local shaper I know to test it out. My shaper friend was determined to try it out, so we installed it on one of his favorite old boards (a 6’8" maybe?) We replaced the center fin with the new gizmo. Our discussion of what to expect went something like as follows. Me. “This thing is going to make you crab? Who the hell wants to crab down a wave?” Shaper friend. “I think the theory is its going to get you to somewhere between a twin and a tri fin.” Anyway, his verdict is in. He surfed the board for the better part of 9 months or so. One day he mentioned in passing that he ripped the thing out of the board and replaced it with a standard FCS. Nothing much else was said. The fact is, it is kind of a neat idea, especially if it managed to place you somewhere between a twin and a tri-fin. And maybe it does, for some surfers. Perhaps my friend just hadn’t adjusted it properly. However, contrary to approaches which see flex as a good thing, I tend to take the opposite view, particularly with respect to passive flex. Flex has its role, its likely I would have broken a heck of a lot more boards if not for flex. Also, flex, or some give in a fin is nice, especially if you can recover it, and I think ‘recovery’ is at least part of the key. In general however, allowing the board itself or fins to yeild too much to the flow, is likely to be counter productive. The rigidity of the surfboard itself is how the energy is extracted from the water flow, same for fin function. I’d be curious to no if anybody else tried the swivel, for that matter on any of the passive flex fin systems, or approaches to board building in general.
What must be a least a year (or more) ago a Waltie swivel fin system > (unistalled) showed up in one of the local shops. The shop owner, perhaps > not anticipating a sale, gave it to a local shaper I know to test it out. > My shaper friend was determined to try it out, so we installed it on one > of his favorite old boards (a 6’8" maybe?) We replaced the center fin > with the new gizmo. Our discussion of what to expect went something like > as follows.>>> Me. “This thing is going to make you crab? Who the hell wants to crab > down a wave?” Shaper friend. “I think the theory is its going to > get you to somewhere between a twin and a tri fin.”>>> Anyway, his verdict is in. He surfed the board for the better part of 9 > months or so. One day he mentioned in passing that he ripped the thing out > of the board and replaced it with a standard FCS. Nothing much else was > said.>>> The fact is, it is kind of a neat idea, especially if it managed to place > you somewhere between a twin and a tri-fin. And maybe it does, for some > surfers. Perhaps my friend just hadn’t adjusted it properly.>>> However, contrary to approaches which see flex as a good thing, I tend to > take the opposite view, particularly with respect to passive flex. Flex > has its role, its likely I would have broken a heck of a lot more boards > if not for flex. Also, flex, or some give in a fin is nice, especially if > you can recover it, and I think ‘recovery’ is at least part of the key. In > general however, allowing the board itself or fins to yeild too much to > the flow, is likely to be counter productive. The rigidity of the > surfboard itself is how the energy is extracted from the water flow, same > for fin function.>>> I’d be curious to no if anybody else tried the swivel, for that matter on > any of the passive flex fin systems, or approaches to board building in > general. Kevin, We give flex alot of consideration when we developed Red X. There are parts of the board that are advantageous to have flex and there are ares that it is inefficient. Tail flex can be advantageous because in highly loaded turns you effectively shorten the radius of the arc the rail of your board can carve. Fin tip flex is another area where a limited amount of flex is benifitial. It smooths transitions. However, we have determined that fin base flex is can create unwanted turbulence and loose drive. Allowing your trailing fin, which effectively is the dampening fin of a thruster, to self-orient to the flow of water is interesting in theory. But, in practice having a small axis to pivot about is not efficient in two areas. The first characteristic is keeping the base of the fin perpendicular to the surface of the bottom of your board. The second is once the fin base starts to rotate, unless the bottom of the board is absolutely flat, the transition from the bottom of the board to the fin becomes increasingly disrupted. A pivoting fin might be better facilitated by creating some sort of trim tab mechanism. This way you retain a leading edge backbone sufficient to maintain a foil normal to the bottom of the board and you could work to reduce the turbulence that would occur at the surface intersection.
What must be a least a year (or more) ago a Waltie swivel fin system > (unistalled) showed up in one of the local shops. The shop owner, perhaps > not anticipating a sale, gave it to a local shaper I know to test it out. > My shaper friend was determined to try it out, so we installed it on one > of his favorite old boards (a 6’8" maybe?) We replaced the center fin > with the new gizmo. Our discussion of what to expect went something like > as follows.>>> Me. “This thing is going to make you crab? Who the hell wants to crab > down a wave?” Shaper friend. “I think the theory is its going to > get you to somewhere between a twin and a tri fin.”>>> Anyway, his verdict is in. He surfed the board for the better part of 9 > months or so. One day he mentioned in passing that he ripped the thing out > of the board and replaced it with a standard FCS. Nothing much else was > said.>>> The fact is, it is kind of a neat idea, especially if it managed to place > you somewhere between a twin and a tri-fin. And maybe it does, for some > surfers. Perhaps my friend just hadn’t adjusted it properly.>>> However, contrary to approaches which see flex as a good thing, I tend to > take the opposite view, particularly with respect to passive flex. Flex > has its role, its likely I would have broken a heck of a lot more boards > if not for flex. Also, flex, or some give in a fin is nice, especially if > you can recover it, and I think ‘recovery’ is at least part of the key. In > general however, allowing the board itself or fins to yeild too much to > the flow, is likely to be counter productive. The rigidity of the > surfboard itself is how the energy is extracted from the water flow, same > for fin function.>>> I’d be curious to no if anybody else tried the swivel, for that matter on > any of the passive flex fin systems, or approaches to board building in > general. Structural flex, as utilized in numerous types of recreational/sports equipment, must be used properly, and incorporate tuned memory to be effective. In fact, without the proper flex, these activities probably wouldn
t even exist as we know them. All that passive flex will do is absorb and waste energy without any benefit of return, i.e. reactive drive, projection and the tremendously satisfying and functional resonance of something that responds and feels "alive". In regards to surfing, rigid surfboards are on one side of this equation, while passive flex is on the other. Between these two extremes lies another world of performance and sensation, of which mainstream surfing has yet to seriously explore... a full 30+ years after the truth about its performance was clearly demonstrated. In theory, the actual function of tuned flex in surfcraft has nothing to do with consumer safety/liability, durability, ease of paddling, portability, high labor and material costs, shorter product learning curves, the availablity of uncrowded quality waves, profitable high volume retail sales or aesthetics... and yet within the confines of surfings modern culture it`s development has always been limited by the harsh reality of such issues. Thankfully, beyond the mundane and peripheral, there are many more new things for the inquisitive and brave to discover. Dale
Kevin,>>> We give flex alot of consideration when we developed Red X. There are > parts of the board that are advantageous to have flex and there are ares > that it is inefficient. Tail flex can be advantageous because in highly > loaded turns you effectively shorten the radius of the arc the rail of > your board can carve. Fin tip flex is another area where a limited amount > of flex is benifitial. It smooths transitions. However, we have determined > that fin base flex is can create unwanted turbulence and loose drive.>>> Allowing your trailing fin, which effectively is the dampening fin of a > thruster, to self-orient to the flow of water is interesting in theory. > But, in practice having a small axis to pivot about is not efficient in > two areas. The first characteristic is keeping the base of the fin > perpendicular to the surface of the bottom of your board. The second is > once the fin base starts to rotate, unless the bottom of the board is > absolutely flat, the transition from the bottom of the board to the fin > becomes increasingly disrupted.>>> A pivoting fin might be better facilitated by creating some sort of trim > tab mechanism. This way you retain a leading edge backbone sufficient to > maintain a foil normal to the bottom of the board and you could work to > reduce the turbulence that would occur at the surface intersection. I have never installed nor used a Red X system, but from what I have read about it, it seems to solve a different problem. (If it can be said that the swivel fin actually solved a problem, or filled some gap.) The ability to make the kind of adjustments that the Red X system would appear to allow, would seem to be a real plus. Hopefully, sometime soon, I’ll order a set and try them out. As for board flexibility, I remain a little more on the rigid side of the fence. At the moment there seems to be a real effort to incorporate the design lessons learned by snowboard makers into surfboard design, and snowboard design is dominated by flexibility concerns. There are a few people in my area attempting to surf and develop such designs, but I’m not sure its all that appropriate a model. And rather than start a new thread, I just leave it at that. Anyway, thanks for the interest in my comments.
Structural flex, as utilized in numerous types of recreational/sports > equipment, must be used properly, and incorporate tuned memory to be > effective. In fact, without the proper flex, these activities probably > wouldn
t even exist as we know them. All that passive flex will do is > absorb and waste energy without any benefit of return, i.e. reactive > drive, projection and the tremendously satisfying and functional resonance > of something that responds and feels "alive".>>> In regards to surfing, rigid surfboards are on one side of this equation, > while passive flex is on the other. Between these two extremes lies > another world of performance and sensation, of which mainstream surfing > has yet to seriously explore... a full 30+ years after the truth about its > performance was clearly demonstrated.>>> In theory, the actual function of tuned flex in surfcraft has nothing to > do with consumer safety/liability, durability, ease of paddling, > portability, high labor and material costs, shorter product learning > curves, the availablity of uncrowded quality waves, profitable high volume > retail sales or aesthetics... and yet within the confines of surfings > modern culture it`s development has always been limited by the harsh > reality of such issues.>>> Thankfully, beyond the mundane and peripheral, there are many more new > things for the inquisitive and brave to discover.>>> Dale Thank you Dale (I’ve followed some of your threads and enjoyed most of them.) Perhaps you’ll take a momment and read my response to Tom’s reply. At the end I mention that there currently there seems to be a trend to incorporate aspects of snowboard design in surfboard design. I also mention that I didn’t want to change the thread topic, but what the hell. I’m not big on flex, primarily because what we are doing in surfing is extracting energy and in general we want as little to escape as possible. This approach tends to mean that only after we are able to get enough, are we willing to allow the remaining bit to ‘go by’, so to say. And generally we manage this with flex; particularly with flex in the materials. I’ve got to admit however, I’ve never really studied mats or boogie boards, and I’m willing to accept a greater application of flex and even a more controled use of flex. But, thats the point, surfers generally can’t control flex. They’ve only got their two feet, those more prone have a lot more, and can take advantage of it. Snowboard design is also something I haven’t really studied much, but it seems almost like apples and oranges at the vehicle level. Snowboard design would appear to be about letting the very high forces generated reshape the board to enahance control, something surfboards manage to do with fins. The fact is that I’m not sure I’d want my board to be so pliable (I generally don’t want to go where the wave would like me to go.) My take is that the group that winds up incorporating the lessons of snowboard design to surfboard design will likely come out with a product thats made like a boogie board but looks like a snowboard, for that kind of flex just ain’t in the current arsenal of board building materials. Its also likely that such surfboards will tend work best under less intense conditions; for at some point the wave and water will simple have its way, it does now even with rigid surfboards.
…I have used a Waltie Swivel fin.It has a nice pivot.It is basically for use on thruster type set-ups as a center fin. …Frontside, it did help propel the board and cut the turning radius drastically(50%).Making it a quick responder,and fast. …Backside,Well it put it mildly,it sucked,BAD!I tend to angle take-off backside more than I do frontside.As I started to take-off the fin would oppose the backside angle and would bring the board to a dead stop(can anyone say,over the falls much)Even when I did to manage to get it in,it was hard to control for me,and the wave usually left me behind…Now this is with softer bushings in it,the owner of the now defuncted company gave me some super stiff bushing to install,but I never did work with The Waltie Swivel Fin again. …I still have 2,one new,and the one I used(exsumed from board),with lots of parts,maybe I’ll give it another try,or maybe I’ll keep then for collectors items…Tom@Daum if you haven’t seen one of these fins I’ll bring one by to show you,interesting concept.Herb
…I have used a Waltie Swivel fin.It has a nice pivot.It is > basically for use on thruster type set-ups as a center fin.>>> …Frontside, it did help propel the board and cut the turning > radius drastically(50%).Making it a quick responder,and fast.>>> …Backside,Well it put it mildly,it sucked,BAD!I tend to angle > take-off backside more than I do frontside.As I started to take-off the > fin would oppose the backside angle and would bring the board to a dead > stop(can anyone say,over the falls much)Even when I did to manage to get > it in,it was hard to control for me,and the wave usually left me > behind…Now this is with softer bushings in it,the owner of the now > defuncted company gave me some super stiff bushing to install,but I never > did work with The Waltie Swivel Fin again.>>> …I still have 2,one new,and the one I used(exsumed from board),with > lots of parts,maybe I’ll give it another try,or maybe I’ll keep then for > collectors items…Tom@Daum if you haven’t seen one of these fins > I’ll bring one by to show you,interesting concept.Herb Herb, Thanks, I checked them out at a trade show a few years ago. The theory shows promise. But, it will take quite abit to make it mainstream excepted. Tom
Thank you Dale (I’ve followed some of your threads and enjoyed most of > them.)>>> Perhaps you’ll take a momment and read my response to Tom’s reply. At the > end I mention that there currently there seems to be a trend to > incorporate aspects of snowboard design in surfboard design. I also > mention that I didn’t want to change the thread topic, but what the hell.>>> I’m not big on flex, primarily because what we are doing in surfing is > extracting energy and in general we want as little to escape as possible. > This approach tends to mean that only after we are able to get enough, are > we willing to allow the remaining bit to ‘go by’, so to say. And generally > we manage this with flex; particularly with flex in the materials.>>> I’ve got to admit however, I’ve never really studied mats or boogie > boards, and I’m willing to accept a greater application of flex and even a > more controled use of flex. But, thats the point, surfers generally can’t > control flex. They’ve only got their two feet, those more prone have a lot > more, and can take advantage of it.>>> Snowboard design is also something I haven’t really studied much, but it > seems almost like apples and oranges at the vehicle level. Snowboard > design would appear to be about letting the very high forces generated > reshape the board to enahance control, something surfboards manage to do > with fins. The fact is that I’m not sure I’d want my board to be so > pliable (I generally don’t want to go where the wave would like me to go.)>>> My take is that the group that winds up incorporating the lessons of > snowboard design to surfboard design will likely come out with a product > thats made like a boogie board but looks like a snowboard, for that kind > of flex just ain’t in the current arsenal of board building materials. Its > also likely that such surfboards will tend work best under less intense > conditions; for at some point the wave and water will simple have its way, > it does now even with rigid surfboards. Kevin, My experience has been that the advantages of a properly tuned, flexible surfcraft are much MORE effective as a wave
s size and power INCREASE. Thats one of the primary functions of such designs… as you so correctly noted, “at some point the wave and water will simply have its way”. Exactly!! With more length, power and velocity, a wave`s surface begins to develop what feels like tension, a definite “hardness”, and a resistance to control by means of penetration. Surfcraft which are capable of not only conforming to, and absorbing, but also powerfully releasing that energy, are less likely to incorporate design and performance compromises. In the world around us there are many examples of things which have long benefited from the use of properly adapted structural flex. Surfboards are no different. A new era in surfing will begin when properly designed and constructed flexcraft are readily available to mainstream, standing surfers. Dale
After building and/or riding all manner of flexible and rigid surfcraft (the exception being mats, which will change here soon!), I’ve come to the conclusion that using flex requires a very different surfing approach than using a stiff design. Using a stand-up surfboard and a head-high wave as a common reference point, a rigid thruster requires a more athletic approach to achieve the optimum performance of the design (controlled short radius turns, squirt, excellent control on nearly any portion of the wave). You use the fins, a small portion of the rail and your legs to provide a lot of momentum. You surf the fins essentially. The wave is actually kind of an afterthought. Its more of a maneouver to maneouver kind of thing. The thruster design allows you to do this on any portion of any kind of wave. The flexies are going to derive their momentum more from the wave and flex pattern than from the rider’s athleticism. For the flex to work, the board has to stay weighted and on edge longer. Just lean it over in the most powerfull part of the wave and stay weighted through out the turn; zoom! If you try to pump (weighting and unweighting) a flexible board like a stiff thruster, all the advantage of rebound is lost. The flex won’t push against the water if it isn’t in the water in the first place (that’s also the case with flex fins, you have to give them a chance to rebound to get any benefit). By using essentially the rocker to turn, the radius is longer so you can kiss “vertical” surfing good-bye. A lot of the “failures” cited by riders of both types of board is, in my opinion, the failure of the rider not the board. They are just two different animals. My attempts at mixing the two have resulted in murking up the advantages of both and ending up with complete turds. The recent “news” about flex seems to me to be more about feel than performance. But hey, feel is a good thing too. The modern thruster is still (IMO) the most versatile design for a stand-up surfboard. But given the right wave, a well designed flexie, and the right understanding of how it works will result in a unique, and addicting experience. One last thought; don’t be too quick to credit Rusty Surfboards with “modern flex technology”. Greg Liddle has mastered polyurethane foam/volan lammed flex years ago. Those pinched rails and paper thin tails are there for a reason. Newbalonie
Newbalonie I have to agree with your polarization of the issue, its clarifying. I also agree with your willingness to keep an open mind, and I try. I think my frustration comes from what I see as a somewhat superficial application of the snowboard template. A template which virtually arises from flexibility considerations. Making surfboards that look like snowboards in the hopes that they will then work like snowboards, is niave at best. In fairness to a good friend… A friend of mine, who is a shaper, is very much into this whole concept. He now sees it as more than simply a flex issue, but as a way of achieving even less wetted surface, or putting the wetted surface were it counts the most. Sort of like two pizza pans connected by a foam strip. The forward ‘pan’ providing more in terms of additional flotation and weight distribution, the rear pan the thing actually being surfed. I’ve got a problem with how he got there, but I can’t argue with his lastest view. What I believe my friend has done is create a way of making a boards even shorter, removing much of the non-control elements and keeping only what seems to count, a few control surfaces and a minimum of flotation. But it ain’t about flex. But in the end who cares what ‘it ain’t about’ - ‘Does it work?’ is all that matters.
I think we are in complete agreement. Forget flex, just look at recurving the outline so that the control surface (rail) is minimized into your two pizza pans. That may free up an otherwise stiff (not in the flex meaning of the word) design. You are shortening the pivot surface so-to-speak. If you are riding a longboard on a mushy wall, the shorter rail line will allow smaller radius turns with less effort. The problem comes when the wave gets steeper and you need that extra rail length for control and it’s not there. I’m guessing it would be less applicable on a short board because you are surfing them from the tail anyway. I can’t believe that of all the people here, no one has ridden a Swizzle…let us know! Newbs
…The big problem with them was,too many parts to deal with.Herb
I think we are in complete agreement. Forget flex, just look at recurving > the outline so that the control surface (rail) is minimized into your two > pizza pans. That may free up an otherwise stiff (not in the flex meaning > of the word) design. You are shortening the pivot surface so-to-speak. If > you are riding a longboard on a mushy wall, the shorter rail line will > allow smaller radius turns with less effort. The problem comes when the > wave gets steeper and you need that extra rail length for control and it’s > not there. I’m guessing it would be less applicable on a short board > because you are surfing them from the tail anyway. I can’t believe that of > all the people here, no one has ridden a Swizzle…let us know!>>> Newbs I have two swizzles-10’3’‘-and 9’3’‘. I am having a great time on them. I have tryed to use my other long boards ,but keep going back to the swizzles.I have ridden the 10’3’’ in waves from one foot to eight foot faces ang it has done the job in both. as for the question of speed in longer bigger,bigger waves.eight foot clean faces are about the best it gets where I live,and the the swizzle flies.A few of my friends have commented on this to me . I have even startled a few shoulder hopping surfrats.That feel good to old 47 y.o.
All that passive flex will do is > absorb and waste energy without any benefit of return, i.e. reactive > drive, projection and the tremendously satisfying and functional resonance > of something that responds and feels “alive”. Don’t forget that dampening is on of the keys to the success of the surfmat. Who said ‘cadilac over potholes’? regards, Håvard
Don’t forget that dampening is on of the keys to the success of the > surfmat. Who said ‘cadilac over potholes’?>>> regards,>>> Håvard Håvard, One of the enigmatic characterisitics of high performance surfmats running over the textured and curved surfaces of a wave, is that they offer the rider a very pleasing, clear resonance, as well as a significant measure of shock absorbsion, yet without deadening sensation. The feeling and function which I`ve been referring to is entirely unlike the effects from any of the materials used in bodyboards or surfboards. Dale
I think we are in complete agreement. Forget flex, just look at recurving > the outline so that the control surface (rail) is minimized into your two > pizza pans. That may free up an otherwise stiff (not in the flex meaning > of the word) design. You are shortening the pivot surface so-to-speak. If > you are riding a longboard on a mushy wall, the shorter rail line will > allow smaller radius turns with less effort. The problem comes when the > wave gets steeper and you need that extra rail length for control and it’s > not there. > Newbs It’s hard to envision what the shaper is creating, and harder still to envision paddling the thing out or into waves…but using the two pizza pan concept I could see such a thing riding waves. If there was a way to lengthen the board as you surfed by pressure application while, say crouching down as the wave stands up/pitches/walls, then in theory you could briefly extend rail length when necessary to make sections. Some type of double-ender? Flex of a different kind. Stretch Armstong Surfboards! Nels
It’s hard to envision what the shaper is creating, and harder still to > envision paddling the thing out or into waves…but using the two pizza > pan concept I could see such a thing riding waves. If there was a way to > lengthen the board as you surfed by pressure application while, say > crouching down as the wave stands up/pitches/walls, then in theory you > could briefly extend rail length when necessary to make sections. Some > type of double-ender? Flex of a different kind. Stretch Armstong > Surfboards!>>> Nels I suspect I’m about to piss off the Swizzlites, but my take on the Swizzle is exactly what you sort of described. It Y’s way of removing the unnecessary bits of the surfboard, bits that perhaps get in the way when surfing. (Journeyman Jim Phillips once said, “You can make a surfboard that paddles and catches wave well, or you can make one that surfs well, not both.” I’m likely paraphrasing him, but I argee, they’re two different sports here, different dynamics. Y, or the Swizzle template seems to have removed a few bits that are unnecessary for surfing.) I find flex and the turn tracking agruements about convex rails hard to buy into. That I could be wrong is a real possiblility, however. Perhaps its the way I’m viewing it. Maybe the arguement should be, with less to get in the way, whatever is left can do what it needs to do better. Not really a tracking agrument, but definately an arguement for a convex rail. (I should admit though, I’ve never surfed a Swizzle.) Anyway, perhaps you’ll take a peak at my comments to Havard’s comments in this same thread.
I was wondering how it rode differently than a regular outlined longboard? Newbalonie