The Tomo rip-off ride report

[Cpt.Caveman]

Want the same result, do the same thing. Seems the prevailing mentality with surfboards at the moment.

I reckon there will be a lot of people having a great time on variations of this design. As always, every surfboard is a tradeoff of elements and has plus and minus points for a certain wave or way or surfing. The biggest cricism of boards with great flow and speed is usually to do with lack of responsiveness, but what if the responsivness of a HPS can be brought back?

My feeling is this is whats intended with these, which is pretty rad, rather than a continuation of designs that have speed and flow with response or hold compromised - i.e. the traditional fish.

Where these boards are risky is they are designed as a replacement/preducessor to the HPS, and most people I know who ride mainly those normally don't tend to like diverting much from that. Thats a business risk in my opinion.

[Davros]

Do the Tomos have the same concept as Slaters shorter Quads?

Reckon you could take that post Cavie and print it in 1980/81 pre thruster popularity. Pugugly boards I think though, part of retro revival thingy is the beautiful shapes, i love looking at old single fins they just look nice like old sleeker Mustang cars or Covert Stingrays etc......anyway if Firewire are an earlier adopter its a good sign for $$$ depending on his deal with them..saying that is Firewire a fad waiting to bust....never ridden one and the ones I see seem to be large round things now.

[pinhead]

Do the Tomos have the same concept as Slaters shorter Quads? .

Sort of - Slater went shorter to get tighter turns to fit in the wave better and used quads to get more speed in trim. Tomo's fin set up with almost no toe-in is closer to a quad feel and they're certainly short. With Tomo's however a key element is the near parallel rails and what he's done to make the outline turn - very short length, more concave and tail rocker combined with a shortened cluster - 10 and 3.

[Cpt.Caveman]

What I've seen of the Tomo Next Gen such as the Vanguard is they are different again to his MPH range.

The Vanguard carries a lot of foam out to the rails and has pretty full rails for a HPS. The bladey rails crew like NC probably won't appreciate the thick rails on the Vanguard, but my interpretation of the design is trying to hide as much foam as possible into a small package so you can ride it in dimensions that sound pretty rediculous compared to your daily driver. Theres also a pretty serious single concave running all the way with a confusing channel/concave combination out the tail.

Good HPS dims for me are 5'11 x 19" x 2 1/2" so by his sizing my Vanguard should be 5'4" x 18" x 2 1/2" and similar volume (This WOULD feel like a wakeboard to me).

I haven't seen them in the flesh but the MPH rounded or pointed nose models take the volume out of the rails more and carry the volume up the board to the nose a little more evenly in a more standard fashion.

It soulds like the pointed nose models he has coming out with Firewire soon will be more what we're all used to in dimensions and foam distribution, just different planshape and bottom combinations that we're used to. These might be closer to what Kelly has been trying to achieve, but very different in planshape and bottom contour.

Still, interesting times. Mark Gneck has been a pretty good blatant copier of the Next Gen boards, I've seen a few of his on the racks and he's pretty closely copied the Vanguard in planshape, tail and volume distribution, only he ran a serious single into serious double with vee.

[pinhead]

OK I checked out some Firewire Vanguards in the surfshop. They had a couple of sizes. All of them had low rails slightly boxy, pretty much HPS rails without much volume, didn't seem to be a lot of volume hidden anywhere in the deck either. While I'm riding a selfmade 5'2" x 17 1/2" x 2 3/8" now I'd be picking the 5'4" x 18" x 2 1/4" Firewire - the 5'2" just looked too delicate. The 5'4" would be the size a good surfer around 70 kg would probably be looking at.

Cavey - the reason these things can be ridden so small in length and width, is the outline doesn't really taper at either end. So the board has as much surface area as a much longer, wider, curvy outline. Having less volume isn't really so much of an issue. With a conventional board reducing volume means the board sits lower in the water entry point moves forward where the outline curve and nose rocker push water so the board is harder to paddle. Increasing volume pulls the water entry point back where the outline, and rocker are straighter so the board paddles easier. With the Tomo's the outline at the entry point is almost straight so they paddle easier than a curvy board with the same volume. The other trick Tomo has is toeing the fins pretty straight so when paddling for a wave there's very little drag.

[Natho]

Well said re volume pinhead. Like many aspects of surfboard design there are variables with volume as well. Volume and foam are not always your friend. I had a crack at the Tomo rip offs with my tongue in my cheek, however there is very much a method to the madness in this case which you have helped describe. People take the pi$$ out of me (which I enjoy) on these forums for riding 'patato chips' or HPS, but there is a method to my own boards being thinner of late as well. As an example we have been adding a little more width to the planshape up front while easing the rocker through the front. As a result we have been able to go thinner overall and through the rail to allow better penetration and bite through turns. This is particularly the case with EPS/ Epoxy construction to help the board settle down into the water through turns and bite. An added bonus is these boards while thinner and slightly shorter seem to be able to be surfed in slightly bigger waves as well as the finer rails seem to bite and hold much better. So lowering volume can be a bonus if you tweek other design elements to balance things up.

[pinhead]

Hey Natho yeah its a real swings and roundabouts game. Fin placement is one variable that a lot of shapers tend not to fool with too much. For these shorter wide tailed boards - fins would be an interesting area to explore - JD (Speedneedle) has been doing these quad set ups using twin fins up front on his wide tailed boards that seem to work for him.

[batoes]

Dan is back out shaping in March if anyone is keen for a custom - he's only doing 50. I'm still really happy with my V4. The xtr has held up really well, it has a few more seasons left for sure. I'm not real fussed on those new ones he's doing - the vanguard etc. I'm sure they rip, but i can't really understand the nose stuff going on and with some of those Vader pointy things he's doing - i'm sure i'd be tempted to plant it into a few body boarders at my local. Would be keen to get a V3 twin - but have invested board money elsewhere.

[simplesimon]

Natho, what board did you ride in your heat yesterday against Toby Martin? It didn't look all that short? Did he end up beating ya?

[Natho]

it was a 6'1 x 18 1/4 x 2 1/4 rounded pin step up board. An old faithful that comes out when it gets a little bigger or a bit harder to paddle into like yesterday
Yep he kicked my ass. i couldn't even get a back up wave.

[Cpt.Caveman]

Natho, what board did you ride in your heat yesterday against Toby Martin? It didn't look all that short? Did he end up beating ya?

Simon, what do you think of these "modern planing hull" style boards?

Not just the Tomo's but the whole wider straigther outline through the rear end, hard edge running far up the board, bottom contours like deep concave or channels to keep it under control, volume re-worked into a smaller package... ?

[simplesimon]

Captain you may be confusing me with the 'other Simon'. While I shape from time to time I am not that Simon. I bugger boards up rather than create them.
I think the modern planing hulls have some merit, however it is easy to get carried away and read too much into board design and all the different elements. It ends up making things more complicated than they need to be.

[simplesimon]

Captain you may be confusing me with the 'other Simon'. While I shape from time to time I am not that Simon. I bugger boards up rather than create them.
I think the modern planing hulls have some merit, however it is easy to get carried away and read too much into board design and all the different elements. It ends up making things more complicated than they need to be.

[pinhead]

http://youtu.be/5g4MaV4mnCI

[anglesurf]

Had the pleasure of meeting Pinhead in the surf today & swapped stories about our tomo rip offs. Here some images of mine. Its very fast! 5'8" but feels like a 6'2" or 6'4". I put more of a tri-plane hull entry in, which seems to work well & the large concave with tomo style tail channels. I made it longer, wider & thicker than a normal tomo as I weigh more. Its standard poly with a carbon layer top & bottom. I put the carbon on to make it stiffer - as it was a stringerless blank & would have been too flexy without it. I love the feeling this board has when surfing! Great fun to ride!

[pinhead]

Had the pleasure of meeting Pinhead in the surf today & swapped stories about our tomo rip offs.

Likewise Anglesurf. Funny you're the first guy I've seen in the water on an MPH!

[Cpt.Caveman]

Hows everyone going with their modern planing hull versions?

Anyone else caved and bought a Firewire Vanguard?

[pinhead]

I still like my one very much. Making a grom version for my nephew in Byron Bay.