I hope this makes sense. In the recent issue of Surfer’s Journal there is a great article by McTavish about rails. Towards the end of the article he has about 9 boards layed out and talks about the variations of hard and soft rails in combination and alone, and the way it changes the speed, position, trim, turning, etc of the board. The second board, is between 6’-6’8", is fairly thick (@3 1/4")and has tail feathers (I believe that is what they’re called) and then a swallow tail. He states that this board was the most forgiving on the drop DUE to the tail feathers but lacks some feel and performance. My question is why would the tail feathers affect the drop so significantly? McTavish states something about some dead water or decrease in water displacement, but I don’t think I think I completely absorbed that. Also, in what way are the rails shaped? Soft until the end of the feathers, then a hard (turned down rail) in the very last section? And while were at it, I like the idea of a thicker board, but over three inches seems excessive. Aside from neurotic floatability, would this sort of thickness change the perfomace of the board in a way that would kill manueverability even if it was a shorter board. By the way, Swaylocks is great!
My read is that “tail feathers” mean swallow tail (decreased displacement by removing a wedge shaped portion of a square tail). A three inch thick board with a “tri-plane” or dome deck can yield nice thin, sensitive rails. The symmetrical rail idea make sense in some ways but I couldn’t follow the wet deck logic…a flat bottom and curved deck would create upward lift not downward as Bob states. Bob wants a “dry deck” yet revels in the picture of someone doing a cut back that indicates a “wet deck”? It would have been a better article if the editors or Bob had included some diagrams explaining some of the finer points… Finally, in this article and others published earlier, Bob goes on and on about surfing upside down and the advantage of the symmetrical rail in doing so…I cannot visualize how the upper part of a rail becomes the bottom unless the board flips upside down (therefore defying all laws of physics in the meantime)…
I dont know what posessed Bob to come up with all these new names for old designs. I think he’s probably having a bit of a laugh now at the confusion he’s caused.
I agree that Bob’s article could have suffered a bit of editorial discretion; at times it stalled on design forms that have been established for a while. But the board layout and description was an interesting way for the reader to understand board performance/design. Your right about the wet deck, dry deck- I was lost there, just chalked it up to inexperience or the babbling of a incredibly wired-in old man. Thanks for the input fellas. D-
Huh… when I read it I thought he was using “tail feathers” to mean what we call wings. Could have been a swallow tail, I guess. I was most interested in the discussion of the Zeppelin rail. I can see how that would work (but be a major pain to glass)…