Quad tail types / tail volume discussion...

I’ve been reading a lot on tail volume and width and how it effects the board. (obviously I havn’t read enough - otherwise I wouldn’t be asking!)

so far my very basic understanding seems that the wider fish style tails encourage a lot of speed but less braking control while the more narrow tails allow for better speed changes (step on the tail to slow)

 

Here are the same 4 boards with different tails - each successivley removing more volume from the tail by narrowing down. 5’9’’ x 19 x 2 3/4

How do you think these boards would differ in performance and feel?

[img_assist|nid=1061136|title=5' 9'' fish|desc=|link=none|align=left|width=204|height=640][img_assist|nid=1061137|title=5' 9'' Fish|desc=|link=none|align=left|width=200|height=640][img_assist|nid=1061138|title=5' 9'' Fish|desc=|link=none|align=left|width=200|height=640][img_assist|nid=1061139|title=5' 9'' Fish double hip|desc=|link=none|align=left|width=200|height=640]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

do the hips/bumps have any other purpose but to reduce volume?

how would the board react if the tail became too narrow? would it lose all speed and just become too sensitive to balance  and twitchy?

 

any input greatly appreciated!!!

Four of the same.  Four boards with differant tail configurations , but the same outline.  I really don't see much differance in the way they would surf.  Why are you so hung up on "fishtails"?  They are generally fraught with the same problems and characteristics no matter how many "bumps" you hang on 'em.  The "butt crack" is the same distance on all four  Personally; I think "fishtails" suck .   You gotta work your ass off to make a deep butt crack work.  I think they do more to hinder a good surfer than help.  IMHO.

Good question.  I’ve been contemplating making a Tomo style fish (Daniel Thompson).  His boards are rather narrow, often less than 19", but with very wide tails, thus the outline in the tail is pretty straight and I think that is what gives them speed.  What makes me hesitate is the question of putting such a wide tail on rail while sirfing.  Daniel does so very nicely but he is a super talented surfer.  I’ve tended to prefer narrow tails because I (ideally) prefer on rail carving over on the surface tick tacking.  

 

Also, one thing I’ve never understood about wings.  I’ve heard the idea is to narrow the tail area for more hold.  BUt at the same time aren’t the bumps breaking the water flow, causing release, which would loosen things up but certainly not contribute to holding power?

I’ve always wondered the same thing Llilibel… I’ve avoided wings because of that.

Wings create pivot points by creating a break in the planshape aka outline. The further forward you move a wing, the tighter the board will pivot. A wing moved up about 1/3 of the board's entire length is considered a "stinger" as it cuts into such a large area of the board that the short radius action i altogether different from wings typically placed at 4, 6, 8, 10 and 12" up from the tail.

The original concept was to create a double pintail effect thru the use of swallow or dove tails (swallows having a curved cut inward while doves having a straight). The design objective was to provide hold WITH an increase in maneuverability over a single pintail. One of my favorite boards ever was a single fin 6'10" swallow single wing flyer type board. Flyer isn't really exculsive to Channel Islands....... it was a general term to describe boards that had thinner more tapered rails and features that allowed the design to ride the top of the wave well and the ability to pump them. The recent C.I. model that Shaun (Tomson) introduced, is a timeless classic much like what I rode as described above. Subtlesingle double concave bottoms work esp. well with the outline. The single wings I used were usually 1/2" to 5'8" cut at around 11-1/2". When I did double wingers the rear wings were smaller, like 1/4" or 3/8".......... and yes, I shaped some triple wings as well.

One of the common approaches to the early day wing swallows was to implement a slightly straighter outline up to the cut of the wing. The reasoning for this was that the wing creates a pivot point in lieu of a curvy outline. The straighter planshape could provide more drawn out arcs on fully commited turns, but you could still pop the boards vertical when hitting the lip or snapping a cutback.

Fish are a different animal altogether, and I won't address that here. There are plenty of other threads discussing them. As you can tell from previous comment, everyone has their own personal preference. It's the differences that keep things interesting.

I've included here a template from early 70's I've had since before tri's and quads.

Great stuff DS… Thanks.  Good to review what’s gone on and the function(s) behind the design features.

Here's a different approach for quads and other possibilities.

here is my understanding.  I live in daytona beach so I surf the Florida mush, typical 3-4 rollers is a great day up here.  Well I started shaping because of swaylocks and the mini simmons thread.  In the last 16 months Ive done about 25 of the wide tailed boards.  Basically 16"-17" at the twelve inch mark up the tail.  My current ride is a 5’6"-22-3 with a 16.5" wide tail, I wiegh 210lbs.  What Ive found is that on waves 3’-6’ the wide tailed boards work great.  Easy to catch waves, easy to make mushy sections, easy to throw around and carve up the wave.  However, on faster or bigger surf they spin out and need to be surfed high on the wave other wise its over.  Basically the design has its place, and thats 3-6 waves that are not hollow and fast.  Good luck with your search for your perfect board.

like this one

I think Deadshaper spells it out clearly. My brother got a 6-10 wing swallow single fin (or dove as dead would call it) from Harold Iggy about 1974 or so. I bought it off him when he went away to college, and I loved that board. I rode it to death literally. My cousin had a similar board shaped by Dick Brewer and it rode really good too.

The wings back then were along the bottom edge and pretty thin, so they were like fins sticking out along the rail about a foot from the tail, not more than a half inch thick. The outline and rail curve from the top followed the rail line going back to the tail tips with the wings protruding out, but the wings sort of added a second straighter line if you looked at the board from the bottom.

For that time these boards were pretty good at having a wider tail with good hold but still allowing a lot of turning. These boards all had very thin tails compared to today, so you could really bury them when you turn.

As far as the modern fish boards… with multiple fins you won’t be spinning out. I don’t think you can make a Griffin 5-fin spin out. The quads also seem to have similar bite. I think the low rocker is what causes the board to not slow down when you step back. What I had to do was to make more turns or bigger turns in bigger waves to use up more of the wave. The wider tailed boards can outrun the wave so you have to surf more vertically or turn more than 180 degrees to use up more of the wave and all the speed. If you turn more than 180 degrees, you will need to make another turn very quickly, or you’re going the wrong direction. 

I like to think of my short multi finned boards as Ferraris compared to single fins or tri fins. They are fast and maneuverable like a fine race car.

Looking forward, that tail Deadshaper shows is something I think will prove to have a lot of merit. If you’re riding a shorter board with good bite, you want to stay back over the fins for control. On some of the fish boards, that means having your back foot over the butt crack. In my opinion not having a butt crack would feel better. So combining a wide thick tail with more fins should allow you to stand back and ride the board from from the tail. The only problem is catching bigger waves.

Depends on the type of waves your surfing as to the type of tail/board you would want. Softer the waves the wider the swallow tail, more heavy surf a not so wide swallow. Forget about the bumps all together and focus on swallow tail width and fin placement. 

The swallow/dove tail may have been designed to act like a twin pin (Mirandan Bros?) but I think it works entirely differently.  Wide tails plane more efficiently than narrow tails.  So when you stand too far back on a wide tailed board, the center of effort is reversed and the tail wants to be the nose; the board spins.  That’s probably more the cause of Nat Young’s and McTavish’s failure at Sunset Beach in the late 60’s than the deep V’s.

You can stabilize the wide tail by building a board that is surfed from the middle rather than the tail (Liddle hulls),  Deepen the fin (McTavish’s answer) or push it closer to the tail (and lose the ability to combine the rail with fin for a drivey turn).  You can also put a couple of fins right on the corners of the tail like those 70’s twin fins.

Or you can reduce the planing area by cutting out a wedge in the tail.  This allows you to move your twin fins further up so they engage the rail without spinning and you can put your foot right over the fins without spinning.  It makes a very position-sensitive board a lot more user friendly.

The depth of the cut-out will affect the ideal fin location and can be used to fine tune the sweet spot. I’m not sure the shape of the cut-out will make as much difference as the area of the cut-out.  

 

 

…what DS say about wings is exactly for what s were designed.

 

-hello LeeV, the secret about swallow tails, that seems few knows, (not swallow fis tails) on thrusters is to provide a “inner” cut on the tail for the back fin to get more hold on the curl and turn on a dime on the pocket

nuthin more and nuthin less!

They might do that too, but my experience is that it is still about reducing the planing area to gain traction.    

Yup. We played with ruler straight outlines leading up to different sized wings, curvy outlines with wings (kind of found those to be over kill or ineffectual all together, fluted wings (concave) even half pipe wings. Ah the days of wing mania!

Guys that didn’t want to hassle with wings opted for bumps instead. I had some swallow double bumps that were real popular throughout the late 70’s and 80’s. 

Barnfield restored a lyrically beautiful green swallow wing… I’ll see if I can poach it and post it on here. The thing makes your mouth water. If you rode it too much, you’d probably go blind.

man DS - that thing is AWESOME!!!

any specs on that baby!!!

Lots of different opinions here, seriously appreciate the input guy’s - seems like I just gotta shape enough boards in my quest for that sweet one and learn as I go…

any other opinions??

peace!

[quote="$1"]

man DS - that thing is AWESOME!!!!

any specs on that baby!!!

Lots of different opinions here, seriously appreciate the input guy's - seems like I just gotta shape enough boards in my quest for that sweet one and learn as I go.....

any other opinions??

peace!

[/quote]

 

Hey du Rommel

Check out Tomo surfboards.

He built his boards around the Linday Lords book, Steve Lis Fish designs, and the basic water flow science

He also talks about swallow tails and hard edges a bit.

But the stroy never ends, really.

If you see him surfing you go WOW!

Wouter

DS, I’m not inot the whole retro thing, even though I grew up surfing on the kind of board pictured…but that thing totaaly makes me want to ride it.  Gorgeous!

No dis to you, but it's almost an insult to call this board retro.

BB laughed at one point when I said "what is retro to some isn't retro to us, becuz we were there".

Neither of us would feel 'to dated' surfing this beauty........... I doubt Machado, Knox, Kelly or Shane would either.

howdy DS, what was the fin cluster like? any bottom contour pics?

cheers,