evolution

[budgie]

Have been pondering the surfcraft and it evolution.

Looked at some old late 70s and early 80s twinfin kneeboards for sale the other day and it got me thinking about the evolutionary deadend streets and the golden paths most followed in designs.

We even go back and try some of these EVOLUTIONARY DEADENDS and they work, they function and they show us something from our past and some of us even steal snipets of some design feature and bring the past into the present or into the future by incorporating some design fluck or some aspect that challenges us today.

Some examples:

George Greenoughs spoon design has seen a Retro resurgence and I am yet to have ridden a proper spoon, has a go of a sort of spoon 30+ years ago.


Friar Tuck early 80s wide nosed squared tailed fourfins which Dave Parkes shredded on and I am yet to ride one.


I see the big boards (long 6ft+ and 3 inch thick) becoming those of an experimental evolutionary deadend.

And I have riden them and they work well, but I see future problems with them. I ride 5ft 8in x 24 in wide x as thin as I can get, to emulate pro style footboards

However there is an extremely strong passion for these boards at the moment and I was wondering what others thoughts are, especially of the shapers who frequent this great forum.

[kneelingBROTHA]

I think the "oversized" boards have a lot to do with the current market conditions. There aren't a lot of young, fit kneelos out there, and the market is aging. No offense intended, of course.

Obviously, there are plenty of examples of the older generation in great shape and killing it, as in the Indo Sparrow DVD.

Look at the standup "Big Guy Tri" boards for a parallel in footboarding. People just want to have fun. Let them!

On the other hand, though, I agree with you, I want to ride short, performance-oriented kneeboards and see what happens. But I'm 6'1 and 270lb, and even though I'm losing weight, I cannot see myself on a little chip in the near future.

Big guys need big boards in everything but critical surf, that's just the truth, and an unfortunate fact. Without the proper thickness and planing surface, we can't even pump down the line, we just sink.

Surfer Magazine had an Q&A section snippet years ago with a former 80's/90's WCT rider named Wes (I forget his last name), he pointed out that unlike the sprightly feather- and bantamweights, big guys need big boards, especially in small surf. And furthermore, I believe he said he always had trouble in really small surf, due to the fact he couldn't ride boards as tuned for performance as could the smaller guys.

[Tony Wales]

Surfer Magazine had an Q&A section snippet years ago with a former 80's/90's WCT rider named Wes (I forget his last name), he pointed out that unlike the sprightly feather- and bantamweights, big guys need big boards, especially in small surf. And furthermore, I believe he said he always had trouble in really small surf, due to the fact he couldn't ride boards as tuned for performance as could the smaller guys.

It was Wes Laine ... and he hails from Virginia ... (I think that says it all) ...

[austo]

After 15years out of the water it was another world in choosing a board when making the decision to start surfing again. I went into a local surfshop here in WA and low and behold there was a second hand kneelo on the rack. I took a look at it and thought to myself my how things have changed. It was a 5'9 x 24 x 2.5 Hotbrewz shaped by Mark Fitzpatrick (Bugie , being an old West oz bot will be familiar) it looked to only be a few years old (3 years ago).After not even seeing a kneelo for all those years to me it looked like a foot board with a bit of extra width because in comparison my last board back in the day was a four fin friar tuck around 5'6 x 24x MAX( from memory )with the the big square tail ,two raelly sqare flyers and wide round nose just as the one you described Budgie. I had to find my feet ( or should that be knees) again in the water but surprisingly it didnt take long to find the groove again BUT damn it was harder than I remember getting out to the line up and making fast sections than I remember (quite a few kilos lighter back in the day). I put it down to the board and after discovering this web site realized you CAN surf kneelos 6 feet and above in length!
I am 6'2 95kg and my smallest board is 5'11 x 23 x 2.5 and need this size and above in a board. After experimenting with numerous other boards that I bought second hand I was able get my new boards made to how I discoverd I wanted them. I believe in length but feel that the thickness of the board should be kept to the minimum where practicable but of course this is only my thoughts and observations there are so many variables in board selection I guess.
I'm interested on the comment " I see future problems with them"...Budgie what is it you see that so many of us dont??
Will everything old become new again the footboard industry seems to think so.

[budgie]

Hi Austo
I feel you are on the right track in saying " length is ok but thin not thick"

Guys tend to be ridng boards too thick and problems can be seen all over these forums

eg :Duckdiving can be hazardous

and

boy do you need strong arms and shoulders hense all the back neck etc problems guys are having see Health matters in this forum.

and

to turn one of these big boards especially the thick ones YOU NEED TO BE FIT yet most riding them are OVERWEIGHT AND UNFIT according to the forums


Just scan a whole heap of forums and see if it makes sense.

Anyway thin boards are good no matter what size they are and the bigger boards should be even thinner 2in to 2 1/4in.

Hey I ride strange boards that I am experimenting with chimes and stealth assault vehicles to Blair MickleJohn flex fins and they work, well some do and one doesn't but I am working on that and in years to come I may think of me in 2009 as alot of others do now.

Back in the late 70s Saul Atkinson from WA was riding ENERGISER surfboards from Margaret River and heaps of crew laughed at the boards because they were no nose and from my memory the noses are what footboarders ride today, back then though noses were very full and rounded, does anyone remember the boards?

[Bumps]

Greg,

Quote, 'I ride 5ft 8in x 24 in wide x as thin as I can get', very similar to the dimensions Ross used to shape for you, maybe .25' thinner?

Is it the overall thickness of the board or the reduced volume in the rails you're look for? I'd imagine the thin rails, combined with your 'drivey' fin set up and where you kneel all combine well for you.

However, for guys that are further up the board, with the fins at 17- 17.5" and are pushing 85-90kgs + would find the low volume rails too responsive.

I've gone from riding wafers to 2 5/8" thick board back to 2.5 with volume removed from the rails works for me. I don't like the bladey rails I used to ride, 10kgs and 20 years ago.

I personally like some volume in my rails, something I can push against and they are a bit more forgiving, especially in bumpy conditions..... but in hollow, clean surf, I do like lower volume in the rails. Hmmm, time for a quiver!

Not to sure about the relationship of injury to board thickness. My shoulder issue or issues are due to wear and tear. Something, the majority of late 40's + who were very active in their teens, 20's and 30's. My 'good shoulder', the one that has not been fixed is a prime example of that. Posture, when paddling I'd heard was a potential cause of lower back issue's.

Maybe, a medico or Physio can gives us a low down.

Anyways, enjoy reading your posts, will catch up with you this year. With my job change, I'm travelling again with Melbourne on the agenda.

Good waves to you.

[KneeBumps]

Hi Austo
I feel you are on the right track in saying " length is ok but thin not thick"

Guys tend to be ridng boards too thick and problems can be seen all over these forums

eg :Duckdiving can be hazardous

and

boy do you need strong arms and shoulders hense all the back neck etc problems guys are having see Health matters in this forum.

and

to turn one of these big boards especially the thick ones YOU NEED TO BE FIT yet most riding them are OVERWEIGHT AND UNFIT according to the forums


Just scan a whole heap of forums and see if it makes sense.

Anyway thin boards are good no matter what size they are and the bigger boards should be even thinner 2in to 2 1/4in.

Hey I ride strange boards that I am experimenting with chimes and stealth assault vehicles to Blair MickleJohn flex fins and they work, well some do and one doesn't but I am working on that and in years to come I may think of me in 2009 as alot of others do now.

Back in the late 70s Saul Atkinson from WA was riding ENERGISER surfboards from Margaret River and heaps of crew laughed at the boards because they were no nose and from my memory the noses are what footboarders ride today, back then though noses were very full and rounded, does anyone remember the boards?

Not sure what you mean about needing strong arms and shoulders for thicker boards? Just the opp for me- I went to thicker boards as I hit my 50's because they paddle more easily, and I can pop into waves w/ a no paddle takeoff. They are definitely saving my neck and shoulders from the wear and tear of paddling smaller, thinner boards. But as mentioned in another thread, the higher volume buoyant boards are tough to duckdive.

[Kev]

I think what Greg is saying is that a thicker(more volume) board can require more effort to duckdive.

I have thick boards and I do agree with Greg that there is a point that too thick is too thick
BUT
what we can't agree on is when ... or how thick this is.
My boards are near 40 L and not the 50 L that he mentioned in a thread somewhere.

The bouyancy can help during the long paddles but what is appropraite ?
Should it be 1/3 your body wieght or less. Mine are a little less than 1/2.

Once the board is planning the thickness doesn't offer much and is probably working against you and the more power that wave gives you the more board speed and the less area will support you weight.
So Rocker and Planning Surface (outline) is probably the key.

Tow In has changed the choice of equipment for Big Wave surfing and so I guess this is evolution.

I was out at my favourite spot yesterday and I think all surfers there were been on craft thicker than Greg would consider right.
Just a bunch of sport/fun surfers having a good time. Not there to set new trends or to evolve the sport.

Commercially there is a trend (or passion) for Fish Boards at the moment. This is not evolution but probably marketing and a sign that the market is changing and not driven by the Pro Style.

It wasn't long ago that there was a thread here talking about one of Kelly Slater's boards and how, only a freak could ride it. There may be some evolution in that design but finding how to migrate that from a freak to a Pro ... and then to a normal surfer may take some science.
...
Or perhaps just some creative marketing.

[crippler]

less than 2 1/4 too thin ,more than 2 1/2 to thick
longer than 6 foot too long ,shorter than 5`5 to short
wider than 23 1/2 to wide ,narrower than 22 1/2 to narrow
more than 3 fins to many, less than 3 fins not enough
thats what i reckon but thats what works for my size and style in the local waves where i live.everyone`s different so are there waves,style goals and fitness levels.there is no standard high performance kneeboard and that`s the beauty of it although stats would show that rounded pin thruster is definately doin alot of winning in oz.And the footage and photo`s seem to support that these boards are pushing the limits of our sport the most.but maybe it`s just the surfer`s and they could also be doin it on a twinny,quad or single fin what do yo reckon

[griz]

G'day Budgie ,
again you've jolted my memory and yes I do remember Shaun Atkinson on his Ken McKenzie shaped Energys . With the benefit of hindsight I agree that they were onto something unique but at the time it was basically dismissed as a warped result of the excesses and lifestyles they embraced at the time.That crew and the Sunrise Surfboards crew were the original S.W. cowboys and were responsible for some of the most original surfboard concepts in the country focused on mainly at producing shapes aimed directly at the power of the S.W.
But without a profile , which is probably the last thing they were after , these concepts remained and faded away into the bush from whence they came .
Another shaper of the same era on a similar tangent and probably more so unheralded was Mitchell Ray , flipped up noses , full concaves , space ships decades before their time , for all except those who rode them .
As far as thickness goes isn't it a direct response to the weight it is meant to float . simply put if your paddling under water you go thicker and or longer until your not , and if its responsiveness you then are after then thin out the rails and leave the thickness in the middle .
With that in mind how can a board be too thick for a bloke if he has it made for his weight and strength.Then factore all this in and lengths go up according to the waves you intend to ride.
But I try to focus mostly on the colour and the spray job

[RMcKnee]

Another shaper of the same era on a similar tangent and probably more so unheralded was Mitchell Ray , flipped up noses , full concaves , space ships decades before their time , for all except those who rode them .

Mitchell Rae was the original "test pilot" for Outer Island surfboards, which were made by Glenn Ritchie and David Chidgey (from Dee Why) back in the late 60s - early 70s. Growing up surfing Bondi during that time I was fortunate enough to see some of their boards in Robert Coneeley's shop on Campbell Parade. Radical designs indeed. First concaves I ever saw, very very deep; hard, hard rails; chined rails, and full-on box rails too. Radical. My mate fell in love with and bought an Outer Island with a hand-painted bear on the deck ... ahhh ... Mitchell's still shaping today.

Very good interview here
http://www.outerislandsurfboards.com/ar ... story.html
includes very nice stuff about DY, Greenough, flextails etc etc etc.

[Bud]

An example of someone kneeriding a Mitchell Rae shape.
7' thruster (3 equal sized fins very near the tail) stand up surfboard.
It was so stiff, the surfer (Ghnasi, aka Craig Stokes) could barely turn the thing, which resulted in him breaking it in half a few times.
But a beautiful shape all the same, and Ghnasi scored some great barrels on it.


[albumimg]2480[/albumimg]

[surfhorn]

Crippler - always ride mine 2 3/8".

[red]

Mini skirts and boots
A whole lot of it is fashion and a way to sell another board to the same person.

But it's not right to talk of old designs and say 'we tried that, it did (didn't) work"

Almost every time an old concept is dragged out it is evolved - the no nose concept is made to work by better rocker (Mark Richards said smething like "There are no bad outlines - just bad rockers"), the fish by altered thickness flow (and rocker and rails), the concave deck by different (composite) construction, tow-ins showing us that less is more etc etc.

It's not dead ends but a never ending crossing of paths.

Budgie, maybe one of Mick de Stasio's "Strapper" boards would be inspiring for you - a no-nose, thin, loose short twinny. He can surf them 2' to 10'.

[ScottMac]

Longboard, shortboard...

Pretty soon we're gonna have EMO kneelos, or maybe
even FIXIE kneelos.

The golden days are over.