Tweeking the Mckee quad formula for a big older guy 6'11"

[wrcsixeight]

I’m currently planning  what will likely be the last HWS cedar surfboard I will ever make, and am making it for myself for the rest of my surfing days.  I am 44 years old, 5’10" 220 Lbs, ~20 of that is fat, the rest big Nordic frame and muscle.  Been surfing since I was 11, wave riding since 8.  Pretty well travelled, comfortable upto the double overhead range, and expect to ride this next board in waves approaching that size. I am Quite good on traditional style single fin longboard having grown up with 60’s style longboards as well as shortboard offerings in the early 80’s, Very rare that I wear a leash with a longboard.   My shortboarding of late has suffered as I kind of lost stoke to go sit in an agressive pack of shortboarders half my age, and my longboard hangover is very pronounced when I do get back on the Cedar 6’8" for the first few sessions…

 I’ve been waffling on design for a few months now while I prep for the rather involved build, but have decided on a longer wider thicker flatter version of my current 6’8"  double bump round pin  HWS  which I guess would be considered to be a ‘Speed egg’ by most.  I always considered it a hybrid.  It has gained some weight in the last 13 years with various repairs.  It was my first HWS, and I have made 6 more since then, changing  the original  internal construction from 5 parallel stringers meeting parabolic solid stacked cedar or redwood rails, pretty drastically  over the builds, for more accuracy, symmetry strength and less weight, and more longevity.

 I want maximum flexibility with this next board by being able to employ different fin setups for different conditions/locations.  Quad boxes with a 10.5" Fins unlimited center box for both thruster and single fin duties, when applicable.  I will be attempting to achieve nearly 1/4 inch of concave rail to rail.  A nose double single double to flat off the last 3.5 inches of tail.  This requires some serious planning to accomodate with hollow construction as it is like building a very close tolerance blank.  All my other HWS’ s shortboards had very subtle bottom contours shaped into 1/4" planks after building the bottom mostly flat rail to rail.  Rarely more than 1/8" concave or Vee, mostly 1/16, but it is easier to add some Vee to the tail when desired.

Here is the layout of the tail as I have most recently drew it on my old table face

Sorry they are on their side. 

The Tail width would be 16",  if not for the first wing which makes it 15"ish.  I have moved the wings back slightly compared to my earlier 6’8" x 20.5 x 2 5/8 14.5"Nose 14"tail with s very subtle triple concave.  This Next board will be 6’11"x 22.125"x 3 1/16“,x 16”Nose x 15" double bump round pinTail, a serious volume increase, but I am not getting any younger, or lighter. I can thin it down and make it smaller still, but no bigger or wider.  I rode a friend’s board of these general dimensions but no bumps and a swallow tail, and really liked the volume and ride, but backside did not flow so well at overhead Silver Strand for me not that I got enough waves to sort out the feel.  I’ve never really had much love for swallow tails.

My last Quad was more a rail fin quad with a ~4.5 inch wide swallow, and I loved it going left as a Quad,  pretty much hated it going right with any fin setup.  Only pieces of it left, a victim of my temper after some endgrain balsa used on the inside sucked water and turned to sponge, and it would require more effort to fix than to build another board.

The Single fin box, as drawn,  would allow the trailing edge of the  thruster fin to be 3 3/8th" from the tip of the round pin.  The Side fins are Mckee formula for a 16 inch tail, moved up 3/16", and trailing edge of front fins 1 3/16" from rail apex and toed in according to Mkee’s formula, as drawn on that old piece of plywood.

None of this is set in stone yet, I’m probably a week or two away at best from committing to fin location, and was hoping for some Input.  

I am not sure the single fin box is far enough forward to use as a single fin. Opinions?  I could move it a bit forward and then make a thruster fin to hang off the end of the box somewhat.  But I’d really like to employ the several different 7 to 7.75 inch fins I already made, but perhaps they are not deep enough for such a wide tail.  Not sure I’d use it as a single without some side bites though.  I did not like the 6’8" solely as a single fin.  Loose but no drive.  Kinda boring and slow.

I have a bunch of wood 7 to 7.75 inch single fins I made for my previous 6’8" which I hope to experiment with on this new board, and really liked it with some side bite fins when the waves were punchy and hollow, but a thruster set up with a slightly smaller center fin a bit farther forward was the most user friendly  and fastest, and handled the widest range of conditions predictably.  I grew up on a Quad  in NJ hollow offshores, and my transition to a thruster  in the mid 80’s took a long time.  I want the option again but think the rail fin quad setup on such a wide tail might not work, thus the Mckee ish starting point.

I’m also a waffling on Fin Cant of the rear quads, whether the more upright version better more for fishy type boards, where as I consider this 6’11 just to be a straight up shortboard, despite what others might call it.  I will be using the original FCS plugs as they work nicely with the HWS construction as I plan to do it. Other  removeable fin systems would require me to use more wood internally to support them properly, and I am hoping to get weight in at under 12 Lbs on this one.  My 6’8" was just over 13 when new, but it was my first HWS and both over and underbuilt and repairs from puncturing the deck chambers and other reneforcements and I guess some water intrusion have brough it to nearly 15lbs.

Anyway I got the cedar Planks for the deck and the hull all laid out for a board no bigger than 6’11" and no wider than 221/8", I am waiting for delivery of my favorite Epoxy for wood,  before it can meet the already completed  laminated  center stringer and become three dimensional.  And while I’d love to have it for the next swell, it will likely take me 2 months from this point as I work on it in my spare time and ponder the internal design for the best combination of strength and weight without foam. I’ve got enough other boards that I do not need to rush.

IThe HWSs as I build them are so much effort to make, I really want to ensure I get it right.  If it is a dog, I can’t ever sell it for what it is worth to me, i won;t even try and I might not have a workshop available in which to build another one.  I know I am a good enough surfer I can likely make myself believe it works good, and have a lot of fun on it, but I am also honest enough to know where my previous boards are lacking.  My 6’8" sometimes likes to stick to the face when hollow and clean, and it pretty much needs a certain amount of speed before it comes alive, so I only ride it in Chest high or bigger when there is some push.  The lack of flex is another characteristic with my HWSs.  I have come to prefer the predictability of it over a  polystyrene board and try and get my twang from the fins I build. I certainly am no Slater.  I love getting speed and laying in on rail until my knees buckle.  No above the lip antics for me, and I might choose to not bother to land some floaters as I do not heal like I am 18 anymore either.  

I need this 6’11" to stoke me into riding a shorter board more often rather than grabbing the 9’3" or the 9’7 " soft railed single fins and just surfing the soft wave down the street , instead of something more challenging elsewhere.

What do you guys think about the wing placement, and  what about adjustments to the Mkee placement formula as drawn,  considering I am no Slater and weigh 220 Lbs and can bury a 9’7" longboard on a bottom turn?

I am planning on making new side fins too.  I have some already I will likely use at first.  My favorites on the 6’8" are some White oak and walnut similar to the FCS Tom Caroll template with an 70/30 foil.  These were also my first Wood FCS fins and the foil is no where near as clean as my latest fins, most of which were singles.  But I prefer them to any of the other plastic FCS fins from the mid 90’s and early 2000’s I tried in the board.

 

So I seek Input on the Single fin box placement, Wing placements and rear quad placements for such a style of board considering my weight and experience with heavier and relatively large surfboards for the last 33 years and almost exclusively HWS boards since 2002.

Sorry for the length of this post. I try to anticipate and answer all the first dozen questions that might be asked by those who care to give helpful input.

 

 

 

[gunkie]

Just looking at the images, I think you’re fins are set a bit to far toward the tail.  I’d move all of the boxes and wings up about 3"-to-4".  And my personal preference is to put the trailing quad fins closer to the rail as in a ‘classic’ quad set up.  I find the quads with the trailing fins moved in ride a lot like a thruster.  Why do that when you can just drop in a Futures 4.5" trailing fin into the fin box and make a thruster?

With that said, your setup would probably work well in punchier waves (e.g. NJ winter surf).

Good luck and have fun. YMMV

 

EDIT:  Here is my NJ winter board.  6’8" x 21".  I’m 52 years old, 5’9" x 185 pounds as naked as an uncarved pumpkin.  Which means 200 with a 5/4/3 hooded steamer and all the winter gear accoutrements.  Just had it in Rhode Island for Joaquin in overhead surf and the thing worked like magic.

 

 

[gdaddy]

It seems to me that bigger guys tend to have different preferences for quad setups than smaller guys.  The smaller guys seem to favor the double foiled rears with narrow bases set in from the rail (they tend to ride narrower boards, too) whereas the bigger and stronger guys tend to favor single foiled rears with longer bases set out at the rail.   

[wrcsixeight]

Thanks guys.

It should be noted that I am in North County San Diego, Not NJ anymore, so hard offshore, short period, and barrelling and fading quickly is not what I come across much out here.  But I would love for this board to be an all arounder and handle such conditions and be able to be a single board traveller able to handle most anything I come across under DOH, even if obviously not ideal for any specific wave.

 

The Forward fin’s  trailing edges are at 11 3/4" as drawn on the plywood.  The pencil line is 5/16" inch thick so it would show on the camera, but the actual intended outline is the inside of that line.  I think the Phone’s lens is doing some distortion as they do not look too far back in person, and the one photo is bending the plywood.  A better straight on Pic below, but the plywood is flat.

My last Quad was a rail finned quad and I liked it on my backhand, but very much not so on my forehand, with any fin setup.  I do have a tendency to not get my back foot far enough back when on a shorter board.

My Friend’s similar 7’0"x22 3/8x 3’  bumpless swallow, which I rode as a quad on head high silverstrand(Oxnard) was a blast but backside was a little strange on the half dozen lefts I got on it.  I later rode it as a thruster with bigger sides smaller trailer at a softer wave and also liked it a lot in both directions. The quad boxes on this board were definitly McKee formula placements within 1/16" as stated on his site.  I do not remember if they were dual foiled trailers.  I took rocker and outline templates from it and used them to draw this 6’11" from the wings  forward anyway.

My favorite shorter boards have always been round pins, and my favorite traditional style longboards ridden traditionally, are also round pins, so I think I have to go with another one, but with the volume I need for the next 10 years of not being in the greatest of physical shape, and having always been so, and ridden a bit larger of a shortboard than what everyone else rode, even those who were near my same weight.

[gdaddy]

I like the template.  

My last Quad was a rail finned quad and I liked it on my backhand, but very much not so on my forehand, with any fin setup.  I do have a tendency to not get my back foot far enough back when on a shorter board. 

(IMO)  What you’re describing points to the merits of moving the fin cluster forward so as to better fit your style.   Joe Blair does boards for big guys and he’s got an interesting writeup on his website about using the more forward positioning for his quads.  (I’m told he normally only does round tails, too)

You might also consider staggered fin sizes that bias more fin area up front and less in the rears.  Puts more leverage further forward and probably closer to your sweet spot.  

As for the centerfin box I don’t see how you’re going to fit 1+" depth on that box at only 3.1/2" forward of the tail without leaving a chunky foil.    Just sayin’.   How would you feel about using a shorter box with less adjustment and mounting it a little further forward?  

[batfische]

Not what you asked WRC, but as a fellow 200lb+ rider (and shortboarder at age 47, riding mostly fat/thick boards between 5-8 & 6-7, I would make that in foam first, just to try out fin configs.  That way you can use Probox so that you can play with position and cant. 

I’m a noob to boardmaking (~30 boards), but some of my boards work better in certain waves than anything I’ve ever bought for myself (40 or so boards bought), and NONE of them have ever worked best with exactly the fin set-up I expected.  Sometimes cant was different, sometimes fin was different, sometimes position was different.  Remaking boards, though, using what I discovered to be a good fin set for that board, has always turned out well.

On the other hand, whatever you make, however it turns out, unless it really sucks in the end you’re going to end up just surfing like you, again, in the end.

[batfische]

Oh:  to add re quad set-ups, my finding for myself (as short/heavy rider) has been that I hate single-foiled rears.  I run 50/50 foiled Stretch quad rears and GAM (or now “ARC”) FCS fronts on all quad set-ups, fwiw.  Rear of fronts to rear of rears is usually 5-5.5", fin cant varies, front rears are usually the normal 1.25" off the rail apex, and rear rears are between 1.75"-2.0" off the rail apex.  When using Probox, sometimes the best position for the fronts differs for quad & tri.

Re McKee, I’ve had some big boy boards made by a very well known local shaper, and his positions for the fronts for me (5 box set-ups, that I measured after the boards were made) have pretty much been close to McKee recommendations.  FWIW, on the purchased boards, which were all 21" or under in width (most of the ones I make for myself are over that) worked better as thrusters than quads.  All the wide ones I’ve made for myself, over 21" width, have worked better as quads.

Just my personal experience.

[wrcsixeight]

Hey great input thanks.  I might have to go to Mitch’s and check some of j blairs sticks.  My back foot always finding its way too far forward  after popping to my feet is something I always attributed to my Single fin longboarding, and perhaps the better route is moving the fins closer to where my back foot tends to find itself, rather than continuously having to shift my foot back to the sweet spot, or just deal with it being a bit too far forward to apply the leverage I enjoy employing.

The shaping a foamy first to see if it goes right makes good sense. no doubt.  Heck what do blanks cost these days? I have not bought one since the mid 90’s.

I did not have issues putting a single fin box in my cedar 6’8" at 3 inches from the tail.  I floated it  slightly above the tangs but it is pretty thick in the tail, and nose.  The box is completely surrounded by wood and reenforced so the depth of its install is nowhere near as important as a foam board.

I have to rethink my FCS original plug stubbornness too.  The Probox allowing adjustment makes too much sense, especially with my situation.  Will old style FCS fins fit and adjust to the full range back and forth in the Probox?   I’m not so keen on colors, but function over fashion.  But part of the reason I’ve made HWS cedar boards is the wood’s natural beauty, so how’s that for hypocracy?

 

 

[lcc]

Based on the facts that you tend not to get your back  foot far enough back on shorter boards,  and prefer RP’s, very indicative you’re more ‘front footed’, most likely with a down the line style of surfing.   The reason  RP’s works better for you is an RP enables shortens the rail line, enabling more forward ‘forward cockpit’ control, creating a larger sweet spot for turning.

For us front footers, a RP with fin cluster spread opened a bit and nudged forward a tad, combined with a single to double concave and appropiate rocker is usually the ticket.  And double foiled rears always work better with the rear quads in from the rail.  Personally found the Mckee formulas a bit too tight, prefer the Rusty quad placement, which provides  the centering effect of the rear quads pulled in some from the rail, while maintaing the ‘power claw’ of the fins being a bit closer to the rail then the Mckee formulas.  

If you haven’t read this before, might find it interesting:

 

http://www.surfline.com/blogs/talking-design-the-board-blog-with-rusty-preisendorfer/rusty-looks-back-at-the-history-and-evolution-of-quads_38953/

Personally really like the board you’re shaping, however after running that combo on several boards, always ended up liking the boards better as either tri or quad vs. the 2+1 set-up, which whereas fun for speed cruising point breaks, don’t offer the same power turning for reefs or beachbreaks.  So last half dozen 5 fin have all been standard fin boxes.

cheers

 

 

[wrcsixeight]

Spot on posts.  I am very front footed, and love fast racing down the line conditions.  I will be redrawing and moving the cluster up the board.

 

I think the proboxes are certainly the way to go to allow me the fine tuning desired.

 

The single fin’s unlimited box elimination is another good idea.  It will save a few oz of weight, and my main reason for wanting it was to be  able to employ the several different single fins I made for for my 6’8".  But logically these fins were made in an attempt to get a certain feel from the single fin on my 6’8", as while I like it with side bites, I only liked it in some conditions, like powering around white water or stalling to get barrelled, but in terms of open face squirt, well there was little of that, and my frontfootedness and desire for  down the line speed on racing waves with long shoulders, well the single is not ideal, but it seems that’s where the quad could excel and why I loved my friend’s quad so much that I took some templates from it and now will be making something similar, but with the round pin.

 

While I was heavily influened by big  heavy 60’s longboards when I was barely over 100lbs in the early 80’s, my first shortboard was a thick wide hobie twin fin, then a Quiet flight quad double bump swallow, with a very narrow swallow, and those taught me about open face accelleration.That first wave in which I did a roller coaster on the Hobie and felt that burst of speed, back when I was 11, is still seared into my memory as if it were yesterday.

 

When I got bigger and got a thruster mid 80’s,  my shortboarding suffered as my down the line speed frontfootedness required a complete mix up of everything I knew.  The few pics and video I have of myself, I am almost always drop kneed  when doing a turn, indicating the rather extreme level of my frontfootedness, and when longboarding and trimming forward, often find myself standing completely on my front leg just waiting for the moment to either go forward or back.

Seems like I’m a bit late to rejoin the quad bandwagon.  The 6’9" 5 fin swallow HWS  5 fin I made in 2005 had some experimental design internals, which turned out to be bad ideas, but backside, on lefts, that open face squirt was like that first roller coaster back when I was 11.  I remember being able to get so much speed, and unintentionally huck so high I just kicked the board away rather than risk my knees and ankles trying to land…  If that board only could go right as well, instead of barking, I would not have let my temper destroy it.

 

Thanks for all the input.  Seems my style/approach  to riding a shorter board was formed riding a twin and quad and I later accepted the thruster, but now that is is all about maximum fun again, A dialed in quad with the thruster option will rehash that first roller coaster feel I had when i was 11, and renew my stoke to ride a shorter board again.

 

I do keep thinking perhaps the heel side quad location should be different from my toe side.  Aysymmetrical design has really been an interest, but fear of the unevenness, and lack of experience and confidence has kept my thinking symmetrical.  I did ride my 6’8 with only a heel side side bite for a bit when it was predominately lefts( regularfoot)

 

 

[batfische]

Yes, the two-tab FCS are Probox compatible, and will be about 1/2" (total) adjustable, front to back, in the box.  You also have the option of 0, 4, 6 & 8 degree cant inserts.  The one warning I’d give about Probox is that often, if you don’t prepare for it – I think others will testify otherwise, but this is my experience – you will end up with leaking boxes (leaks turning up around the edges of the boxes) if you install as they recommend.  When I install PB, I do a hotcoat patch where the boxes will go (with RR Kwik Kick), then sand the patch, then install through that patch, then sand the boxes, then hotcoat over everything (covering grub holes & insert slots, of course, before hotcoating).  That saves some weight (as opposed to doing two hotcoats).

a 7-2 US Blanks blank where I am is usually somewhere between $75-$95.

[lcc]

might also try using the quad set-up with a Nubster fin in the rear box - provides leverage for increase angle of attack off the top and bottom.  I really enjoy them on my quads, and usually only remove them if the waves are flat out speed runners and more vertical turns aren’t the way to go.

cheers

[wrcsixeight]

Thanks again.  I am about ready to order 5 black Probox’s. I was thinking 6 degree and 4 degree initially, but will get some other inserts too.  Are the positive buoyancy plugs worth it?

I do plan on making my own fins, but perhaps not at first as I can use FCS two tabbers I already have.  It appears making fins for Probox will be easier, and inherently stronger.

About their install, they are going into Cedar, not foam. I’ll layer some laminated 3/16 inch thick pieces of Cedar where the boxes will reside on the hull planking, and these will be reenforced to the stringer(s) and deck panels.  With the FCS plugs on previous HWS installs, I sanded them flat, and added a patch of cloth over them, sand the edges of that patch and a ‘hotcoat’ just thick enough to  cover the patch edges.  Was planning on glassing over these too, even if only 1 or 2 layers of 1.25 oz cloth.

I’m Committed to the double wing round pin.  I moved the  first Wings up from 12 1/4" in the previous drawings to 13" and plan on aligning the fin trailing edges with the wings.  The probox adjustment of 1/2 inch, and the ability to move the fin tab forward or back on any fins I make should allow me to experiment and Dial it in.

 

A nubster style fin will have to be made too.

 

I just joined the two hull panels whose outlines I fine tuned when taped together for perfect symmetry, with some  2" fiberglass tape.  I never quite  know the colors of the wood until the Epoxy saturates the cedar. This 2x4 was screaming at me in the lumber shop.  I was buying it even if it was warped, but it was not.  Other wrc planks to be used are bookmatched leftovers from other builds.

 This is the interior:  The white racing stripes are doug fir, the rest western red cedar.  I needed to make up 1.5 more inches in width and the Fir makes for a nice contrast, but will add an extra oz or 2 to the final weight compared to All Cedar.

 

Only about 200 more steps to go

 

 

https://swaylocks7stage.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/s3fs-public/20151025_211436%20copy.jpg(image larger than 4 MB)

[batfische]

wrc, based on your last couple of posts, I think you probably have similar likes to mine.  I started surfing in the early 80s, and my first board was a Croteau quad (with the 757/747 fins, canted way out – so loose, but still drove hard down the line – I loved that board so much).

I also have had the same findings when trying to run single fins in shorboards I’ve made that are already working as quads.

When I layout quads, I use GAM fronts & Stretch (“SF4”) 50/50 trailers, set up with the fronts usually close to McKee recs, but with the rears 5"-5.5" (usually 5.5) behind them, 1.25" off the apex for the fronts & 1.75"-2" (usually 1.75") for the rears.

I’ve had mixed results with wings.  They will make a sharper turning board, but one that sometimes doesn’t FEEL as good to ride.  I made a copy of a V2 Lost Rocket, for example, beefed up in width & thickness for a shorter/heavier rider (namely me) that is probably the board that it LOOKS like I surf best on, but I don’t actually enjoy riding it because the glide/planing feel doesn’t do it for me, and when you turn it it just feels kind of unnatural.  I know from convos with other guys (the one I’m thinking of surfs much better than me, and surfs “fucking good”) that I’m not alone in this.  Personally, I prefer thumb tails on small wave boards.  I suspect that given the similar findings with quads & quad feel, & the results when running boards that are working as thruster or quad with singles, that you might like a thumb with some degree of hips better.

[batfische]

Oh:  if it helps to know, as far as comparing findings and measuring my comments, I’m talking in all the above cases about small wave boards (that work well up to HH+2, and then are a bit unsteady over that) in the range of 6-3 to 6-7, usually over 21" wide and around 3" thick, with differing extremes of concave and differing transitions but usually with single-to-double-to-vee bottoms, and usually with down-rails.  over 21.5" wide, the vee is usually beginning around 2/3 of the board’s length from the tail.

Re the single-fin comment, I actually ran a 6-3 x 21.75 x 3.125 egg I made – that rocks and had plenty of speed as a quad – with a modified Bonzer set-up today in chest-to-slightly-overhead waves today.  It was slow as hell.  It felt good getting in, but felt like it was “saucering” rather than driving, and like it didn’t want to go down the wave face at all.  I rode it the other day with a similar set-up, but with a 6.5" flexfin instead of the True Ames 6.5" bonzer I put in today, and it was slow with that as well; you could make it go by taking a high-line and pumping it with all your might, but otherwise it was slow.  It would’ve been great with either single fin if the wave was slow breaking, without sections, where all you have is a slow-peeling pocket, but it wasn’t that today, or yesterday, and the board sucked.  With the quads in, it would have killed it on either day.

[wrcsixeight]

Last time I rode my 6’8" as a single fin, It was a mistake.  I was not familiar with the wave at all, It ‘appeared’ to be a slower toward the sand type of wave but it actually was a race to make he wave. While I did OK, I was very much missing the speed through turns, especially top turns and a few waves I likely could have made if i kept the thruster set up, outran me on the single.

Realistically everything chest high and under I will still be choosing a longboard and a longboard wave.  My issue of late is I’ve been choosing the longboard always, as I have a 9’3" pintail that can handle size, and I can surf by myself or nearly so at a 90% closed out wave and get a few good long rides with the early entry.  But then I miss the speed and maneuverability of a shortboard, as opposed to holding on and making it with a board that simply has a limited top speed due to a soft railed tail.

But I miss surfing with my friends.  I don’t want to longboard with shortboarders at a shortboard wave.  If shortboarders choose to surf a longboard wave, well that’s different, but I am not going to go haggle over waist high waves on a shortboard. I’m sure 6’11" does not even fall into shortboard category for most, but I’ve always liked a bigger heavier board., I’ve been over 200 Lbs for 27 years.  Normal off the shelf boards, especially through the early 90’s, never worked right for me and my surfing suffered, and actually led to my first custom board, whose shaper thought I was nuts wanting a fuller nose and more volume rather than a stretched  hyper rockered potato chip.  I still have that board though.  Loved it.  Rode it late last year in New Smyrna. 

 

I know I could surf better on a lighter foam board made by a Pro, but there is just something about the Cedar.  Its about having fun, and going fast and turning hard is what I like, and this next HWS should accommodate that.   As far as the wings go, it certainly is a visual thing.  Wings really makes the wood construction more complicated, so I am not doing myself any favors there,  But every time I drew out a wingless outline  on a flat table, in my general  desired dimensions, it just looked benign and almost reversable.  I was looking at more of a Diamond tail, but I want to be able to stuff the tail into hollow sections too, and that to me screams round pin, not diamond or swallow or squash.

 I’m committed to the double bumps at this point. I’ve had them on all my sub 7 foot boards since the mid 90’s, but I’ve never exceeded 21.5 wide before either.  I know wings are usually for small wave boards, and I doubt I’ll ever ride this in waves under chest high, but I’ve ridden my doublewing/bump boards in double overhead, and cannot notice the downsides of them in bigger surf.

Rght now I want some more paddle power on a shorter board, I want to just know I am riding a shortboard no matter what,if it is at least chest high.  I usually have 3 boards with me when I drive to mother ocean, and far too often the 9’3" or the 9’7" is the obvious board of choice for maximum fun in conditions presented to me .  I want this board to change that, yet still be able to handle the larger stuff to DOH.  I’ve got a 7’7" semi gun HWS, and both times I rode it in conditions close to DOH, I left the water giggling like a maniac. But honestly it does not have much more float than my 6’8".

 

 

 

The board is going to be a visual beauty.  I’m hoping it rides as well as it will look.  I hope I can keep the weight down without sacrificing too much strength.

 

Been 9 years since I’ve built a board, and I am really digging it, even as involved  and time consuming as HWS is.  Can’t believe all my previous HWS builds were done without a belt sander.

[resinhead]

you are talking about a HSW board…made out of wood planks?  How much performance are you thinking you are going to get?   Quad, tri, single it’s all going to be about the same. I’m not trying to be a jackass here, but  getting the rocker rail line and foil is going to be way more important that how many fins the board is going to have.  Unless you have done 100’s of boards…it’s going to be a crap shoot at best. My opoinion is to KISS rule…Keep, It, Simple, Stupid…

[wrcsixeight]

I hear you resinhead. I’ve heard that for years and understand where it is coming from, and I do not discount it.

I’m not trying to market these as HPSB, and I do not have a hundred HWS under my belt, nor will I ever.  Heck, I’m not trying to market these at all.  I want nothing to do with the surfboard industry.  Learned that in the 90’s.  

But I can easily notice  minute fin changes on my 6’8" HWS which was my first HWS and modeled after a foam board.  The weight of the board is certainly a factor, as is the lack of flex, but both of these can be advantages in certain situations.  The board handles choppy conditions like no other I’ve ridden, and lack of loading in turns leads to a predictability into and out of them.  Also the board does not go dead like a foam board does when it is ridden hard  and its flex patterns change for the worse.  I do have  personal issues with the disposable nature of HPSB’s.

I don’t believe a 13 LB foam 6’8" could feel nearly as good underfoot. My 10LB  foam one certainly does not, unless it is less than chest high.  When my HWS is in drydock for maintenance or repair, I pull out the foam 6’8" that  my HWS was modeled on with accurate rocker  and outline templates, rails and bottom contours,  and am less than impressed with its projection out of turns, and it is a swallow, not a round pin… Feels squishy twitchy and slow in comparison, even with the same rail fins transferred from my HWS.  My theory is why My HWS surf better than they should, being this heavy, is the more direct connection between foot and fin and that the fin is not distorting the hull of the board around the fin during heavy loading…  

I think a heavier surfer on a foam board who had 2  thin stringers in a V pattern with the stringer right under  or directly adjacent to the  rail fin plug/box/system, would be pleasantly surprised by this more direct feeling of foot to fin.  But the stringers ending at the rail near the end of the fin system, would likely leave a weak spot that would  eventually buckle, so perhaps a parabolic wood stringer inset 1 1/4" from rail apex could be tried too.  This type of blank customization is a lot of work however, and  will have its issues with heel/toe deck mashing into foam around the stringers .  Sometimes I think about how to more directly connect foot to fin and foot to rail through foam via other methods, but all Ideas so far all involve a lot of labor and possibly cause weak spots and are kind of opposite of the trend toward increased customized flex, and are in no way production friendly. 

I like Barry Snyder’s torsional stringers as I thnk these harness some of that foot/fin connectivity idea, and overall I am really interested in board design even though I am in no position to experiment with and personally test my ideas.

So of course I am going to do all I can to have a board  that requires well over a hundred hours of labor, planned to the smallest detail, which will give it the best chance of becoming the next ‘old faithful’ and loyal  travelling companion  from 2’ to 6’. 

 I  cannot accept wonky unintentionally Aysymmetrical outlines, flat spots in the rocker, or bulky  uneven misshapen rails that are common on so many HWS builds. My boards often get questioned as to how being hollow, they appear as if they are a veneer over foam in shape, but so obviously are not a vneer at the same time.  Many ask who painted my boards and are surprised that it is actual HWS, until of course I let them feel the weight.

  I am going for more than  a surfboard shaped piece of woodworking.  I have to build an extremely close tolerance wooden blank. This next board will incorporate new internal design ideas which should allow some more flex and reduce weight.  On Previous HWS boards, I limited the total time spent on any single aspect of it, but this one I have as long as I need, other than my desire to have it ready to go on the next swell.  But much like the turns on a heavier board, they have to be planned further ahead, and that is where I am now, bouncing design ideas of those with experience with similar designs.

I really have enjoyed the input so far.  Moving the fin cluster  closer to where I  naturally place my back foot and my front footed RP loving nature makes all too much sense, now, with the  help of the well worded  and obviously experienced feedback.

 I checked the fn placements on my previous rail finned HWS quad and they are way back there at 11 1/8" with the bumps located Mid fin.  No need to reinvent the wheel as far as fin placement goes, but at the same time the weight and lack of significant flex in my platform need to be taken into consideration, as well as the rather permanent factor of my builds.  It is not as if I can just sell it if I don’t like it. I can’t sell anything, can’t be bothered to subject myself to the modern  consumer,  and my labor is worth more to me than others, regarding surfboards.

I’ve outgrown my 6’8" hws, It has not gone dead in 13 years of regular use.  It has only just begun to actually flex more than 1/4 inch, and is in no danger of falling apart. But, I am getting no younger and need to apply my creativity and ideas into another HWS which will stoke me again in middle age and get me on a shorter board  and choosing different lines.  My original 6’8" was built with internal design established by others before me.  I radically changed those  internals in subsequent boards, but they are mostly semi guns, and two of those I have never ridden, one of them being for a 150 Lb surfer.  

The one 6’9" quad HWS I made incorporated too much experimental  internal structure design ideas, mainly end grain balsa on the interior and only exterior fiberglass on the rails and the balsa got wet and turned to sponge.  But it did have some serious spark to it on my backhand and got me into waves great…

I miss having an actual experienced shaper to bounce ideas off of in person, one who is not afraid to say, ‘I don’t know’.   Too many of my friends just drink the Channel Islands kool aid, and want to surf like the top 34 and can’t think outside this box.  Not trying to saying anything bad about surfboard  ‘models’ and HPSB design trends, only that while I have benefitted from them, I can’t be constrained by them, and I am no top 34 surfer and never was., but I can also lay it on rail and throw buckets, people scramble to get out of my way and rarely paddle for a wave I have priority on.

I have to use wood, call it a character flaw if you must, and work within the limitations of it, but that does not mean the board has to be an acceptable dog either.  If my HPSB friends can be believed, the only time my current 6’8" board looks heavy is in gutless  conditions under chest high.  They all think I should ride some blown up dimension model of their board model, but they weigh only 160Lbs.  I don’t believe just blowing up dimensions translates, and I will not be spending 650$ on a new board every year or 18 months either.  I should mow some foam again too, but have not done that since '97.  

 

[Huck]

Hey WRC good post, lots of interesting stuff in there.  I started off building HWS, and was really shocked at the negative view most people take toward them, especially people who have never built or ridden one (not talking about resinhead, just making a generalization).

Like you, I never found the clunkiness of some HWS acceptable for my own boards, although I understood how and why it occurs, given the nature of the materials and process.  And I never accepted the weight and lack of flex as a deal killer.

To be honest, there are probably two real reasons I have veered away from HWS and into foam boards.  One is the venting.  I don’t like the huge fluctuation in air pressure, and haven’t found a venting system that I feel fully addresses all the issues.  Removable vent covers can leak, and sometimes have to be adjusted while surfing to fully neutralize the pressure, and the fabric vents are supposed to be changed out every few years.  Forget to open a vent, and you have a serious problem.  And its so easy to do.

The other is the time consuming nature of the process.  Which doesn’t bother me in and of itself, but lately I’ve gone to building prototypes, new designs which are experimental to me.  And the HWS process lends itself more to replicating a proven shape, than trying out new ideas.  Once I have a stable of proven shapes, I plan to build a few more HWS.

My foam boards are glassed a little on the heavy side, for durability, and last for years.  I don’t know how many years exactly, I haven’t worn one out yet, although I have a favorite longboard thats a little worse for wear after five years, have been thinking of giving it a refurbish job one of these days.  But then its kinda nice to have a beater you don’t worry about dinging too

Anyway, I think your board in the pic looks awesome, I think its great you have found a niche for boards you like making and riding, and I think its great you’re able to work within the constraints of the materials / process, and arrive at your own conclusions without being swayed by the trends.

It would be awesome if you would post a build thread once you get going on this.

[wrcsixeight]

Thanks Huck.

The negativity toward HWS in my experience predominately seems to be from other board builders, and the HPSB crowd.  It seems like they get together secretly and practice different ways of saying ‘sooooo heavy’.  Kind of a funny contrast, for a little while I worked in a boat yard and showed my non surfer coworkers my board and they were all like, It is sooooo light!!! 

I rarely get a surf in without somebody remarking about the beauty of my board, more often from general beach people,  less so from surfers.  I’m usually not keen on this attention.  When asked who made it sometimes I tell them the truth so they don’t think I am one of the masses of  rich pretentious asses with too much money, other times I just say ‘some crazy guy with too much time on his hands’.  I have noticed a big attitude difference toward me when someone sees me let my longboard suck up some air in the lineup and they realize the board is hollow, and when I admit to being the builder of it.  Unless they themselves are in the industry.  Then they give me dirty looks and as much attitude as they can muster.

The venting is certainly an issue.  I put my thumbscrew vents far up on the nose on the deck, and let them suck in air after 15 minutes of surfing or so.  The shortboard is simple to reach when sitting,  and keep dry when I allow it to breathe, but the longboards I get off the board, blow off the surrounding water, and unscrew the vent while keeping the nose high and dry.  Kind of a pain in the ass, and sometimes I do not want to if it feels sharky.  I usually remove the vent entirely on the longboard and it still sucks in air for a second or 2 or 3 depending on air temps, sunlight and water temp.  If I just loosen the vent it takes 15 to 20 seconds to equalize so full vent removal and reinsertion is much faster.  I’ve not tried the goretex vents.  I don’t know if they can keep up when a hot board goes into cool water, or a cool board gets put in the sun.  

Before I built a HWS, a freind of mine lent me one if his first HWSs’ a Pine and marine plywood monstrosity 7’ single fin that weighed 18.5 LBs and was a study in unintended Aysymmetry.  It rode surprisingly well for what it was, and I took it from NJ to SoCal.  In socal one of my friends was tripping out on it, and asked about the airvent while I was prepping my other boards for some repairs, and I was going to add a  glass roving edge to the tail of the HWS .  I explained the purpose of the vent’s necessity, and the Dumbass apparently thought he was doing me a favor by tightening it fully.  The marine layer then cleared out, direct sunlight hit the board, and after about 15 minutes a sound like a 2x4 was dropped from 10 feet up and landed flat on concrete without bouncing.  I look over and the HWS is rocking back and forth and the hull had a huge ugly convex going on.  I undo the vent and air hisses out for quite a while, as I spewed a stream of curses that turned the skies dark and sent the neighbors fleeing for safety behind locked doors.

I wound up routing out the hull of this board in the center.  The stringers had blown apart, but only where he had drilled holes through the pine.  I rebuilt it, reglassed it, and spent 2.5 months in Baja with it, among a regular foam quiver, and had a number of special sessions on it.  I drive it back to NJ and then helped him build another board for himself, then got the lumber for my 6’8" for my board and built mine, but already I was modifying the internal design and assembly methods from what he taught me on his build.

RIP BKR, and thank you.

I usually loosen the vent while my feet are still on the sand after a session, but I can never lend out a board and trust someone else to remember to loosen the vent.  My same friend who blew up the pine/plywood monstrosity would have let it occur again on my well loved 9’7", even after I nearly eviscerated him for doing it the first time years before.  So yeah, this is not a dumb guy, but remembering to unscrew the vent after a surf is a huge factor.

About a build thread, I am not so sure.  I am reluctant to show the internals, though I am not sure why, as it is not like anybody could really steal the design and make a profit at my expense.  There is no market for HWS, and I have no desire to go into production, or deal at all with the surfboard industry or the surf related consumer.  But at the same time I enjoy being one of the few on a  functional HWS in my area.  The few others I have seen ridden around these parts are obviously dogs of surfboards and they weigh 25% more, at least.  So there is some secret sauce factor, at least in my mind.

 Mine have all been far different from Paul Jensen’s HWS internals, but on this one it might appear closer to his except for the rails.  No cork. Mine are basically parabolic wood rails, tapered and stacked and thick enough to account for rounding them over after the deck is applied. 

I’ve not yet worked the internals out entirely on this next  board, nor acquired the lumber I need for the rails.  I need to see how it rests after the hull panels are joined to the stringer, and the weight at that point.  I’ve been thinking heavily about the interior design for the last 9 years since my last hws build, and I am not inclined to give away my findings.  The rather extreme concaves I plan on on this current build are forcing a different internal design.

I had once spoke with some guy in my area about the internals and later saw him trying to sell some boards that obviously utilized my internal structure, or at least was very similar.  They were dogs of shapes, quite heavy and poorly glassed, and he obviously learned the same lesson I did long ago.  There is no market for HWS, no matter how much attention they might garner.  But I was still irritated that somebody else tried to do it after squeezing information out of me on the internal design and swearing up and down they only wanted to build a board for themselves. I was however satisfied seeing the wonkyness of his shapes.  Actually building a HWS is not that hard, at all, only involved and time consuming. 

  Building a HWS whose shape is not wonky and disgustingly heavy, is the challenge.