Been thinking for a while in building a longer HWS for the summer time. 8’ look OK for me, since is the lenght of a plywood sheet and is easier to carry than the 9’4’’ beast of my brother in law. I want the board really thin, combined with camber deck to minimize the rail material. Remember the thread named “can width make up for thickness”? I read it again and came with the attached template. I want your opinion on overall width and rocker profile. Thanks in advance.
Jack
My opinions only:
Go for it the way it is and see what happens. Nice looking outline!
Single fin; 1.5 inches less tail rocker, 1-2 inches more nose rocker, pull the entire outline in 1-2 inches
Tri fin; 1-2 inches more nose rocker, pull the entire outline in 1-2 inches.
Good luck!
Ok, I’ll go for it. It will be a single fin, but tell me what do you mean by “pull the entire outline 1-2 inches”
Jack
Great template but would stick with the 3" nose rocker unless you expect to ride it really hollow waves. I think that the tail rocker could do with taking down a bit. Don’t spoil it by going down the three fin road - stay with a single fin ! I would definitely reduce the the width and therefore the overall outline including the length by 1 to 2 inches. Reminds me a little of a Magic Carpet !
Steve
The wide point is 1-2 inches too wide (think 22-23 max). If you just pull the wide point in, then the outline will start to look different than you planned. If you pull the whole thing in the same amount then the outline will still look as nice as the original. If you are riding mushburgers and are looking to just trim/cruise, then the 24" thing will work. If you want to turn more or use it in better surf, 24 inches can get a little unyieldy (tough to control).
Width wise I think that our perceptions of what is hard or easy to control is based on what we are used to, and the body quickly adjusts to greater width. These days I find 24 inches to be rather narrow because I am used to widths of 27 inches. Also, control has more to do with tail width than the widepoint measurement, so you can use a lot more width if your tail stays narrow. Having a narrow tail and a wide board overall also gives more planshape curve, which gives the happy result of a board which turns easily.
I think that your planshape is fine, but if you are worried about control then pull the tail in not the overall width, which is quite moderate actually.
I’ll leave the nose rocker as is, but maybe turn down the tail a little, maybe to 2". Waves here are not steep (Mex Gulf) and plan to use the board in summer small waves. I’m used to minimal rockers, my actual board has 2.3 in nose and 2 in tail. The purpose of building this board 24" wide is to compensate the lack of thickness. Maybe I can take it down to 23" but I don’t know how this will affect.
Jack
take it down to 23 it will be fine in volume so don’t worry
nice outline!
There seems to be an assumption floating around that surfboards should be as narrow as possible at the widepoint (or that they shouldn’t be extremely wide) and that width should only be increased to compensate for a lack of buoyancy due to going thin, a kind of surfboard anorexia if you like.
My take (based on having built and ridden boards from 18 inches wide through to 27 inches wide) is that surfboards should be built as wide as possible at the widepoint, that more width equals more lift and acceleration (Wide boards are fast!) and that the body soon adjusts and starts to enjoy the increased width.
Provided that the tail width is relatively narrow the wide board is able to handle hollow waves and steep walls as well as a narrow board, while being much faster on the takeoff (and in other places too!)
Wide boards need to be relatively thin so that the force required to sink the rail is less. . . . rather than thin boards having to be wide for buoyancy
Wide boards allow you to go thin for sensitivity and low rail volume, while giving more lift and speed.
In fact, wide boards rule !
Go for 27 inches at the wide point but keep the tail measurement the same and you will clean up big time !!
PS This only applies to tail riding boards (long and short), not noseriding longboards, which are camels (committee designed horse!) from the start.
PPS width does encourage the forward stance, so it does have style implications for sideways surfers.
Here’s an 8’1’ by 26 inches wide:
an 8’1" by 24 inches wide:
and the tail of my favourite 27 inch wide board ( The tail measurement is a single digit!):
Oh man now I’m confused!. I’ll stick to the original measurements, and see what happens. I changed the template to 1 inch narrower, and I don’t like how it looks. I’ll change the tail rocker to 2’‘, and leave the nose in 3’‘, single fin, and will be a noserider, so I can’t go as extremely wide as you tell me. Also, a 27’’ wide board will require more than 1 sheet of plywwod for top and bottom, which is economicaly inconceivable to me.
You can see attached the changed template. it looks quite different to me. Thanks everybody for the comments, but once again I can see in surf design nothing is written.
Stay online for future updates…
Jack
I made 4 boards very similar to your shape. 8 feet long, my favorite cruising length. I can ride it like a long board or push it hard like a short board. They all have a pretty flat deck and soft rails until the last third of the board where they start getting harder. I have various rockers and thickness on each one. I like to have a little bit of concave in the nose and a little bit of double concave in the tail, and I don’t like boards more than 21 1/2 inches wide. They are from less than 2 inches thick to almost 3 inches. Thickness makes it easier to paddle, but a little tricky pushing through when the waves are big.
What I found is that the one with the least amount of rocker goes the fastest, but is the hardest to turn. This board is great for long peeling waves that you just want to go flying along. It’s also great for small waves that need the extra glide to coast through the flat sections. The board with the most rocker can handle really round waves (hollow) the best. I’ve ridden it in double overhead south shore and it handles. The thick one paddles like a 10 foot board but turns much better. I like to use this when it’s not more than a little overhead and crowded.
I’d go with what you have, if anything a little less tail rocker. Tail rocker makes the board turn easier, and nose rocker helps when the waves are steep. A flat deck will give you a lot more volume and the board will paddle much better.
Good luck!
Over here our ply is metric so we can’t get 24 inches and 8 feet out of a sheet, more like 7’11" and 23 and a half.
Just wanted to say that I wasn’t wanting to contradict what the others were saying re. width, just like more of a parallel reality or different stroke. . . . . one thing is for sure, and that’s that the truth content of most statements is less than 100%, so usually the best attempts to say what’s true also say something false at the same time. This mind bending idea put me into cave sitting recluse mode for a few years
In other words narrow thick boards can be nice too
.
i agree with tom bloke
narrow boards suck unless your like a legend surfer
wide at the wide point and pulled in tail at the leading fins.
hey roy i figured out why your boards keep an even thickness
your on to it man!
ive been thinking a way to apply it to my boards
Brilliant deduction re. the even thickness there Silly, definitely keep this under your hat though (don’t change your username to Einstein), and don’t let on that this deep surfboard knowledge can only be discovered by growing your hair.
Now just to prove my point about truth content of statements (mine anyway) usually being less than 100%, I hereby contradict myself (and JStephen) by showing how a board wider than 24" can be gotten out of a sheet of 48" wide ply:
(drawing not to scale)
This is why the Scots and the Dutch (I’m both prefer the extreme pintail. . … it’s so Frugal on ply !
Of course the Irish don’t have trouble remembering to turn the two sides around to match so that one side’s both the same
.
yah at first i thought you were some sort of wierd eccentric hippy
now i realize
you are !
Hi Jstephen -
FWIW - the second version (with lowered tail rocker and a bit narrower) looks perfect to me.
Hi John,
Just wondering if we respond to the width of the planshape visually or by number. . . . I can’t tell how wide that planshape is by eyeballing it even if I know the length (certainly not so accurately that I can tell the difference between 23 inches and 24). . . . . . I notice often that in the water people will often take a guess at the length of one of my boards and they usually underestimate them by 2 to 5 feet… . . . and then I tell them how long they are and they freak out. . . . clearly they are responding to the number, not their visual perception of size. . . .
Hi TomBloke -
My comment was based primarily on eyeballing the rocker curve. I agree - hard to visualize planshape differences on these examples.
In general, civilians of the surfing world seem to get hung up with narrow dimensional parameters. Thanks to guys like you and Tom Wegener for blowing the envelope wide open!
hey jstephen,
The board you pictured has the exact same dimensions as this board in the photo below. Maybe this will help you to visualize it. Hope that helps.
Austin S.