What is the difference? Couldn’t rolled vee be considered a displacement hull, or are hulls usually more pronounced in the forward part of the board? How pronounced are these hulls throughout the bottom? Thanks- ole
What is the difference? Couldn’t rolled vee be considered a displacement > hull, or are hulls usually more pronounced in the forward part of the > board? How pronounced are these hulls throughout the bottom? Thanks- ole Technically, yes. A rolled v is a displacement hull. However, for surfboard design terminology, the term “displacement hull” has become more associated with forward roll bottoms. aloha, tom
Technically, yes. A rolled v is a displacement hull. However, for > surfboard design terminology, the term “displacement hull” has > become more associated with forward roll bottoms.>>> aloha, tom we’ve made a couple of v-bottom boards(circa '68)that have both features incorporated into the bottom-they are fast and excell in windy/choppy surf.
we’ve made a couple of v-bottom boards(circa '68)that have both features > incorporated into the bottom-they are fast and excell in windy/choppy > surf. Got any pics of these boards to share? FD
Yes, Matt if you could email a couple to me that would be great. >>> Got any pics of these boards to share?>>> FD
Matt, the v-bottoms I’ve seen from that era have really fat tails. I mean they seem a little on the thick side. Probably great for paddling and catching waves, but I wonder how well (or if) the tail will release into the wave. I haven’t ridden one yet (but want to) and that’s just my observation. Just wondering how your tails compare and what your take is on the old ones. Thanks, GH>>> we’ve made a couple of v-bottom boards(circa '68)that have both features > incorporated into the bottom-they are fast and excell in windy/choppy > surf.
Matt, the v-bottoms I’ve seen from that era have really fat tails. I mean > they seem a little on the thick side. Probably great for paddling and > catching waves, but I wonder how well (or if) the tail will release into > the wave. I haven’t ridden one yet (but want to) and that’s just my > observation. Just wondering how your tails compare and what your take is > on the old ones. Thanks, GH Hi Gregg, Let me jump in here, since I’ve shaped many of Matt’s hulls. Yes, the old V’s were really thick in the back. There were a number of reasons for this. One was that because they were “super short boards” (7’6" to 8’6") they had to have wide tails to float. And since the tails were wide (as much as 15" at the tail block!) they had to have a lot of V to bank over. (45 degrees was standard.) And the deep V naturally resulted in a thick tail. As tail widths came down, so did the depth of the V (down to 20 degrees) and thus the tail thickness. Of course, they worked much better as they evolved into a more rational form. The V’s I make now are a bit thicker in the back than flatter bottomed roundtails or arc tails, but much thinner that the V’s of old. With Matt’s help (don’t let him know I said this, but he rips and is very sensitive to design changes) we have gotten them into a workable form that has fewer hangups in less than perfect surf than roundtail hulls…which like clean point surf to fire.)
Hey Paul, Would you say that the modern panel bottom board (I have an 8’8"x21.5") evolved from this? I have to say that this board is the best one in my quiver. It has a 12.5" nose and a 15" tail. I surf it with 4" rail fins and vertical cutaway center of my own template. The thing absolutely rips anything I have the stones to drop in on.
Hey Paul,>>> Would you say that the modern panel bottom board (I have an > 8’8"x21.5") evolved from this? I have to say that this board is > the best one in my quiver. It has a 12.5" nose and a 15" tail. I > surf it with 4" rail fins and vertical cutaway center of my own > template. The thing absolutely rips anything I have the stones to drop in > on. Yes. Actually, I think most of contemprary surfing came directly from the original V’s of 1967. Those boards were ridden off the tail, and had to keep carving for their speed. They had relatively wide tails and a strong fin presence as well.
Hey Paul, you’ve talked about the amount of vee and tail thickness you put into these boards, how about a quick discourse on the amount of hull you put into them. How pronounced is it in the forward portion and does it slowly taper out into the vee in back? Thanks- ole
Hey Paul, you’ve talked about the amount of vee and tail thickness you > put into these boards, how about a quick discourse on the amount of hull > you put into them. How pronounced is it in the forward portion and does it > slowly taper out into the vee in back? Thanks- ole Ole, It’s hard to generalize about hulls, because so much is dependant on fitting together the outline and rocker. Basically, think of the hull as a function of (or closely releated to) the rocker. If your rocker is kicked, then straight, then slightly kicked in the back, you have two bumps in the rocker curve. The belly under the nose is created by the forward bump, and the V in the back is created by the tail rocker bump. The rail line rocker is a smoother, flatter version of the center rockerline. How much hull you need depends on how much rocker and how wide the board is. You’re trying to break up the width of the bottom so the board will square off the bottom of the wave with authority, while at the same time, keeping the rails lively or free from sticking. The narrower the board – or the more rocker – the less hull you need. For a thruster-like rocker and outline, I use 3/8" hull depth, deepest from the wide point to 1/3 back from the nose, depending on the rocker curve. For a Greenough hull, which had dead straight rocker in the back 60% of the board and is wide, a 1" hull cut is good. That isn’t including the depth of the rail you turn. A contemporary rail is almost flat, so that board would have only about 3/8" of hull, total. A Greenough rail is 50-50 or higher, so those boards would have around 2" of hull depth. Hull depth is the measurement with a large square…from the stringer to the center of the rail at the deepest point. If you use V, it’s a function of the rocker break in the back half of the board. The sharper the break, the shorter the V is in terms of nose to tail length. A shorter length V, placed in front of the fin, seems to work best. Long, straight rockered V along the entire back half is really sticky and hard to surf. Obviously, this is hard to put into writing, and in practices it takes a lot of boards to get a feel for how much hull should go where.
Ole,>>> It’s hard to generalize about hulls, because so much is dependant on > fitting together the outline and rocker.>>> Basically, think of the hull as a function of (or closely releated to) the > rocker. If your rocker is kicked, then straight, then slightly kicked in > the back, you have two bumps in the rocker curve. The belly under the nose > is created by the forward bump, and the V in the back is created by the > tail rocker bump. The rail line rocker is a smoother, flatter version of > the center rockerline.>>> How much hull you need depends on how much rocker and how wide the board > is. You’re trying to break up the width of the bottom so the board will > square off the bottom of the wave with authority, while at the same time, > keeping the rails lively or free from sticking. The narrower the board – > or the more rocker – the less hull you need.>>> For a thruster-like rocker and outline, I use 3/8" hull depth, > deepest from the wide point to 1/3 back from the nose, depending on the > rocker curve. For a Greenough hull, which had dead straight rocker in the > back 60% of the board and is wide, a 1" hull cut is good. That isn’t > including the depth of the rail you turn. A contemporary rail is almost > flat, so that board would have only about 3/8" of hull, total. A > Greenough rail is 50-50 or higher, so those boards would have around > 2" of hull depth. Hull depth is the measurement with a large > square…from the stringer to the center of the rail at the deepest point.>>> If you use V, it’s a function of the rocker break in the back half of the > board. The sharper the break, the shorter the V is in terms of nose to > tail length. A shorter length V, placed in front of the fin, seems to work > best. Long, straight rockered V along the entire back half is really > sticky and hard to surf.>>> Obviously, this is hard to put into writing, and in practices it takes a > lot of boards to get a feel for how much hull should go where. Thanks Paul, that definitely helps clear it up a little better for me. I understand that each board you do with varying design variables changes how you approach it, and how it can be very difficult to explain in writing. I believe I am really starting to better understand characteristics of a hull and what they are meant to do. Thanks again- ole
Paul, I was watching The Innermost Limits of Pure Fun (again) and there’s a shaping scene - I believe it’s Ted Spencer shaping with a sureform. What struck me was how wide the tail block was, like you mentioned. Is it safe to say that he was shaping a v-bottom? There’s footage of him surfing the finished board and it looks like it might be. Also, by today’s standards those fins seem a little big for those boards. I realize they were experimenting, but was there a rationale for using 13" super rake fins on 8 ft boards? Was it to control the tail perhaps? I believe those fins gave birth to the Stage 4 as we know it today. By the way, thanks for all the info! -Gregg>>> Ole,>>> It’s hard to generalize about hulls, because so much is dependant on > fitting together the outline and rocker.>>> Basically, think of the hull as a function of (or closely releated to) the > rocker. If your rocker is kicked, then straight, then slightly kicked in > the back, you have two bumps in the rocker curve. The belly under the nose > is created by the forward bump, and the V in the back is created by the > tail rocker bump. The rail line rocker is a smoother, flatter version of > the center rockerline.>>> How much hull you need depends on how much rocker and how wide the board > is. You’re trying to break up the width of the bottom so the board will > square off the bottom of the wave with authority, while at the same time, > keeping the rails lively or free from sticking. The narrower the board – > or the more rocker – the less hull you need.>>> For a thruster-like rocker and outline, I use 3/8" hull depth, > deepest from the wide point to 1/3 back from the nose, depending on the > rocker curve. For a Greenough hull, which had dead straight rocker in the > back 60% of the board and is wide, a 1" hull cut is good. That isn’t > including the depth of the rail you turn. A contemporary rail is almost > flat, so that board would have only about 3/8" of hull, total. A > Greenough rail is 50-50 or higher, so those boards would have around > 2" of hull depth. Hull depth is the measurement with a large > square…from the stringer to the center of the rail at the deepest point.>>> If you use V, it’s a function of the rocker break in the back half of the > board. The sharper the break, the shorter the V is in terms of nose to > tail length. A shorter length V, placed in front of the fin, seems to work > best. Long, straight rockered V along the entire back half is really > sticky and hard to surf.>>> Obviously, this is hard to put into writing, and in practices it takes a > lot of boards to get a feel for how much hull should go where.
Paul, I was watching The Innermost Limits of Pure Fun (again) and there’s > a shaping scene - I believe it’s Ted Spencer shaping with a sureform. What > struck me was how wide the tail block was, like you mentioned. Is it safe > to say that he was shaping a v-bottom? There’s footage of him surfing the > finished board and it looks like it might be. Also, by today’s standards > those fins seem a little big for those boards. I realize they were > experimenting, but was there a rationale for using 13" super rake > fins on 8 ft boards? Was it to control the tail perhaps? I believe those > fins gave birth to the Stage 4 as we know it today. By the way, thanks for > all the info! -Gregg Yes, the fins were too big, and they were influenced by the wide tails to try them. The board that Ted Spencer was shaping was one of a series of 3 or 4 boards he made which were almost as small as George’s Velo, which was 5’0". I’m guessing his was 5’4", or thereabouts. I don’t believe there was any V, in spite of the wide tail. I think they were in their anti-V bottom phase by then…plus Velo had no V. It relied on the corners bending for it’s release. The huge fins they had – and I’m especially thinking of the fin on the McTavish board that they are burning on the beach – were an attempt to get as much forward drive as possible. But, even Greenough’s own fins topped out at 10" deep on his boards, so they really went too far with those monsters. (Nat Young showed up at Malibu in the Summer of '69 with a 5’11" hull with a 12" fin. The hull riders who copied his fin couldn’t even turn their boards for the rest of the summer!) The fins had to come down in size, ane the tail widths followed. The Stage 4 fin was a really radical step towards low area fins for the time (1970). It emerged from those fins in the movies, as you surmised.
Wow, Paul. The vibe I got was these guys created these new “short” boards and were still surfing them like longboards. These guys were nevertheless ripping. I noticed they were making sections and coming way deep out of the soup to back to the shoulder on a lot of waves.>>> Yes, the fins were too big, and they were influenced by the wide tails to > try them.>>> The board that Ted Spencer was shaping was one of a series of 3 or 4 > boards he made which were almost as small as George’s Velo, which was > 5’0". I’m guessing his was 5’4", or thereabouts. I don’t believe > there was any V, in spite of the wide tail. I think they were in their > anti-V bottom phase by then…plus Velo had no V. It relied on the corners > bending for it’s release.>>> The huge fins they had – and I’m especially thinking of the fin on the > McTavish board that they are burning on the beach – were an attempt to > get as much forward drive as possible. But, even Greenough’s own fins > topped out at 10" deep on his boards, so they really went too far > with those monsters. (Nat Young showed up at Malibu in the Summer of '69 > with a 5’11" hull with a 12" fin. The hull riders who copied his > fin couldn’t even turn their boards for the rest of the summer!)>>> The fins had to come down in size, ane the tail widths followed. The Stage > 4 fin was a really radical step towards low area fins for the time (1970). > It emerged from those fins in the movies, as you surmised.
Wow, Paul. The vibe I got was these guys created these new > “short” boards and were still surfing them like longboards. > These guys were nevertheless ripping. I noticed they were making sections > and coming way deep out of the soup to back to the shoulder on a lot of > waves. That’s a good observation, Gregg. The style they rode is really indicative of the flatter rocker, hull bottom board, regardless of it’s length. They were still trimming for speed in most of the movie. However, the shot of George carving off the bottom on that one point wall (early on the film) really has a contemproary look to it. And the first turn of the film – McTavish coming off the bottom on a deep V – characterizes the new era very well. That’s what got them so excited…being able to carve off the bottom with the whole rail buried, rather than pivoting and walking up like a longboard would dictate. So, in that sense, it was an advancement over longboarding. I think the waves in the film also had a lot to do with their styles. They were riding small, clean point surf most of the time. The shots of Chris Brock on the stingerless square tail (after they make the oats in the camp site) are really great. He is just flying through sections on those little waves. And the long steep section he makes on that acid pintail (after the haircut scene) was really futuristic for that time.
That’s a good observation, Gregg. The style they rode is really indicative > of the flatter rocker, hull bottom board, regardless of it’s length. They > were still trimming for speed in most of the movie. However, the shot of > George carving off the bottom on that one point wall (early on the film) > really has a contemproary look to it. And the first turn of the film – > McTavish coming off the bottom on a deep V – characterizes the new era > very well. That’s what got them so excited…being able to carve off the > bottom with the whole rail buried, rather than pivoting and walking up > like a longboard would dictate. So, in that sense, it was an advancement > over longboarding.>>> I think the waves in the film also had a lot to do with their styles. They > were riding small, clean point surf most of the time.>>> The shots of Chris Brock on the stingerless square tail (after they make > the oats in the camp site) are really great. He is just flying through > sections on those little waves. And the long steep section he makes on > that acid pintail (after the haircut scene) was really futuristic for that > time. WOW! I’m glad to see you talking about the boards in that movie. Sometimes something you see really sticks with you. I’ve been personally inspired by the boards of that film for quite some time. I’ve been riding a Takayama egg that’s very similar to the outline of some of those boards that really goes at small clean pointbreaks. There’s one sequence in that movie of GG surfing where he does a really hard bottom tun. I’ve watched it in slow motion many, many times. It appears that only about 1/2" of fin and one corner of board are in the water. Stunning!
WOW! I’m glad to see you talking about the boards in that movie. Sometimes > something you see really sticks with you. I’ve been personally inspired by > the boards of that film for quite some time. I’ve been riding a Takayama > egg that’s very similar to the outline of some of those boards that really > goes at small clean pointbreaks. There’s one sequence in that movie of GG > surfing where he does a really hard bottom tun. I’ve watched it in slow > motion many, many times. It appears that only about 1/2" of fin and > one corner of board are in the water. Stunning! That era brings some fond memories for me. After watching movies like Innermost Limits and Evolution, me and my buds would get all stoked to make a board. Some would strip down a tanker or the ones with enough money would luck out with a blank. One guy would attempt to replicate the pocket rocket Reno rode in the '68 World Contest at Puerto Rico, another Nats Weber Ski, and I ended up shaping a hideous diamond tail (it would twenty years before I would pick up a surform to shape a board again). It was a blast though. At that point in time, there was so much experimentation and creativity. All extremes were being explored, narrow, wide, thin, thick, concave, convex, flat, vee. It was to be a few more years before I could afford a brand new board, a 6ft. Lightning Bolt downrailer.
That era strikes a chord with me as well. There’s a real country feel to Innermost Limits. It’s also soulful. It’s like they’re portraying a totally different world than civilization as we know it. I think it reaches out to a lot of surfers who seek escape from the ad dollar pushed in their face and the current status of surf culture today.>>> That era brings some fond memories for me. After watching movies like > Innermost Limits and Evolution, me and my buds would get all stoked to > make a board. Some would strip down a tanker or the ones with enough money > would luck out with a blank. One guy would attempt to replicate the pocket > rocket Reno rode in the '68 World Contest at Puerto Rico, another Nats > Weber Ski, and I ended up shaping a hideous diamond tail (it would twenty > years before I would pick up a surform to shape a board again). It was a > blast though. At that point in time, there was so much experimentation and > creativity. All extremes were being explored, narrow, wide, thin, thick, > concave, convex, flat, vee. It was to be a few more years before I could > afford a brand new board, a 6ft. Lightning Bolt downrailer.
That era strikes a chord with me as well. There’s a real country feel to > Innermost Limits. It’s also soulful. It’s like they’re portraying a > totally different world than civilization as we know it. I think it > reaches out to a lot of surfers who seek escape from the ad dollar pushed > in their face and the current status of surf culture today. Complete agreement! I got so caught up in Innermost fever that I took a trip to that area. Some of the spots don’t look that different today (except, of course, all the heads in the water). The boards, the styles of surfing, the music, the scenery. Yeah!