Thee modern fish thread

General Discussion
1

…this one is to not interfere with the DS stoker V machine one…

 

  • I m not trying to get publicity or whatever.

 

Seems that there s a misconception on fish designs.

Now we have the retro fishes, that try to mimic the 70s ones; and the modern fishes.

The moderns are: the fish and the modern rocket fish.

The MRF are those that we seen a lot in mid to late 90s and still we see.

The fish design should be less than 6ft, normally between 5 4 - 5 7 range; the tail should have certain minimum of distance from points (that results on a straighter last 1/3 outline that is very important as like the old fishes or retro ones).

The tail flex is what fish is all about; several guys round the world put their inputs, ideas, etc to manage this, so we have deeper cracks; soft cores in the tail; softer densities in the tail; no strings on the tail; different glass schedule and or different fibers; extremely thinned tails (my take), etc

 

I see that I put a very different rocker than the rest and a foil that is different due to the volume distribution.

I have been doing these types in the last 6 years

 

–Modern fish do not perform so good in thruster (thruster is not good for a fish, still somewhat good for a modern rocket fish) set ups

do not perform right in twin set ups.

Have 60/40s rails in the middle area; do not perform right with downrails or rounded rails (more like 50/50s) in middle area.

Better to have some edge all along the bottom rails to sharp on tail.

Mine have gobs of tail rocker

Do not have any V

Flat bottom to concave to flat or flat all the way or slightly concave.

Can have channels.

S deck

Perform on 3 - to OH and a half but you can use with limitations on 2OH and on 1 -2ft fatty

NOT a rookie board; not an entry level board

Intermediate level minimum to achieve good fun on the design.

Back foot always on demand.

Not only dribble machine as DS mentioned.

Perfect tool for pointbreaks; super fast and live on rapid beach breaks

Not so good on mushy; not good in fatty gutless kneehigh (…like most boards).

Ride 8" shorter than your typical STD board.

Several more things on the design but I prefer to keep it for myself but with these and the pictures a shaper with experience can understand those tweaks here and there.

I don t have a video riding those boards

Only can say that a MF or  MRF are more HP oriented not like retro fishes that are more stable down the line concept.

 

I think MD have his design to contribute to this thread.

 

I don t have too many photos but here some:

 

 

 

728×546 78.8 KB

728×546 55.1 KB

728×546 111 KB

728×546 58.6 KB

728×546 76.7 KB

2

…photos nightmare

I dunno what happend with the editor…

 

sorry:

MD has… not have

 

728×546 58.6 KB

728×546 76.7 KB

3

Can I see the outline?  Interested in your ideas,  sounds like you have been working on them for a while.

4

howdy reverb,

this thread is going to be interesting hmm btw the first 3 pix don’t show ?

cheers,

 

5

Here's mine. These things aren't your grand-dad's fish. We seem to have arrived at almost the same ''place'', although we're thousands of miles apart.

728×402 60.1 KB

6

Wow.  Beautifully foiled.  Show us more please.  I’m still surfing ’ grandfather’s fishes.’  Mike

7

‘‘The fish design should be less than 6ft, normally between 5 4 - 5 7 range’’

Why?

 

8

I consider the “modern fish” a sort of groveler… just a flatter, wider, slightly thicker psb that’s only about 2 inches shorter than your typical shortie. I like 'em best as quads, but thrusters too, with slight single to double concaves, psb rails (although a bit more volume, but the same shape), and usually some kind of cutaway tail to compensate for the added tail width… a mini swallow, notch, bat, crescent, etc. They work best in smaller but still relatively punchy surf.

I consider “traditional fish” very short, much thicker, wider, flatter, etc. and better in a wider range of surf than the “mod fish.” I like them in everything from gutless thigh high dribblers on up to head high and rifling fast. Wide fish tails with a very specific geometry give the perfect combination of hold and release, adding fin-like projection on turns when put on a rail. Concaved vee is my favorite bottom, because it works better than flat to vee for me. Traditional keels are key, although I cheat and like them single foiled and slightly toed and canted (but still wooden and glassed on). Slightly angular down rails, hard in in the tail with a distinct edge, and a little vee in the entry, complements the fin setup and opens up the performance envelope. Oh yea… and EPS with double 6 deck and single 6 bottom… makes 'em a bit lighter and much more stronger. Stiffness is not an issue for me on a short, thick board.

9

10

I have a 6’2" modern fish my brother had custom made by Jeff Bushman in the mid 90’s? He wanted something like the fireball fish Tom Curran rode in really big indo. It has 3 fins but it doesn’t have the fancy bottom that the Peterson Fireball fish has. There’s a reasonably good amount of rocker in the board, and it’s pretty thin at the rail. It has a pulled in pointed nose. I will try to get photos of the board this weekend.

It works just fine in small or large waves. I have ridden it in almost 3xOH and it was so fast. Only problem was catching the wave, I got 3 waves in about 3 hours of surfing. Spent most of the time ducking under or trying to get into the waves. It works really well in medium to OH waves. I have not tried it as a twin, but the middle fin is in a box.

I also ride Griffin 5fin fish that are really good as well. Rockers and outlines are more like old fish but the rails, profile and fins are all modern. These boards can handle anything I can catch, from knee high to 2xOH. You can turn it just as hard as you want and it will not spin out. The more energy you put into the turn the more you get coming out.

I’m also riding a couple of 5-10 70’s stubbie type outlines with diamond tails, one with 3 fins and one with 4 fins. The best way I can describe how they ride is like a fish, but without the spinning turn that fish tend to do. I think there is some merit in taking the older stubbie shape wide tail without the fish cut and adding fins as if it were a fish. They work well that way. I think they may be a better choice than the extremely wide in the tail mini simmons. I like having the little bit of foam that you end up cutting out when you make a fish. That’s right where I’ll put my foot when I want to put all my energy into a turn.

Check out the article in the current Surfer’s Journal about a board Andrew Kidman made. He confirms the same results I’ve had on my boards but he’s using a different fin setup. 

11

Ah, the old "what is and isn't a fish" debate!. I like the older style fishes myself ( flat wide keel fish ).Different strokes for different folks. A lot of the "modern" fish look just like a fat shortboard. Im not saying there aren't some great ones around, and with years of experience making them, im sure you ( and others like MD ) have got them sussed. .

 

Reverb, why don't you like them as a twin?? I have trouble with quads, but like twins.

 

Im expecting some great info and pics in this thread.

12

I don't think we have to debate ''what is and isn't a fish''.

reverb just wanted to talk about his design, that's all....

Two things that influenced the way I look at fish:

1) August, 1973. I'm in the campground at the Lighthouse, Buxton NC, USA. My self-shaped 5'3'' is sitting next to our tent when an old guy (like 25) walks by and starts checking it out. I'm stoked someone is actually looking at something I shaped. He says, '' If you ripped off the deck glass and shaved it down 1/2'' this would be a really good board''. I didn't do that, but when I got back to Florida I shaped a thinner one and saw that he was right.

2) September 1976. I'm in Mexico but didn't bring a fish. Riding a 6'8'' single fin as my ''short'' board. There's a kneeboarder from San Diego in town, really nice guy that also happened to have a 5'4'' Lis fish. Thinnest surfboard I've ever seen. After surfing with him a few times, and having a few beers and dinners, etc., I asked him if I could have a go on his board sometime. He said yeah. Next evening I got my chance and relished it. Planing surface with bite!

 

My viewpoint (and I've said this before on here) is that the original fish were not thick, that's what they became after they got ''improved'' into true stand-up boards. I'm not sure it was such an ''improvement''.

13

Hey Reverb,

Where did you go?

14

 

...Hi Ace

I detect some irony in that why?

 

*We are talking modern fish here.

There are many ways to answer that question, one of which is to say that more
than 6ft in length, lose the “fishness” what that is, agility, flexibility and work in
the pocket of the wave and short range action.

A fish 6 x 22 x 3 S deck tapered out to tail can support a 100 kg person

I have some customers using 5 10 x 22 and weigh 94 kg and floated perfectly and
with a fair paddling power.

The level of surfing is intermediate in those customers, so they look a lot
like many surfers who use larger boards and do not get anything from what they
think is a fish.

There’s something primordial in the design of a board and is often referred to,
in fact I see many shapers are not designers …

. First, the concept, have a concept of a tool to have for what you want to
achieve, that is, not only because I like the shape of a fish I’m going to
build a 7´ 4´´…

Then, the designs work in a certain range (for the  board and for the wave)

Above this range only “slide” with certain capability.

. Second: We must consider two variables: the “surfer in prone
position” and “surfer standing up.”

This is essential to achieve a satisfactory design and be closer to have a
magic board.

For example if we put a lot of foam or enlarged inappropriately a shape, we are
only creating design for the variable of “prone position surfer”

After the surfer manage to standing up he do not need too much length on the
board (only the right according to the type of board)

The practical example is the large waves surfed by tow in, where people will
not need the features of “surfer in prone position” since the
paddling power and the taking off of the wave is given by the jet ski, so the
boards are short. However, without the jet ski, in waves where you need the
paddling power and the take off of the wave, surfers do need “surfer lying
down” characteristics and therefore have long boards.

Too much foam is just that: too much foam

is to neglect the “surfer standing”; is to be lazy.

The fish no longer function as such if they are over 6 ft, as I said, if the
person is big, a 6-foot fish holds up well to that person without compromising
it fishness.

In these years I’ve been watching women (small biotype regarding men),
beginners, recreational surfers on fishes over 6 ft and seem that they are
standing up on a raft to say something … can not dominate the board, but
rather are dominated by it.

I also see intermediate surfers in too large fishes, unable to take advantage
of the design, since there are no more flex 
in the tail, rocker is inadequate and usually have 2 keels, generating a
lot of tracking.

Much worse when I see huge fish over 7 feet! It is a total error of the concept
of modern fishes!

Finally I would add that I have a few customers who have boards made by
world-renowned shapers such as Bushman (custom boards), R Martins (custom);
Tokoro, etc, but still they order boards from me for use in serious waves on
Indonesia.

So I’m not improvising about it; as I said before, I am trying this design for
6 years and seeing what others do.

Good to know that shapers like MD also come to similar conclusions.

15

howdy sharkcountry,

was that due to : not enough/too much flotation? or rocker issues? 

16

…hello Everysurfer and Surffiber,

I see that sometimes the photos do not appear

but at least you should see 5 of them

you can see an outline there

 

–hello Beerfan,

because Im more HP oriented.

Keel fins generate tracking

Small twin fins do not hold so well in several situations due to lack on total fin area

among other things

17

‘‘Much worse when I see huge fish over 7 feet! It is a total error of the concept
of modern fishes!’’

Ouch.

I rode a 5’4" fish in mid 70’s. For where I surfed and the crowds even than and my 6’3" body, steped off the back too many times. it just did not work out to well.

 I started having Skip shape me some, I was not shaping then thought I was gonna be a “business man”. Some of my favorite ones were 7’ers.

I always viewed the "Fish’ as a complete concept board. Rocker rails outline etc. To me concepts can be applied to different sizes. Carl Ekstrom once told me that Hobie told him that if you want to test a concept make it BIG. Bigger showed off flaws BIGGER.

I guess I am just not “modern”

Grandpa ACE.

18

howdy ace,

bigger-- relative to one’s build/height-- by how much, in terms of % ?

surely there’s a board size for one’s body that’s far too big to be of any use, hmm

cheers,

19

Mike… what’s your take on why thinner is better on a fish?

I think a 3" thick fish is excessive thickness. For me there’s no need to go over 2 1/2, which I consider thick compared to it’s length, and compared to typical psb thickness.

As I understand it, thickness is about volume and foil (both nose-to-tail foil, and rail-to-rail foil)… which translates into flotation and flex, and to some degree, how a board goes rail to rail. I know you’ve got specific flex preferences you try to achieve in your boards. Is that what you’re after regarding thickness in fish, or is it for some other reason?

Thanks…

20

tail rockr . flat or single to flat. wide point forward .thin tails quad  or keels surfers hight or less. low forward entry