Tracking

Okay, I searched the archives, and sort of got a vague description of what tracking is.

From what I understand, tracking is when there’s too much fin area. The board is so greatly gripped onto the wave that the board drifts up the face of the wave. Is this a correct explanation of the definition of tracking?

Couldn’t this be advantageous if you’re on a tube-riding board? The board would automatically bring you to the highest (and fastest) part of the wave? Or would it bring you TOO high up on the face and you go over the falls?

Is tracking generally a negative term to a board?

Thanks

My take on tracking is that it is the resistance to turning.Like from keels that are set straight…I am sure someone with a better take on it will respond…to enlighten…

Simply put tracking is when your board continues in a set path when you try to change direction. The two factors that create this with a fish are rail thickness and fin set/speed. A example is when you are driving down the line and you come to the shoulder of the wave, if you have to much speed and you try to cut back with a thick rail your board will try to countinue down the line while your body fights to make the turn.

tracking is indeed when the board is set on it’s path and more or less refuses to change directions-in other words, whatever track you are on that’s it it won’t change to a different direction, so if you are going straight and want to turn,it will continue going staright no matter how hard you try and turn it,thus, you are stuck in that (straight) track…

Okay, thanks a lot.

"Couldn’t this be advantageous if you’re on a tube-riding board? The board would automatically bring you to the highest (and fastest) part of the wave? Or would it bring you TOO high up on the face and you go over the falls?

Is tracking generally a negative term to a board?"

Theoretically you could have a specialty board specifically made for tuberiding along a track.

However, one of the most fundamental characteristics of a performance board is the feeling of NEUTRALITY…the board does not have a mind of its own and its up to the rider to dictate what the board does. Tracking is the ultimate form of non-neutrality and can have various causes…to take your example, a fin with a super exagerated long base would cause tracking…a very flat rocker combined with hard rails is another.

Quote:

……However, one of the most fundamental characteristics of a performance board is the feeling of NEUTRALITY…the board does not have a mind of its own and its up to the rider to dictate what the board does. Tracking is the ultimate form of non-neutrality and can have various causes…to take your example, a fin with a super exagerated long base would cause tracking…a very flat rocker combined with hard rails is another.

The kneeboard I posted in the thread here titled: “Re: Rocker Curves…(and flex)…” (Aug. 29) has a very flat rocker in the tail and hard rails all the way around–yet it is very neutral handling (however, I should also note that the rails flex to introduce rail rocker when turning).

mtb

Too little tow in will also cause tracking.

All surfboards have to track. There has to be reasonable stability when going straight. If you ever make a board not track at all, you’ll find it very tough to ride. I’ve done this by putting in rotating fins with no side forces, and an end limit. The board has no tendency to ride straight, and it feels like a loose tail fishtailing constantly.

The key is making it tracky enough to be stable at the operating speeds, and loose enough to allow controlled turns.

Quote:

All surfboards have to track. There has to be reasonable stability when going straight. If you ever make a board not track at all, you’ll find it very tough to ride. I’ve done this by putting in rotating fins with no side forces, and an end limit. The board has no tendency to ride straight, and it feels like a loose tail fishtailing constantly.

The key is making it tracky enough to be stable at the operating speeds, and loose enough to allow controlled turns.

If “tracking” is meant to represent a resistance to turning, then it depends on what one means by “a resistance to turning”. For example, my HYPO board does not deviate from a constant heading (nor does it “slip” or “skid”) unless the rider commands the board to turn by banking it. However, it is easy to bank the board (one test rider commented that "with this board you don’t turn, you just think “turn”)–and any bank angle results in a corresponding rate of turn. Hence there is no sensation of “tracking”–and the impression is more like driving a gran prix racer with sensitive steering: directionally stable if the “steering wheel” is held fixed; but turns with any movement of the “wheel”.

mtb

Quote:
If "tracking" is meant to represent a resistance to turning, then it depends on what one means by "a resistance to turning". For example, my HYPO board does not deviate from a constant heading (nor does it "slip" or "skid") unless the rider commands the board to turn by banking it. However, it is easy to bank the board (one test rider commented that "with this board you don't turn, you just think "turn")--and any bank angle results in a corresponding rate of turn. Hence there is no sensation of "tracking"--and the impression is more like driving a gran prix racer with sensitive steering: directionally stable if the "steering wheel" is held fixed; but turns with any movement of the "wheel".

mtb

Directional control is an area fraught with control issues. In the case of a planing system with no tracking, and in which any lean angle results in some turning, there can easily be oscillatory behavior. This was the biggest rider problem with my rotating fins before I added a tracking mechanism. Now, no one ever says it is “too tracky”.

Road racing bicycles also suffer from a high speed shimmy that depends on rider fore-aft weight, tire friction (bald road racing tires are worst), and speed. The movement of the rider’s mass, side to side, gets out of phase with the turning of the front wheel. Nothing like shimmying at 50 MPH on a fast descent…

The ways to keep the system from oscillating are

  1. keep turning gain low enough

  2. add damping of some sort

  3. re-configuring the system so that the center of mass is geometrically closer to the point of contact (fins or foils, or front wheel).

On a bike I put my sternum on the stem and heavily weight the front.

For surfing, I’m unwilling to lie down on the job, so I added damping. :wink:

Quote:

……For surfing, I’m unwilling to lie down on the job, so I added damping. :wink:

For a craft controlled by banking, the quickest response (i.e. maximum maneuverability–the primary objective of the HYPO board) is achieved by minimizing the ratio of the moment of inertia about the roll axis to the (net) torque that can generated about that axis (e.g. it’s easier to balance a broomstick vertical on your finger than it is a pencil because of the slower response).

For carving (vs skidding) turns, that means lying down–which is part of the motivation for that riding position on the HYPO board. You can cheat while standing up, of course, by maneuvering just your board and not your center-of-mass (approximated by a snap-back as an example) But who wants to be the water equivalent of a rifle drill squad whose members are standing still and just twirling their rifles around? :slight_smile:

mtb

Quote:
Quote:

……For surfing, I’m unwilling to lie down on the job, so I added damping. :wink:

For a craft controlled by banking, the quickest response (i.e. maximum maneuverability–the primary objective of the HYPO board) is achieved by minimizing the ratio of the moment of inertia about the roll axis to the (net) torque that can generated about that axis (e.g. it’s easier to balance a broomstick vertical on your finger than it is a pencil because of the slower response).

For carving (vs skidding) turns, that means lying down–which is part of the motivation for that riding position on the HYPO board. You can cheat while standing up, of course, by maneuvering just your board and not your center-of-mass (approximated by a snap-back as an example) But who wants to be the water equivalent of a rifle drill squad whose members are standing still and just twirling their rifles around? :slight_smile:

mtb

It is entirely unclear to me that any prone method of wave-riding achieves the momentum changes common in competition shortboarding. It precisely the ability to move the board relative to the center of mass that allows standup surfing to achieve these momentum change advantages over kneeboarding, paipos, bodyboards, mats, and bodysurfers. Whereas standing is a disadvantage in a passive control system, it can be an advantage in an active one.

Quote:

……It is entirely unclear to me that any prone method of wave-riding achieves the momentum changes common in competition shortboarding. It precisely the ability to move the board relative to the center of mass that allows standup surfing to achieve these momentum change advantages over kneeboarding, paipos, bodyboards, mats, and bodysurfers. Whereas standing is a disadvantage in a passive control system, it can be an advantage in an active one.

Virtually all high maneuverability vehicles (e.g aerobatic and fighter aircraft, race cars, etc. achieve that maneuverability through low moments of inertia–around the relevant axes–relative to the torques that can be generated). Planing type craft such as traditional surfboards, kneeboards, paipo boards, and bodyboards all have the characteristic that as the board is banked to carve (not skid) a turn, the center of effort on the bottom shifts laterally so as to resist the generation of the torque about the roll axis that is necessary to achieve the required bank. While this generates stability, it inhibits maneuverability (fighter aircraft being the epitome of this relationship as modern designs are so unstable that they must be controlled via a computer). Thus how much, and how quickly the board can be banked is limited by ergonomic factors: the separation between the heel and toe and the stance (or the need to change it) in the case of a stand-up surfer, the distance between the knees (or between a knee and one’s arm reach) and between the knees and toes (or tips of the swim fins) in the case of a kneeboarder, and how much (and how quickly) a bodyboarder can shift his center of mass laterally (and fore-and-aft).

The HYPO board is different in that there is an initial slight stability, but with just a little bank angle, that changes from stable to neutrally stable, and then with more banking, to unstable. Thus the hydrodynamics of the design assists, rather than resists, the generation of a torque around the roll axis (of course, at the same time it can require more skill on the part of the rider to achieve the desired bank without over- or undershooting–just as with an aerobatic aircraft). It is this feature, in combination with the low moment of inertia about the roll axis, and the substantially reduced induced drag in executing the turn due to the foil, that gives rise to the enhanced maneuverability (defined herein as the ability to quickly initiate a maneuver, execute the maneuver in minimal distance, carry speed through the maneuver, and quickly recover from the maneuver) of this design.

[However, I concede that in some instances a high moment of inertia could prove advantageous to someone who is reflex and balance challenged. :slight_smile: ]

As far as contest surfing, I agree that a standing position may be advantageous to perform many of the maneuvers that are (or need to be) executed to gain points. However, I also find that many of those maneuvers–while demonstrating high levels of skill with regard to balance and reflexes, and which can involve considerable risk of failure (e.g. snapback, fall on your back on the face of the wave, skid along on the face of the wave on your back with feet still on board, pull yourself back on the board with your legs, then recover and stand back up)–really don’t appeal to me. And from what I have read in interviews, I gather that this is even true among some of the contestants as well. In many ways it seems like the goal is to chop up the meat (wave) into hamburger rather than carving it up in accordance with it’s natural evolving form (form follows function → no form, no function :slight_smile:

mtb

I, like lots of others, like doing both.

I love the wave riding challenge, to pick the right line, when and where to accelerate, when and where to stall, standing and feeling the waves power take you where it wants you to go. Lets all zen out.

But before I stop challenging the wave, I’m also out there to challenge myself, physically, mentally, and emotionally. I will throw myself into a position which almost totally relies on an instinctual reaction to execute fully and functionally.

That’s where knowing your board and its tracking characteristics, and your fins and their tracking charactristics, how to adjust them all to suit your one-tracking-characteristic-mind.

The challenge, as Blakestah stated, is finding our own personal level of tracking that’s acceptable to us on any board on any given day.

Back to the original question about the definition of tracking, this is what I understood it meant back in the 60’s: After you did your bottom turn, you’d move up into the top of the wave and “set” the rail to put the board in trim for a noseride. The long parallel rails used back then would set the “track” of the board down the line, and it was desireable to have a tracking board. To break this track, you’d mostly stall it by shifting weight to the tail. When things changed to 3 fin setups and curvy outlines, you could pump the rails and break the track much more easily. At that point, I think that the term tracking then became more centered on the length and shape of fins. This is why the old classic designs will stay on course even after you fall off it.

Here in Australia we went through a period just after the wide tailed V- bottom Plastic Fantastic era. The boards were known as Trackers. Full nosed pintails or narrow square tails. 50/50 rails and fins placed well foward with lots of rake. Great in a straight line. Very hard to break out of trim into a cutback. I guess that is why they became known as Trackers. platty.


Is it possible to reduce a boards tendency to track by changing fins?

How would things like fin area, fin base length, fin foil, depth, rake, et cetera affect tracking?

Does anyone know?

Hi Platty, In the 80’s someone gave me an old trashed 9’ McTavish Tracker. I got it watertight to see how it would ride before restoration. It wouldn’t turn at all and consequently wasn’t restored. Thinking back it had very parallel rails (almost 70%), square tail, and no rocker; very unlike the pic’s you posted. Were there others who made this intentional tracking design? The one I tried wasn’t a very good noserider, was there another purpose for this concept?

Hi PeteC. My memory of this period is a bit vague. Have a look at the Surfresearch link. There is a section on the history of the design about half way down the page. All the big names built them. The board you describe sounds more like a v-bottom with the parallel rails.platty.

http://www.surfresearch.com.au/00000305.html