Martin Potter's boards; interesting

[the kalakau kid]

thanks mate. Will try to drop in sometime. Love to hear how your new board turns out.
Anyone out there rding a fish that is close to the original style?

[nubby]

ahhhhh, steve lis, not the cambell bros! *slaps self in forehead* thanx for a sortin me KK......and yeah i was a grom but i remember mat oy just SPEWIN about losin to curren on that antique board. but it was tiny if i remember correctly, so thats not so bad for tha hoysta.

[joshalohasurf]

Chriss Garrett makes wood veener boards he makes em for rasta.

[matt...]

Pottz has a good point here...and think of his physique when talking about volume in shortboards.
He is not that tall, probably around 5'9'' or so, but is f@#$%g built as, massive shoulders & solid build.
I am not as built as Pottz, but am definitely on the solid side, and am 5'10".
During the early '90's when the Webber style "banana" boards came out, heaps of rocker, various flavours of concaves, they were under 18 1/2 wide, under 2 1/4 thick, and height to suit the surfer...
I had massive amounts of trouble paddling these boards, and snapped every board I ever had that was less than 2 5/16 thick - I have never snapped a 2 5/16 or thicker.
To put it in perspective, in 1986, I was riding a 6'0" x 19 1/2" x 2 1/2" squash tailed thruster with belly channels - this board went off, but I was 15 kgs lighter in those days...
By 1991 I was on a NEV 6'1" x 18 1/4" x 2 1/4" s to d concave square tailed thruster with a rolled deck - heaps less volume all over, especially the rails, really thin rails. By this stage i was 6 kgs heavier than i was in '86.
I am now convinced that this period of board design was more suited to the thinner, leaner, lighter framed surfer. Stockier guys like me struggled when paddling - but once on the wave, no problems.

Mid '90's I added a bit of width, height & thickness to my boards, toned down the tail rocker & copped heaps of shit comments when I was ordering my boards!
Comments like:
you should be on a 6'8" x 17 3/4" x 2 1/8", not a 6'3" x 18 3/4" x 2 5/16"!

well, a board like that to me would be an indo semi gun tube riding rocket! Not an every day shortboard!

These days I have combined the positives picked up from this era, like:
rocker - but have toned it back down again, heaps less tail rocker.
concaves - never looked back on this one.
rolled deck - thinner rails for better rail to rail surfing (for me, anyway).
swallow tail - tighter in the pocket, i will never buy another square tail ever!

But, since then have put on a few more kgs, so now am more comfortable reverting back to more volume for easier paddling, but funnily enough have not sacrificed manouvreability!

My current shortboard is 6'5" x 19" x 2 1/2" and is working well for me.

But at the same time I can understand that the lighter framed guys not wanting more volume - (nubby's comments).

So going back to Pottz's - I think this thread is really aimed at board design for the medium to larger frame guys, but not necessarily taller guys.

I have always had the view point that your board shape should mirror you're body shape, ie:

tall, skinny surfer = tall, thin, narrow board.
short, skinny surfer = shorter, thin, narrow board.
short, solid surfer = shorter, wider, thicker board.
tall, solid surfer = taller, wider, thicker board (more commonly & cruelly nicknamed the fatboy).

Then you apply your favourite refinements:
rocker
tail shape
rail shape
deck contours
bottom contours
fin adjustments

That's just my view, but it certainly applies in my case.

[philw]

buzzy - was the board a pale green twinny? if so, it was me you saw. i got it a few weeks back - 5'10 x 20" steve lis style twinny - and i dinged it really badly after riding it only 5 times! i was taking it in to be repaired. can't even say that i've figured out how to ride it really. my 'normal' board is a 5'9 stubby swallow tail fish hybrid thing (it defies description) which i ride with big side fins and a small trailer. the twinny felt very different. much less responsive but very smooth. surprisingly similar to paddle etc despite being a good bit thicker. i've yet to find a 'standard' shortboard i feel comfortable on. i've tried loads of things but nothing feels as good as my fat little fish. i'm going to get ben to do me a slightly wider/thicker 6'3 rounded pintail for more solid waves but i won't be surprised if i ride the fish 90% of the time still. i'm an average surfer, 5'11 tall and 78kg so i guess an average dimensions board should work?

[nubby]

ahhhhhh, the old trap philw......surf ya hybrid fishka to long for a stretch and then ya jump back on a standard thruster and it feels like a tank......i purposly take my normal shorty out in about a quater of the waves i should be ridin me fish in so this dont happen, like ill never ever ride it more that 5 or 6 times in a row.....like i know crew who are still gettin back into thier shortys after bein on fishes for 3 months over summa.........

[philw]

nubby - yeah true. but why make life hard for yerself? i take out my shortboard (6'3 rounded pin) once in a while and i spend the whole time fighting to get past the section, taking off too late etc. i don't even think there's much advantage in hollow waves. the fish seems to go just as well when it's barrelling (small tubes that is!). i reckon it's just a fact of life - i'm a 33 year old desk slave - there's no point in pretending otherwise. might as well enjoy my surfing when i can 'cos i don't think i'm ever gonna put in enough time to improve dramatically and ride a hi-performance shortboard.

[theboat]

thats a fair call phil, i mean there is nothing worse than seeing some 40 year old guy struggling to catch any waves on a shorty, just because he saw parko win the bells comp on one (yiew!!!) when they could have so much more fun and surf so much better on a fish or a mal or something.

[matt...]

i can sympathise with you philw, after spending the last 18 months struggling on my 6'3", especially the taking off late bit. but life is great now on my 6'5"...except i'm 34...5'10 and 89 kgs.
a bit of thickness & width on a 6'3" should be alright for you @ 78kgs...

i've never ridden a fish - is it like riding a mini-mini-mini mal? or different alltogether?

i could go a short, fat retro twinnie, though, that would bring back some memories...

[buzzy]

philw, I don't think it was you I saw. I felt the guy I saw was a bit older than 33, but as you may guess I wasn't paying a lot of attention. He'd also come straight out of the water to the shop (ie still with his wettie vest and boardies on and wet hair etc).

I've been contemplating what sort of boards I should be riding as my surf skills come back in my latest enthusiasm for surfing. My "heyday" was the early eighties so it's no surprise I feel more comfortable on a wider, thicker board. I can definitely surf a modern thruster but the later takeoffs are a pain, unless you are in the pocket you have no speed etc etc. So, I'm not sure if I ride a semi gun standard thruster for bigger waves, or just go the whole hog and get a modern fish hybrid in a longer length (ie wider and slightly thicker than a standard thruster). I certainly enjoy the thicker wider boards in smaller surf to the point I just wouldn't contemplate a standard thruster in thise conditions.

I've also gotta be realistic. I'm 38. I have an arthritic toe. I basically surf Sat and Sun and public hols and a few midweek days here and there. I'm a relatively stocky guy at 175cm and 85kg. I surf ok but I'm never gunna surf like Parko. And I don't care. I can always get better but I have to be realsitic. And realistically the equipment that's good for him isn't necessarily good for me and vice versa. So I figure I may as well work out gear that suits me, not gear that would be pros think is cool. And I definitely surf better on the wider, thicker gear.

[Simple Ben]

Don't get too carried away with thickness and width on your big wave boards philw. Just make sure you have enough volume to enable you to paddle in ok but anything else will just be a hinderence in the bigger stuff. A board with too much volume in bigger waves will tend to ride too high in the water thus making it prone to spinning out etc. Tom Curren may be able to do it but I reckon he could have ripped it up even more if he was on one of his standard boards.

[BEN]

heaps of guys have started to move up sizes!
i have gone up to 6'2x 18.5x 2 1/4
im about 5'10 and weigh 72 kg.
compared to my old 6 footers it feels so much easier to surf, way more forgiving, more speed and bigger turns.

[theboat]

hmmm yeah... i can completley sympathize with what you are saying, i mean just two months ago i went from a 9'1 to a 9'2 haha

above someone asked if afish is like a mini-mal, i have a fish but no minimal..... i have ridden one however and found it completley different. it's kinda hard to explain, but put simply... if you are a half decent surfer, fishs are just.....better!

minimals seem to lack the manouverabilty of the shorty, yet still manages to lack the glide and speed of a mal.... that leaves it as a slightly awkward, wobbly, buoyant, ugly piece of machinery!

some of you may love your mini-mal, and as i said, i dont have too much experience on them but thats just my two cents.

[wheresKONG]

i agree..... ride whatever the hell lets you have the most fun (unless your trainin for the QS) thats what its al about.
i ride my fish 70% of the time.. because sydneys waves warrant it.
i'm 6 foot and 84kg
my fish is 5'10" x 20" 1/2 x 2" 1/2
Darren Symes tombstone. i love it normally ride it with a set of MR FCS twinnies and a stabaliser... but move to a more standard thruster combo when the waves get better and over 3ft
once it gets over 4-5ft
i move onto a more standard board with elements of my fish.
its..... 6'4" x 19' 3/8 x 2'3/8 swallow tail

i dont find any troubles moving from board to board....
i think its just a matter of setting up your quiver so that you dont jump from a 20inch wide fish to a 17.5inch wide shortboard just because the swell has jacked a foot..!?

ps. its so much fun throwin around my little 5'10"....

[matt...]

rockin' ron - i agree with you about the tail rocker, the flatter the tail the faster it will go.
this is a design principle that Stuart Darcy implemeted when shaping POTTZ boards.
but i unfortunately do not agree with the thickness in the tail.
the larger off the shelf boards will have thickness carried all the way through to the tail.
all of my boards have the volume from about 6 inches from the nose all the way down to about 6 inches from the tail.
looking at my boards side on - the nose & tail are quite thin.
i feel that too much thickness right down to the tail compromises manouvreability - it slows down cutbacks & reos.
the result of this is getting caught in the lip from being too slow in the pocket, or being too slow to figure 8 your cutty.
a thin tail, not a narrow one by any means, & the swallow shape enhances my reos & cuttys.

[spotty]

I went for a paddle yesterday morning, it was 1-2 ft. There were 10 of us on a dribbly peak,(9 kooks & myself). I counted 2 mals, 2 shortboards, and no less than 5 retro boards. Its totally out of hand... none of these guys could surf... so why bother experimenting with a trippy board if you dont even have the fundamental skills?

[buzzy]

Lucky you. 8 kooks and you. You'd be getting all the waves.

As it is I would have thought most retro boards would be better for beginners than a standard thruster. Most are wider and thicker, which will aid in wave catching and balancing. In any event from discussions with retailers I get the impression the "modern fish" is becoming the standard template. Which is half retro .

If I had someone who'd been surfing for a year and wanted to move from a mini mal (say) to a shortboard I'd definitely be recommending a retro type design or a nugget or waterskate unless they are a kid. Not necessarily a 70's single fin or a full on fish but something with full soft rails, decent volume (at least 2.5"), good width (at least 19.5") and preferably a thruster fin set up. There's heaps of boards coming out now which fit that description.

[buzzy]

Just looking over that last post I guess the thickness recommendation would vary a little up or down depending on the size of the person.