Is the volume really necessary?

red · Post by **red** » Thu Oct 02, 2014 5:46 pm

Crox,
Mention volume and you'll always fire up the big boys.

Tow in boards. Low volume, low area, even weighted.

Hydrofoil boards. pretty much zero volume.

Then we get to the ultimate low volume kneeboard - the spoon.

You could make up a sheet of curved plastic with zero internal volume, but positive water displacement (i.e. rails). Technique and wave power would dictate whether you could cut-back, etc. To design such a craft: Hull (like a spoon), stepped bottoms like edge boards, "modern" bottom? Allow for dynamic rocker like spoons or build in stiff rocker? Outline...etc. etc. Would it do, to paraphrase he who should not be named on this site, wigglebutt surfing? Unlikely. Would it be a trip? Very likely.

Or you could just deflate your mat and learn lessons that way

As Tim Minchin said to the University of WA gathered faculty and students: Opinions, unlike assholes, need to be pulled apart and examined closely for gaps and defects.

Shelfbreak · Post by **Shelfbreak** » Thu Oct 02, 2014 7:53 pm

Let's avoid the condescending stuff, its an open forum and one must a few expect divergent views (misguided or not).

They marketed plastic paipos in the late 70s - Bellybogger.

Spoon deck twin fin devices you could duckdive them to the bottom with ease. Flippers were needed and you caught waves with outstretched arms. Great fun in sucky fast waves but not so good in general stuff. The high volume alternative worked just as good in the sucky stuff and much better under average conditions and haunts us to this day.

crox · Post by **crox** » Thu Oct 02, 2014 10:50 pm

Thank you for the breath of fresh air Red! [or is that too gushing!]

Shelfbreak...I was not trying to be condescending, just stating the way it is, & why most people who used to post about design on this forum don't anymore.
To be even less condescending [if you see it that way] ...just answer the question I asked....is the design principle correct or not....& why would it bog.

crox · Post by **crox** » Sun Oct 05, 2014 5:03 am

In the high scoring Kelly quote stakes we have scored a bit of a coup.
My daughter met up with him at the Quicksilver Pro in France this week. He already knew a lot about my designs as he had got Davey Smith at CI to knock up some prototype split flextails - [pity he can't cut a straight slot]
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Davey-Sm ... =1&theater

They got into a discussion about volume & the thread running on KSUSA....Kelly just pointed to the camera & said "Listen to her dad!" -

album_showpage.php?pic_id=33525

When WT competitors were asked about the comments others had written on that thread, Mick said they were "fanning the flames", Owen said I was "wright" & Miguel said "they were a load of ...."

.......& yes, it is my daughter & CI are using my designs.

hankj · Post by **hankj** » Sun Oct 05, 2014 3:17 pm

Crox I'm not an engineer or anything so there's something I think I'm not understanding. Doesn't lack of slope on the face of a wave make all boards bog eventually? If a wave backs off until it's flat eventually any board is going to bog. But why wouldn't the same exact shape except twice as thick glide farther since the extra volume would be a force contributing to the board planing on the surface of the water for longer? Or is this not how it works (anecdotally it's always seemed that way to me)? I'm not an advocate of thin or thick boards per se, but isn't it the case that a board's float helps it to float? And so glide, because when the forward energy contributing to glide lessens a thin board is going to sink a little sooner and so not stay on plane for quite as long?

My current board is floaty and surfs nicely, but I will say this - if you snap stall it to an almost dead stop (like to stall for the barrel), as you wait for it to reengage and get going again it bucks a little on the swirling surface of the wave. Thinner boards I've had in this situation sit down deeper in the water while you wait for the lip to come over and the forward drive to start again, and so don't seem as subject to surface chop and throwing you off. The point being that my thicker board doesn't sink as soon when things slow down (not always an advantage but sometimes it is).

Bryn · Post by **Bryn** » Sun Oct 05, 2014 11:31 pm

Hats off Chris! Looks like some fun stuff being tried by them will keep tabs on the progress for sure.

Been pondering on this a lot in relation to your original question and as Red said, as long as you have surface area and enough rail and purely want performance then yeah sure you don't need it. As I'm sure you remember most of my boards used to be 2 3/8" thick and probably did some of my best surfing on them.

I still stand by my earlier comments re leverage and glide but width is a key to lift also, as with everything a balance has to be found!

I think a lot of the volume I have added personally was to aid two things in particular. First being the switch to not using flippers so actively looking for an easier transition and second being reduced water time due to child and full time work hence lack of surf fitness! So all about ease of use and maximising water time rather than ultimate performance.

Been thinking about it so much I'm pretty keen to try something thin again now I've got a bit of fitness back... I have one blank left and wouldn't hurt to have something bladey in the quiver even if I have to use flippers.

The beauty of surf craft, infinite ways to get from a to b. I ride my mat on low inflation and the feel you get is incredible, every power pocket ripples right through you but it's a very different style of wave riding do not quite sure if it directly relates. Still autumn is finally with us so lots of time for testing it all out!

Shelfbreak · Post by **Shelfbreak** » Mon Oct 06, 2014 2:16 am

Hi Crox

Sorry about biting - it was actually the Tim Minchin quote in Red's post I that got up my nose. Need to develop a thicker skin !

I cannot answer your question directly - probably already apparent to you.
Perhaps if I had some video of my frustrating sessions on the low volume board I referred to previously I could be more specific.

I genuinely look forward to the insight we will gain from your line of enquiry.

Cheers

crox · Post by **crox** » Mon Oct 06, 2014 9:20 am

Shelfbreak, I'm sorry I bit back! I have always considered you to have a pleasant, helpful & positive internet demeanor!
If all other things were equal in that design [& they rarely are] I would put it down to rail volume. Too much rocker can also be a factor.

Hankj, I'm not trying to be obtuse but the answers lie in the posts I have made. A factor to consider is that kneeboards carry a lot more rail
volume than performance shortboards. They have developed that way as a result of two things. We are able to apply a lot more power to the rail
with our knee placement & we also need to keep our knees out of the flow of water.....which we do as a result of that rail volume.
Therefore we do not bury the board to the depth [towards the stringer] a performance shortboarder does & if we did, we would be instantly aware
of knee drag & the stalling effect. We do however bury a decent bit of forward rail.....if we are turning with power.

Bryn, I would just say to keep your rail volume if you are going thinner.
Regarding the 2 3/8" board. There is of course "The Elephant in the room".....& if I were a braver man I would start a new thread entitled -

"We started with the most flexible boards out there & we ended up with the stiffest...did we mean that to happen?"

As a by-product of our added volume on the stringer we ended up with a very stiff board. If you take the average performance shortboard & pop
it up on some trestles, it's amazing how much flex is there. I think that the livelier feel of a thinner board is often a result of that.

As you said, "a balance has to be found".....& that balance has to be the result of meticulous execution....you can't do it in a less than holistic way.
My pursuit of that has taken me to split flextails to get more than my share of flex back & the flatter tail rocker, straighter tail outline [& speed]
that allows.
Our tendency is to shape or order an all-round board,[compromise] often due to cost restraints. I just feel the need to run a stripped down version
that gives away some paddling ability for some raw low centre of gravity fun!

Shelfbreak · Post by **Shelfbreak** » Mon Oct 06, 2014 4:44 pm

Hi Crox

Cheers - I think rail volume may have had a lot to do with it. I also found the rest of your post very instructive. The last para about compromise is a good observation. Unless we order a quiver we are in effect striking a compromise.

red · Post by **red** » Tue Oct 07, 2014 7:59 pm

It was not my intention to be a troll. More a comment on my opinions.

Chris,
I've taken low volume rails to quite an extreme, especially in the tail area. This is not the thinnest I've done, but the only one I have pics of

Here is what I learned:

Thin rails don't mean you're going to bog a knee. You don't have to widen the design.
Thin rails might respond faster rail to rail.
Thin tails made me develop a "stalling" turn, rather than driving one*
My thin railed/tailed boards tube ride very well
Thin rails are harder to surf - when the lip hits the rail you really struggle for balance.
Thin tailed boards are wave catchers.
Thin railed boards sink into the foam so on roundhouse cutbacks I end up disappearing into the foam. The boards seems to sink until it gets through the bubbly stuff and then accelerates like hell on the solid water. Overall the cutback exit is faster than hovering over the bubbles.

*In an effort to make turns look radical, I started sinking the tail on top turns and snapping around that. Numerous failures at obtaining judging scores convinced me that the radness was in my head. A different board design may overcome this point.

analbirth · Post by **analbirth** » Tue Oct 07, 2014 10:37 pm

All very interesting, but i love volume. To me it means speed, being an old bastard. Speed paddling out speed paddling into waves and speed down the line. For most boards that are usually surfed in everything from fat to hollow, volume or thickness is more advantageous than a thin blade like board. If your just surfing powerful hollow waves then you can thin the board out as long as your prepared to put in the extra effort to catch them. Thats all i need to say for the moment.

crox · Post by **crox** » Wed Oct 08, 2014 12:32 am

AB you said -
"All very interesting, but i love volume. To me it means speed, Speed paddling out speed paddling into waves and speed down the line."

I don't think anyone that has posted would dispute the "Speed paddling out speed paddling into waves".
The being old bit is part of the reason I suggested for the increase in volume.
The "speed down the line" bit just doesn't stand up under scrutiny as being true, as I've already covered.

There is an argument for lower volume, later take-offs as setting you up for a more committed, faster bottom turn...& everyone knows that dictates the tempo of the whole ride.

Red - I think the whole thick rail/thin rail thing is worthy of another thread. As you say "Thin railed boards sink into the foam" so for me in weak waves that means knee drag on a bottom turn...but fine in some clean or more powerful waves. Thin tails are great as long as when you push you get some return out of them.
So much of the rail shape is down too how you surf. You said - "Thin tails made me develop a "stalling" turn, rather than driving one*"
The aim with my flex tails is the total opposite, to engage a rail & drive through the turn as efficiently & powerfully as possible.

analbirth · Post by **analbirth** » Wed Oct 08, 2014 10:33 pm

Crox, in full faces thickness matters, In full bumpy faces i'd still go for thickness but would want a heavier board as well. A thin board will die in fat waves and a lot of waves have a mix of full & sucky sections and that extra flotation helps in linking those sections up. As i said if your surfing perfect hollow or consistently powerful waves it's not an issue. Unless your old and have buggered shoulders like me

crox · Post by **crox** » Wed Oct 08, 2014 10:48 pm

Hi AB, This post should have been at the beginning of the thread, this ground has been covered & there is no point in going round & round over it.

eqKneelo · Post by **eqKneelo** » Thu Oct 09, 2014 2:03 pm

The "speed down the line" bit just doesn't stand up under scrutiny as being true, as I've already covered.

Of course it does.
Unless you are literally surfing perfect waves, your power source (the waves energy) will fluctuate (flat spots, reforms, waves jacking before they double up, sections connecting, ect).
If your board does not float you, you will not maintain your down the line speed to: make the next section, hit the next section, be able to attack the wave any way you want. You will be at the waves mercy and be hopping or dog paddling or flailing or just bogging.
And this isn't an opinion.
Again, video doesnt lie.
ive got plenty of video of guys surfing boards with plenty of volume that is distributed over plenty of length that is propotionate with their height and weight
(Simon, Gavin, Bert, Chayne, Kyle, Wardo, ect)

Please please produce the video of guys ripping on on these small thin boards in average surf.

We can compare the videos and all decide for ourselves who we aspire to emulate.

Cheers. Fun discussion.