Ask Carroll

[sandfly]

Nick, what's with the walking stick in the photos from the big waves awards?

[Surfnsmurf]

nick had a knee operation. he got knee capped after dropping in on someone at snapper

[petulance]

a Real Aussie Power Surfer rode a single fin, yeah that's right, rather than being a marker of Passive Soul, the single fin was a fcuken weapon, a declaration of savage intent.

And here I thought the single fin was the domain of the long haired bearded hipster soul surfer.

Come on everyone, the standard of questions has fcuken bottomed out here surely what with S Corby and tattoos etc, what's next, "should I buy a mid length for my next board"? try to lift your fcuken games or I'll go to Surfline.com and start an advice column there instead.

OK Nick, here's my bit ... manufacturers' websites usually have a fin sizing guide based on the weight of the surfer. However in your Complete Guide to Surfing Your Best Volume 2 book, you mention that the fin size should be chosen according to the width of the board's tail. Should both factors be taken into account when buying fins?

[romak50]

Morning Mr Carroll,
Noticed you MC'd the Aussie Big Wave Awards last night. was it a good night?
Also, seems like the aussie big wave riders are not recognised or invited into the 'fold' of the big wave riders participating in the BWWT. Other than guys like Ben Wilko who has to live in Hawaii to get that recognition.
Is it a geographical thing? Or a cultural thing? Or do our big wave riders just not cut it when it comes to surfing Maverics, Jaws, etc?
Seems like any big wave riding in Aus is always in more critical, slabby waves.

Oh, and finished your book last week (super relevant for me right now). awesome read. very ballsy revealing all like that. imagine it would be empowering though getting the book out there for both of you and thinking 'fcvk it - there it is....our story warts and all." kinda like ditching a big weight off your shoulders?

[Nick Carroll]

Hollowed, I think TF rode a twinnie for about five minutes in 1971. At the time I was still on a Coolite. Same goes for MW, Dappa etc, by the time we were being influenced by the NN crew they were pretty much all back on singles. The cultural bias I'm talking about wasn't confined to Newport, it was pretty widespread among the Aust junior talent of the day and was strongly supported by the Qld crew as well, who were mostly on DVS round tail single fins or versions thereof.

As for DH, he was a freak, you don't count freaks, they do their own thing, and his magic twinnie, the one Smithy shaped him around 1975 or so, was radically different to anything else in twin world, it had a single concave through the fins for chrissake. DH wasn't in the cultural argument, he was on his own trip as he always has been.

[Nick Carroll]

Nick, what's with the walking stick in the photos from the big waves awards?

I had knee surgery the evening before the Awards.

[Nick Carroll]

a Real Aussie Power Surfer rode a single fin, yeah that's right, rather than being a marker of Passive Soul, the single fin was a fcuken weapon, a declaration of savage intent.

And here I thought the single fin was the domain of the long haired bearded hipster soul surfer.

Ha ha ha ha ha ha. Tell that to the ghost of Joe Engel.

Come on everyone, the standard of questions has fcuken bottomed out here surely what with S Corby and tattoos etc, what's next, "should I buy a mid length for my next board"? try to lift your fcuken games or I'll go to Surfline.com and start an advice column there instead.

OK Nick, here's my bit ... manufacturers' websites usually have a fin sizing guide based on the weight of the surfer. However in your Complete Guide to Surfing Your Best Volume 2 book, you mention that the fin size should be chosen according to the width of the board's tail. Should both factors be taken into account when buying fins?

Well since a surfer's weight is the big reference point for board volume and thus usually increased tail width (and associated surface area), I sorta think they all work together.

Like, fins help to control tail area, so there's a natural balance between the two.

And if you're a fat bastard, the tail's probably going to need to be wider to accommodate your disgusting fatness. Thus the requirement for more fin surface area.

A lot depends on your skill level and what you wanna do on the board, so the above thoughts are v general, but I've found 'em to hold true-ish in my own surfing experience.

[Nick Carroll]

Morning Mr Carroll,
Noticed you MC'd the Aussie Big Wave Awards last night. was it a good night?
Also, seems like the aussie big wave riders are not recognised or invited into the 'fold' of the big wave riders participating in the BWWT. Other than guys like Ben Wilko who has to live in Hawaii to get that recognition.
Is it a geographical thing? Or a cultural thing? Or do our big wave riders just not cut it when it comes to surfing Maverics, Jaws, etc?
Seems like any big wave riding in Aus is always in more critical, slabby waves.

Oh, and finished your book last week (super relevant for me right now). awesome read. very ballsy revealing all like that. imagine it would be empowering though getting the book out there for both of you and thinking 'fcvk it - there it is....our story warts and all." kinda like ditching a big weight off your shoulders?

Yes it was a good night, it always is, I love all those guys, to me they're the salt of the fcuken earth.

I dunno about the BWWT, maybe some guys like say Mark Mathews might not be that interested in pursuing it, it's a lot of money and energy that they may feel is better spent doing their own thing. There's no obvious qualifying road to that tour and it's a bit not-quite-there-yet IMO.

Re the book, empowering? I wouldn't call it that. The big weight isn't really off my shoulders, nor off Tom's; life doesn't work like it seems in the movies, where there are Conflicts and Journeys and Resolutions and Redemptions, it's more about slow movements and deeper changes, and I feel those changes will take shape over the years ahead. I think in the process of writing I gained a better understanding of both our lives, and there's been a lot of hope for me in that; although many of the romantic notions I'd held and cherished about surfing have now been banished entirely, they've been replaced by what feels like a much stronger and more realistic structure of thinking about it. The book also offered some movement or shifting for the rest of our family, most of them hadn't known the full details of what had happened to Tom or even to our Mum, and while I can't be sure how all that will come out in the wash, it does feel like it's helped heal a few old wounds.

More important, my brother's back, more or less, and he's still alive; I can't tell you how glad I am not to have had to write this book after his untimely death.

[alakaboo]

You've mentioned a memoir.
Do you intend it to be a candid book, and if so are you feeling any pressure with respects to disclosure about real people still alive?
How do you intend to deal with this issue?.

Yeah, I think that's almost the definition of memoir as opposed to biography; you have to be candid. Memoir implies emotional involvement; biography implies explanation. Surprisingly enough I am not yet feeling very much of the pressure you've outlined; perhaps it's because nobody else has read any of it yet, so nobody's said "Oh fcuk! Are you sure...?" Or perhaps it's in the intention -- I don't have the goal of writing gossip about famous surfers or whatever and I reckon anyone who eventually picks up this book in the hope of reading that sort of thing will be pretty disappointed. Or further, perhaps it's because I feel like this is a story from my point of view, about me and my family and friends, and I sorta don't mind standing or falling on its honesty. Actually now I think of it, I'm more worried about one of 'em saying: "Why didn't you put that bit in, you chickenshit bastard?"

Who/what was that and did it make the cut?

[petulance]

Well since a surfer's weight is the big reference point for board volume and thus usually increased tail width (and associated surface area), I sorta think they all work together.

Like, fins help to control tail area, so there's a natural balance between the two.

And if you're a fat bastard, the tail's probably going to need to be wider to accommodate your disgusting fatness. Thus the requirement for more fin surface area.

A lot depends on your skill level and what you wanna do on the board, so the above thoughts are v general, but I've found 'em to hold true-ish in my own surfing experience.

Thanks Nick. I bought a set of FCS M3 fins (small) to put on a 5'11" board which I have since sold as it was too small for me. I then put the fins onto a 6'4" board (which replaced the 5'11") that has a pretty wide tail. Fatness isn't an issue for me as I'm just a bit above 10st.

I'm going back to basics at the moment on a 6'6" with the aim of getting up my wave count up and start drawing lines and linking turns.

[OddaP]

Nick, watched the MP Chiko pro , or bits of it anyway. Struck by the relative lack of airs etc. Has insistence on power (grrr) come at a competitive cost ( compared to Brazoos in particular?)

[bomboraa]

Interesting stuff about mid 70s twin v singles. My mates were split too, until we saw Simon testing the thruster at DY point.
Which gives birth to next question; one of my mates immediately got a total backyard thruster made by a bloke in north Curly when it was almost impossible to get one except from Simon and the wait was for ever even though few were even aware of them.
Early last year I had a surf on it, stacks of fun in smallish beachies. Now, this board was thick! three inches or so. Six zero by 20 were rest of dimensions, and flat bottom, low rocker, rounded square. Thickness pretty well all the way to the rails
But see below, where Sunova's Bert Berger lets rip at new trend for extra thickness. Your thoughts/reaction?

"Its all about surface area …

These new designs have major surface area..
You only need adequate float ..
More float than you need doesn’t equate to better wave catching .. only equates to worse performance , and as counter intuitive as it sounds , worse wave catching ..

Im taking 4 new boards to Sri Lanka , all potatoish designs …

My normal literage on a short board is 36 liters ..
Formula is 1 liter for every 3 kg of body weight …
But that is only true if I have the correct surface area ..

So I usually run between 2 ¼ and 2 ½ to get float right , consider my weight , 108 kg/240lb ..
I could run 3 ½ thick in something with way less area , and never in a million years could I catch waves , because of the reduced surface area , even tho float would be the same …

I am running extra volume in the test boards for Sri Lanka .. around 39 liters , just 10% more , plus slightly more surface area than my regular shortboard …

Why more surface area ???
Simple law of physics ..
The more area , the less speed needed to plane ..
The less area , the more speed needed to plane ..
A surfboard only functions when it is on the plane on the surface of the water..
You can plane on your bare feet if you are going fast enough ..
Look at tow in boards ? how much area do they have ??
Water skis??
Kite and wake boards ??

The surface area is relavent to the operating speed ..
Low speed small waves , and you need more area ..

But consider where the area is ..
When you make a board shorter and wider ,you place the area in a more concentrated location under you center of gravity ..
So I could have a 10’ x 12” board ..
Or a 5’ x 24” board , both having similar area , of coarse the short one will plane better because the surface area is directly underneath you , so its more effective ..

All these new super chunky boat designs are a total [censored] myth ..
I validated this one 15 years ago , with 2 identical outlines , both being the same length and width ..
One at 3.5 “ thick the other at 1 ¾ thick …
The thinner one caught waves easier , was faster and more responsive ..
Both boards were super wide at 6-4 x 23 ..

Even tho the thin one actually had not enough volume and I sank past my chest while stationary , as soon as took a few strokes, all the surface area allowed me to be up on the plane and right back at the surface ..

Why did the thin one catch waves easier and perform better ???

3 factors …
1… A thicker board naturally comes with a thicker rail , so its harder to create a defined apex where the water releases , so as you take off the thicker one has more water wrapping the rail , slowing it down , along with more rail engaged in the face holding it back …

2.. the thick one , took way more effort to bury the rail especially on the first pump while attempting to get speed , so it was naturally slower to get going because it was less responsive…

3 … you completely fark up the flex in a thick board , the thick one relied on buoyancy off the first pump , I would have to bury the rail , then wait for it to float or cork out , as it did this I could then sink the opposite rail and start to pump ..
The thin one could bury the rail immediately , as well as flex into the turn , then spring out with projection and I was away at lightning speed ..
Just think about what that means in terms of a quick get away ,, flexing an object and springing out of a turn or sinking an object and waiting for it to float to the surface..

Yes the volume of your board is important …
But the surface area is more important …

You can have not enough volume and adequate or more surface area and the board will still function …
You have adequate or more volume and not enough surface area and the board will not function …

So whats more important ???

It comes down to education ..
Unfortunately , when most boards designers are uneducated, what do you think they will pass on to there customers ???
I struggle to comprehend why so many board designers are following this current trend ..
I can only think of 2 scenarios ..
1 they are clueless …
2 , they really do know , but just want to sell more boards to a demanding market and realize they will sell more later when crew figure it out.
Stupidity or greed , take your pick ..

The hard part for me is stating the facts , while trying not to sound condescending or like a know it all ..
As long as we clearly state the functionality of our designs and can back it up with simple laws of physics and scientific principles that you cant argue against..
Then we make our point and stick to our guns ..
fark man , if the world cant get it , does that mean I will blindly ignore the laws of the universe and follow the crowd ..
Been there many times in the past on other areas of design , only to be proven correct years later when the majority start to agree…

Lastly , why am I only putting 10% more volume in my small wave boards ,, there is a slight compromise there..
While you can go thinner if you increase surface area , its harder to convince someone if there already on the back foot and skeptical ..
So , a slight increase in volume and obviously an increase in surface area and its an easier sell ..
Plus the thickness increase is not enough to compromise the flex of the board or the ability to sink the rail …

So yes , even im doing it for the sake of sales , but still staying within the realms of reality, hopefully crew wake up sooner than later and we can get back to making those magic morphing sling shots…

Regards
BERT"

[PeepeelaPew]

...

[philw]

^^

I've always wondered if anyone had tried testing like this i.e.: identical surface area and varied volume (or other variations). is there video of berts test?

also, there has to be some sort of physics around directional flow across surface area in terms of planing and lift? you can't turn a surfboard sideways and expect it to plane.

nick, based on the above, I am considering a mid length -

and what do you think of MR's flying saucer shape? i've never had one of his boards but they always look beautifully made...

[ajohnsen]

Nick, what's the longest post on a Real Surf forum?

[bobjs]

the standard of questions has fcuken bottomed out here surely what with S Corby...

Apologies for the crap question.

Good information on surfing technique, history, board design, pro surfing and all manner of other things surfing is pretty hard to come by so appreciate the thread immensely.

[Nick Carroll]

Nick, watched the MP Chiko pro , or bits of it anyway. Struck by the relative lack of airs etc. Has insistence on power (grrr) come at a competitive cost ( compared to Brazoos in particular?)

I doubt it. First of all, that event isn't a WCT, so you're not gonna see guys trying to score 10s with unlimited wave selection and $100,000 in the offing. Second, the judges at the top end are influencing the judges a bit lower down, and right now, the top end panel is not gonna throw a big score for an air reverse - they're demanding a bit more than they did three years ago. I would expect to see some colossal air work in WCT events in 2014.

[Nick Carroll]

bomboraa, much as I love Bert, I would take any shaper's thoughts with a grain of salt when he includes phrases like "the majority of designers are uneducated". It reveals a side of the designer that's only interested in making other designers wrong, and that part of him may be bigger than the part that's keen to help his own customers.

As far as thickness/width/paddling, hmm well my racing paddle boards are all under 19" wide, because any wider and you tend to catch the biceps on the rail edge and can't get effectively deep enough in the paddle stroke. From my surfing experience, there's not even a question about thicker craft paddling quicker and easier than thinner, they do - or across every surfboard I've ever owned that's been the case.