You mean big boards are harder to turn ! seems basic. But I got two boards the same area, one a noserider and one a performance board. The performance one is way easier to turn. When you say area do you mean area in contact with the water ?
Basic physics…a 10 foot longboard is affected less by body weight changes than on a 6’4" and so on…that’s why there is more ‘margin of error’ allowed on longboards and tongue depressors (ideal for beginners). So when you say it is merely a fact that ten footers are harder to turn…WELL, that depends on who ya are…I’d imagine a beginner would say a 6 ft. board is harder to turn FOR THEM…“those six footers are totally all over the place and throw me off!!!”
Yea… like I admitted earlier, it’s a tough call (at least for me). I can’t visualize rocker without bottom contour sort of built into the image.
Burnsie…I’m keep it really basic
I’m not even talking about turning…just weight shifts, period. Shift your weight on a 10 footer versus a 8,7, 6 footer.the smaller the board, the more it is affected. Yes, this is super obvious, but the original request was for “rudimentary”.
rudimentary:
- consisting in first principles - FUNDAMENTAL 2. of a primitive kind - ELEMENTARY
Summary, (or ‘geez…Get To The Point’)
At present there is no rudimentary theory of surfing.
Rather than bypassing basic cause, I would suggest the following. Attempt to put into words what you believe makes a surfboard ‘go’. Of course, it may not be just one cause. In fact, you may feel that different causes may be more important and different times. But all that means, is that your have a list, rather than a word or a phrase or two. You may also wish to include a second list that includes what might keep a surfboard from stopping once it does get going.
After you do this, you then have a way of reasoning whether or not a given design feature makes sense, and when it might make sense - or not?
Here’s the Hump
When this approach is bypassed certain difficulties tend to arise in reasoning. In particular, the consequence of a design feature that is used in some other, seemingly related application of fluid mechanics. The most problematic tends to occur when an attempt is made to discern the applicability of a design feature that is used in a craft that has an external power source under active control, e.g. a gas engine with a throttle. The problem being, of course, that a surfboard doesn’t have an engine. (It’s that old ‘everything costs’ mantra, which never seems to be as ‘top-of-mind’ as it should – probably has something to do with human nature.)
Reasoning Further
The next step would then be to relate the impact, of what might be called broad design parameters to your cause(s). Consider the impact of surface area, for example. Depending on your assessment of its role, you may then attempt to relate it to template and rocker –i.e. how surface can be brought ‘on-’ and ‘off-line’, or for that matter how much is actually required under a given set of conditions, e.g. what really changes when you go from a gun to a fish and why? Or perhaps, surface area is just something that happens because you need a buoyant object to help you slide down the face of a wave, so your concern tends to turn more towards drag, streamlining, etc. Obviously, a design feature may overlap in its function with respect to competing ‘causes’, but that’s not an argument for or against its use, e.g. you may wish to minimize drag in any case. It’s a matter of what you see as more significant that matters.
Selection of the Fittest Mess
All this can be done regardless of what you, personally see as ‘what makes surfboards go.’ In the end, your choice of design features will reflect your reasoning. If the board ‘works’, maybe you got it right, or partially so. So, push your reasoning a little further the next time you make or get a board. If not, sell the turd at your next garage sale as a rare ‘collectable’, and try to avoid answering questions about how it surfs. Ir my personal favorite, sell it in any surf shop that is willing to take it on consignment - no explainations required - about as close to an ideal sale environment as you can get.
Follow the Money, at least for Starters
If you’ve just learning how to surf, you should read and listen to, whatever, or whomever you want, but chances are you’re best shot at getting something useful as a first board is to ask a local shop keeper, particularly one who actually sells more than the occasional surfboard. At least, one that has a bit of history in the locale. Money, particularly the possibility of more in the future, has a way of striping advice down to the practical, though there can be exceptions. Friends that surf can, of course be helpful, that’s if you know who your friends are.
Of course, there is always that option of just buying whatever catches your (minds?) eye at the surf shop. Sounds dangerous, but my guess is that this happens more than most are likely to admit. If the choice is not too stupid, it’s arguably part of the fun of the sport, and also part of the pain. This latter method, may actually draw on that weird mechanical intuition humans have – ‘you kind of know something is going to work’, whether or not it does comes later. It can go horribly wrong, but also disturbingly right.
My Real Point?
Whether you look through the Swaylock’s archives or just start asking around, you’re likely to find there are almost as many different competing ‘causes’ as to why surfboards do what they do as there are surfers. Maybe it’s just a matter of language, but I’m not inclined to think so. Put it another way, presently, there is no generally accepted rudimentary theory in surfing, unless you consider ‘something is going on and it involves, what most people call a wave’ a theory.
A case could be made that there are basic suggestions for beginners that seem to work more often than not. But as for all the rest of the advice (and theories), it would appear they’re all open to debate, at least by surfers. The whole thing is sort of amazing.
kc
Go! Go! Go!
This is gonna be a big one…
“that’s just the lemon next to the pie”
Theory of Balance. Every design and construction aspect has an effect on lift and/or resistance and/or weight. Total of weight, lift and resistance, and the balance of these three fore and aft, combine to give to ride charaterisics of any and every design. Simple as that.
While simple in concept, the combinations are endless. Understanding the TOB answers questions about imbalances thus explaining the success or failure of any design and allows for intellegent conceptual understanding moving forward.
Hi Greg,
Remember when we used to take large chunks of time when we were supposed to be shaping and discuss
this very topic? Remember noting that it would be great if we could write all of it down and share it with
the surfing masses?
Old times aside, your Theory of Balance does allow for considering design variables in structured manner,
which is what I think they’re trying to get going here.
Come to think of it, this is kind of an ''Essence of Swaylock’s"" thread. Trying to distill all the theories put forth
here over the years into some basic truths is a daunting task, however.
Mike
As for your post - I envy you. I usually wind-up using far more words to confuse people (myself included.)
kc
You know I remember at the time talking about writing it. I have since written it a number of times but the paragraph above pretty much discribes it in three sentences which is what it may need to be for more people to get what it is.
Like you stated it gives structure to concepts. I always thought of individual design aspects as spokes and the TOB was the hub through which the spokes could be connected, like you said so well, “structure”. The hub gives the spokes a common point of comparison. In other words, what effect does individual elements have on one or more of the three balances.
You and I both know the simplicity of this and I still cling to the fact that more people will understand and embrace the importance of the basic concept. I don’t think it’s something you use every day but it’s something that should be known by all who are professional designers. Very similar concepts are the basis of marine and areospace design, i.e. how do individual design aspects effect the balances of a boat or plane, so this doesn’t really come from too far out in left field.
I’ll bet few here know how much of all this you and I have debated over the last 20 years.
Greg, you’re right. Because everything is on a continuum (we don’t only measure at 1/8", but 1/16", 1/32", etc. - and get errors of those magnitudes, too) it’s really challenging to arrive at some formula of what works. Computers are helping a bit. We discovered when we put 20 years of accumulated knowledge onto computer that the running gear (rocker through the middle yard or so) was the same on all the boards 6’0" to 7’6" despite the templates being arrived at separately. Probably reflects the calculations further up this discussion.
Bill, I’d suggest it would be simpler to address just one board, surfer, wave - combination at a time. Just the general theories are making my head spin - an ecosystem, a balance, etc. How about a set of headings: length, rocker detail (every foot, say), outline detail, wide point placement relative to centre, rocker low point relative to centre, bottom contouring, fin placement, fin dimensions?
Red,
Instead of thinking about individual design aspects think about how they each effect the three balances. Then you’re head will be able to get itself around how each effects the ride quality both individually and as a part of the unit. Why does a gun look the way it does and why does it work in that overall scheme, which everyone uses? Conversely, why does a fish look the way it does and work the way it does in it’s realm? It’s all about those three rudimentary forces and the balance of those forces on individual design aspects and how those effect the whole.
Maxmercy’s original post related boards and waves, and Greg’s theory of balance ties in the rider as well. Getting over excited about board theory is all very well, but in order to purchase that “stock” board, or sensibly brief your custom shaper, or even build a board yourself, shouldn’t just as much emphasis be on wave theory and the riders style and ambitions? The board after all is really just the connection between the surfer and the wave.
Greg,
Can you please post up one of the written editions (latest, if possible) of the Theory of Balance? There was a time when I think it was in the resources section, but I cannot find it there anymore…
JSS
GL may not be available right now because he’s on his way to Florida for Surf Expo. I’m sure he’ll
be glad to post the TOB as soon as he can. It needs to be on this thread.
Mike
its in the archives…
I always thought that was an abbreviated version, as it mentions a ‘paper’ twice in the first paragraph; I had always assumed there was a longer version, and that the one posted was a ‘condensed’ version.
JSS
To keep this moving, and perhaps make a small contribution, I’d like to submit some volume guidelines.
Volume is certainly one of the most rudimentary variables, and one that can be quantified.
So here’s my observations. Notice it’s a nice linear progression. I’ve picked some ‘‘basic’’ types of boards.
Performance-----------------.50 cubic ft/ 100 lbs body weight
Lis Fish and Stubs------------.75 cubic ft/ 100 lbs
Fun, Eggs, Hybrids-----------1.00 cubic ft/ 100 lbs
HP Longboards---------------1.25 cubic ft/ 100 lbs
Traditional Long--------------1.50 cubic ft/ 100 lbs
Personal preference builds a ‘‘normal’’ 5-10 % variation into the above.
Something to chew on (or up).
Mike