grasshopper here, youre damn right I need some kind of Guru !
Thank you one & all. A lot of gurus replied.
My last question - Was the exact 5’5" Steve Lis fish as per the Jim Kinstle fish template used for stand up surfing or was it adapted/modified to suit standup.
Im making one for stand up. Im 220 pounds 6 foot tall. I made one at 6’4" x 22.5" x 2 7/8. Its huge and I want to come down a bit. I know I can get 3 inches out of the blank, so the other two measurments are in question.
My ‘eyeball’ says make one about 6’0 or 6’1. I would guess the width should be pretty wide still to give me the float I need.
I also like to idea of keeping the original width to length proportion as long as the 5’5" in the book was actually used for standup, not just kneeboarding.
‘solely’, ‘originally’, ‘first used for’, something like that.
Lis was and remains a kneeboarder and the guy who pretty much invented the fish, the standup flavors are adaptations of the original. Some of us kneelo types are pretty inventive. As well as grey bearded, baldheaded and genericly looking like your basic Master Kan/Keye Luke character…
Now, rather than scaling a 5’5" up by 8" and who knows how wide, scaling a 6’4" that sorta works for you down to, say, 6’1" or so by 22" or so sounds like a plan.
I forgot how to divide with decimals.Spent a lot of time drawing waves on my notebook in skool (when I was awake).What if you cut the Lis Fish into a bunch of little squares and then just spread them all out and trace the enlarged outline?The hard thing would be holding all the parts in place when tracing.Any ideas on this?
…I was a complete failure in primary school…I preferred drawing Lighting Bolts and Van Halen logos. I even smoked a roach IN CLASS with the senile teacher standing there and got away with it. Barely graduated high school and the very bottom of my class. Good thing I got my sh_t together later in life. Higher education has its bennies…aspect ratios and the like…
I regards to the little squares idea…very clever…definitely out of the box thinking…ohmmmmmm.
I suppose making all those little squares would definitely be noisy…and you know how I feel about noise. Interesting analogy to the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus which is a summation process that accurately determines an area by making the little squares infinitely small and adding them up.
Pretty much useless stuff in real life.
Double side tape would tack those puppies down…
PS - dividing is much easier with a $3 calculator…
Lightning Bolts and Van Halen??Son you must be a youngster.We were drawing John Peck grabbing the rail at pipeline along with Hobie and Harbour logos.Back to the board scale thing…If we took all the little Lis Fish pieces and glued them back together we would have an accurate reduction correct?THe saw kerf thickness would determine the outcome of the outline.Yep,theres more than on way to skin a cat.
I regards to the little squares idea...very clever...definitely out of the box thinking...ohmmmmmm.
I suppose making all those little squares would definitely be noisy…and you know how I feel about noise. Interesting analogy to the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus which is a summation process that accurately determines an area by making the little squares infinitely small and adding them up.
Pretty much useless stuff in real life.
Double side tape would tack those puppies down…
PS - dividing is much easier with a $3 calculator…
Sad thing is, I know what you’re talking about, but you need an integrable function if you want to find the area. What’s the function for the curve on that fish? I don’t know. Does everything I just said make me a huge nerd? Most likely.
Sad thing is, I know what you’re talking about, but you need an integrable function if you want to find the area. What’s the function for the curve on that fish? I don’t know. Does everything I just said make me a huge nerd? Most likely.
Dear Sean,
parabolic of course…use only half of the board…the outer outline is a funky parabola. Then multiply the result by 2.
No not nerd…just one of the more colder beers in the fridge.
Cleanlines…yup just a 40 y/o wiper snapper…the reduction would be a percent function of the saw thickness width relative to the cut piece width(s)…divide the saw thickness by the piece thickness and thats your reduction percentage…I think…where’s that darn calculator
Sad thing is, I know what you’re talking about, but you need an integrable function if you want to find the area. What’s the function for the curve on that fish? I don’t know. Does everything I just said make me a huge nerd? Most likely.
Throw a transform at the data points and see what ya come up with. Another option is something like Simpson’s rule. Or a planimeter on a scale drawing.
Or, crank up your HP calculator, the one with Reverse Polish Notation and a decent sized LCD screen and the ever popular curve matching software ( see http://www.area48.com/index.html for the hardcore HP48 stuff… ) and have at it. You could prolly program one of those babies to run a shaping machine. Frankly, I ran out of calculator programming ambition back in my HP41C days.
Though that’s the area of the outline shape - and with that and a flat bottom it just kinda goes with the square of the length if ya kept it all to scale. Increase the length to 1.1 x the original, you have increased the area to 1.21 x the original. It’s a naval architect thing, used in working with tank and model testing data.
nerd? Moi??? Wayull, how do ya think I got the handle…
Get a picture or scale drawing of what you like, or the actual board.
Measure the widths every 1/8 of the way down the board. Mark off those widths at the 1/8 increments down the length of the new board.
If you want a different width, scale them up by the ratio of the two widths. For instance to go from an 18" wide board to a 20" board, multiply the measured widths by 20/18 or 1.11.
If you’re working from a magazine picture only one inch wide, you’ll have to measure pretty carefully because small error in initial measurement become much larger at actual size. This is where an enlargement at your neighborhood copy store can help, cheap. Heck, some can scale it right up to full size if you pay 'em, but mag pictures become pretty fuzzy then.
If you’re doing major scaling, some smoothing will be necessary to make a fair outline.
No,It’s not that simple. As a kid (a looooong time ago) I used to try to do that. The problem is that 1\16 of an inch in the wrong place on the template makes all the diffrence in the world. You can’t get that kind of accuracy by photocopying a picture. You need to continue to refine your templates until you have magic ones. There is no shortcut. If you’re looking for an easy solution to the ultimate outline, there is none. Lots of work and refinement!
Those of you that haven’t already, should download the free demo of Shape3D. You can’t save your file, but you can get a lot of insight from the data it generates on the fly as you make changes to your design. For example, how fast could you figure out volume with your calculator? And how accurate would it be? I guess, in a way, Shape3D could be used like a calculator.
Well…uh.try this.Lay a half template of a 5’0" fish down on a surface you can draw on.Let’s say we want to blow it up to 6’0".put a mark six inches from the nose and six inches from the tail on the surface.Take a compass and use it as a divider and start to trace around the old template increasing the width until the pencil hits the marks at the nose and tail(at 6’0").By doing that we have perfectly blown up the board right?Well…its gonna be wide as a truck.In other words it’s not possible using a mathematical formula correct?Or…maybe…you could blow the board up by using a strong light and projecting the shadow on to the wall??Maybe do some of them Rabbit or Dog Hand Puppet things while youre at it.Only on Swaylocks can we read brilliant theories such as this.Bless you Mike.
