Extra long
Heavy weight
Severe pintail
Parallel twin fins
Parallel tunnel
SuperTracker or
Reverse Velzy Pig?
One man’s spear
is another man’s potato
All designs are relative
to where a person’s head is at
The question remains
where is yours, Roy?
Please elaborate
dreams and expectations
behind the finished form
Thanks
Hey Roy,
Paddle that puppy into something with a steep face on it. Get out of the mush and get into some barrels!
Keep up the R&D! Your staying power is awesome!
I’ve got the camera fired up again. I’ll post some of my new stuff. It’s the opposite of yours – wide tails concaved bottoms and helically foiled rail fins. It’s all good.
What-a-race?
Good-on-ya, Rich
Roy,
Just wondering what the benefit if the twin keels on such a narrow tail board. It seems to me that they would only be of benefit where you can (at least partially) disengage one fin, which seems unlikely to happen with that tail width. I’d be interested to hear how it compares to a single fin
Its been done before; Early 60’s, Roberts Surf Shop, Marina Del Rey, Ca. Didn’t work then either.
What exactly is the ‘it’ you are referring to ?
Hi Bruce,
Compared with previous boards of the same shape with single or single+tunnel am expecting less rail to rail resistance, dreams are still in the subconscious , will report back with video!
Roy,
Just wondering what the benefit if the twin keels on such a narrow tail board. It seems to me that they would only be of benefit where you can (at least partially) disengage one fin, which seems unlikely to happen with that tail width. I’d be interested to hear how it compares to a single fin
Hi Burnsie,
Twins need to disengage a fin when the fins are toed in (to reduce drag due to toe in), when the fins are parallel like these ones then that isn’t necessary.
The idea is to present a cleaner flow to the tunnel, and to reduce rail to rail resistance. … also I just happened to have those fins lying around and the thought of foiling another carbon fibre bulb tipped flex fin was not attractive !
SO, Roy,
WILL you be posting riding impressions of that board with and without the can?
Looking forward to if
j
Oh Royyyy, I know you’re in heeeeere!
Hi Janklow,
Will only be doing impressions with the ‘can’, I’m not really all that interested in surfing it canless. . . . . I did those (can/nocan) tests on a 7’5", a 9’1" and on a pair of 11’9"s. . . the can definitely rules although canless is still nice (for that shape at least, there are some shapes I do which don’t apreciate the can at all).
The most critical part of the whole setup is the foil angle. . . I’m going to dial it up a degree or so which makes a huge difference compared with setting the lift angle parallel to the bottom like I did on the last couple of boards. . . parallel to the bottom is cruisy and easy to ride. . . dialling up the lift makes things more exciting, allows the board to be pumped up and down for speed and tends to lift the tail.
Cheers
Roy
Roy–
it does act like a hydrofoil then, eh? Ever think about making smaller versions and mounting them at the rail positions??
I’d think less base and chord, but especially shortening up the base. They’ve got to really grab the jellies, kelp, weeds, etc, though, don’t they?
Interesting to think about bridging some short quad fins with a wing/hydrofoil element of some sort…possibilities seem pretty intriguing as far as an angled wing bridge that would let you shorten fin chords and actually enhance hold, lift at the same time by utilizing hydrofoil lift perpendicular to the traditional fin foil
oh how i do go on…
Hi Janklow, Yup hydrofoil coffee tin gizmo.
We have thought about parking many tiny tunnels (like annular shark denticles) all over the bottom but Wong won’t foil them for me.
What you are talking about is a square tunnel or something like this between the sidefins?:
Could be a good one but I suspect that the square tunnel doesn’t make a nice spiral vortex like the round one does, am keen to try one though
No, more like a regular shortboard quad set-up with small horizontal wing hydrofoil elements between the 2 rail fins per side, for example.
And Wong is right.
Your foils are all Wong-made, are they? Made the Wong way, is that it?
The “Tunnel Fin”. In fact that is what they called it. I doubt that there was any copyright or patent though, so you’re probably safe with regard to that aspect. To much drag.
You haven’t got the faintest clue about tunnel fins if you think they are high drag. . . they are in fact the lowest drag fins in existence.
As for those 60’s tunnels , I can tell you why they weren’t popular if you like. . .a few simple improvements to the way they were set up is all they needed.
As for patents, I don’t recognise them anyway so even if they existed for the tunnel fin I would ignore them.
By the way your initial post ( " They weren’t successful then either" ) implies that the tunnels I am making are not successful. . . you have the wrong end of the stick because they are very successful !
Now go and troll for trout instead.
.
No, more like a regular shortboard quad set-up with small horizontal wing hydrofoil elements between the 2 rail fins per side, for example.
And Wong is right.
Your foils are all Wong-made, are they? Made the Wong way, is that it?
Got it, you mean either a tunnel on each rail or a pair of side fins joined across with a wing.
I haven’t tried that one because I know how much those tunnels resist being hauled up down or sideways once they get moving (they can pivot easily but can’t be dragged bodily sideways or up and down) so I expect that they would prevent rail to rail movement ( whereas a centrally mounted tunnel offers zero rail to rail resistance) but it might be worth a try anyway.
Currently the foils are Wong-made, Bloke-finished.
Ah.
So your tunnels aren’t all Wong?
The vortex thing seems like it’s mostly the Wong way?
(‘’)