Thanks again, LeeDD… I’ll let you know how it rides when it’s finished.
THANKS a LOT for that photo and the pm, Bill !
…Yep, that’s probably about the amount of spoon / scoop I’d be looking at for the mal.
I finished these two today…
… so, poor old “Hicksy” will be seeing me again in the upcoming week, time to start ripping into the 9’11 windsurfer blank.
I can’t wait. [ He’s probably dreading it !]
chip
Yes LeeDD take a look at the size of these Bertha’s.
Plenty to muck around with here.
But I think that fin is a little too small…
Cheers
Hicksy
Quote:
thanks for the shot hicksy …
N-I-C-E …
you’ll keep, bastid / buddy !
bendisclaimer…I am not quite as retarded as this shot makes me look…
Interesting stuff, and Guilhem that little 6’4" is intriguing as well. How thick does it come in at? Might be tempting enough to break me out of my eggs and fishes mode, though in a slightly bigger version. I’m sure that you’re aware, but Burford blanks are available through Pukas, a bit pricier than Surfoam and a touch less than a compatible Clarks.
Did you happen to see the shots of Lacanau today? I was down at Seignosse and it was good fun, except of course for the broken rear window later in the day.
I made a few of these back in the day…If the deck is spooned fairly shallow (1/4 inch to 3/8), I never felt any advantage or disadvantage. You might prefer the feeling on your feet though.
Once you start getting 1/2 inch or more in depth, I found that it made the board more stable but more difficult to go rail to rail (center of gravity thing). If you are into sinking the rail in a turn, a deeper spoon and full boxy rail is not a real good combo. My boards were all singles. The concept might work better with multiple fins because you are using the fins more than the rails.
If you really deepen the spoon so that the board begins to flex that will be a whole different ball of wax…
Remember also; the deeper the spoon the more uncomfortable it is to paddle, and the softer the foam (think deck delam, punch-throughs, and dents).
The name “Waterskate” is particularly appropriate. Those boards were very skatey. They did not like staying up on a rail. More of a flat, pivoty kind of turn.
Quote:
Two Big Bertha’s… [next to the 5’7 stubbie midget]
[I'm not 7' tall, by the way...it's just the perspective from me standing closer to the wide angle lens on 'Hicksy's camera]....*** UPDATE : - the board on the left is now 8’ x 23 ( x about 7" [!!] ), at present…
Following Josh’s dad’s 9’ mal dimensions roughly, it’s a 15 1/2 - 16 " nose , 15 1/4 tail.
Josh, I pulled the tail in to make it a rounded pin though, rather than a 6" rounded square pod…I LIKE pintails !
So, that’s the dimensions on the RIGHT HAND SIDE of that board only, so far.
Hicksy took a few pics, I took a few pics of his new hollow wooden board project, then I put the board back up in the rafters , until next time I’m out there to template it and do the left side of the board. [ There are some who would say I’m ‘out there’ a lot of the time !!]
Next, when the exhaust is set up on the planer, begins the (?tedious?) job of reducing the thickness…
... fun fun fun ! "chip"
Quote:
I made a few of these back in the day…If the deck is spooned fairly shallow (1/4 inch to 3/8), I never felt any advantage or disadvantage. You might prefer the feeling on your feet though.
Once you start getting 1/2 inch or more in depth, I found that it made the board more stable but more difficult to go rail to rail (center of gravity thing). If you are into sinking the rail in a turn, a deeper spoon and full boxy rail is not a real good combo. My boards were all singles. The concept might work better with multiple fins because you are using the fins more than the rails.
If you really deepen the spoon so that the board begins to flex that will be a whole different ball of wax…
Remember also; the deeper the spoon the more uncomfortable it is to paddle, and the softer the foam (think deck delam, punch-throughs, and dents).
The name “Waterskate” is particularly appropriate. Those boards were very skatey. They did not like staying up on a rail. More of a flat, pivoty kind of turn.
thanks heaps for that LeeV…that’s precisely the type of feedback I’m looking for !
I have a few questions, I hope you wouldn’t mind answering, please .
So, were yours fairly long boards…what sort of dimensions please ? [ and, what thin-ness in pod , also ?]
Also, what rails did YOU go with ?
And , with a flat[tish] bottom, I wonder ?
What size single fin ?
Were you able to use a finbox, or were your boards thinner than that ?
Did your boards flex standing up ?
did you like the flex … or not ? …if not, why not ? [did it feel a bit “mushy” , for instance ?]
These blanks are double stringered, do you reckon that will help with ‘flex return’ ? [word?]
Okay, thanks LeeV !!
…it’s great to be able to ‘talk’ here with people that have done this stuff before…So I can get some sort of an idea of pitfalls / strengths of these sort of designs.
chip
p.s. - I CERTAINLY remember the ‘resin pooling’ issues when I glassed my concaved deck 5’5 fish…
So, were yours fairly long boards…what sort of dimensions please ? [ and, what thin-ness in pod , also ?
Actually the boards were pretty short; 5’10" kneeboards to 7’6" stand-up. Pod = ? Tailblock? Normal for the time 1/2" to 1" with a “toilet seat” taper. The spoon blended into a flat decked tail.
Also, what rails did YOU go with ?
All were blocky and rounded. Ranged from 60/40 to 40/60. They were pretty thin as I recall…probably no more than an inch and a half or so.
And , with a flat[tish] bottom, I wonder ?
Flat although the standup board may have had some v in front of the fin.
What size single fin ?
I was using Greenough’s 1-4 probably 8-9" deep. Had a magic Liddle painted silver that I used on at least 4 boards…8.5".
Were you able to use a finbox, or were your boards thinner than that ?
The spoon was in front of the fin box. The stand-up had a little hump of foam to support the box. Glass-ons for the true flex-spoon boards.
Did your boards flex standing up ?
The 7’6" was an experiment to test stand-up flex…It had about 1/2 inch of foam in the middle of the board and ran out the tail…Basically a long Greenough spoon with foam in the deck for float. The other spooned kneeboards did not seem to flex unless I took out all the foam.
did you like the flex … or not ? …if not, why not ? [did it feel a bit “mushy” , for instance ?]
The stand-up was not very well thought out. It flexed too well (I thought the foam would stiffen the board more than it did and used a weak laminating schedule) and it broke after about 4 waves. It had “rail rocker flex” like greenoughs boards. It was meant to twist rather than flex along the stringer like a noodle. It was crap to paddle, didn’t float and went into the trash can at Steamer Lane in '72 or '73. The only stand-up flex boards that worked for me (and I didn’t make it) was a very fine flex tail that Greg Liddle or Steve Krajewski made in the early 70’s.
I love flex in a surfboard but I didn’t and don’t now have the time or talent to pursue. I really think that flex will work better for longboards or longer midsized boards than short boards where the shortened water line or multiple fins make for a really maneuverable board anyway.
These blanks are double stringered, do you reckon that will help with ‘flex return’ ?
[word?]
If you are really interested in flexi standups I would start with a real stiff design (flat rocker, no v and a wide tail) and add flex to the corners of the tail. That way you will bend the rail rocker when you put it on edge. That way you can keep foam for float and paddleing. Or put a flex tail on it like the photo above. That’s the type that I had the most fun with.
I think that the glass schedule is going to have more impact on “return” than the stringer. The stringer may control (or dictate) the amount of flex. I think you want to keep the board really stiff from nose to tail and flexable from rail to rail. Think variable v not variable rocker.
wow ! …
Thanks heaps for that info, Lee !!
Lots to ponder there…
Looks like I slipped up making the pod [yes, “tail block”] a pintail on this mal, then.
Maybe the NEXT one I’ll do the wide squaretail thing on…do you think 8" corner to corner would be about right, or too much ?
Did you ever get any photos of any of those boards you mentioned, because I would love to [have ] see[n] them ?
thanks again !
ben
Hey Ben,
Cool! I also like Pintails! Thats one big Blank you got there!
BTW: I like the ironing board idea… never thought of that…
How heavily are you going to glass it.?..
Also its a good time for a mal over here…unfourtunatly…
Have Fun,
Josh.
Photos? I wish…now. Back then it never entered my mind.
Quote:
Hey Ben,
Cool! I also like Pintails! Thats one big Blank you got there!
BTW: I like the ironing board idea… never thought of that…
How heavily are you going to glass it.?..
Also its a good time for a mal over here…unfourtunatly…
Have Fun,
Josh.
depending how much epoxy soaks into polyurethane, I was thinking 2 layers 6oz deck and maybe 2 layers 6oz bottom, too. If I don’t spoon THIS one though, I’d almost be tempted to just do one layer 6oz top and bottom.
Would that be too weak, even with an epoxy glass job, for a mal , I wonder ?
…anyone ?
cheers !
ben
Hi, Jeffrey! Thanks for the Pukas track about Burford blanks. The last ones I got were through “Lacanau Lou” in Lacanau, quite a few years back… When you come down next week, you can have a look at the board…
here’s one [non spooned] I like the look of…I’m thinking mine may look a bit similar to this,when templated both sides…
Mine is a double , rather than triple stringered blank, though.
This one was shaped by Michael Mackie from Ulladulla in New South Wales, Australia…
