Messages

Both My Tahiti and Waikiki boards have kayak seat attachments built in, the paddle that comes with it converts to a kayak paddle, and the Tahiti weights only 35lbs... same as a cheap chinese board like SUP ATX and Jimistyx etc.

Corran

There is one thing I'm curious about.

Corran has spoken about the benefits of narrowing the board. Colas prefers to shorten his boards. Where does this leave the third dimension, thinner boards?

If one has excess volume to trim, what benefit is gained by thinning a board out by .5" versus narrowing it by 1.5" or shortening it by 6"?

Most of 2011 I dedicated to this... I was riding boards in the 90ltr range, about 7'9" x 26" x 3'- 3.5"... getting the board thin made sense to me then... make the rail skinny like a shortboard... but after much experimentation I realized that the key was a pinched RAIL... what happens at the stringer as far as surfing is concerned matters less... better to increase stringer height and narrow the board... crowned boards are also more "lively"... basically: when I moved away from the idea of a 3" thick board and towards a 25" wide board... performance increased... on anything from waist+ to Head high surf.

UNDER waist high... its a totally different game....

Corran

Colas, having ridden several of his boards, they are not for me. They are "high performance" boards in the truest sense. For me, it was quite difficult to remain upright while paddling. I believe in a happy-medium for volume and stability. I can't relax on them.  However, I'm sure he could shape me one that I would like.
Say, a 7'4"x28"x3.75.

I'd love to drive a Formula 1 car someday. Would I be relaxed in it?  Hell no!

THAT I can do ;-)

Reduction in WIDTH, NOT length, is the key to increased performance.

Corran, I disagree. You should say "the key to increased performance in very specific type of waves". The kind of waves I never see where I live (or once a year), and some rare days in my travels. I tried a narrow board (27" ...  a wide board for you) in my waves, it was as fun as piloting the queen mary, slow, stuck in the water, on a rail, as much excitation as a week old dead rat. I'd rather have to move my rear foot than have a dead board.

It is like saying that the only high performance cars are the Formula Ones, forgetting that you need a specific place to ride them... Formula One cars are the highest performance cars you can find... on a Formula One circuit.

You forget I live in SO Cal... = Crap surf. Waist high, gutless garbage for the most part. We have decent swell period, but the waves themselves are junk.

Now, in knee to waist high surf, I have to give it to you... My Static is more fun (29" wide 7'3" design) but as soon as its more than waist high, my 25" board is way way better every time.

Stability (see my post on this in another thread) is learned. Its like say a 3 wheel bicycle is better than a 2 wheel one because its more stable. We... sure... but learn to ride a 2 wheel bicycle, and then the world opens to you. Also, don't forget that the original poster asked what the future of HP SUP surfing was... NOT what works for intermediates. So I'm talking about HP surfing, and what makes a board work better... and I'm NOT discussing what makes a board more ENJOYABLE to ride when you balance out speed of paddling, ease of paddling, ease getting onto a wave and surfing performance (as only 1 of 4 criteria). I'm addressing "what makes a board perform better ON THE WAVE.

NOW, it's possible that the narrow board you tried was simply a crap design and its bogging down had nothing to do with its width.

Corran

Badda Bing... exactly!

I disagree.

Reduction in WIDTH, NOT length, is the key to increased performance. Now assume what I say below is for some looking to reach the pinnacle of SUP HP surfing, not someone just looking to cruise. Its also based on waves that have some power too them... someone looking to coastal trot looking for waves, someone looking for an easy time paddling and standing, OR waves which are flat and guttless require a totally different kind of shape to them (long and wide... short and wide...). But lets assume for a second that the waves we're talking about are chest high and over, have some decent energy to them, and the surfer is decent enough. Based on that, this is my take:

We need a minimum amount of foam to stand on and paddle (this is relative to your weight) so the total reduction of size - the extreme you can go - is a finite number that is decided by your weight+board weight combined.

So for example, at 180lbs I need 92ltr minimum to have absolutely neutral bouyency... (I'm on a 95ltr). I want to go as narrow as I can, so for now I'm at 25" (24 would be better, 23 even better but then you start getting too straight of an outline because of the increased length needed to get the minimum volume)... . I want really pulled in ends and pinched rails, and want the board as thin as I can handle, without it wallowing, so I try to keep it around 4" thick at the stringer. Because of the above criteria, the minimum length I MUST have is 8'2". At 8', I don't have the MINIMUM of foam required to float given the criteria of pulled in ends and pinched rails shortboard style. If I went to 26" wide I could go to 7'10 (all other things being equal), but that ends up being a REDUCTION in performance compared to the 8'2"x25". Shorter is NOT better when the cost of shorter is an increase in width.

Rail to rail speed, reduction of foot movement, drive and hold all come from a narrow board with generous outline curve. You CANNOT have that from a short board that's wide.

(FYI - in 2009 I was on a 6'11"x27"x3.75" and this board is SIGNIFICANTLY LOWER performance than my 8'2" BECAUSE of the added width and reduced rocker required to make something this small hold my weight).

Anyway, that's my take....

Corran

Hey DW, why doesn't a domed deck make sense for east coast?  Is it only because it raises the center of gravity?  I'd like to hear your ideas for an east coast specific simsup.

Flat decks are just more stable than domed, regardless of volume.

can someone explain to me WHY a flat deck is more stable?

More volume = more stable... (in the traditional sense of course). Add volume and width and its even more stable. Instability comes from a rail diving down, the board sinking and then you loosing balance and falling off. Volume, and volume away from the center line, increases stability.

It takes 8lbs of pressure to sink one gallon of air. Lets assume for this purpose that your board is pure air (no material to make the foam as its close enough for this). If you weigh 200lbs, you need a MINIMUM of 100ltr in your board to have neutral floatation. This is just to float you with the very top of the board right at water level.

Now, stability is not the same as float, but they are related. Stability comes from the ability of the board to "push back" at you when you push down on it. at 100ltr, 50lts is on each side of the stringer. So it takes 100lbs of pressure (weight if you like) to push the right rail into the water. If you're standing centered on the board you're good. As you loose balance (lets say to the right) so you transfer more than 50% of your weight to that rail. Now you have more weight on the rail than the volume is able to push back against, and so it sinks. The more it sinks, the more you loose your balance, and the more weight you transfer onto that already sunk rail, and it sinks more... and more... until you either fall over, OR the "center" of the boards volume passes the 'tilt" point and it flips over (and then you fall).

However, its not that simple. Its not just about how much volume is on each side of the stringer. its also about how FAR it is from the stringer (moment arm), and how much of it is how far from the stringer.

If 70% of my right sides volume is within the first 6" of the board (measured away from the stringer) and only 30% is 15" from the stringer (on a 30" wide board), and I'm standing 10" away from the stringer, then my foot is already outside of the area that has the most foam/floatation. Therefore less pressure (weight) is required to sink the rail.

So... a board that has a lot of rocker, or a lot of outline curve, is going to have less volume out away from the stringer to push back at me than a board with wide ends, low rocker (low rocker engages that volume sooner as its already on the waters surface - rockered boards have a certain amount of the volume lifted out of the water and it only engages after the board starts to lean over). Boards with pinched rails and deck crown are going to have less volume to push back at you.

So... what does this mean?

A 25" wide 9' board that has wide ends and a flat deck with full rails and is 100ltr will be more stable than a 30" wide 9' board with dramatically pulled in ends and pinched rails that has 120ltrs.

But this is overly simplistic... standing height affects stability. For every 1/2" you move up, you need to add on average about 1" per side of width )this is dependent on rocker, width, outline and so on, but its about this) to have the same overall stability, so you get quickly reducing returns on increased volume from increased thickness. Also, as your board gets shorter, so you introduce a new dimension of instability  -end to end sinking which compounds the side to side instability. As you get closer to the "critical" volume for your weight (you and board combined) so reduction in length has an exponential affect on overall stability, and thus moving more volume towards the ends of the board becomes paramount to maintaining that stability.

One solution is to stand closer to the stringer. While this puts you in a position of feeling like you're always "slightly wobbly", its also harder for you to put the kind of pressure on the rails that causes them to sink, as your weight is centered.  Closer feet, kung fu style, will allow you to have much less instability as you're not pushing out on the rails. Pulled in ends, more rocker, pinched rails are all benefits of a tight standing stance as YOU loose YOUR moment-arm of pressure to push on the rails, and thus the board needs less of that moment-arm to push back.

Wide boards, wide ends, flat decks, full rails, low rocker ALL increase stability if you stand with a wide flat stance. The downside is a massive reduction in board performance. As your stance narrows, so you can quickly reduce volume, and more significantly, reduce how far that volume is located away from the central part of the board, and thus shape the board, with a view of more surfing in mind rather than paddling (stability) in mind.

Make sense?

Corran

Narrow stance lets you have a smaller, narrower more progressive shape overall.

I can't wait to compare the Bobby Roger to my new custom version of the Mach one I was telling you about.... same overall tail rocker but slightly more "kick" to it, 1" more nose rocker in the tip, 1.5" narrower (25" wide) and 1/4" ticker at the stringer but same rail volume...

Can't wait to try them back to back...

Ohhh... this is always so much fun.

Corran

I'm very fond of my Rapidfire, it goes about anywhere, and you don't have to worry about unloading it from the truck, just push it off. Weight is an issue though, and I'll go for one of Corran's Kevlar boards next year--if they're big enough.

any size can be made ;-)

I wasn't talking about unlimited class. I was saying, "open ALL of it". Ditch all the rules for racing SUP, period.

yes, in the early stages you do run into a rapid progression of equipment and obsolete designs, but this settles down very quickly, and the end result is WE ALL have better equipment as a result of the initial technological race.

Corran

A long time ago, in a sport far far away....

In the 1960's whitewater kayaking was in its infancy. Boat design was all over the place and changing rapidly. So... rather than letting it develop, some smart ass decided to put rules on them. No kayak could be shorter than 4m, or longer than 5m, narrower than 60cm or wider than 70cm. A few other rules were put in too, but lets stick with that. By 1972, no slalom kayak was ever 1cm longer than 4m or wider than 60cm... by the mid 1970's the kayaks were essentially 3.5m long with these "stick" ends to reach the required length, and they were narrower with little "wings' to hit the required width. In 1996, slalom kayaks, and the skills required to paddle them, were much the same as they had been in 1979. Some changes of course, some improvements, but essentially the same. In 1992, I competed in the Olympics with a team who had medaled in 1972, retired, started training again in 1990 and medaled again in 1992. Once they got their physique up to scratch after 18 years of retirement, the skill sets they had to learn were nominal. In about 2004 there was finally a rule change to 3.5m length. Within 2 years all slalom kayaks were 3.5m and within a year later had the same "stick" ends on them to make them even shorter  than the rules allowed, while respecting the rules. Instead of throwing the rules out, they substituted one random rule with another. Where would slalom be today if in 1960 they had just let the sport develop on its own without tying it down with ball and chain?

In about 1985 whitewater freestyle started to evolve and in 1991 the first world championships appeared. Unlike slalom there were no rules on designs at all. None. ANYTHING GOES. By 1999 the sport, the skills and the equipment were evolving so rapidly that if you took a year vacation and then came back, you'd have no chance of even making top 50%. The boats would look alien, and the skill set required almost completely foreign. In 10 years the kayaks went from round bottom 3.5m long to "surfboard" looking (flat bottoms, fins...) and 2m long. The sport was exciting to be a part of and to watch because it was always changing.

Now freestyle has settled down and the boats evolution is slower (as can be expected). The skill sets are developing but more constant. But the sport found its own way... if rules had been applied (there was an attempt in 1993 to put a minimum length of 3m on the kayaks - can you imagine if that rule had succeeded?) the sport would be lame compared to what it actually is today.

Someone randomly decided that race SUP's should be 12'6". Not 13' or 12' or even the rounded out 4m or 10'... but 12' "SIX"? Why? because one company made a blank that size. How random is that? Then someone else decided that 14' is the max length (really... 14' ... when surf skis are half that length longer again as are sprint kayaks and so on). Then twin hulls were banned... why... because athletes on single hulled boards were getting their asses handed to them. Rather than make their own multi hull, they banned them. Rudders were banned... and all this when the sport was in its infancy. You couldn't have played a stupider hand on the sport.

Can you imagine how lame SUP surfing would be if when the racing rules were made, similar ones were made for surfing. No boards under 9'6", or with multi fin bottoms... (single only)... now we have people on 5 fin boards 6'6" long... SUP surfing is allowed to evolve naturally, while racing has been ball and chained into this abstract (now archaic) set of rules based on a clark foam blank (clark foam is now gone) and short sighted racers lacking the long term vision to deal with temporary equipment shortcomings against some others in order to do whats best overall for the sport.

Let SUP develop naturally. NO RULES. NONE. Take them ALL off and see where the sport goes. The athletes will be faster, the game will get better and there will be real challenge. Then in 15 years when things settle down, if you want to put rules on to stabalize it, go ahead... when it's evolution has already ground to a crawl.

Of course... this is just an opinion

Corran

Ha ha ha... Nukes tomorrow....

There was a 6 footer trolling about the surf lineup at trails 1 yesterday evening....

Corran is that you at Phantoms on your avatar?!-
Nice!!

yup