Sorry Bill, yes, the deck, but again, it is quite stiff…
I think they call that a “single blind test” ha ha. Great example- I’d figure his whole world woulda come unglued, but now it makes sense he kept surfing, ha
Best regards,
George
“On multi-fin boards the “cluster” of fins/fences act to contain pressure under the board, and the bunched water acts as a hydraulic dynamic spring, that a surfer can push off of”
best explanation yet for the force mechanism of multi-fin boards.
“that a surfer can push off of” - and there’s the rub. Height/weight/foot size differences = major force differentials. Front footed, back footed apply it differently as well. Why a magic board for me can be a dog for you. And usually it starts with the rocker and fin(s) placement.
so, George, if you don’t mind sharing what well may be trade secrets, what’s your rocker differentials on a fairly conventional 6’4 thruster for a front footed surfer vs. a back footed surfer, where would you land the respective fin clusters, and what else would you change in the shape?
@Icc-
There’s several things happening in this design push. The “front footed” surfers tend to surf “horizontal” and the “back footed” go “vertical” more. Both types also cross over a bit. Dedicated front footers will get a dropped tail rocker from me, but standard fin positions. Sometimes I will not drop the tail rocker but I will let the rocker run low aft of center then accelerate it up just at the fronts of the front fins. I will not drop the water entry however to keep the board free in yaw, but I might drop the nose rocker a bit, mostly for looks. Relavent numbers might be 5-1/4" nose and 1-7/8" tail. I will also move the widepoint slightly forward maybe 2" aft of center but as much as even with center. The bottom contours may initiate further forward, like the “doubles through the fins” might start several inches further forward. I would also not make the doubles flare out as much, kind of “matching” the chosen rocker.
With backfooted surfing, I may keep the rocker in the tail low, say 2" but usually will flip it, aft of the rear edges of the front fins, and continue the acceleration of the rail rocker, perhaps resulting in what looks like “vee” in the tail. One thing is I would shift the front fins back about 1/4" (this forces the rider’s "neutral stance’ to move back an inch or two,) and also bring the wide point aft, like 3 to 4+ inches aft of center. I might leave the center fin as is, for more yaw, but depends upon the surfer, if they throw their board around like that or not. The bottom contours might shift aft a bit, with focus on doubles (for example,) having a more exaggerated “max depth” about mid-fin with the front fins. I like to flare these contours out behind the front fins as quickly, yet smoothly as possible and the template/foil/rocker will allow. A lot of times I will soften the forward rails a bit, making the tucked edge go away a bit in the last 18-20 inches of the nose.
This is NOT the “be all, end all” as I have various models of boards that cross over and allow for both modes of surfing, as many shapers do.
Hope this helps.
Best regards,
George
Mr. Gall,
1st Thank you for the meat (valued information)
And it would appear you have set the record for time spent in “the hot seat”.
My burning question would have to be the single concave.
The Maurice Cole tow in board haul’s ass and was hard to ignore.
Been working on low energy single concaves for about 3 years now, using a number of different entry and rocker ideas.
We touched on “nose rocker” and I’ve got some new stuff in the works.
Very aware of entry rocker and flow thru both double and singles.
If I may can you give us you astute opinion?
Mahalo Matty
too funny
years ago when they first came out, I committed the ultimate sin and put a 4 1/2" thruster set of Donald Takayama’s Halo fins on my custom 5 fin fish Greg Griffin made me.
As I rode it I kept thinking “wow, these fins ride pretty well pretty loose”
It wasn’t until I came out of the water and walking op the beaaxh to the shower that one of my “friends” called out from the peanut gallery, “Eh brah, what you doing?, you got the back fin on backwards brah!”
I brushed it off with a smile and acted like I did it on purpose (being the mad surf scientist and all) but I felt like an idiot.
It did teach me that being open minded means anything is possible.
George,
Thanks for all the amazing information. Still soaking it all in.
If you are still in the hot seat I was wondering if you have experimented altering fin cant and its effects on performance, particually with regard to quad setups.
cheers
This might be worthy of its own discussion a question for all our engineering types out there. We Have lots of talk about the design of boards and fins. Yet I feel that how and what we use to build boards might be the biggest change in surfing. For the most part we have been building boards the same way since the 1950s. Epoxy isn’t all that new. It’s been made much better in the last 10 years However the basics are still the same fiberglass reenforced plastic shell over a foam core. Aero space engineering has made some advancements with materials over the last 50 years or so. High Performance jets use a lot of different materials
So Engineering geeks whats out there that just might make a better Board?
Ty George! Not planning to use the name, but ty fti! I actually wasn’t aware Joe designed the mini until last mos! 
Wow, thanks George for sharing so much knowledge. Always nice to hear insight from the guys who have really experimented and have a ton of experience.
Artz, to this comment - “Yet I feel that how and what we use to build boards might be the biggest change in surfing.”, I went down a path a number of years ago to get a much more durable board and have settled for now on stringerless EPS, with a cork deck, all vacuum bagged. It’s still old tech as far as other industries are concerned but it makes for a light, durable board. Honestly, stringerless EPS, bagged with 4/4/4 deck and 4/4 bottom is a pretty bombproof construction while still being super light and cheap. Using s-glass instead of e-glass makes a big difference. The problem I see with most of the “tech” builds is that it’s done mainly for marketing and not actually because the materials are performing a specific task unique to their properties. I’m a big fan of KISS, over-engineering things can be as bad, if not worse than under-engineering them.
Another thougtht I had about our obsession with the nuances of boards after hearing George talk of testing un-foiled fins, was how much of an overall affect do our boards have on our surfing? I realize my style has some glaring flaws and yet I still pursue more refined boards without putting nearly as much effort into actually refining my own technique. It’s a very humbling approach that I think most aren’t willing to accept, to not point the blame so much at their equipment, but instead look at their surfing style first to make the biggest performance gains. Bit of a digression from the discussion, but notice in a lot of these design discussions the rider is not included as a component to be tweaked and optimized as a part of the system, when we likely play a much larger role in it than the boards we ride.
It’s still fun to geek out and try and optmize and refine things though and get a better understanding of how they actually work. It helps a lot to have a clearer understanding of that complex interaction that goes on beneath our feet while we’re riding waves. Theory only gets you so far. At some point you gotta build stuff and try it and refine it.
“Eh brah, what you doing?, you got the back fin on backwards brah!”
I brushed it off with a smile and acted like I did it on purpose (being the mad surf scientist and all) but I felt like an idiot."
HA Bernie! Totally relate, quite the mental picture, funny how it worked that way though!
Well Matty, I think you’re right, I’m the first guy in the Hotseat (or so I’m told,) so every day done, is a record, ha!!!
“Very aware of entry rocker and flow thru both double and singles. If I may can you give us you astute opinion?”
Probably the best thing is to NOT look at the concaves. Maurice has it down: “Look at the rockers mate…” The rocker down the stringer is LESS than the rocker along the rail. The by-product is concave. I am of the opinion that your have to look at the rockers before any “dent” or feature, plus there are advantages to look at the rockers NOT parallel with the stringer, thus adding a lateral component to the water flow direction. Also, consider what more rocker at the rail offers… …especially in a hard turn (dipping your rail.) If you are travelling in an arc, and you are on a curved (moving) surface, “Do you think the fastest rocker is going to be FLAT?” Snowboard and Ski Designers would say “NO!” (and powder doesn’t move like waves do against our boards…) More food for thought.
Yes! Learned a lot. We used that South African “Four Way Fin System” I mentioned a couple hundred miles ago, ha, which allows the fin to be moved (four ways.) Fore/aft, Toe (pointing toward/away from nose,) Camber/Splay (tilting tips away from stringer,) and of course changing the fin itself.
Like I said we learned a lot, and it turned out the fins felt best Splayed 5-7 degrees for thruster side fins, and 3-4 degrees for quad rears. BUT, that said, you can get very good results OUTSIDE those findings, especially with super deep concaves, where you might like 2-3 degrees, or not. OH, also, those numbers are based upon “flat bottoms” as a Vee or Concave will change the Camber/Splay quite a bit.
I alluded to that topic early in this thread. If I had unlimited resources I would use FEA (computer modeling of dynamic flow and self-optimization,) and I would create a “shape shifting surfboard.” It would be great to paddle into a wave with a beefy board, then once I got going, shrink it down to Tow In size, or even Skim Board size! ha. Also mentioned was 3D Printing, which I can assure you is going to happen (might want to get proficient at basic computer modelling of surfboards the way we can now look at a blank catalog and “know” which blank is “right,”) thus, you can get a Very Close Tolerance blank with variable density, controlled flex, and controlled weight distribution (without any wastage.)
Yeah, I don’t think he’s opposed to anybody making a short, wide, two-finned board that’s a lot of fun, ha! That was more for the lineage, for being the one who specifically studied and restored a real Simmons board a long time local surfer here named John Elwell had for decades, then being consigned to make the “Mini” version of it, and being able to sell boards literally under that name. It’s sorta like saying “Make a photocopy of this,” vs. “Make a Xerox of this,” but only amongst us surf folk… ha
Best regards,
George
Artz, It´s a cost and look problem. Airplane composits parts are not so advanced infact, most are foam or nida core cover with carbon epoxy. The way to design and product composits parts progress. Stronger surfboards are made know (compsand with foam,wood, or exotic fibers skins) but they cost more and for most don’t look like the pupe of pro surfer. On industry point of view, If surfers are ok to change board each years or less, why change.
George - sorry for late reply back. Anyway, I don’t plan to name my board " mini simmons " after what you said.
On a side note, I think -Joe Baugeus definitely designed his own model. I mean, look at all the copies. Not many of
Them are built as -Joe describes in his vimeo vid.
That there proves he “IS” the founder of his unique Mini Sims boards. I think he deserves that respect. Sadly, a lot of Folk’s don’t give him the respect he deserves!-Jim
“Artz, It´s a cost and look problem.”
So true, Lemat, and very sad, that fashion runs what sells to surfers. And there were times when it wasn’t so, then there were times before that were it was true again…
(looking at the late 60’s and the early 60’s as an example.) Wondering what part of “the cycle” we are in now? Looks like we are breaking free again, as more innovation seems to be surfacing, yet in the midst of the innnovations emerges mass-marketed efforts (without naming names.)
@shapaholic-
Hi Jim, I definitely acknowledge that negative vibe, he drew fire from many directions. I’ve gotten to know Joe quite well at a personal level, and we’ve talked for hours about his upbringing and background- and 50+ years of shaping. He has some of the coolest stories about growing up in that period of Surfing/Chicks/Hotrods in SoCal. He was right in the middle of it all, amazing man, strong principles and very conscientious of the quality of his work. INSANELY precise with a planer, and amazing stamina shaping some of the most beastly EPS blocks I’ve seen. I wished he’d come on here and talk design, as the latest mutation of his Mini Simmons with radical bottom contours looks incredible! He’s not one to sit still with his shapes and ideas…
Best regards,
George
HI Lawless,
Actually toe in on a board should be referred to as “angle of incidence”. The angle is fixed at manufacture on aircraft as it is on a surfboard. A few aircraft have been made with variable incidence wings, used to control body angle vs AoA at very low airspeeds.
AoA is a variable determined by the angle of the foil relative to the air or water flow.
Hi George - Just a quick note of thanks for posting so much information. It all makes sense the way you put it.
+2 George! Yeah, it would be cool if he visits swayz and Maybe offer a few tips.
Damn, talkin about planing… im probably average planing flats, but slow n low for me on everything else as I recently bought a-- 7.5 AMP SKIL100! It’s a beast. But purs like a big cat! Today I cut in nose/ tail rocker w rocker templates for first time. It’s going! Anyhow, I plan to try my first single to dub concaves. Any tips would help. I am just try n to figure out where to halt my single so it works w dub concaves. Think n of try n what Joe Bageuss does on his mini. I think he lets the double carry out back? Will this mimic vee? Tia for any help. Best regards. Ps: if you ever visit Monterey bay area -I’m making a tester board I’d like Folk’s to try out.
This is – the test model! The " Screwdriver 6’ x 19 1/2" rounded square tail! I didn’t know what to shape - so I just am going by feel…my nose rocker is a bit tight…I might have cut too much nose off. Or I miscalulated thickness of the blanks nose…might have to thin it more? Gonna put two fins about 6" or so up the tail block… might put em 1 1/4"-1/2" off rails? The cant I think maybe slight? I’m not sure how I want it yet? I just want it drivey and have a lively feel…Don’t we all…! Rails I’m still thinking about?T c-Jim
Yes, thank you George. Great thread. You have been very generous with your time and information. We are in your debt.
Got some very good news just now, Maverick’s was bombing today and the 10’6" worked unreal today. Stoked!
Some tips for hitting the flats is to keep the back arm a bit tense, focusing on keeping the handle upright/vertical. I have the front hand draped over the handle, sometimes brushing the work surface, much more relaxed. I see a lot of guys doing the opposite, driving the front hand hard “into” the blank, which makes the planer “swim” around and climb out of its’ intended track. Once I get the bottom roughed, I set the cut for 1/16" or less (called a “flycut”) and run along the bottom while focusing on good body position. It turns out that body position is SUPER IMPORTANT, also your stance, and WALKING with the planer. Walk like a cat. ha.
On your rail bands, pay attention to the rear handle, being sure it holds a constant angle (so the band surface doesn’t “twist”) throughout the entire pass. Later on, you will use more advanced moves but mastery of consistent placement and awareness of the tool is essential, or you will not progress very far (I’ve seen some long time shapers who never pushed themselves with good technique, and it shows, the finished product is nice but it will look like they “go to pieces” as they make their way to that point plus it takes a LOT longer to correct stuff.)
I’m not a huge fan of “single to doubles” (although the Mav’s board I just did is a sort-of InVee version of that,) rather I prefer “single with doubles” in a short wide board like you are doing there. Try to use the planer as much as possible, but approach your cuts with a gradual actions when it comes to contours. There are tricks to “tipping” the shoe of the planer into the concave but only attempt once you have the control of the tool position/angle pretty down pat. The Mini Simmons has doubles through the fins but they fade out at the tail block, althoug some of Joe’s recent work has pretty radical contours flaring right off the tail (he has a special rolling pin grit tool to do them.)
On the Screwdriver board, not knowing the rocker, bottom contour, fin base length and some other details it is hard for me to say where a good place is for the fins. Just guessing I’d say more than 6" and the 1-1/4" seems a little close to the rail. Maybe expand on the details and I can further comment?
Hi John,
Not sure if you heard, but one day my friend Craig Klein walks into the shop and I have the Asymmetric board you sent, sitting front and center on a stand. He always being interested in alternative designs, I tell him “John Mellor sent it” and he freaks out. It was a classic moment! You guys knew each other for decades, ha! Small world… Your board gets seen by many people! Thanks again!
“Runnin’ up quite a tab there Greg…” HA! I kid… It’s not a super HOT seat, actually it’s been fun. How long does this run for? Do I just go away?
Best regards,
George
Bill Thrailkill hasn’t commented, but I thought he might be one of the shapers who have keyed in on this. Makes sense to me, doesn’t logically seem the foil in a fin could be giving comparable lift to the airfoil in an airplane wing, when the ratio of foiled area (fin) to the overall size of the vehicle (surfboard) is so much less than an airplane wing to the airplane - but the dymanic lift from water flow hitting the side of the fin seems a much more logical source of lift, like the freeway hand out the window example given.
It also (seems to me) explains why Bill’s “twingle fins” work with the flat sides out, and the foil inside. The flat sides provide the dynamic lift from water flow from either side, and the foil merely provides the streamlining, not the lift.
[quote="$1"]I have a lot of pics on my and my company’s Facebook pages. I kinda don’t want to put too much on here, as it can be seen as me “selling my wares,” which I am not into in General Discussions.
[/quote]OK, its your thread, but I sure hope others don’t take such a hardline view of general discussion. Posting pics of current work is in no way a violation of any policy, and IMO could not be considered “selling wares” if done in the context of sharing / discussing design. And for those (like me) who don’t do facebook, its a great chance for us to see some stuff we might otherwise miss.
Thanks again for a great thread.
Thanks - George! I’ll take notes! You are spot on - on fin placement tips also! I was thinking about it, but it’s great to get help from a seasoned shaper!
About planing: I think you’re right about getting a grip on basic techniques b4 jumping up… this planer is a 7.5 amp beast and I’m starting to realize that… one can’t tell - til you hit 3/32" on up! Then you hear it growl n scream…I set her back down to an 1/16 " to 3/32" if I have to mow out foam out in an area…then fade from there… gotta lay that bed down right tho! You are sooo right. Ty and keep up the hand shaping! I’ll do the same. I think if more Folk’s step away from cnc, I think, we can keep hand shaping alive…too bad skil tools quit making the-- Skil 100. I wrote em and told em they dropped the ball. Tc - Jim