How does everybody feel about this board? and how easy/hard do you think it would be to duplicated for a backyard shaper? new to shaping and this forum so, sorry if topic has been braught up.
http://www.firewiresurfboards.com/surfboards_custom.php?boardid=vanguard
thanks Eddie
yea the concaves and channels are pretty sick with that super straight rails and nose channels for water displacemeant due to small rocker. my friend just had one duplicated by a local shaper at becker. looks pretty straight foward. look at a wake board. look at a surfboard. then watch them make a baby lol… the pics are much aprieciated thanks
See if you can demo one first Im not a fan personally. I think its hype.
I actually had more fun on a repro with some tweaks than the tomo itself.
Hi Eddie.
Welcome to Sway’s
I like the vanguards … I just started work on 2 @ 5’-6" x 18 1/4" for personal use. Watercraft with parallel rail lines have generally been fast to plane… Tomo’s dialed in the turning performance of his boards in spite of the straight rail lines. Cool stuff.
Mine will actually be kite board versions using a combination of a homebrew Hydroflex glassing method mixed with an XPS/PVC box beam stringer c/w core-cell heel patches and core-cork 1.3mm deck skin. Template is complete. will glue up the blanks this weekend.
One will be a twinzer the other a 4 fin with optional stubby 5th fin inserts.
I’ll send you some pictures via PM as I progress with these builds.
They should be fairly easy to duplicate in a general sense, the tail and nose channel concaves perhaps being the hardest tweaks to interpret…
The fairly small board sizes and the quick to plane parallel rails are probably the most distinguishing factors of this design imho.
Should make for a fast maneuverable kite-surfboard c/w good bi-directional nose riding virtues due to the shaped- in nose concave / channels…
Who really cares if the design is accepted or valid anyway. Build one, ride it, if you don’t like it move on to something else…
VH.
We were building boards like this in the seventies (twin fins) and everyone laughed. I don’t see anything particularly revolutionary going on here. Just another short board.
Hey go to the surfermag forum and check out the design forum.There are about 50 pages of discussion on tomo shapes.
Hi Eddie,
I made myself an approximation of a Vanguard in EPS with carbon taped rails and glass/innegra lam. Mine is 5’2" x 17 1/2"x 2 3/8, 26 litres volume. I weigh 65 kgs. The design is definitely valid and after riding it for a couple of months, in all sorts of waves, I think has a couple of advantages over your standard HPSB. There are a couple of elements of the design you must nail in the shaping room, to make it work in the water:
size - don’t get fooled by the numbers - if you put the outline into Boardcad or Akushaper with a fat foil, you can see you get similar volume to a much longer HPSB. The parallel rail is much more efficient for paddling so you can afford to lose 10% in volume to get the right dims. Narrower mid point is actually better - you want to get a fairly straight rail line, so a 18" or less mid width gives you a tail width that will carve in the pocket better. Length - shorter reduces swing weight and lets you fit critical turns in the pocket.
Fin placement - 10" and 3" for a thruster with zero to 3 mm toe in on the fronts (just enough toe to be sure you haven’t toed the fins out) . This is critical - no toe means fast off the top and stable in take off, but you need the shortened cluster to get the board to turn. Tomo uses a double vee or diamond tail to shorten the rail line in the tail to get more pivot around the fins.
Rocker - very even curved rocker at the centre line - 1 7/8" tail and 3 3/8" (no nose flip) but with about 6-8 mm of single concave to double/vee to get curve in the rail line, i.e the rail line drops 6-8 mm below the centreline rocker low point.
Outline - use the Firewire outline - that straight rail ahead of the front foot gives you drive, don’t lose nose width if you’re trying to fix the ugly nose shape.
Channels - not sure whether these are important, I left the nose ones out but kept the tail channels. I suspect a double concaved vee would work as well.
Rails - the Firewires are low boxy - but I think you can fatten them up a bit if you like - board goes rail to rail very easily.
Foil - thick tail and nose.
i COULD MAKE IT IN MY SLEEP....i MEAN NIGHTNMARE.
Sums it up pretty well.
What do u mean just another surfboard?
Most all shapers i have worked with, successful hackers to some beautiful craftsman that strugle. Work different to Tomo
Daniel has mathematical theorys backing all aspects of each of his boards design.
I grew up with Dan, Both him and his Dad are freaks, cleaver freaks.
The boards look completly different and surf on point.
Just another shortboard, Nar… But Im just another arsehole.
You said it all mate.
hi edeschowder
maybe have a chat to josh dowling here ...
he actually makes his own versions , with flextails , and SURFS them ,
don't listen to those that knock what they * have no intention of ever trying.
" Who really cares if the design is accepted or valid anyway. Build one, ride it, if you don't like it move on to something else.. "
.... yep !
go surf whatever you like , mate !
...if it works for you and you have fun doing it , who gives a rat's arse what 'they' think .
ha ! .....
just remember , one person's 'opinion' is only that ...
it actually only represents less than 1 / 18 000th of the swaylocks membership , so , not that important in the scheme of things / real life / the universe ....
[it's always dangerous to ask "what do people think of..." on an internet forum , as the negative opinions quickly get in the way of practical "this is how it has ridden for me" EXPERIENCE . ] ride it for yourself , decide for yourself . and , by all means , share your findings with those who are open-minded here about trying different stuff [what swaylocks has been and hopefully always WILL be , for me ]
cheers
ben
ah do i sense anti ausie sentiment here ( been latent for some time)
cheers huie
No DT has this backing up his designs:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FB9SgPy9Fbc
He’s taken all the stuff he’s learned from Pavel and Simmons and applied it to how he wants to surf.
Man don’t start that siht. We can fill 30 pages of posts with theoretical argument mathmatical or otherwise, but what’s the point?
All that matters is what you feel when you’re riding. I’ve ridden this design and it works better for me than any other thruster I’ve ridden.
My personal view is that anyone who thinks there is some mathmatical theory that can be used to derive an optimal design, doesn’t really understand how complex the physics of wave riding is (DT included)
i don’t see where the OP asked about a tomo being revolutionary.
Any ideas on some ballpark rockers, wide point location, etc. Anything for a starting point. Thanks
Dave
The latest Surfers Journal has an article about him and at the end it actually describes the process on how he comes up with template based on the Golden Ration (phi) which is 1.618.
I’ll copy it into here tonight when I get home, or go pick up the latest copy of TSJ, it’s an interesting read.
edted but this works for me