What physics formulas use the golden ratio as a constant? AFAIK that’s related to astetics mostly.
To me it seems like this, you start off with a small wave design. Everyone know a parallel template gives you more area, better planing. Give a little nod to the gemini for the parallell forward outline, but cut off the pickle fork pointy bits and keep your eyes (there was a double pickle fork in surfers journal, right?). Everyone have been telling you that those pointy shortboard nose do very little anyway, let alone two of them? But now you have a very low nose that catch a little and want to pearl. Hey, maybe that channel in the nose of the gemini was good for something? Just change it a little bit so we don’t directly copy the gemini, just the idea. Keep the outline parallel in the tail too, like a liz fish or a simmons. You end up with a very parallel outline. But you lack a bit of control with that wide tail, even with the added centerfin over the two fin liz fish and simmons. Look again to the liz fish, it’s got a butt crack. Nah, we can’t copy that, let’s make a modern version. Stealth fighters are still cool(despite orginating from the 70s), let’s make a butt crack with hard angles like a stealth fighter (despite the stealth fighter having the aerodynamic properties of a brick). Voila… I guess the most critical part of the design is getting the rocker right. Too flat in the nose and it will be the worst pearl machine in the world with that nose. Too flat in the tail with that outline and it won’t turn, no help from the outline. Then again, when you make it extremely short I guess the rocker in the tail is not so critical anymore.
Almost - the fin position is what provides control and turnability. The fins aren’t toed so the inherant instability of toed fins wide apart is gone. The cluster is short compared to a normal thuster set up (10" and 3") this combined with a moderate amount of rocker and shortened rail behind the front fins from the doulble diamond tail, means the board turns on a dime. I think Dan got most of his ideas for the vanguard from the hydrodynamica project - testing riding variations on the mini-simmonds. The no-toe fins pushed back on a wide square tail, the short length, the parallel rails. Lose the width, throw in modern rails, huge concave and a tail design from his fish experiments and the hydrodynamica board becomes a vangard.
People make fun of the Alexander Gemini. I have one, and my brother has several. Ride one and you’ll see that that there is a lot of stuff going on. The Gemini is probably the last really innovative surfboard design since modern shortboards. Lots of influence from Hydroplanes, early adoption of quad fins, and placement of the fins.
Mine are toed at 1/16 too, maybe I should have said low-toe rather than no toe. Those rocker dims are they with a rocker stick on the centre line? If so how much concave at the deepest point.
Oddonein, If possible could you provide some other info. Depth of the center notch and width at 0. Width of the outer diamond corners. Where is the wide point? Are the 12 and 24 nose rocker dimensions reversed? Is there any vee in any surface of the tail? Thanks in advance.’
concave is 3 /16 at centre, pretty similar throughout the tail, no vee apart from the channel cut outs, i have given the width of the corners on nose and tail(rail end measures )
wide point is around 1 5/8 ish back from centre from memory.
"Fibonacci in modern surfboard design. 1,1,2,3,5,8…
1, 1( two counts of the number 1). Apply to the Dual independent keels. Inspired by the Simmons Planing Hull. 2 is in relation the double ended design (twin tip design) 3 is the number of control points at each end of the hull. 5 is the sum of all the control points through tail. Fins and Tail points. 8 is the sum of all the control point including nose tail and fins."
Since it “using” the fibonacci sequence, the board must go good, eh?? What a load of BS…
[/quote]
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… 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)
[/quote]
I’ve mentioned before, a while back, that I make design changes in a sort of bacwards way… reverse engineering, I guess? And I suppose many if not most people do… you start with a performance idea, then do some math to figure out the next increment in design, make that design change, and repeat until you’ve achieved your performance goal. So for me, the math goes hand-in-hand with what you’re feeling in the water and what you’re seeing/feeling/measuring in the shaping room. The end result might land you in some kind of recognizable formula, but most times it won’t. But I don’t imagine many designers start with a formula, and try to fit that square peg into a round hole.
[/quote]
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… 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)
[/quote]
I’ve mentioned before, a while back, that I make design changes in a sort of bacwards way… reverse engineering, I guess? And I suppose many if not most people do… you start with a performance idea, then do some math to figure out the next increment in design, make that design change, and repeat until you’ve achieved your performance goal. So for me, the math goes hand-in-hand with what you’re feeling in the water and what you’re seeing/feeling/measuring in the shaping room. The end result might land you in some kind of recognizable formula, but most times it won’t. But I don’t imagine many designers start with a formula, and try to fit that square peg into a round hole.
Don’t forget the wide tailpod allow you to stand right back on the tail which allow you to move the fins closer and further back and give you that really short turning radius. I’ve seen some of the footage of Stu Kennedy, he’s standing right back on the board and seems to have alot of the nose/front of the board out of the water most of the time. Might as well round of those corners in the front if you ask me, but then the design wouldn’t look unique… Both and Dan rides those boards good, but I don’t think the pro surfers are ready to change just yet. Whatever say Jordy Smith or Dane Reynolds is riding in similar waves seems to go just as good, if not better. Good surfers make a (small wave) HPSB work well, even in crappy conditions. The design does have merrit for the rest of us though, being able to ride a 6’ with features that you get from chopping down a 8’ while reducing the negatives of that length can probably shed a few pounds and years from guys like me…
IMO Dan Thomson is standing on the shoulders of a number of shapers and should give credit where credit is due and not only to Simmons. To his credit, he has mixed alot of ideas and designs and taken made it into a package that works. I don’t understand his so called use of science in his designs tho, it seems more like ‘pseudoscience’ to me. Either he don’t understand the formulas he’s applying or he can’t explain how he’s using them worth a damn. Maybe it’s art inspired by science? I have a feeling it’s just used to create hype to sell boards (or else he’d end up like the fat penguin guy.) But maybe that’s what it takes to be a successful shaper/designer?
Maybe if we cant and toe the fins by the same degree as the tower we will blow our minds…
To make this set up cool we can call it “pizza”. Its clever because the fins point at the same spot in space, creating a triangle…just…like…a…slice of Luciano’s finest peperonni and mushroom
To me, the only real appeal of this concept is the potential to create a compact, space-efficient design. I live in a small condo, drive a small car, and have to contend with elevators, staircases as well as waves with really tight curves that don’t like longer boards. Oh yeah, and I’m a small guy.
As far as all the pseudoscience and angular features, my gut tells me it’s hype, but whatever . . . Let him hype it. Meanwhile, I may have to go pick up a 10-dollar Goodwill wakeboard so I can rip some numbers off of it. Hmmmmm . . .
the feeling is so different to how a hpsb feels underfoot, this is what is not being understood by a lot of people from watching the video clips, yes they dont do anything that radically different in appearance to an hpsb but my word the sensation for the rider is quite incredible, if you’d actually spent some time riding one you would realise that,
it’s the lack of physical effort required to surf at a high level compared to a shortboard that is the main draw for me.
not a design for everyone but then neither are foiled out pro-grader shortboards
also, who gives a rats ass what the pros are riding, they’re clothes horses and ride what their shapers tell them to, i ride what gives me the most pleasure.
)