What is the minimal about of foam that needs to be remove when skinning a blank(Clark Foam and still allow a strong physical bond between the blank and the applied glass? I kept finding that the blank that has the right length is a tad too thin or the blank with the right thickness will be too long and need major rocker adjustments which I’m really not skilled enough to do. Also, what blank would be suggested for making a 10’ x 3.5" noserider? The 10’1" Y is too thin and the 10’3" Edwards is over 4" thick with no rocker. Taking off a half inhc of foam sounds like too much. Thanks, John
What is the minimal about of foam that needs to be remove when skinning a > blank(Clark Foam and still allow a strong physical bond between the blank > and the applied glass? I kept finding that the blank that has the right > length is a tad too thin or the blank with the right thickness will be too > long and need major rocker adjustments which I’m really not skilled enough > to do. Also, what blank would be suggested for making a 10’ x 3.5" > noserider? The 10’1" Y is too thin and the 10’3" Edwards is over > 4" thick with no rocker. Taking off a half inhc of foam sounds like > too much.>>> Thanks,>>> John The Edwards blank is a good one for a thick board. Just take the thickness off the bottom with two or three passes. And one off the deck to skin it.The clark rocker catalog has great rocker’s for that blank. Even in the blank catalog they show a couple of good one’s.
What’s the minimum depth needed to consider the blank to be skinned? 1/32", 1/16", 1/8"th? Thanks for the info about the 10’3", I haven’t looked at the rocker catalog yet. BUt what I really want to know is what is the minimum amount of foam need to be removef for the blank to be considered skinned. Most of the boards I have done have required more than just skinning or I took off more than I wanted to. I’m thinking of making a 6’4ish" fish and am debating which blank to use, most likely it’ll be the 7’4" R. I thought about the 6’2" C but it’s 2 7/8" thick and that’s the about the thickness I wanted.
What’s the minimum depth needed to consider the blank to be skinned? > 1/32", 1/16", 1/8"th? Thanks for the info about the > 10’3", I haven’t looked at the rocker catalog yet. BUt what I really > want to know is what is the minimum amount of foam need to be removef for > the blank to be considered skinned. Most of the boards I have done have > required more than just skinning or I took off more than I wanted to. I’m > thinking of making a 6’4ish" fish and am debating which blank to use, > most likely it’ll be the 7’4" R. I thought about the 6’2" C but > it’s 2 7/8" thick and that’s the about the thickness I wanted. To tell you the truth,when i shape i set my depth all the way open at an 1/8 so it is always the same cut from start to finish when skining. Then i foil it the way i need to. The skin is only 1/16 thick,but you need to get it all or you well see a yellow color come through if you are doing a clear. And you can’t let the blank sit around to long or it does turn yellow. If your doing a true fish you can add a widder foam stringer to make it wider. Clark can do anything for you. If you can amagine it they can do it.Bla,Bla,Bla. Good luck. It’s art remember.
The decks take the most abuse, therefore I try to remove as little foam as possible on the top. I used to take a full 1/8" from the deck, but over the years I have started using the smallest cut possible to get the foam to turn white. Also skinning in this manner, I find that the flaws and imperfections stick out like a sore thumb, rather than a deep slice along the deck line, I see a waffle edge forming as the planer skips over the low spots and plows through the highs. This is one of the ways that I get such clean, true lines in my shaping. It takes me a few minutes longer, but those moments pay off later on, when I don’t have to dicker around at the end.
What’s the minimum depth needed to consider the blank to be skinned? > 1/32", 1/16", 1/8"th? Thanks for the info about the > 10’3", I haven’t looked at the rocker catalog yet. BUt what I really > want to know is what is the minimum amount of foam need to be removef for > the blank to be considered skinned. Most of the boards I have done have > required more than just skinning or I took off more than I wanted to. I’m > thinking of making a 6’4ish" fish and am debating which blank to use, > most likely it’ll be the 7’4" R. I thought about the 6’2" C but > it’s 2 7/8" thick and that’s the about the thickness I wanted. Clark has a new blank the 6’9"A. It’s 3 3/8" thick. To quote the catalog “#1 Beeg Feesh”
Clark has a new blank the 6’9"A. It’s 3 3/8" thick. To quote the > catalog “#1 Beeg Feesh” Just bought one, it’s exactly the size blank i need. i’ll shape it tomorrow. 6’4" x 17’nose x 20.25" x 15" tail x 3.25" flat bottom with vee in the tail. debating on how deep of a swallow tail to make. it’s not really a swallow more of a notch. thinking 1.5" deep and 5" apart, any suggestions?
Debating how deep to make the swallow ? Good question. I know that on the tradtional style fish the swallow tail looks very deep. On my tri fin swallows the notch isn’t more than an inch and a half or so to leave some meat behind the trailer fin. On my twin fin (in the archive) I left the notch shallow enough to have the option to add a trailer fin. Was worried it wouldn’t feel right with such a wide tail with only two fins. As it turns out the wide tail/twin fin set up is super fun to ride in wind swell. Not really suited for any thing really hollow. I’d like to hear from any one who has some insight on how the really deep traditional twin fin swallows work compared to what I’m describing. Anybody ?
Debating how deep to make the swallow ? Good question. I know that on the > tradtional style fish the swallow tail looks very deep. On my tri fin > swallows the notch isn’t more than an inch and a half or so to leave some > meat behind the trailer fin. On my twin fin (in the archive) I left the > notch shallow enough to have the option to add a trailer fin. Was worried > it wouldn’t feel right with such a wide tail with only two fins. As it > turns out the wide tail/twin fin set up is super fun to ride in wind > swell. Not really suited for any thing really hollow. I’d like to hear > from any one who has some insight on how the really deep traditional twin > fin swallows work compared to what I’m describing. Anybody ? I just made a more-or-less traditional fish with an 8 inch deep swallow tail, twin symmetrically-foiled fins, and nearly parallel rails. Have posted a picture but it’s not up yet, should be soon I imagine. It seems to like hollow waves…
I just made a more-or-less traditional fish with an 8 inch deep swallow > tail, twin symmetrically-foiled fins, and nearly parallel rails. Have > posted a picture but it’s not up yet, should be soon I imagine. It seems > to like hollow waves… Hey Keith, I have only seen the traditional ‘real thing’ on occasions where I couldn’t really study in detail. I’ll look for your twin to be posted but in the meantime a few questions… How long, wide, and thick ? Location of wide point ? Bottom ? Rail treatments ? My twin is 6’2"; 16",22",18"; w.p. 3" ahead of center; 2 3/4" thick with a flat deck and a fair amount of volume maintained thru the foil; Rails tucked under with a slight edge nose to tail(harder edge rear 1/3rd). Fins are Red X(flat on inside), 11" from tail, 1/4" toe; Bottom concaved in center to vee in the tail; Rocker natural 6’2"C (except as affected by changes to bottom) The board ‘feels’ real fast. Lots of speed for down the line. When you reach the mush it pivots to fade as needed, to glide right thru, always making the re-form for rides all the way to the beach. Seems as wave velocity increases the board ‘seeks the bottom’. Won’t really hang on a steep face. I had attributed this to the overall design-especially the width. Is your twin narrower ? Does the deep swallow help with the ‘holding’ ? How does the symetrical foil of the fin set-up affect performance ?(less drag?) I want to better understand this design. Thanks for your help. Later Bro.
Hey Keith, I have only seen the traditional ‘real thing’ on occasions > where I couldn’t really study in detail. I’ll look for your twin to be > posted but in the meantime a few questions… How long, wide, and thick ? > Location of wide point ? Bottom ? Rail treatments ?>>> My twin is 6’2"; 16",22",18"; w.p. 3" ahead of > center; 2 3/4" thick with a flat deck and a fair amount of volume > maintained thru the foil; Rails tucked under with a slight edge nose to > tail(harder edge rear 1/3rd). Fins are Red X(flat on inside), 11" > from tail, 1/4" toe; Bottom concaved in center to vee in the tail; > Rocker natural 6’2"C (except as affected by changes to bottom) The > board ‘feels’ real fast. Lots of speed for down the line. When you reach > the mush it pivots to fade as needed, to glide right thru, always making > the re-form for rides all the way to the beach. Seems as wave velocity > increases the board ‘seeks the bottom’. Won’t really hang on a steep face. > I had attributed this to the overall design-especially the width.>>> Is your twin narrower ? Does the deep swallow help with the ‘holding’ ? > How does the symetrical foil of the fin set-up affect performance ?(less > drag?) I want to better understand this design. Thanks for your help. > Later Bro. Hey - the picture is up now. Yes, mine is narrower than yours, only 17 in the tail and 19 at the wide point. I was somewhat limited in that I only had that much foam to work with, as I was reshaping a damaged board. The rails are soft except in the last 18 inches or so, where they are very hard. No concave in the board at all. The board’s max thickness is the same as yours but foil-wise a lot of foam is in the back half of the board. (The swallowtail is 2" thick). The fins are 5 high x 7.25 base. I doubt they have less drag than your fins. I made the fins that way because I was trying to slavishly copy the past, and because I just felt like it (not because I thought they’d work better). But as for theory, my understanding is that a symmetrical foil produces lift by angle of attack only, as the water passing over both sides of the fin travels the same distance. That’s not the same as a flat bottom/asymmetrical fin, in which lift is produced by water (air if you are talking wings)on one side having to travel farther than on the other. Symmetrical shapes can produce lift in either direction, at least in theory, due to their symmetry, and produce no lift when they are pointing straight ahead (angle of attack equals zero). Just as a side comment, I was talking to a long-time shaper in town and he told me that in his opinion fish don’t surf well backside. I found that puzzling and wondered if anyone else had ever heard this theory. (My guess would be that it’s not just fish, its that most SURFERS don’t surf as well backside…)
I agree with your backside theory. I shaped a 6’ traditonal fish (#184 in the board section - page 4 in the 6’ to 6’ 11" section) a while back. I can really feel a difference going backside and I know it is me. I tend to have a heavy front foot frontside (which works well for this shape) and a heavy back foot going backside. This board really helped me to see this, it was just one of those moments when it hits you and it all makes sense, and you can adjust accordingly. Good waves to you and your new recycled board, it looks very fun.
Just as a side comment, I was talking to a long-time shaper in town and he > told me that in his opinion fish don’t surf well backside. I found that > puzzling and wondered if anyone else had ever heard this theory. (My guess > would be that it’s not just fish, its that most SURFERS don’t surf as well > backside…) Hey Keith, The recycled twin looks cool. Thanks for your reply. I have to agree with your guess re: the above. One more question. Do you think that the narrower nose and overall template assists entry in higher velocity surf ?
Just as a side comment, I was talking to a long-time shaper in town and he > told me that in his opinion fish don’t surf well backside. I found that > puzzling and wondered if anyone else had ever heard this theory. (My guess > would be that it’s not just fish, its that most SURFERS don’t surf as well > backside…) …You guy’s want to see and surf the real thing?Surf Engines out of Santa Barbara, at the Beach House. Art.Real Surfboard Art that work’s. Time tested.Would’nt you want a fish that was made by a fish? There is also in Santa Barbara the Clyde Beatty Rocket Fish. J.A.