Snowdonia Wavegarden

[foamy]

I'm beginning to get interested in this wave park due to open on 1 August.
I hadn't read much about it before, so excuse me if I am repeating stuff everybody, except me, already knows.

They've had the problem of generating a wave with affordable energy inputs. And then getting the quality of the wave. A particular problem with wave parks is that the backwash from the first wave affects the quality of later waves in a set. They've got a wide run off area with baffles at the sides which is successfully getting rid of this backwash turbulence.

The wave is created by a 'wave foil', like a snow plough blade that runs on a track down under the central 'wave pier'.


They say this snow plough method requires significantly less energy than other methods, plus you are not getting the quick loss of wave energy because the wave foil runs down the length of the pier.

Also, I think, one pass of the wave foil is going to create 6 waves (3 by 2)
The Peak, Advanced, 2 metre wave, 130 metre 18 seconds ride.
The Banks, Intermediate, 1 metre wave, 100 metre 14 seconds ride. (similar to the Spain version)
The Bays, Beginner, .6 metre wave, 57 metre 12 seconds ride.

Their frequently asked questions page is very good and pretty comprehensive.
http://waveparkgroup.com/faq/

Josema Odriozola, engineer and Wavegarden co-founder, a few weeks ago gave a little talk about whether wave pools will be bad for surfing. Worth a read.
http://surfeuropemag.com/longform/the-d ... COVr9rv.97

[foamy]

Not just Wales, but North Wales.

[steve shearer]

Even considering the guy has a slightly vested interest in the subject that was a very weakly thought through piece of writing.
It came across as self serving justification and not much more.

His thesis and problem: the popularization of surfing is ruining it.
His response: let's cash in on it by building wave pools.
Wavepools put surfing in the ocean , a free activity in a common resource into the hands of private interests where they can directly control it and profit from it. A stronger betrayal of the original promise of surfing is not possible.

[foamy]

Steve, it sometimes sounds to me that you have an underpinning belief that there is something inately wrong with all commerce, which means it is a bit pointless to debate with you the merits or otherwise of any particular business and we can just leave it at that.

But, he is clearly not putting 'surfing in the ocean...into the hands of private interests'. He is just making rideable waves in a chlorinated pool.
And, he poses the question, if there is something wrong with wave pools, the same criticisms would apply to ski resorts. Haven't you enjoyed cleared and groomed ski runs at ski resorts?

[steve shearer]

Well Foamy your first point is wrong. I have no problem with the fair exchange of goods and services.

The comparison with a ski hill is somewhat valid. I don't have time to do it now but I would like a reasonable discussion on it.
But for starters having a wave pool designer commenting on the ethics of wave pool is a fundamentally flawed process because everything he says ipso facto falls into the " well he would say that wouldn't he". The human capacity for self justification trumps almost all other facilities.
The waves he is producing are in the hands of private interests: he's charging a fee to tide them. A plank of his argument: that he is somehow doing a favour for inland people is bunking. He's selling them a product at a premium. A product that nature supplies for free. That's an insidious development.

[foamy]

But for starters having a wave pool designer commenting on the ethics of wave pool is a fundamentally flawed process because everything he says ipso facto falls into the " well he would say that wouldn't he". The human capacity for self justification trumps almost all other facilities.

That's like saying you should not comment on the ethics of fishing because you are a very keen fisherman.

[steve shearer]

Not really.
If I was a pro fisherman making money off it that would be valid.

[foamy]

Not really.
If I was a pro fisherman making money off it that would be valid.

If there is a debate about pro fishing, pro fishers are certainly one of the voices I would like to hear on the subject.

The waves he is producing are in the hands of private interests: he's charging a fee to tide them. A plank of his argument: that he is somehow doing a favour for inland people is bunking. He's selling them a product at a premium. A product that nature supplies for free. That's an insidious development.

There would be better analogies but, by that logic, wouldn't plant nurseries be insidious?

[steve shearer]

And I'm sure that without the countervailing arguments you would consider the inherent bias a pro fisherman might have about the subject.

[steve shearer]

A better analogy would b what Monsanto and other biotech companies are doing and yes, that is truly insidious.

[foamy]

And I'm sure that without the countervailing arguments you would consider the inherent bias a pro fisherman might have about the subject.

Absolutely, and there are plenty of countervailing arguments about the ethics of wave pools being posted. Good to hear his view though. Might not win the debate, but informs the debate.

A better analogy would b what Monsanto and other biotech companies are doing and yes, that is truly insidious.

I reckon that analogy is a bit extreme. He is not concreting over ocean waves to put in his wave pools.

[steve shearer]

No but it is part of a general alienation of man from Nature, of corporations and private interests packaging up and trying to control nature. Branding it and selling it back to us under their terms and conditions, which usually involve making a profit.
It's part of a general drift on the state of human affairs and I find it disturbing.

[steve shearer]

Could you point me to any essays which provide the opposing viewpoint on wave pools?

[foamy]

Could you point me to any essays which provide the opposing viewpoint on wave pools?

Mostly I have just read the opposing view on wave pools expressed in comment threads.
But this is a very good impassioned piece on The Inertia.
http://www.theinertia.com/surf/waves-do ... n-gardens/

[aaarating]

"He's selling them a product at a premium. A product that nature supplies for free. That's an insidious development"

Well not really. Maybe if you are a body surfer and can walk to a beach or point, jump in and catch waves that premise might hold true. But surfboard riding - which appears to be the actual commodity or product that's up for sale here - has always had an intrinsic cost attached. The ocean, wind, underwater reefs and landforms can create those 'free' waves to be ridden but:
a) depending on how far you need or want to travel there's going to be a cost to get there
b) there's going to be a cost for the equipment you need to ride the wave unless as stated you only want to body surf
So maybe the first 'insidious development' in the world of surfing was actually when surfboards were mass produced or when the first surfers jumped in cars and then onto planes in the search search for better waves?
It's just another step in technology and with it the future economies of scale that develop which just might produce the following scenario in 10 to 20 years. (Cue dream sequence music)
It's a stinking hot day, oceans as flat as a tack but chopped to the shitter with a 30 k NE'er ripping in complete with hordes of bluebottles and your mate rings you up. "Come round in an hour. I'm cranking up the wave pool to 3' glassy lefts and rights. The crew are throwing in for a barbie and bringing a case or three.
Are you seriously suggesting that you (or any sane Australian surfer) would say "No thanks mate. Your artificial wave pool is an insidious development I only ride natures waves"

[Davros]

Soon there will be guided tours through biospheres.

In the year 2525...

[aaarating]

Where can I book one?

[steve shearer]

"He's selling them a product at a premium. A product that nature supplies for free. That's an insidious development"

Well not really. Maybe if you are a body surfer and can walk to a beach or point, jump in and catch waves that premise might hold true. But surfboard riding - which appears to be the actual commodity or product that's up for sale here - has always had an intrinsic cost attached. The ocean, wind, underwater reefs and landforms can create those 'free' waves to be ridden but:
a) depending on how far you need or want to travel there's going to be a cost to get there
b) there's going to be a cost for the equipment you need to ride the wave unless as stated you only want to body surf
So maybe the first 'insidious development' in the world of surfing was actually when surfboards were mass produced or when the first surfers jumped in cars and then onto planes in the search search for better waves?
It's just another step in technology and with it the future economies of scale that develop which just might produce the following scenario in 10 to 20 years. (Cue dream sequence music)
It's a stinking hot day, oceans as flat as a tack but chopped to the shitter with a 30 k NE'er ripping in complete with hordes of bluebottles and your mate rings you up. "Come round in an hour. I'm cranking up the wave pool to 3' glassy lefts and rights. The crew are throwing in for a barbie and bringing a case or three.
Are you seriously suggesting that you (or any sane Australian surfer) would say "No thanks mate. Your artificial wave pool is an insidious development I only ride natures waves"

I take your points but I think there is a difference in kind as well in as in magnitude between a wave pool and buying a surfboard.

And if a mate rings me up in 10 years and invites me for a splash in the chlorine and I can swap some fillets for it of course I'll say yes. But if I have to pay a hundred bucks and get assaulted with shitty music and ads then it can lick my taint.

Anyway Webbers pool is supposed to be being built just up from Bribie so of course I will be roadtesting it for journalistic purposes.