PHIL EDWARDS 1960-1961 Reverse... the "mini" version...

General Discussion
1

Check this out. It is a scaled down miniature version of the Phil Edwards Reverse from 1960-1961. I obtained the original from Bill Thrailkill and decided to shrink Phil’s concept to work on modern boards and apply it to a modern fish or thruster or quad or 5-fin or 7-fin set-up. I’ve made a series of fish keel pairs from the template you see in the pictures as well as tri’s, quads, 5’s and 7’s. I have large single cutaways for longboards as well.

My whole point in posting this is to get the credit back to Phil. I’ve shown these fins to a lot of people in the Carlsbad and Oceanside area since I first thought of shrinking Phil’s fin down after Bill Thrailkills Symposium at the Surfing Heritage Foundation. Now that it’s out, I’m hearing rumors of Donald Takayama patenting the idea under his own name (I posted this a long time ago), and not giving Phil the credit. We all know about the “Chage it 10% and it’s yours” mindset in this surfing industry.

Jerry Ingham and I sat in my garage milling over Phil’s Original reverse template, and we both drew up our own templates based on Phil’s curves. Our aim was to make ridable fins from each template we drew up. I let Jerry Ingham show a pair that I made to Jon Wildfong at Futures Fins about 7 months ago, but haven’t gotten them back yet. We saw some similar to ours in the parking lot at North Jetty that Donald Takayama had made for all the guys in his shop to test out. Jerry used to work with Phil and made the point that Phil Edwards deserves the credit for this design. I agreed. Jon Wildfong is a friend of his and took the fins to Put Phil’s name on them before the DT/FCS version comes out. I love Donald, so don’t get me wrong, but Phil deserves the rights to these.

I called them the Mini-Phil reverse (MPR 5.5). Futures may decide to use “PE” or “PE-mini” or “MPE” or something like that. But it should definitely say “Phil Edwards” somewhere.

Phil should get the credit. It’s about time he is recognized for his state of the art design concepts. He was definitely before his time! Bill Thrailkill modified this and Bill should be recognized here too.

It’s really PHIL’s concept more than anyone’s. So before this concept is claimed by anyone else, Phil should have his name on them! Phil hasn’t been able to protect his designs against modern designs because he doesn’t even surf anymore, and isn’t in the loop. I came up with these in hope that they will catch on, and in turn will get Phil some well-deserved recognition.

We all know how it works…

Bill see’s Phil’s design… He revamps the curve somewhat… I trace out his template, then get an idea to shrink his template down, and blah blah blah… somone else see’s what I did, and may have done the same thing years ago or may not even know who Phil is, and next thing you know, the concept is out there and everyone has “their” version of it… but it never gets back to who’s idea was the original… Phil Edwards.

I just like to make boards and fins, and I like to give credit where credit is due.

I may be misunderstood at times on this forum, but anyone who really knows me knows what kind of person I really am… I’m an honest guy, trying to keep surfing honest. I’m not trying to rip off Phil’s ideas or steal Donald’s thunder.

I drew mine up on the night of February 10th, 2007 after Bill Thrailkill gave me the original larger single fin / skeg template. He knows it, so he can tell you himself. My point in making that statement is once again to get it back to Phil. Check the dates on DT’s patent, and I’m sure that Phil’s or Bill’s or even February 10th, 2007 were earlier.

When Jerry and I saw that Donald Takayama’s looked very similar to Phil’s design in the parking lot at North Jetty, we both looked at eachother and knew damn well what was up.

The main reason I started this post was based on the rumor that FCS will be producing Donald’s version of this Phil Edwards concept like these in the near future…

So before all the other guys start throwing patents around, remember where you saw 'em first, and make sure Phil’s name is on them somewhere!

By the way, thanks Bill and thanks Phil!!! and I still love ya Donald! Just give Phil his due credit:)

-Dave Falkenau

Artisan Surf Designs / Falkenau Fins

Tuesday, October 2, 2007 Here are some other “Phin” concepts by David Falkenau

Check these out too… I can’t tell you what kind of wood these are because I salvaged it, but I will be foiling them next week.

They are all base on the original Phil Edwards reverse fin from 1960-61.

I’d be glad to make some more for anyone interested.

  • David Falkenau

Artisan Surf Designs / Falkenau Fins

2

This again is another one of those ethical / high ground issues that could get debated until the cows come home. If it’s Phil’s template and you scaled it down, then in my opinion it’s still Phil’s template, But, to each his own. Today, anything seems to go. They didn’t work that well then so they probably won’t work that well today. Those old fins were just a short moment in time and I’d like to see something original.

3

My intention is to make it clear to fin production companies and to DT and others out there who may try to capitalize on this fin, that it is PHIL’s design and he should get the credit.

If I don’t post this, and a year goes by and FCS and Futures are making these fins, then Phil Edwards won’t be the one getting credit for his design.

So I am making it clear that I scaled the fin down and I made the others, based on PHIL’s design… so HE gets credit…

Notice that I said that I would feel honored to have my name mentioned in coordination with these fins…

I’m not claiming his 1960-1961 design.

That was my whole point in posting this…

and to offer to someone that I will make some if wanted.

Thanks,

Dave

4

“Ironically, I saw some Donald Takayama’s that looked very similar to my design after I showed my template.”

I thought all you did was scale down? So how are they yours? And why would your name be associated with it at all? Because you cut them out of wood or are you talking about the other cutaways you posted?

And why did you post like 5 of the same picture?

I do like you experimenting with the cutaways, some of those look nice.

5

My point exactly. I’m not saying Phil’s design is mine. I’ve just been making them scaled down for short boards, tri’s fishes, etc.

In response to your question of how are they mine. They’re not, but then again, how are they Donald’s?

Do you see where I’m going here?

The other fins on there I made from taking different curves off of the original template that Bill Thrailkill gave me.

I didn’t put 5 pics of the same fin. I put more than I need to of the “mini” template, but if you look close at the others there should be one photo of each side of 3 different sized verions of Phil’s curves.

Once again, I can’t “claim” them because I used Phil’s curve. But DT is claiming them as his, even though I made some mini’s way before he decided to get the patent lawyers involved and FCS.

Once again, I love Donald Takayama and I think he is an amazing shaper and designer. However, Phil is really the one who came up with this concept and I want everyone to know that when the others hit the market.

As far as “my name getting credit” It’s more of a “Well if Donald’s getting credit, why shouldn’t I?” I could care less.

I just wanted people on swaylocks to see it first, from me, so when the FCS and even Futures come out, they saw it here first, and maybe then they’ll realize that Phil Edwards is the one who’s name should be on the fin.

I figure, if people are mass producing something that Phil came up with and that I elaborated on, then I’m going to jump right in there too.

Jerry and I made several versions of those fins in my garage, way before the DT’s. Go ask him. He’ll tell you.

Futures has my prototype… Go ask Wildfong to show 'em to you.

Once again, Phil should get credit, but if other peoiple are going to glom on and say it’s theirs, I’m jumping in too. I think money-wise, Phil should get the royalties and kickdowns. He could probably use the cash.

Don’t you agree???

6

David, et al,

The template, which is displayed in scale, is the one that I used for years. It was directly inspired by Phil, after I met him at the AJ (Andy Jones) shop, in La Jolla. I traced the outline of one of the fins he had dropped off with some surfboards he was having glassed there. I modified the original lines by putting slightly more curve in the leading edge, more ‘‘point’’ at the tip, and a slightly higher AOA at the leading edge. The fin performs best when foiled from 3/4 inch stock. I always liked Black Walnut, and used it for most reverse fins, though Redwood looks good too, and is easier to shape. Certainly Phil deserves to be credited with the design, and the concept of applying it to surfboards. Take a look at the first 9 inches of a Hobie Cat rudder, and you’ll see the influence of the Edwards Reverse Fin design. I built a board in late August 1964, using three small reverse fins, in the ‘‘normal’’ setup you see today. It was interesting, rode well, but did not offer any significant improvement on the 9’ 8’', 30 pound boards, commonly ridden at that time. I can’t imagine anyone attempting to patent ANY variation of the reverse fin design, which had been produced by most surfboard companies throughout the 1960’s. I found your ‘‘cut away’’ versions interesting. Played around with that too, around '67/'68. The IMPORTANT contribution made by this fin design concept, is twofold. The thick foil, and the higher AOA of the leading edge in relation to the bottom of the board. Not only was Phil a gifted surfer/athlete, he was a thinker when it came to surfboard design. My approach to surfboard design was strongly influenced, and inspired by him.

7

There you go guys, straight from Bill Thrailkill. See… I thought I was tracing Phil’s direct curves and really I was tracing Bill’s modifications. Once again, my point is made… it should go back to Phil.

Thanks Bill.

I’ll send the photos of my foiled fins.

Dave

8

It would be awesome to see those shots of you foiled cutaways. It does look like you have essentially 3 photos of each side of your mini reverse though (very top photos). I’m just trying to verify that they are the same vs different. The sizes and hand writing looks identical.

9

Ahh, The Reverse D Fin, or the Kelp Cutter. Nothing new, been copied for years, years ago… I got a few old clunkers from Florida that have that same fin design. There still just a big rudder on fat flat plank.

10

The top photos are of the same mini template ( I Guess a mini version of Bill’s now).

I took photos of both sides of the template trying to get the best side in the best lighting and just posted all of them.

Should I take them off so the thread isn’t so photo heavy?

As for foiling the others, they are thick foils so I imagine they will end up looking like the foils Paul Jensen has on his site, or Bill thrailkills. Those are the only two guys I’ve studied aside from Burt Burgers Thicker vs. Thin Thread.

Dave

The various mini fins were all 1/4" baltic birch.

I wish I have the originals back from Wildfong… I’d post those pics. They are pretty cool.

11

The mini’s work differently though as pairs or clusters. Try them some time. You’ll see what I mean. The are very loose and maneuverable.

I’m still trying to figure out if I like the way the “D” portion works in comparison to the cutaway portion on standard keels.

Dave

12

I might make a smilar versions for my quad fish smaller of course. those fins look like they would work well even as twins at that size.

13

So if Phil get’s his “credit,” the question becomes: who pockets the money from the sales?

Are you going to credit Phil’s bank account or just give him his “credit”?

Did I miss the comment about how these scaled down fins supposedly work?

14

what I want to know is does Phil really care???

15

Give us some input if you do make some… I’d like to know how yours ride in comparison.

16

Well, whether or not he sees his “credit” the form of money, depends on whomever puts these out on the market; and us being a voice FOR him. I’m sure he doesn’t care anymore, seeing as his name has been used before and since he’s already considered the water too crowded and his era of surfing with style replaced with bashing the lip with style. He’s been burned enough to be numb to it by now.

I didn’t want to capitalize on this for myself and I knew Phil probably wouldn’t do anything about it unless I did, especially after talking to Jerry about how Phil is. He thought that getting it out there first through futures with Phil’s name on it and making sure he gets the kickdowns was the way to go.

However, I’m still waiting to see what will even happen with my keels that Wildfong has, and I’m sure I’ll be “told” that he’s getting the kickdowns… but I’m sure kickdowns will go into pockets that aren’t Phils… and I’m not talking about mine! But at least his name will be on them.

I just hope there is enough ethics involved that Phil gets paid for the sales and not someone else.

I could care less about the money.

I did say earlier in this thread that it’d be cool to get mentioned somewhere in relation to these things, but I guess other guys think that’s wrong, and I could see where they are coming from there. So I guess we can’t always agree on this forum… and it won’t be the first or last.

I’m just starting to wonder if Paul Jensen’s attitude toward stuff like this is the way I should start handling it when all these thoughts about class and style and history and ethics start milling around in my head. Paul would probably just say “whatever” and go surfing.

Yet, if we all just say “whatever”, then at what point do we draw the line?

It’s the same thing with computer shapes and scans.

How many of those “hand shapes” are really original hand shapes and not scanned boards being “fine sanded” by a completely different “hand” than the one who shaped the original, ya know where I’m goin’ here?

I come from a different coast than most of us on this forum (as ryan gerard puts it, the Third Coast, where we don’t get many waves, and where every guy shaping a board in his back yard is a pioneer)… and most of what I learned about surfing was in books before I had ever even stood up on a board. I read about Chief Paki and Kahanamoku and Blake, and the guys from the 1800’s through the seventies… from a Sport of Kings, to the Golden era of Soul and Gliding with Style… to doin’ Burts, and bustin’ down doors… so my stand on all of this is like being on a football team in the 50’s or 60’s where you are always looking out for your team mate… kind of a Pleasantville of Surfing, that I know can’t last forever.

That’s how I like to picture surfing… like a mirror into the Golden era and just before the shortboard revolution. I’d even throw the Seventies in there. Those are the eras I like to dream about. I would have loved to have been a surfer / shaper back then when it was all about soul and being on the forefront of design. That must have been something. It must have been something to make a board and some fins and not care about the money, the magazines, and the internet.

… okay, and now I’m rambling.

I think I’ll get going now.

17

Bill,

I remember the day we took the three fin (3 reverse Fins) board to South Mission in 1964 for it’s first surf… Riding it that day I noticed that after turning its angle of attack to the wave was different. Made nice bottem turns without spinning out…

Remember taking it down to La Jolla Shores latter and the re-action was that “Thrailkill’s lost it, 3 fins on a board”, oh how times they have changed…

Ollie

18

Ollie,

I just got into town Sat. nite, after nine days on the NS. Just read your post. Yep, I remember it well. The board could get more parallel to the soup with that fin setup. Times have changed, it’s time to rediscover the single fin.

19

Worth a second look, for newer Swaylockers, as well as some of the seasoned members.       The comments by Ollie, put some historical perspective on the topic.

20

 

Obvious similarities, obvious differences.  The rake on this fin puts the tip back at nearly 80% of the base chord measurement, whereas the traditional Reverse-D is closer to 40%.