Technology and Resistance to Innovation

Ok yeah but is it because surfers are cheap or because every other aspect of being alive is fricken through the roof expensive! Yeah pros ride state of the art boards but THEY DON’T PAY FOR THEM! Richie Collins talks about guys on the tour ordering boards from his dad then getting pissed off when his dad asked them to pay.

Also, I feel like the cost of surfboards is hard for the uneducated surfer (99%) to understand cuz the costco boards and the China boards have distorted the market and nobody knows what you have to put into a board like one of yours. In fact actual craftsmanship is so rare today that people don’t even recognize it or know what it is anymore.

So yeah the market is all effed up but guys like you are artists who do it for the passion and the challenge and that’s really what swaylocks is all about for me. BTW what is the average lifespan of one of those masterpieces you create? I mean if you can make them look that good & perform well and last a few years instead of a few sessions like the pros’ boards then what progress do we really need?

Maybe educating the surfing masses is the progress we really need, but that doesn’t fit the agenda!

I’m absolutely baffled we are still making foam and fiberglass surfboards. The sheer waste of materials, the toxic chemicals, the labor necessary is all incredible in this day. I think most shapers and surfers are massive romantics, and we are probably better for it, but what is touted as innovation in this industry is often laughable when you look at it from a global perspective and compare it to other industries.

How much have military weapons changed in the last 60 years?
How much have automobiles changed in the last 60 years?
How much have communication devices changed in the last 60 years?
We’ve basically found one new type of foam, one new type of resin, and some other fabrics. Other industries have moved from the horse and buggy, to the car, to the airplane. We are making stronger horseshoes and better buggy whips.

We have tools that can design a hollow structure with an internal webbing that can meet very specific flex parameters. We have tools that can produce such a structure from composite materials with outer shell thicknesses that can be calculated and built based on loads that portion of the shell is expected to hold. We have the technology to make a surfboard to nearly any weight and with any flex characteristics to very exact specifications that would be nearly indestructible. Why don’t we?

We are a ridiculously small market. I live in a surf town, of which there are incredibly few. If I had to guess I would say 1-2% of the population in my town actually surfs with any sort of regularity. Another 10% own surfboards and never ride them. Another 5% buy roof racks that never see a board on them. But 20-30% probably own a piece of Vuori clothing, and >50% wear clothing produced by some brand directly or tangentially related to the industry. That clothing has a margin that is many X greater than surfboards. It’s easier to make, ship, and sell and it appeals to a much larger market. Point being, the industry doesn’t need better surfboards, or to even advance the sport any faster than it must to simply keep surfing “cool” so it can continue to sell more non-surfing products.

When I was racing cars my co-driver took the wing we had bought and modeled exactly where we needed to place each wing element, at what angle, and how far apart from each other to create maximum downforce at the top speed we expected to achieve and to stall (become ineffective) just above that speed. It took him mere minutes and he didn’t need his masters degree to do it. Basic fluid dynamics. The closest thing I’ve seen to this in our industry is when Futures puts some colorful diagram up in their booth at a show that attempts to show how water pushes on a fin. Why aren’t we modeling the entire board/fin combination as it glides through the water? It’s literally not rocket science. Where is the water exerting the most force on the board? What happens if we change the shape at that point? How does changing the bottom concave affect lift? What is the smallest rail radius that will maintain a coanda affect at a given speed? What is the expected deflection of a board over a 5’ span with 2# EPS, 1/8" wood stringer, and a 4+4/4 e-glass schedule when loaded with 200#? How about 1.5# EPS? How about a 6+4/4 s-glass schedule? What if the stringer is PVC? Where is all the data?

Romantics. We deal in witches and warlocks and voodoo magic. We have as much good and evil as a good Star Wars trilogy. Independents are good. Big companies are evil, except if they’re really cool, or are owned by somebody really cool. Pop outs are bad, except if a respected shaper decides to team up with them. CAD and CNC is bad, unless you’ve shaped for 10 years by hand first and just use it for production, but still hand shape your new designs. We use terms like “corky” and “pop” and “drive” as technical terms with colorful qualifiers to communicate just how corky an epoxy/EPS board feels.

Innovation isn’t cool, or good, or pure, at least not at any sort of pace. Innovation is geeks on computers. Innovation is machines building boards to exact specifications. Innovation is testing machines and facilities to test prototypes and feed data back to the geeks on computers. I don’t think real innovation in surfboard technology includes any of us here, or at least very few of us.

But that’s ok, because I think we are still in a better spot than similar industries. Burton has been selling effectively the same snowboard for 30 years. Every 5-10 years they change a core material or bring back the baseless binding as if it’s never been done before. Callaway and Taylor Made have been making the same driver for 20 years, promising 5-10 more yards each year–I should be hitting the ball about 450 yards by now. Adidas advertises a new soccer cleat every year that promises to make you a better player, but some of the best still wear the Copa from 35 years ago.

The thing we have over all those industries is that we still have a spot for the independent, we still have a culture that celebrates them, and we still have a product that an independent can make without millions of dollars of tooling. For that I’m thankful and I’ll happily take the witches and warlocks and voodoo magic that come with it. Cheers.

3 Likes

Mysticism, science, variability in fluid mechanics, human nature and entropy (math ellipsis)…

OK, take this with a grain of salt, because I realize much of your post was tongue in cheek, but yes, progress in the surfing world is laughable compared to the military advances in using technology to cause death and destruction, the auto industry’s shift to electric cars which will soon necessitate the building of many more nuclear reactor power plants (what could possibly go wrong?), and the communication industry’s giant advances in creating cell phone addiction among kids, and exposing our privacy and security to internet hackers.

I mean just watch any surfing clip of a good wave well ridden, and you know that its just medieval mysticism in play, when in fact technology would just make it so much more fun, if only we studied the fluid dynamics of surfboard fins, and rode 3D printed plastic boards!!

I really enjoyed Richie Collins’ recent podcast interview where he talks about the toll his drive to be the best took on his mental health and family life. Yeah, his surfing was amazing, he was in the forefront of progressive surfing for his era, but at what cost? From the time he was 10 he no longer viewed surfing as fun, only as a job that demanded he be better than everyone else, and everyone in the water became his enemy.

I dunno, I’m just a “recreational” surfer, but I say would it be so horrible to just enjoy surfing as an escape from the pressures of the technological freight train of mandatory “progress”, and focus on making boards that surf well and that last using the technology we already have. There’s a whole lot of room for improvement there.

And there are a whole lot of changes that mankind could implement to benefit the environment, but I think an honest assessment will reveal that backyard surfboard builders were never really at the forefront of the environmental problem to begin with.

Totally agree Huck. On medieval mysticism though, just read any description for any board from a large manufacturer. Machado’s FireWire bits are the best. He’s talking about buying veggies at the farmers market, having a surf with his kids, how broke his old creeper van is, oh yeah and this surfboard is cool too and it fits my vibe. You should buy it. And we do.

And I have to admit I’ve sold a lot of my name brand boards since I started building but the one I can’t let go of yet is my Machado Seaside. When my buddies ask I just say that it’s “magic”. And I think I know how to improve on it but I’m not sure I could recreate it in the first place.

This is one of the reasons I want to see more tech and data on here, so I can understand what makes my boards do what they do without having to build 50 of them and try and surf them all in comparable conditions. I think demystifying this for the backyarder would help us keep up with the big brands and build more quality boards.

1 Like

Over several centuries, the circle is still the most practical and cost effective planshape for the wheel.

2 Likes

Haha, that’s funny about the FireWire Machado sales pitch. Maybe designed to offset the “high tech” aspect of the firewire brand with a little folksy spiel. From what I understand, Firewire is another compsand type build, with a light core and a vacuum bagged composite veneer. I notice the word “proprietary” pop up on their website, and like I said earlier, this is the direction I see the industry heading. ‘Its our secret, and advancing the sport is secondary only to making money and preventing others from doing so’, kinda thing. Yeah, its business, I get that, and guys like Simon Anderson and Tom Morey be damned. For what its worth, I think Firewire is probably a leader in producing lightweight, strong, durable boards, whose performance is praised by the guys who ride and love them. I guess if you want to talk about state of the art tech, that’s not a bad place to start.

The problem I have with demystifying the surfboard design process with technical data, is that I don’t really see it working that way. I think technical data is useful after the fact, in analyzing certain aspects of fluid dynamics, structural properties of materials, etc. But there are some very real caveats when dealing with technical analysis of surfing and surf craft.

One, is that to begin with, the best scientists in the world who study waves and their properties, can’t really explain exactly what a wave is, and what is happening when a wave breaks. I recommend the book The Wave by Susan Casey, where she describes the lack of consensus on even the most fundamental aspects of wave study among leading experts. The ocean waves we ride are just too complex to be fully analyzed and understood.

On top of that, add the factor of riding a surfboard in the wave, and the complexity increases exponentially. Heck, there was a thread on here awhile back about what makes a surfboard go, and there was no clear answer. Some said gravity, the downward pull on the surfer on a slanted wave face, but that means the power of the actual wave isn’t really a factor, and others said the surfer is tapped into the power of the wave’s energy in addition to any gravitational factors. And so on.

How about fins, how do they work, and why? I don’t think we fully understand that, people talk about “lift”, and the fins tapping into the waves energy. We used to hear about the Venturi effect of rail fins and channels (i.e. bonzer fin setup), and sometimes still do, but a venturi only works in a constricted application, like a pipe. The bottom of a surfboard is open to the ocean, so there is no constricted application - hence, no Venturi effect.

But the bonzer was designed with the Venturi effect in mind, and there are many people who love them and swear they work great, without the Venturi explanation. If they work, we still don’t know exactly why. Its not medieval sorcery, but its not a clear scientific model either.

At the end of the day, surfboards design has been empirical, anecdotal, intuitional, trial and error. Again, its not mysticism, but not science either. In his recent podcast interview, Richie Collins talks about designing surfboards in his dreams. Its not witchcraft, but it obviously involves a subconscious element. A lot of people find sometimes when they reach an impasse in solving some difficult problem, the answer will come to them in their sleep. The human brain, and the human subconscious, work that way. The brain processes as we sleep. So I’m not willing to say its magic, but I will say it is still outside the realm of measurable, provable, science.

Speaking of magic, we call a board magic when it just comes together and works so well that we can’t explain exactly why. Some guys describe replicating a magic board exactly, but the new board doesn’t have the magic. I don’t think the implication is that magic is really involved, its just a way of saying that there are too many unknown and complex factors at work to be able to break it down into all its knowable and measurable components, we just have to accept it for what it is.

All that being said, it then seems to me that designing surfboards just based on what has worked so far, and what you feel ought to work, or what your imagination can picture working, is completely valid. Enforcing that process with some technical data is well and good, for sure.

I really wish there was just more discussion on the empirical effects of different design elements, but even that turns out to be very subjective. Case in point, some guys add concave to the nose for “easy entry” into the wave. Other guys add convex, or belly, to the nose - for the exact same reason. Go figure.

Then there’s the confusing terminology. Tri plane bottom. Spiral V. Chine rails. Etc., etc.

Remember Hollow Wave surfboards? State of the art at the time, so they told us.

So yeah, the technology of resin, fiberglass, and foam is old, but it works, it has worked for a long time, lots of surfers have had fun rides and lots of surfers are still having fun rides on foam and fiberglass. Technology has advanced the raw materials, and high performance boards can be made that are strong and durable, using those components. It allows for a wide berth of creativity in shape and design. Its like cotton shirts, clay pots, porcelain plates, and metal silverware. Its been around, but that doesn’t mean we have to be looking to replace it with something more technical.

Just my thoughts on the matter.

the wave (book)

1 Like

To get a fairly simple but credible understanding of fluid dynamics and the inherent variability and complexity, read:
Shape and Flow — The Fluid Dynamics of Drag
~ Ascher H. Shapiro ~
Regarding Tom Morey’s approach/attitude, dying destitute and blind is not an enviable outcome.

I have a copy of Casey’s “Wave” also.

1 Like

I also look at the foil board. Mind blowing what those boards do and trying to understand how they work. The concept probably originated with an engineer. The original water foil was, as I recall, something like a chair that was pulled behind a boat.

Then Laird and Kalama and Doerner saw the idea, and just took off with it. Not scientists at all, but smart guys, curious, inquisitive, tinkerers. Using snow boots to stay attached to the board. Now guys like Kai Lenny are pushing the envelope, and again, Kai is not a scientist, physicist, or engineer. Just a smart guy with an inquisitive mind and a drive to experiment. Pretty sure some of the guys he works with are engineers, but they wouldn’t be designing foil boards without Kai and Ridge Lenny.

And how about Surfoils, here on Swaylocks. Hell of an inquisitive and creative designer, who went deep down that rabbit hole, marching to his own tune. I don’t think he ever made a penny off his designs, but he freely shared some really mind expanding stuff on here.

You don’t have to be a scientist or an engineer to apply the basic concepts. You just have to have insight and a decent grasp of the concepts.
More often than not, some of the best solutions are simple.
The internet is an incredible resource for information rabbit holes that would have been unavailable just a decade or two ago.
However simple does not necessarily mean easy.
I frequently get some of my best ideas/insights and theories in the shower/tub and while driving my car…

1 Like

I don’t know too much about Tom Morey’s final days, or if it was due to developing the boogie board without patenting it or suing everyone who copied his idea, but in the end we all die in a pretty pitiful state. Don’t really know how Simon Anderson is faring either, but the surfing world owes both of them a big debt, and the businesses that profit off their inventions should definitely be contributing something, if they had a conscience.

Its an axiom of our world that great thinkers and inventors are typically exploited and often impoverished, guys like Nicolai Tesla, Tom Morey, etc, while guys whose skill is exploiting others’ work for profit, like Thomas Edison, or Steve Jobs, die with the most money in the bank.

2 Likes

I donated to a fund raiser for Tom’s eye treatments. He had no money.

He was member of the Bahai’i faith. He sold the rights to the (branding) “Morey Boogie” for a song to the toy manufacturer Kransco. In the end the “Morey Boogie” has degenerated into cheap, outsourced, pop-out junk.

Tesla was exploited for sure but lost all credibility when he became consumed with what appears to have been an untenable concept.

The scientist who invented Valium made a decent living but did not share in the massive profits made from it by the pharmaceutical industry. As I recall from organic chemistry, Valium was a fairly simple compound.

1 Like

Historical trivia:

The First Mass-Produced Boogie

“The first production run of Morey Boogie hit the market in 1975. The 132 B.E. was hand-shaped, and it shows – there is an obvious lack of symmetry between the two rails. ‘The initials B.E. stand for Baha’i Era,’ Tom’s faith, and indicates that the model number corresponds with the Baha’i calendar (ie. 132 BE = 1975). Thus, this 132 B.E. model was produced in 1975.”
From

1 Like

Well said and totally agree. The easy entry is a classic example of not enough information. For instance, I could totally understand that for a mid length board on a gentle crumbling reef break a concave nose helps glide speed and getting in. On a shorter board and steeper wave a vee could let the nose sit deeper in the water and help the rider not get hung up on the lip. I’m not sure if all that is true, but it makes sense to me and is an example of the lack of information that clouds our discussions and the industry.

While there is some subjectivity, I tend to think it’s generally lack of context/information that creates what appears to be conflicting strategies.

1 Like

You’re probably right - this is one off the main things I came to swaylocks for, and it turns out it is hardly ever discussed. Design elements and how they affect performance. Its almost like its taboo.

The pro shapers usually act like its a big national security secret, and maybe the rest of us just don’t know enough to say anything. If I see anything written on a website board description, or hear something in a board review video, its a sure guarantee to be 100% bull dookie. “The board has a wide nose to give it extra speed in those critical sections, and the belly in the middle makes trimming a breeze for novice and expert alike”, like, it might as well be telling us how the color affects the ride. “…and the bright red rails makes launching airs obtainable on even the most undergunned sessions.”

A few of the OG guys back in the day could really make it make sense, guys like Greg Tate, but even then those posts were few and far between. Rusty Preisendorfer did a write up explaining quad fins several years back that was the clearest and most logical approach to the subject I’d ever encountered. Robin Mair also had some info out there on quads, with specifics on placement.

Cuz specifics on fin layout & placement is another big taboo. The Greenlight and a few other charts have been a real lifesaver, for that reason. But to get guys to spell out specifics on their boards is like pulling teeth.

Another thing I always want & almost never get, is a ride report at the end of a build thread. Like to follow a build from start to finish, with all the design details spelled out, and then have no ride report at the end of the process is one of the greatest oversights in the solar system, up there with no valet parking in the emergency room parking lot.

2 Likes

Huck * think you really nailed it with this thoughtful commentary*

2 Likes

To Darrell’s original question, why don’t we see more innovation in surfboards…

One word - economics.

The margins on surfboards are ridiculously small for the amount of knowledge, work and materials that go into them.

There is very little profit and hence very little left over for R & D or failed experiments.

Also, taking into account many shapers are empirically trained and there is no consistent baseline of knowledge across the industry. It’s all “trade secrets” that have either been shared, passed down or re-invented from scratch, so there is no common knowledge to build off of.

Also, if you’ve been into most glass shops, “process” isn’t really a thing. It’s a loose makeup of a bunch of really talented tradespeople who have mostly acquired skills through long hours/years of trial and error. Usually when they leave, their skillset leaves with them. That makes it really hard to have longterm consistency and improve efficiency and workflows that allows time to experiment.

My .02 on it.

2 Likes

Here’s my take so far.

Of course economics drive buisness, and anyone making a board and receiving compensation will fall to some degree, under that umbrella. Margins are simply a metric. This single number can be usefull in analysis, but you have to remember what it is. I do agree, for the majority of builders that rings true, but for the large manufacturers, there’s plenty left over. The global surfboard market is estimated at around 3.5B. Golf equipment is maybe 2x that. Mountainbike equipment maybe 3x.

Speaking of mountain bikes, I still have my 1994 Gary Fisher which was top of the line back then. Last year I bought a Specialized Levo. 30 years later, the differences are unbelievable. And yes stoneburner, the wheels are still round.

Rnoll98 had some good points earlier joking at how we are all just romantics and cool guys. He’s right; when I was working at CI I was the 3rd engineer employed- just after a capital injection made by Burton. Only 2 of us were working on product. 1 guy from Burton was doing some research. I remember watching some of the “core crew” guys dropping golf balls on blanks, zero regard for scientific method. My point being that knowing what’s cool and knowing how something works are almost mutually exclusive. And figuring out how to manufacture something that’s cool, that works, that’s profitable- that is something completely different. Not tooting my own horn, but a good engineer can do for 1$ what any fool can do for 2$.

Being romantics, every rider has the idea that they need something special in order to feel just right on that wave. They want more volume here, less volume there, rounder here and flatter there. Everything custom. And it’s true, different shapes ride differently. But if anyone can truely notice that 1/16 difference in the nose rocker… But this is why “pop-outs” have been stigmatized. You can’t customize them without investing a bunch of money in a new tool.

Hollow boards have been around a long time. The gentleman from Hydro Epic said they invested over a million in development. They’re gone. Aviso, gone too. I think manufacturing advancements could bring innovation in board construction to the masses, except the masses don’t want it. What are the pros riding? Something lightweight and disposable. Just 6 new boards each a variation on a theme. Something absolutely not possible with tooled parts. Firewire looks like they’re onto something with the sandwich constructions. Maybe vaccume bagging? Here the labor costs go up, but you still don’t have a pop-out.

On the other hand there are plenty of small time shapers making some really cool stuff using state-of-the-art techniques in small scale. Which I think is great. We’ll see what the future holds.

cheers

1 Like

Just want to add something to this long discussion that still confuses me a lot.

When i started surfing i could order a surfboard from any local shaper for 350 bananas, they used to take a 1 month to be delivered and they were all handmade and didn’t look all that difrent from any of todays boards. ( White, stringer, fin plugs, leash plugs, logo, measures and shaper name)

Now there are machines that shape 10 boards a day, EPS, epoxy and so many other stuff, plus your board is ready in one week, but they ask you 600 bananas and if you go to the store things can go up to 1000 bananas.

This i don’t t understand, its basicly the same product, produced cheaper but the cost went 3x higher.

Cheers and good waves.

Yeah but materials costs, business overhead costs, & cost of living have gone through the roof, add to that the corporate business model that requires an actual profit, as opposed to those old school shapers barely gettin by.

2 Likes