paddling my egg shape which is 22" wide by 2.5-3" is really easy when its sloppy crumbly summer time usa east coast waves. when i sit on it i float and can paddle faster then my quad, catch waves early and trim down the line.
but…
once the surf starts to get over waist high, gets hollow, and fast i switch to my quad modern fish which is 21"x 2 5/8". it paddles ok just enough to float right above the surface, sitting on it it sinks, and when paddling for the wave i have to be just at the right point or i miss the wave or i get pitched into the sand. i have to make later take offs with it. but it has more drive and handles better then the egg.
the egg is 6’8 and the fish is 6’4
now i just finish making a 6’3 fish thats 22x3 and keeps alot of its volume. 2" thick in the tail and 1 3/4 towards the nose. so if its correct it should be good for mush waves.
my 6’8 shortboad( if you can call it short) has really thin rails, good volume in the middle with a thin tail and nose. this by what has been said should handle the big hollow surf well.
choosing the best board for the conditions is crucial. too much buoyancy, too light a board also, can float you to the lip and stick you there. wouldn’t think an overly buoyant board would get into the take off below for eg.
choosing the best board for the conditions is crucial. too much buoyancy, too light a board also, can float you to the lip and stick you there. wouldn't think an overly buoyant board would get into the take off below for eg.
the vid is of someone called Clay Marzo taking off on a potato chip on a sucking, dredging tubing wave.
I just don’t surf waves like. Instead my choice of wave has always got a gently sloping base to it. Sometimes the waves are small, sometimes can be a decent size, sometimes powerful, sometimes steep at the top, but always got that gently sloping base. Even on such a wave takeoffs can be late with a feeling of steepness at the point of takeoff.
As far as I’m concerned in the sort of waves I just described whether taking off late or early thick boards/lots of buoyancy always wins!
the formula he came up with is .35 x weight in KG for PROs.
my all round board is the 6’ 6" Flyer 2. According to the surftech website its volume is 36cc which is obviously not right - they must mean 36 litres.
so plugging in the numbers
.35 x 56.5 KG = 19.8 litres
which means compared to a pro I’m surfing with 16 litres (80%) of extra volume!
my oversize shortboard does work for me - on early takeoffs i’m paddling higher in the water and get more momentum. For late takeoffs the volume works fine for the leap up in the air and jam the tail of the board between your legs and pop forward takeoff (I always accompany this technique with some paddles too).
The following are some observations on the role of buoyancy during the initial stages of paddle-in take-offs. (See reference material below.)
Here�s an interesting assertion: shortboards (a surfer on a shortboard), generally sink a little as they catch a wave. Here�s the other side of that coin, longboards (a surfer on a longboard) generally don�t.
I can be more precise, the more buoyant you are the less you�ll sink while catching a wave. And by sink, I mean drop vertically with respect to the direction of gravity, which is not necessarily perpendicular to the water surface. Essentially, I�m referring to the apparent change in waterline that will occur, or the change in the percentage of the submerged region of a partially submerged body that occurs as it interacts with a wave. Its almost as if you magically gained some weight (became more dense) while trying to take-off. (My guess is that language is going to be a problem here, hopefully the reference below will help.)
kc
I couldnt get the link to work but Id say that as the shortboard rider paddles for a wave, the whole board is immersed and 100% of the hull is involved in the attempt to plane. But as the face of the wave steepens, the nose of the board pops out and now the board has a reduced planing area.. With a lower planing area the board loses a percentage of its planing ability, drops into the wave slightly and momentarily slows. Longboards always have a surplus of planing area (more than the critical amount of approx 400 square inches) in contact with the wave so they dont sink on takeoff, however you can see that they sometimes do if the rider goes straight ahead with the nose horizontal and only leaves the tail in the face where upon the board tail sinks in and down the face. Riders then usually lift the nose (increase the planing angle) to compensate for this drop. Just my 2c.
I’m inclined to agree, there is also a few other factors to incorporate.
One in particular is the fact that initially the wave is actually overtaking the surfer, that is the wave initially attempting to ‘roll over him’, so to speak. The effect of buoyancy lags this intial phase somewhat submerging* the surfer. It’s an inertial thing. Sort of chicken egg analysis; which comes first the ‘push’ or ‘the resistance to the push’. Okay maybe it’s not really a chicken-egg dilemma; its clear the push starts first, the reaction follows, but these kinds of lags are important, and to some extent exploited by shortboarders.
Nice…
kc
*maybe engulfing the surfer is more appropriate than submerging.
Static buoyancy and flat water paddling buoyancy and resultant trim (ignoring dynamics at that speed), vs. trim changes due to relative movement between wave and board (board pitch changes/acceleration, slope of wave face, increased speed of board (relative to water particles)): the board starts pitching and moving down the face. That has been on my mind for a while. Florida East Coast Beachbreak, the very initial paddle in: zero speed until some point long before I even think about getting up - two or three strokes....
* 9-10 Con Round Pin: Nice paddling trim, nose tip 2 or 3 inches up = pearl city at take off, and it just dives. "20 degree negative bow planes",...dive, dive, dive. Aaaaaooooooggggaaaaaaa.
* 9-6 Anderson Traditionalist: Same paddling trim = no pearl; indeed if you get a healthy sliver of water over the nose as the wave initially starts pitching and accelerating the board, the nose climbs out! No pearl, but a ride instead of a swim.
What gives? A little less rocker (both ends) on the Con. Longer, but some of that is in the pin (not much float there...but long lever arm). Similar volumes.
From 5 feet away: Concave nose, looks pretty much the same. I think the Con's overall board volume looks a tad greater a tad farther aft (even ignoring the 4" of "pintail"), yet planshapes look the same. If I assume correct observations as to board designs, what is going on? I think the OP's Q is interesting.
Something is causing the Trad to not pearl. Possibilities: (?)
* More Trad pitch resistance due to center of inertial forces being slightly farther forward (due to larger plan area)? (or probably larger ratio of plan area to buoyancy, slightly forward position of resultant forces of plan area/inertial forces and buoyant forces)
* More Trad volume farther forward? Not to my eyes.
* More Con volume farther aft, causing more pitch rotation than the inertial lift/center of lift can support?
* More Con plan area, farther aft, moving center if inertial lift aft, again overpowering the nose support?
I'll be back, but gotta go now. This I know: I get lots of rides on the Trad. I get lots of botched takeoffs on the Con, few rides - nice rides once caught, but the "wave caught ratio" is probably 10 to 1.
Right or wrong, I've said some things poorly, will tighten my verbage up later.
Con Pin vs Anderson? Two beautiful
boards by the way.
Pin vs square tail aside, I bet there
isn't much of a difference in terms of template (plane-shape), and
even if the respective volume distribution of each of boards seem to
parallel each other - 4 inches of foam is still a lot. So given your
sketch, let's assume the only really significant difference, aside
from the pin and square tail, is the four additional inches of foam
and resin on the Con. (Rocker, bottom contour, etc. can have roles to play here, but for now lets say its just the four addition inches.)
(I doubt if either Con or Anderson
designers/builders would see things that way, and it most likely isn't,
but lets say it is for the moment. Maybe someone more familiar with
the specifics of the products will chime in.)
So, my first question would be where
are you with respect to the board (pick your reference point, nose
geometric middle, or tail) when you're paddling to take off. For
example, are you feet farther away from the tail on the 9-10 than on
the 9-6? Basically, my question is how much foam and surface area are
behind your center of
gravity (or center of weight) on the 9-10 compared to on the 9-6 when
you start paddling for a wave?
And related, I would assume you've
tried adjusting your position on the Con when paddling for take-off, so a few words as to how that tends to impact
things would be interesting.
Sorry if that last question insulted
your intelligence, but I actually do know people (longboarders) who
don't seem to make much, if any adjustment when paddling for a wave.
They tend to shy away from going late and just see it as a matter of
getting up to speed, so their starting position on the board is optimized for
exactly that, 'getting up to speed' and that tends to put them pretty much centrally located with respect to the volume distribution of the board. No arching/straightening of their back to fine tune during the process, no apparent sensing as to when the wave has them, just one explosive (sometimes, even with their head down) 'go for it' event. And it's almost understandable too, given the amount of time you spend catching a wave relative to actually surfing and paddling around. If you find some technique that works most of the time, there's little incentive to change - well I don't actually know if that's true, but it would be my guess that it's probably playing some role with most of these fellows. But that's not to say this is the case with you, and it wasn't your question either.
Con Pin vs Anderson? Two beautiful
boards by the way.
Pin vs square tail aside, I bet there
isn't much of a difference in term of template (plane-shape), and
even if the respective volume distribution of each of boards seem to
parallel each other - 4 inches of foam is still a lot. So given your
sketch, let's assume the only really significant difference, aside
from the pin and square tail, is the four additional inches of foam
and resin on the Con. (Rocker, bottom contour, etc. can have roles to play here, but for now lets say its just the four addition inches.)
[/quote
I think you're right; That 4 inches may not be large, percentage-wise, but it's got a lever arm nearly 5' long - maybe more pitch torque than I'd appreciated.
Well, don't know exacly but I've been trimming (lately) to the same nose attitude; about, oh 2 or 3 inches, maybe 3, but same on both boards.
[quote="$1"]
And related, I would assume you've
tried adjusting your position on the Con when paddling for take-off, so a few words as to how that tends to impact
things would be interesting.
Sorry if that last question insulted
your intelligence, but I actually do know people (longboarders) who
don't seem to make much, if any adjustment when paddling for a wave.
[/quote]
Not at all. I'm pretty sure a professional career isn't in the cards, and that's ok. No, a germain question: Yes, the successful Con TO for me requires the nose to be stupid high in the air, more aft trim than seems reasonable, but that's what it takes. Maybe 6 inches. I have been thinking about being a little later, fewer harder strokes, arch my back to shift CG aft (not too effective at it yet - apparently) etc.
No, it wasn't but, it's completely on target. I'm too far from the water, and my shortboard experience is 1/4 century abaft. I am aware of those concepts but get little "stick time" to work on them - and too late (I have no angle TO) and I'm pitch poleing. So, not the greatest surfer BUT - still, for same/same trim, one board is magic, the other a PITA. What makes the Trad magic, is related to your original Q, if I understood it. Getting back to the Con, (it is pretty, well both of them are actually), maybe that's what I need to get back to, with modifications: seemingly stupid aft trim, a little more inside, wait, wait, wait, dig a few hard strokes etc.; but the Trad is so much easier.....and understanding why - well that makes me curious.
Thanks for the info though. Going this WE, 4 days. Gives me something to think about.
I think that is an excellent post KC, I think what you are suggesting is to practise some “self awareness”. I can totally relate to this even from a shortboard perspective, and every so often I practise some self awareness. Not all the time coz the objective is to train the reflexes so that we don’t have to think and too much can spoil the surfing experience, but every so often I do. The Super Talented don’t need to do it, they can just surf, but I’m one of those who does benefit from a bit of self-observation.
Even if this isn’t what you meant, I still think its an excellent post and I just clicked the “pro-tip” props button.
The surfer can sometimes make the board work like it is better than it is.
The science behind shaping is fairly vast, especially when you consider wave shape, water salinity can also effect buoyancy, and other facters involved in the surfers size, shape and weight. Enough to make a person ever wonder if a single formula is good enough when shaping a board for a certain area. No real surfer in their right mind will shape a board in Florida use it in Hawaii then. Alaska then Bali and get the same reaction. The more Northerly you travel the more foam has to be left on the board to comodate the lesser salt content in the H2O, yadda yadda. Should that rattle anyones brain too much? Nah. I love the adapt and over come shaping method for the most part. If its too light, sit up higher towards the nose, if its too heavy kick harder and sit farther inside. If it can plane and feels good in turning I'd like to say that Im a good enough surfer to ride it and feel happy. Someday, when im a better shaper the friction loss coeficients, hydrodynamics and surface tension equations might contribute a smidge to my shaping abilities. But overall, I think the lighter the better.
What one man can do, another can do. Sometimes it just takes longer.
Under no circumstances that I have tried it in (including steep overhead waves) does it catch waves better than my chunky Flyer 2. It handles the landing of a late drop better, but thats the landing not the takeoff. Therefore I stand by my original statement that “extra buoyancy always wins”.
Lennox76 also thinks the same thing about extra buoyancy. This must mean that Lennox and I have joint ownership of the truth about buoyancy and surfboard design. I do however reserve the right to change my mind and re-write my 50% share in the truth if I want to.
So here’s the comparison…and correct me if my numbers are wrong below, also if you’re inclined fill in the gaps on thickness and nose for the Bushman.
The Merrick 6’ 6" x 19 1/4" x 2 1/2" ; nose 11 1/2" , tail 14 5/8" and the Bushman 6’ 3" x 18 7/8" x ?; nose ? , tail 14 3/5"
Both Tuflite construction.
Who could argue with your experience, and your conclusions (at least not up to a point) given the comparison?
But consider, perhaps there is an optimal trade-off for each individual, which is sensitive to (or somewhat of a function of) the riders own mass distribution, the volume distribution of the board, their technique, and (take-off) conditions. That is if your technique sucks, then a little something here or there, compensates. The same holding for different body mass distributions. And as your technique improves, a little less here or there becomes less necessary. (And again the same for body mass distribution.)
I guess my point would be, yeah, I talk a general case, but when you get down to the particular surfer, surfboard and conditions, there is a optimal set, which only the rider will be able to discover, or discern.
But as to your general statement, no, I disagree. But your experience
would, for me, tend to support the notion that an optimal density etc.
for a given rider (body mass distribution, level of technique,etc.) and
given set of take-off conditions exists. But that pressure or tendency
should always be towards reducing static buoyancy.
… small beside.
I’m not the biggest fan of Lost’s products, (probably because I don’t know squat about them) but the suggestion of a board with an adjustable density, even if its only marginally so, is kind of neat. I’m still not clear as to what they [Lost] had in mind with the ‘air pump’ board, but that was what tickled my mind. How that density change is distributed, etc. is likely to matter, but as I mentioned the I’m still not clear on the technology.
A note on epoxy: Epoxy is somewhat thixotropic, I’d love to know if they are somehow counting on this sort of property to handle the changes in volume and stress. If they are, I sure as hell will be impressed.
kc
ps This is the 21st century, leasing or renting is the way to go; ownership comes with too much of a liability.
G’day KC, on a related note I have also seen on
Swaylocks suggestions that paddling a chip submerged under water is more
efficient than paddling a fun-board. I can’t believe that! My explanation is
that chip, funboard and longboard all place us in different levels of water thus
altering the paddling angle of the arms and back. Similarly I do some mid-week
swimming to maintain paddling fitness and the pool has recently closed for
maintenance so I’ve taken to walking to the bottom of my street and going for a
swim in a 4mm wetsuit – Melbourne has an inland sea, no surf.
Its not possible (for me at least) to do the usual head down pool swim motion in
a wetty in the sea otherwise my legs will raise out of the water and kick thin
air. So instead I keep my head out, back arched and front crawl. When first
trying this it feels awful – chest seems to be pushing water, arms don’t get a
comfortable motion, but with some practise muscles and technique adjust and it becomes very easy. So my belief is
that the chip rider who finds paddling a fun-board slower simply hasn’t
practised on the fun board enough.
However I think you are right that it was a rather rash
move of me to make a 50% virtual acquisition of the truth. It leaves me open to
takeover bids both friendly and hostile. I also take your point that we are
built so physiologically unique that maybe there are some individuals who
could never train themselves to paddle/take off on a fun-board efficiently. I therefore relinquish say 20% ownership of the truth to make my position less vulnerable and make
it easier to eat my words in the future.
Reading back through this thread, even those who hold that low buoyancy is better in getting into steep waves seem to be divided in 2 camps as to the ideal volume distribution.
My interest in the subject comes as I am wanting to try my first composite sandwich board. I want an easy paddling board, but I want it to be nice and lively - so I was thinking that I’d keep volume in the chest area (with a nice full crown on the deck), and then thin the board out with a flatter deck towards the tail - hopefully giving me easy paddling plus a little bit of flex in the tail.
Now, if the “skinny tails are better” guys are right, this would also make for easier take-offs - and a winner all around However, if the “skinny noses are better” guys are right, this would be a bad move.
FWIW, my recent experience tends to support the fat nose/skinny tail is better (for getting into waves) view. I recently made a board with a “retro” fishy outline forward, but thinned out and the outline pulled in a bit more than usual at the tail. I haven’t surfed it in death-ledge-suck-dry-and-throw waves, but I’ve found it to catch waves really easily in what I have surfed (up to 1.5 OH barreling waves).
been learning a lot from this thread, and it just occurred to me : when catching a wave, what’s the relationship between a board’s overall buoyancy, the board length within the breaking wave, and the width of the wave slope / crest (not sure if i’m using the correct word here) before it broke?
i’m thinking of these three variables because back when i was still learning how to do paddle-in takeoffs, i remember being frustrated in the lineup with rented ‘beginner longboards’, usually between 9’ to 12’ L and 22" to 24" W. at those sizes, i found them too hard to turn around, and when paddling in, the crest would somehow pass me by underneath even if my paddle speed matched the wave’s.
after a couple more attempts i finally decided to try something shorter, between 7’ to 8’ (i don’t remember the board shapes, probably mals & funboards). the shorter boards did help me catch waves, problem was, i’d sink straight down soon as i popped up. that told me i needed a little bit more volume, but not too much. luckily i got ahold of an 8’ to 9’ gun around 19" to 20" W, and finally had a blast that day.
since then i’ve settled on that size range for my build, but to this day i keep wondering whether other sizes would work for me at the same spot i now consider my home break (about 7 hours from the city).
(I have the flu, so I am a little more spacey than usual)
You may start to notice that structural engineers view the world in terms of springs, masses, and dampers. Essentially, I believe that there is an optimum bouyancy that lets you penetrate the wave deep enough to be slung forward at a rate faster than the wave. If you take the extreme case where you have no surboard, you pentrate so deep into the wave that you just pop through to the other side. Or if your board is too big, you don’t penetrate the wave at all and you just float up to the top and get launched over the falls.
However, if the “skinny noses are better” guys are right, this would be a bad move.