RealSurf Surfers' Forum

I am wondering why shorter fatter boards seem a lot more common than longer narrower boards.

I figure length help more with paddling and early wave entry than width and that a narrower board allows for better rail to rail.

For instance 7' x 20 vs 6'10 x 21.

Also what is the advantage of going for less thickness such as 2 3/4" over 3"... just volume for duck diving?

Or 6'x 221/2"x 3".

I've just noticed that short, wide boards are very common, but longer narrow boards are not. Would not a longer/narrower board be bigger for faster, steeper waves compared to a shorter/wider board?

Yes

I am having an 6'8 x 2 3/4 funshape, rounded tail, quad fin shaped. The default width is 21.5; I am debating going 21, 20.75 or 20.5... As I don't want to lose the intended feel and performance of the shape, but I'd like to reduce a bit of volume and make it better suited for steeper faster waves.

Generally the default width is the default width for a reason, and is what contributes to its "intended feel". If you're already familiar with that model/design and those dimensions then you could make a confident call to make slight modifications, but otherwise I wouldn't go lopping off an inch of width for the hell of it.

...my 2 cents

Ok thanks, though a 1/4 inch 1/2 inch of width likely wouldn't have too much of an impact?

1/4 inch is definitely less noticeable than a whole inch of course. Depends on how much there is to begin with, but every board is different.
I recently got a new board (6'0). Went 1/4 inch narrower than my previous board, and found it quite noticeable in terms of stability. It's what I wanted because it turns better, but definitely makes a difference. Granted there are other slight factors as well given its a different brand/model too, but it's what I noticed the most. Maybe what you're going for is not the right board for faster steeper waves, if it is defined as a "fun shape". In my opinion (and I'm no elite shredder or board shaper), I'd still go for that one if that's what you think you'll ride most of the time. If you're comfortable on it, then you'll probably have more chance of handling it when the waves do get that bit more steep/fast. Every board has its upper and lower limits though.

2 more cents (spending some serious coin here)

Gumby wrote:1/4 inch is definitely less noticeable than a whole inch of course. Depends on how much there is to begin with

Chicks are digging the short, wide and thick movement.
I've been told.

Also wouldn't a board 4 inches longer be harder to handle in small surf than if you went 2 inches wider?

Well I do have a 6'6" x 20 x 2 3/4 proper short board shape; I can surf it well enough... Problem is I now live about 10 hours from the waves in a mountain town... good for skiing and mountain biking, less for surfing. I do get a bunch of time off and take extended surf trips throughout the spring, summer and fall... my ability to pop up and surf doesn't seem to suffer, it's my paddling endurance that really takes a hit. Hence looking at a fun shape... I also have a 7'8 x 21 3/4 x 2 3/4 with a more aggressive rocker and pointed nose.

Re: I figure length help more with paddling and early wave entry than width
1. Paddling
Paddling performance is largely a function of volume, and weight.

Without basic illustrations ... consider a surfboard board of a given shape and thickness, 6 ft x 20''.
If you add 1'' in length (6ft 1'' x 20''), you are adding a block of foam across the middle of the board 1'' x approximately 20''.
If you add 1'' in width (6ft x 21''), you are adding a block of foam down the middle of the board 1'' x approximately 60''.
(reduced from 72'' to allow for the foiling in the cross-section)
60 /20 = 3
In this case, when compared to an increase in the board's length, an inch added to the width is about three times the volume.

2. Early wave entry - Planning (?)
For hydrodynamic planning hulls, where the bottom operates at the boundary between two mediums, one of which is approximately 800 times as dense as the other, early planning is largely a function of the width, or the leading edge, or the aspect ratio (Lord, 1946).
For a given surfer and wave, a wider board of the same shape and length will get on the plane earlier at take-off.
Or, a wider board will require less wave power or wave speed to get on the plane.
And/or, it will get on the plane on a less steep wave face.
Generally, wide boards for fat and weak waves, narrower boards for steep and powerful waves.

However, note that once the board transverses the wave face (wave-sliding), the dynamics become far more complicated (perhaps mystical).

Historically, the minimum width for riding while standing was probably about 15''.
In the modern era, Midget Farrelly went down to 17'' in 1972, but since then minimum widths are generally + 18''.
In the 21st century, tow-in boards are often -18''.

The maximum surfboard width is about 24'' (slightly wider than the rider's shoulders), above this the mechanics of paddling become increasingly less efficient, and it is more difficult to carry.
Surfboards went as wide as 24'' in late 1967, a development by Midget (again), McTavish and others, and some current Malibu designs approach 23''.
Surf-skis and stand-up-paddle boards, by virtue of their mechanical advantage, are sometimes +24''.

Thank you,
Geoff Cater

Many things at play here. Things like where do you surf: Sunset Beach or Manly

Yes shorter wider boards are more common in Sydney beaches as most of the time it grovelling however the narrower longer boards are more common in waves that demand control on speed and power.

The thickness question you ask could also be addressed on how much control you want, besides the obvious reduction in volume your board will bite the water a bit more resulting in a board that feels more knifing the surface of the wave as opposed to sitting on top of the water.

Narrower boards can be less forgiving for the learning surfer too...

J

Get a Hypto Kryto

Davros wrote: ↑

Fri Jul 07, 2017 9:17 am

Get a Hypto Kryto