Volume

Tribal discussion for shortboarders

Moderators: Shari, collnarra, Butts, Forum Moderators

JaM71
Local
Posts: 608
Joined: Thu Dec 08, 2011 11:24 pm
Location: Gold Coast

Re: Volume

Post by JaM71 » Sat Nov 15, 2014 1:55 pm

I demoed a few firewires & that was the first time I took notice of volume. It's a good guide but not gospel, I ve got 3 boards & I have no idea of the volume they float me similarly so must be of similar volume. They all feel good under the arm & I am coming to the conclusion that fins are more important than if your board is 26.33 litres or 27.33 litres.

IMO Riding your mates boards, understanding what works for you & talking to a good shaper will put you on a good board (& being honest with yourself about your ability/limitations).
Davros: "But it felt a bit long and stiff"

Beanpole
Huey's Right Hand
Posts: 25799
Joined: Mon Apr 25, 2005 8:21 am
Location: Counting fins

Re: Volume

Post by Beanpole » Sat Nov 15, 2014 2:02 pm

Have taken more notice of volume since the stats have been available but I agree with Spork. I really think some manufacturers have produced some ludicrous boards to meet the needs of very average surfers who want to go short.

For example if you squash say 45 litres into a 5'10" surfboard and give it a big fat tail......you'll have a nugget :-o oops you will have a board that feels like a cake of soap or trying to sit on a beach ball. Stretch it out and it can be an effective design.

channels
Harry the Hat
Posts: 3036
Joined: Mon May 10, 2004 4:36 pm
Location: Northen Beaches

Re: Volume

Post by channels » Sat Nov 15, 2014 5:15 pm

I was mostly surprised by the results because the supposed ideal number was 30-50% more volume than I currently ride. For a shape that looks generally like a chubby short board, I couldn't fathom riding one without skipping out and think I would struggle to get the rail in.

channels
Harry the Hat
Posts: 3036
Joined: Mon May 10, 2004 4:36 pm
Location: Northen Beaches

Re: Volume

Post by channels » Sat Nov 15, 2014 7:05 pm

And just to bag out a surf shop guy, I was feeling up a Simon Anderson Robo when he came up and suggested a 5'8" Hayden or JS or something as they go really well.... Pointed out age, weight, height and general lack of skill might make that a stupid purchase.

Beanpole
Huey's Right Hand
Posts: 25799
Joined: Mon Apr 25, 2005 8:21 am
Location: Counting fins

Re: Volume

Post by Beanpole » Sat Nov 15, 2014 10:59 pm

I've decided surf shop assistants are like sommeliers in restaurants. You tell them what you like then they nod and present you with exactly what you said you didn't want.

Beanpole
Huey's Right Hand
Posts: 25799
Joined: Mon Apr 25, 2005 8:21 am
Location: Counting fins

Re: Volume

Post by Beanpole » Sun Nov 16, 2014 9:53 am

Board area metre?

User avatar
spork
barnacle
Posts: 1277
Joined: Mon Oct 31, 2011 6:01 pm

Re: Volume

Post by spork » Sun Nov 16, 2014 10:49 am

I mentioned somewhere before about board weight and fin size. I said something like "I had two Merrick biscuits with the same dims but one was wood and slightly heavier. It required G5 fins whereas I used 3's in the PU one". There was a discernible difference in the way the boards turned, which I put down to the extra weight putting more pressure on the fins through a turn and making the wooden board slide too much with 3's in it. The volume was identical but, without measuring it, I felt the wooden board sat higher in the water, perhaps because it is full of air (duh). Another interesting comparison is the one between the Biscuit and the Merrick single fin (MSF). They are pretty much the same board with the only difference being that the MSF has no tucked under hard edge in the back 1/3 of the board and the fins of course. Both have the same length (6'1"), volume, template, rocker, single into double into v in the tail set up and thick soft rails up the front. Both paddle like a mal and catch waves with ease. However, the biscuit is much more lively and loves to be chucked around in the small stuff, whereas the MSF will handle far bigger waves and is much more of an all rounder which loves roundhouse cutties and drawn out swooping turns, like a single should. Considering the similarities they are completely different personalities.
When it gets to this level of self important stupidity I lose interest.
Roy Stewart

User avatar
pinhead
charger
Posts: 823
Joined: Tue Jan 16, 2007 9:16 pm

Re: Volume

Post by pinhead » Sun Nov 16, 2014 11:30 am

Hmm. A web app with crowdsourced data would sort this out. Would need thousands to input their data but it'd be the most accurate calculator.

Here's how it would work from the data gathering end - You login to a web site with Facebook, Twitter or whatever.

You plug in your weight, fitness level, surfing ability, the size and power of waves you will be surfing (could use swell period)

Then you input the volume you have found to be the best for you.

From the "what volume is best for me?" end you just plug in everything but the volume and get out a reccomendation based on an average (with outliers removed)

The question is are there thousands of surfers out there who would want to punch in their stats in the interests of science?

I could build such a thing if there was enough interest.

Beanpole
Huey's Right Hand
Posts: 25799
Joined: Mon Apr 25, 2005 8:21 am
Location: Counting fins

Re: Volume

Post by Beanpole » Sun Nov 16, 2014 4:31 pm

Spork singles are very different beasts to tris and quads.
Last board I took to Bali was definitely a response to this stuff and what I had been riding. Bad move. Should have been the same volume and 6" longer. You get lulled into thinking fishy type boards are going to produce the goods in too many situations.

Nick Carroll
Duke Status
Posts: 17745
Joined: Tue Apr 05, 2005 9:29 am
Location: Newport Beach

Re: Volume

Post by Nick Carroll » Sun Nov 16, 2014 5:02 pm

steve shearer wrote:
With respect, isn't that just stating the bleeding obvious.
If you take a boards planing characteristics at waveriding speed out of the equation then at low speed buoyancy is obviously the most important factor to how a board feels.
well yeah, thats the point. the bleeding obvious tends to go astray in these conversations.

I guess for me, I haven't paid a huge amount of attention to volume, being much more engaged with rocker/outline/bottom shape, so paying attention closely to it across a lot of different boards in a short period made me see something I'd been missing, especially the subtle ways in which it affects your experience of a board.

the measurement is more valuable than I'd thought, is what it boils down to in my head.

Nick Carroll
Duke Status
Posts: 17745
Joined: Tue Apr 05, 2005 9:29 am
Location: Newport Beach

Re: Volume

Post by Nick Carroll » Sun Nov 16, 2014 5:09 pm

fongss wrote:The most interesting thing about nick post is that he "noticed" the difference in volume


like.........if the volume wasn't wrote on the board....he wouldnt have
(wearily) yeah I probably would have noticed it - but not in a very conscious way. I wouldn't have tried to figure it out. I woulda just stayed stuck thinking what I'd thought before.

Again - I dunno if this is really getting through - the real surprise for me was how incredibly similar the diffuse effect of volume was from board to board no matter the rocker, outline etc. Again - obviously within a certain size band.

User avatar
crabmeat thompson
Huey's Right Hand
Posts: 20992
Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2010 3:57 pm
Location: good fanks

Re: Volume

Post by crabmeat thompson » Sun Nov 16, 2014 5:50 pm

channels wrote:I know this is one of Shearer's pet hates and will probably start an Iggy style love-in on measuring wave heights but I was playing around with the Firewire Optimum Volume calculator. http://www.firewiresurfboards.com/surfb ... e_calc.php

As a 40 year old, intermediate surfer with above average fitness and weighing 83kgs, optimum volume according to this was 43-50 litres in weak waves and 41-45 litres in good waves. A little surprising given most of my boards are always around the 35 Litre mark. Anyone else think this is over the top?

jesus. i may need to rethink this.

i'm 40 in about 3 months time, weigh 83 and I'm still riding 28-29 litres as my go-to board. I'm sinking up to my neck and paddling like a pregnant lady ... but when i'm on the wave, oh sweet jesus it feels good.
Drailed wrote:Sound like a load of cunts to me Trev.

User avatar
pinhead
charger
Posts: 823
Joined: Tue Jan 16, 2007 9:16 pm

Re: Volume

Post by pinhead » Sun Nov 16, 2014 6:53 pm

fongss wrote:
pinhead wrote:Hmm.
The question is are there thousands of surfers out there who would want to punch in their stats in the interests of science?

I could build such a thing if there was enough interest.
i for one would love to sign up for this and provide misleading and incorrect feedback on a daily basis



#*!
No point, it would have a scrote filter

User avatar
pinhead
charger
Posts: 823
Joined: Tue Jan 16, 2007 9:16 pm

Re: Volume

Post by pinhead » Sun Nov 16, 2014 7:06 pm

Nick Carroll wrote:
fongss wrote:The most interesting thing about nick post is that he "noticed" the difference in volume


like.........if the volume wasn't wrote on the board....he wouldnt have
(wearily) yeah I probably would have noticed it - but not in a very conscious way. I wouldn't have tried to figure it out. I woulda just stayed stuck thinking what I'd thought before.

Again - I dunno if this is really getting through - the real surprise for me was how incredibly similar the diffuse effect of volume was from board to board no matter the rocker, outline etc. Again - obviously within a certain size band.
Maybe the volume number is capturing a number of design variables - i.e surface area + rail shape + total board mass + entry angle + duck divability.

i.e you can comfortably throw around a 26 litre board if it's 5'7 x 19 1/2 with fat rails or if its 5'11"x 18 3/4 with thinner rails. This would be assuming the designers have their shit together and have delivered boards that paddle ok for your weight, and can turn, and have drive.

I found that as a relatively light weight guy - 66 kgs when I bumped up the volume to compensate for poor fitness I had trouble throwing around the extra mass. Going for a more efficient paddler with a lighter construction worked way, way better.
Last edited by pinhead on Sun Nov 16, 2014 7:19 pm, edited 1 time in total.

bomboraa
regular
Posts: 217
Joined: Fri Jan 10, 2014 4:03 pm

Re: Volume

Post by bomboraa » Sun Nov 16, 2014 7:07 pm

They have forgotten one important modern factor in those volume calculators: crowd factor.

Little
regular
Posts: 147
Joined: Thu Nov 12, 2009 4:40 pm

Re: Volume

Post by Little » Sun Nov 16, 2014 9:50 pm

Volume can be a reasonable guide as to a boards particular personality in that if you have two boards of similar dimensions and shape it will give you some sort of idea of rails, tail, nose, even rocker if the shaper has any idea at all. If you have a 6'0" x 19 rounded pin @ 28 litres or a 6'0" x 20 @ 34 litres you're pretty much looking at a HPS against a "hybrid". That 6 litres is a massive difference and you can no doubt pick that up in the old under the arm test.

Beerfan
Snowy McAllister
Posts: 7400
Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2006 3:09 pm

Re: Volume

Post by Beerfan » Mon Nov 17, 2014 8:28 am

The firewire volume calc is very generous. Tell you what though, it's taken a long time but I've finally realised that by sacrificing some paddle power the boards surf much much better. It's harder but more rewarding
we are the angry mob
We read the papers everyday
We like who we like, we hate who we hate
But we're also easily swayed

User avatar
Davros
Snowy McAllister
Posts: 8562
Joined: Fri Feb 02, 2007 3:46 pm

Re: Volume

Post by Davros » Mon Nov 17, 2014 2:19 pm

So what is the lightest construction material nowadays with the best float. Is it Tuflite? Would 30 litre volume board in same design in Tuflite ( for example) be easier to paddle than other construction?

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests