I'd love to see an outline and rocker shot if you can get them to post. I remember you posting pictures of some really radically shaped fish in the past.
You mentioned you tend to use more rocker than is common. I'm just curious if you could give a rough idea of how much rocker you'd put in a 5'6" designed for small fast beachbreak.
Actually I'd love to pose the same question to Mike Daniel, if you care to share.
Thanks to both Reverb and MD for your responses. For some reason I can't see the first three pics, but I think I get what you're describing. I whittled away at my first "real" fish over the course of 2009 - 2010, emulating Greg Griffin's style to the best of my limited ability, and am beyond happy with how well it functions. Now I'm itching to try out a shorter, more bladed, flexy design, a-la-what-you're-describing. Thanks for the inspiration.
There’s a lot of stuff going on these days where there’s a lot of thickness at the middle and yet the rails are nice and thin.
I think a lot of people are enjoying the extra thickness in the middle but also like the way the thinner modern rail works. I must say that I had get used to the heavy crowning of the deck, but the added performance of the thinner tucked under rail on these boards is worth it.
I first noticed it on the boards Greg Griffin made for Oneula and me. When Greg was explaining why he had so much crowning on the deck, it just went a little over my head. After a few years I fully understand what he was trying to explain.
The first time I saw Hynson’s Twinzer I was blown away by the rails, especially in the back half. They were knifey and very thin. I always liked the way it looked by I didn’t think I could paddle something that thin.
Mike, could you show a shot of the outline on that 5-4? Interested in why it has an S-deck. Is that an optical illusion?
in these ones you can see the outline, the reverse bcrack, the S deck, volume distro, etc
and here some info:
…tapered out fish foil shape; reverse bcrack; flat bottom; flat deck (S deck);
60/40s semi full to sharp/hard on tail; more rocker on tail; kick tail
(for a fish); 2 in 4 a la speed d fins, front ones with 20/80 foil 1/4
max thickness tapered to tip, 1/4 toe in, 7º cant; back ones tilted
half, double foiled, no toe in, all rigids; gloss/speed finish combo
made to fly
Some obviously very refined boards in this thread. Im normally a foam fiend, but having made myself a 5'8'' ( although chunky ), i think if its light enough, a very wide, flat but thinish ( for me 2 5/8 ) fish could work quite well for me. I think EPS might be the go though
Beerfan… I can tell you about my experience with two nearly identical fishes - exact same template, bottom, fin size and placement, thickness, foil, etc… the only difference was the top of the rail/end of deck, and how it rolled down into the actual rail curve… one was more angular, and the other more rolled and blended. One PU/PE, the other EPS… #2 core with double six deck, single six bottom. The EPS came out lighter and snappier… the PU/PE smoother and more glidey. I attribute this difference only to the weight, and has nothing to do with flex. But the biggest difference is that the extra glass made it stronger and more durable.
Here’s the nose rocker on my EPS retro, twin keeled fish… 1 1/2 a foot back, 2 5/8 six inches back, and 4 1/2 at the tip. So the curve accelerates. Slight panel vee in the entry.
Tail rocker’s about 1 3/8 at the tips, slight double concaves run right out the back
Beerfan... I can tell you about my experience with two nearly identical fishes - exact same template, bottom, fin size and placement, thickness, foil, etc.... the only difference was the top of the rail/end of deck, and how it rolled down into the actual rail curve... one was more angular, and the other more rolled and blended. One PU/PE, the other EPS... #2 core with double six deck, single six bottom. The EPS came out lighter and snappier... the PU/PE smoother and more glidey. I attribute this difference only to the weight, and has nothing to do with flex. But the biggest difference is that the extra glass made it stronger and more durable.
[/quote]
Thanks nj, i had a heavy pu/pe fish, which had tonnes of drive and glide and was fast as hell. Too heavy though. I now have a smaller board, which is more of an egg, that is much lighter, which goes great but doesnt have as much glide/drive, though with the round tail i think im missing some drive. Love to have one of each, a hefty pu for trim and glide/momentum, and a light eps one for snappiness. Wish list haha
s
