Blast : Stubb Vector vs. Aussie Tri

Bud · Post by **Bud** » Sat May 17, 2003 2:08 pm

The difference in the Stubb Vector 4 fin and one of my tri-fins built for small surf is.............

The tri-fin has a more spontaneous turning reaction. With the center fin so far from the rail, one can easily overpower it. A certain amount of finesse and subtlety is required in getting up to speed. Being able to slide out the tail at will is great fun, especially in sloppy conditions where there is plenty of opportunity to bash into crumbling lips and sections. A key element to contest judging criteria calls for a maximum amount of maneuvers completed in the most critical part of the wave. Tri-fins are very effective for this with their ability to readily"whip" the tail around.

The Stubb vector has more drive than the Tri-fin so you can pump up speed when the waves don't have any juice. This allows you to cover a lot of distance quickly if needed or desired. There is a "tracking" feel, it's as if the board were on rails. The fins set into the wave, feeding the power to the board. Combined with the resistance of the rider pressing into turns, a lot of drive is generated. Tracking is a good thing if you know what to do with it. Well rounded, carving, high speed, turns with explosive redirections off of sections and the waves shoulder are easily accomplished utilizing this feature of this design. (Note the deeply gouged high speed turn Dave Sears is making with his Stubb Vector on the obviously weak wave, in the picture provided.)

Not all 4 fin designs function the same. A Parkes design 4 -fin has it's fins closely clustered and acutely angled. This makes for a very loose pivotal turning board that will ride more like a twin fin but with better flow and control. You still get that tail free feeling but the action is smoother.

In comparison, my 4 fins have their fins only moderately angled and separated. This suits the high speed approach we enjoy. To increase maneuverability we move the whole set forward and sometimes use a smaller rear fin template.

It boils down to how you want or need to approach your kneeboard surfing.
It's all fun!

MarkM · Post by **MarkM** » Wed Jul 23, 2003 5:22 pm

As one who owns a stubb vector for well over 2 years, I agree with Bud. My fins are also pushed up a bit more than other boards. It catches waves easily, planes quickly, and is loose especially if you move forward a bit. I'm having more fun in waves I used to pass on than I thought possible.

stemple · Post by **stemple** » Sun Nov 02, 2003 11:39 am

I recieved a new Stubb Vector early October. OB in SF has had 8 out of last ten days in the shoulder to Head+ range and decent to excellent conditions. I have surfed 6 sessions on the stubb on varying conditions from in-coming tide mush to outgoing solid head high walls (I am now way behind in work!!!, thanks Bud). I have to say that after 5 boards in the last 2 years from Parkes, Romanoski, and Mel; the stubb is the best board, most fun I have had yet. The thing is 5'11 and 24 inches wide and probably 2.75 inches thick, with squash tail. Man is it fun!!!!. The board is full .75 inches wider than anything else I own. The stubb gets up on plane so easy; at least one paddle earlier than my parkes 6'0 quad 23.25 ". I am big 220Lbs 6'2". Bud warned me about it not holding to well in vertical surf but it does incredably well. It drives well off the bottom and is loose enouth for full on roundhouse turns off the top or on shoulder. Yesterday morning it was solid head+ and hollow, saw at least a dozen full on tube rides and it handled the conditions very well but I was starting to see that something a little narrower could be slightly better. Never-the-less it still was a BLAST to ride. Anyways I am totally happy with it and feel its way more versitle for California surf conditions then I think Bud gives it credit for. Maybe other folks have come to this conclusion but I am starting to think that wider is better for big guys like me.

hart · Post by **hart** » Sun Nov 02, 2003 2:44 pm

stemple,

Looks like you closing in on the Holy Grail mate! Its all good.

Don't be afraid of width..your shaper just has to control the curves in his outline so that you don't end up with a mini-mal.

When I was a kid, I bought an old board of PC's..it was 25.5" wide and it ripped..The main reason ,here in OZ, that we are not going wider is that our blanks won't allow it.

Although, I know a guy from Nth Curl Curl (big Mike..6' 7" and 120kgs..I think 260lbs?)..we built him a kneeboard using two blanks (cut one off centre to the left..cut the other off centre to the right and then glued up the two wider halves) and got a six foot shortboard that maxed out at 26" wide! I know he loves it and its helped his surfing incredibly.

The only limitations we have begin with our imagination and end with the determination and talent of our shapers.

Oh, and why is a "blast aussie tri" not simply called a Thruster?

Regards from the land of OZ!

stemple · Post by **stemple** » Sun Nov 02, 2003 3:23 pm

Hart,

Thanks for the encouragment. I really think I am finally pretty close to finding board dimensions that really work for me. How would channels or a strongly concave bottom impact the board?. Would channels give it more speed? It seems plenty fast already.

Last Tuesday morning, while playing hooky, I kept trying to take off behind the peak because of the boards early planning properties. I was making about 75% of them. For the first time, I was actively experimenting about how much I could push the board. A few guys out were getting a bit P.O.ed at me because I was able to take off so much deeper and earlier then them. I let some go through and told them that they should get a kneeboard. It was good spirited line up banter!

Would a deeper concave help the wider board hold better in steep sections? Headwax has posted some pics of 14 mils of concave. Adding extra concave seems to me would stiffen the board a bit. I guess it is a compromise.

The only problem with going wider is that it makes it difficult to carry the board under my arm. Right now the board is close to my max arm length.

P.S. I have no idea why it is called the aussie style tri. There is a small explaination on his website in small print. I would defer to Bud to better explain that but I think he is referring to the fin forward design combined with a tri fin set up that you guys seem to favor and rip on.

Beeline2.0 · Post by **Beeline2.0** » Sun Nov 02, 2003 3:59 pm

hart · Post by **hart** » Mon Nov 03, 2003 4:30 pm

stemple,

I don't know if your asking what concaves would do in 'a' board, or 'your' board.

I use a concave principle in everything that I do..its all about directing the water flow along your bottom to get it to do what you want it to.

In my opinion, concaves replaced the (belly) chanells to which you also refer, by being a more efficient way of getting water into and out of your bottom curve...by doing it as quickly as possible.

But you can't rely on concaves alone. I reckon you've got to interplay concs with vee. You gotta put them in the right spot and keep them subtle.You've got to be really sure the surfer rides a lot of pockety type surf, cause they hate to stay flat.

Keep everything else you like in your board..and if you want, introduce something like an inverted curve in your next newy.

beeline,

Thanks for the link..but I know we've spoken about Thrusters before. I can help but give Simon Anderson his dues and even tho our fins are up more than a standup..no-one here at home would call our boards anything but a Thruster.

When we talk about trifins..it's generally about the single fins of the 70's to which guys like PC and Terry Fitz added half-moon or drifter type rail fins.

Hope its all cool

Bud · Post by **Bud** » Tue Nov 04, 2003 1:54 pm

Syd,

Ideally I'd have put a bit deeper concave in your board.

But the blank wouldn't allow it. It would have become a bit too thin for your size.

Clark Foam offers over 20 blanks for short stand up boards alone.

US kneeboarders have only one choice unless we import from Oz or have other blanks cut off center and glued up as Hart has done (& me too a number of times over the last 15 years). This more than doubles the price of the blank and the narrow halved version has to be absorbed into something........????

I begged them to make another option for us........longer, a bit thicker, wider.

They refused, stating........
"The kneeboard market isn't big enough to warrent the demand for more than 1 blank."

What we have was designed from input from several shapers (me included), not all kneeboard surfers.

It was designed to fill the needs of the older kneeboard design approaches still being built and as yet another option for stand up shortboards.

It's kinda too straight in the rocker, too short at times, and mostly too thin.
Worse is it's nearly 1/4" thicker on one side than the other.

Please complain to Gordon "Grubby" Clark of Clark Foam.
If enough of us make noise about it they "might" reconsider.

hart · Post by **hart** » Tue Nov 04, 2003 2:34 pm

What Bud says is so true also here in OZ.

I use Barry Bennett's foam here, cause Midget's kneeboard blank now generically suits stand-up fishes..way too thin for specific kneeboard use.

Barry also only blows these blanks on order..so each time I order 10..they get blown.

I'm just glad there is at least one company that still is keen to keep us in the water..if we only had standup blanks to work with we would really be in DEEP water!

But Bud, you mention rocker in your foam. I wouldn't tolerate Bennett determining my blank rocker for my work. All my blanks are glued to my own stringer shape..my own template..can you not get Clarke to glue to your instruction..or do they just not want to know about it?

Oh, one more thing..how many blanks have inherent problems..lumps, bumps and thickness inaccuracies?

Bud · Post by **Bud** » Tue Nov 04, 2003 3:18 pm

Bruce,

I do have my own rockers (4 different ones at the moment) glued up as needed. These are semi generic to my designs and set up so that I can tweak them as needed.

Fortunately the kneeboard blank (6'2" C ) is almost always on hand at the factory.
If not, I have to order 30! OUCH!

They use a "computer prompted" production schedule.
When sufficient numbers of a particular blank are in their system the blank gets blown.

As far as irregularities..........
I've noticed some of the same inconsistencies in a couple of their other blanks.
Mostly the larger volume ones, and those are older models. Their "close tolerance" blanks are pretty true.

Done with lunch......back to the shaping pit

hart · Post by **hart** » Tue Nov 04, 2003 7:51 pm

Bennett kneeboard blanks measure 6'5" on the deck line..so it seems we have a touch more length to work with before you need to do expensive glue-ups on (bigger) standup blanks.

And Bud..you stop to eat?

Take care mate.

hart · Post by **hart** » Thu Jan 01, 2004 11:56 pm

G'day Headwax,

Is Peter Sheely (Shaper) using Midget's foam for your kneeboards? He is a standup shaper..so maybe he is.

But paddle to me, is more about bottom-entry than cork ( read thickness)..because corks move BACKWARDS in a swell.

Like, exactly the opposite to the way we want to go.

Thickness isn't everything to me when it comes to paddle because your bottom shape is much more important..but thickness in the middle that's less than 2" thick?

Sounds disadvantageous to me and may make you look for too much length therefore to compensate.