This is great! I built a fat fish for an old bloke (me) a couple of years back. It caught waves well and then didn’t really GO. The rails are fat and very round, the fin placement was obviously lousy and all in all it disappointed me and others. Have just put a longboard box into it to try as a single fin. And now I’ve read this I will have to attack the rails with a plane and make them thinner as discussed here. It cannot make the thing worse and may just bring it to life!
Thanks one and all!
Rikds, dont forget to update here if you go ahead ! Thanks.
[quote="$1"]
Huck, thanks for the pic and the Square Rails thread link, and to Swied for the info on that thread.
[/quote]
I haven't been following this post until now. I'm glad people are warming up to the boxy rails concept. Here's a geeky little post I made a while back that partially explains the math behind my rail design.
http://www2.swaylocks.com/node/1028419
Swied, I mustve missed that thread but thanks for bringing it up again. You did some great research and applied it well to rails.
I'll go over that thread and the links until I understand it all.
Taking out the roundness of rails and putting in squarish rails might allow for beter perimeter rails to be developed. Im sure the squarer rails wont ding as easily either.
I'd forgotten Ive been making square rail EPS bodyboards for a few years.....
Now THATS Alzheimers for you !
[IMG]http://i153.photobucket.com/albums/s225/SURFFOILS/foilthin007.jpg[/IMG]
[IMG]http://i153.photobucket.com/albums/s225/SURFFOILS/deckrails016a.jpg[/IMG]
[IMG]http://i153.photobucket.com/albums/s225/SURFFOILS/BD002a.jpg[/IMG]
[IMG]http://i153.photobucket.com/albums/s225/SURFFOILS/BD007a.jpg[/IMG]
[IMG]http://i153.photobucket.com/albums/s225/SURFFOILS/BD006a.jpg[/IMG]
[IMG]http://i153.photobucket.com/albums/s225/SURFFOILS/pro3017a.jpg[/IMG]
Bruce ? says the quad kiteboard he rides here in DOH is too fast.
www.surfline.com/video/premium-partner-video/annihilator-series-catching-up-with-bruce/_49796
If thin rails give this sort of speed......
The rails at center are about the radius of a quarter, about that of a dime through the drive section, and about 3/16’’ thick through the fin area, flex panel, and off the tail. The flex panel is filled with an soft, waterproof foam.
The thin rails are very low-resistance, and set in easliy, but with a “stop” of the “gunwale”-like highline (which also keeps water off of the deck).
And, no, they don’t catch.
The deck contours themselves add form stiffness, create a nice “broken in” feeling, and, overall, re-distribute the volume on more useful ways.
Hi -
I read the recent Surfer's Journal article on Val Ching and couldn't help but notice the paipo concept diagram shown. His design features a spray guard but I can visualize a continuous raised deck with similar flared out upper edges adding buoyancy and keeping water off the deck. Allan's design is similar in idea... another design which comes to mind is the old Shoe or Duece.
FWIW - I'm thinking of it in use on a bellyboard, not a standup board.
Check out my mate's skinny step deck simmons 10mm rails here:
I've been riding it and it goes.
Here is a description with pics of my take on this design (which I love). This is my personal board. It is shaped from a 6’8" shortboard blank, the board is 6’3" - 2 3/8 flat deck- 19 wide - 3/4 inch stepped rails. The design is for when the waves are chest high and over, here in Florida and on surf trips. Basic steps: 1: draw the thickness line on the rails, I did it at 3/4", 2: draw the width line in the deck, I did it at 1 1/4", 3: take a belt sander and eat some foam, 4: clean it up with 80 grit sand paper.
pics posted in reverse order and sideways… wtf oh well u get the idea
Guys, Im making the thin rails about 2.5 in wide so Ive been cutting the bottom off the FCS plugs so they dont stick out of the deck. The fin tabs on FCS fins are 14mm long and my skinny rails are 12 mm.
As the rails get wider the deck gets thicker to get an equivalent volume.
Pics to follow...
I am re-posting Ben's comments in this thread, because it pertains to this topic. Also, the pic of ErikG's I re-posted in the step-deck thread, but then I came across this thread, and this one is a better thread, more info, more participation, more food for thought. - Huck
Quote - Benjamin Thompson http://www2.swaylocks.com/forums/flex-research-problem3-foil-and-construction#comment-1400568
Problem#3:
How do you get surfers that are 5'10” 160lb and size 10.5 shoe, but ranging from 22yr-49yr old and average level to pro...on the same surfboard? How do you make a board that works for everyone in this group? My original board was 6'0x18.75”x2.25”. It was a very standard shape for the good surfers in my group, but too big for the pro. The standard shape for the pro is 5'10x18.5”x2.125”.
Secondly, I need my riders to get a ton of waves in every session so that we get lots of data. These shapes ensure that they don't get a lot of waves.
Theory#3:
The main problem with the pro shape(5'10”) for the non-pro surfers is catching waves and dropping in. Less volume means it's harder to paddle. Less surface are means it's less stable. All together, a non-pro on a pro shape(5'10) isn't mechanically fit to make that first critical pump right as they stand up. That first pump lines you up for the rest of the wave. I believe that the non-pros would be fine on the pro shape(5'10”) once they get up to speed...the problem is getting them up to speed...getting them to drop in comfortably.
The only part of the foil that matters when surfing is the part that is wet (assuming you don't have really windy conditions).
My theory is that if you keep the same wetted foil, same mass and same flex as a pro shape, you will get a board that performs the same. You can add a lot of volume as long as you don't change those three things.
Solution#3:
I took the pro shape 5'10x18.5”x2.125” 24L. and stepped up the deck an entire .5”. The rail shape is still the same, rocker and everything else, but about 1” in from the rail the deck sharply thickens. It was about a 30% increase in volume. It's about 15% more volume than the 6'0. The board is now 5'10x18.5”x2.625” 4.75lb, 32L.
Status#3:
As I said in problem#2, this is the best board I've ever ridden. I can get into any wave and it is the most responsive board I've ever had.
I was told by many experienced board builders that this couldn't be done. That volume is actually the problem. VOLUME IS NOT THE PROBLEM. The problem is all the biproducts of volume, when you don't add it correctly--rails, mass and stiffness
1)Add volume, but don't adjust the rail shape.
2)Add volume, but don't add mass--even better if you can reduce mass.
3)Add volume, but don't make the board stiffer--even better if you can go more flexible.
Any shaper can do 1), but 2) and 3) require that builders break away from the sacred pupe construction. Btw, all of my riders were pupe lovers when I signed them up...now they won't touch the stuff.
I'm still getting feedback and refining the layup and shape. It will be finalized in one month and I'll post the shape file and details on construction.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
(pic from the archives - not Ben's board. we are still waiting for pics of Ben's stepped up deck board)
Useful thread thanks. I am working with hollow metal SUPs right now but after reading all this I think I will try a 6’ square “stern” shape. Rails are a critical control surface of a board and, with my aviation background, I start to consider how to make a foil or pressure diff without adding any drag or weight. What I am getting at is, this thin rail is almost a strake. A 14" wide deck can be dressed with 2" or 3" strakes along where a rail normally goes and it would cut without floating or lifting. Of course, if you want lift, you can add S to the strake and fins wouldn’t be necessary. I’m stuck in Idaho right now, when I get back to Pismo for spring I will realize all this dream stuff and I can show you the pictures.
Hi Lovinlife, sweet looking board ! Whats the height and depth of your rails please ?
[IMG]http://i153.photobucket.com/albums/s225/SURFFOILS/SURFFOILS%202011/finish2.jpg[/IMG]
[quote="$1"]
I am re-posting Ben's comments in this thread, because it pertains to this topic. Also, the pic of ErikG's I re-posted in the step-deck thread, but then I came across this thread, and this one is a better thread, more info, more participation, more food for thought. - Huck
Quote - Benjamin Thompson http://www2.swaylocks.com/forums/flex-research-problem3-foil-and-construction#comment-1400568
Problem#3:
How do you get surfers that are 5'10” 160lb and size 10.5 shoe, but ranging from 22yr-49yr old and average level to pro...on the same surfboard? How do you make a board that works for everyone in this group? My original board was 6'0x18.75”x2.25”. It was a very standard shape for the good surfers in my group, but too big for the pro. The standard shape for the pro is 5'10x18.5”x2.125”.
Secondly, I need my riders to get a ton of waves in every session so that we get lots of data. These shapes ensure that they don't get a lot of waves.
Theory#3:
The main problem with the pro shape(5'10”) for the non-pro surfers is catching waves and dropping in. Less volume means it's harder to paddle. Less surface are means it's less stable. All together, a non-pro on a pro shape(5'10) isn't mechanically fit to make that first critical pump right as they stand up. That first pump lines you up for the rest of the wave. I believe that the non-pros would be fine on the pro shape(5'10”) once they get up to speed...the problem is getting them up to speed...getting them to drop in comfortably.
The only part of the foil that matters when surfing is the part that is wet (assuming you don't have really windy conditions).
My theory is that if you keep the same wetted foil, same mass and same flex as a pro shape, you will get a board that performs the same. You can add a lot of volume as long as you don't change those three things.
Solution#3:
I took the pro shape 5'10x18.5”x2.125” 24L. and stepped up the deck an entire .5”. The rail shape is still the same, rocker and everything else, but about 1” in from the rail the deck sharply thickens. It was about a 30% increase in volume. It's about 15% more volume than the 6'0. The board is now 5'10x18.5”x2.625” 4.75lb, 32L.
Status#3:
As I said in problem#2, this is the best board I've ever ridden. I can get into any wave and it is the most responsive board I've ever had.
I was told by many experienced board builders that this couldn't be done. That volume is actually the problem. VOLUME IS NOT THE PROBLEM. The problem is all the biproducts of volume, when you don't add it correctly--rails, mass and stiffness
1)Add volume, but don't adjust the rail shape.
2)Add volume, but don't add mass--even better if you can reduce mass.
3)Add volume, but don't make the board stiffer--even better if you can go more flexible.
Any shaper can do 1), but 2) and 3) require that builders break away from the sacred pupe construction. Btw, all of my riders were pupe lovers when I signed them up...now they won't touch the stuff.
I'm still getting feedback and refining the layup and shape. It will be finalized in one month and I'll post the shape file and details on construction.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
(pic from the archives - not Ben's board. we are still waiting for pics of Ben's stepped up deck board)
Thats a Mick Grace shape, he is a good Sunshine Coast shaper, made my boards for a few years when I was a grom, he was taught by Jim Pollard, the man who first did channells, MG does sick channell bottoms too...and surfs the Ba' well too.....
[/quote]
hey lovinlife, looks interesting...is that a fin set up you've used and had success with ? I like the template but havent ever used all 4 as a quad set, usually have the 2 on the front and some smaller and less upright ones on the rear, works really well on boards with not much tail rocker or on boards you just wanna liven up...or for guys who dont have alot of power to initiate a turn on a wider board.....keen to hear how she goes and any thoughts on that fin set up too.....
Pridmore: Those are the new K2.1 quad fins. I actually dont like them as they are to tight. I tried them out cause I figured Kelly Slaters signature fins must be pretty good, but I was wrong. LOL my absolutey favortite FCS quad fin set is the Tom Carrol Aqualines, they have the smaller trailers like you are talking about.
Surffoils: The rail height is 3/4" all the way around. The deck depth varies with the contour of the thickness. The board is 2 1/4" thick in the middle (stringer line) and 1" thick in the tail section (stringer line)
surfoils: check out page 5 I posted step by step pics
Nice looking boards everyone, I am a big fan of the stepped rails.
I was wondering how thin does the rail need to be? wouldnt burying the rail be a combination of the riders weight plus ability?
Also what sections along the rail need to be thinner for better traction.. I like 2" (50mm) in the center tappering to 1/2"(15mm) in the nose and 1"(25MM) to 1/2" in the tail
would having a thinner center rail increase manuverability? Or is it pretty much based on personal preference?
