RealSurf Surfers' Forum

yeh that's just a stubbie, as long as it's foiled right. bags of fun

Beerfan wrote:I find my tiny JD fits the wave better when it's under head high and decent shape/hollow than a midlength ( you know I love them ) or my fish ( it needs fast open faced waves IMHO ). I also find the wide tail/narrower nose gets me in much earlier than wide point forward boards. And once up and running, it turns much faster, and much tighter.

For the almost close outs you're referring to I agree and understand that, though I'm used to sectiony short beach breaks, and often with fat spots. Even in fat spots I find my tiny board still glides through them. So good it basically replaces my 9'1". Why surf my longboard and "trim" when I can actually turn the board?

I thought this was interesting. Last summer I bought a McCoy potbelly off gumtree. It's only 5'10" which is smaller than I would normally consider, but it was going so cheap that I thought I'd give it a go. It's 5'10" x 19 3/4" x 2 5/8". Wide tail, but it maintains its width further forward than the nuggets, so not that narrow a nose.

I've been amazed at how easily I catch tiny waves on it, and how well it floats me through fat sections as well. I didn't really expect that from such a short board and it's now my groveller when others are taking out their mini-mals. Not sure what's going on exactly or where it fits into the theories, but it seems to be working for me.

Hatchnam I had the original of that model as my only board for a while in Sydney.

It was 6', wide, boxy rails, flat, thick. I think about 39L, which is more than my 6'6" egg.

It turned fantastically off the bottom, less so off the top, paddled in to anything from 1' Bondi to 8' Boneyards (won't do that again).

It didn't really have enough tail rocker and in smaller waves it needed to be surfed a bit more like a fish - flatter and on the face
It was very sensitive to fin size and placement

As far as I can tell the changes they have made would address most of the shortcomings.
I'd go about 6'4" and really foil out the tail if I did it again.

yeah that at Wombat looks kinda fun, these waves are better but not that great, the 2+1 does a nice job here. I have one similar and yeh they are good, but i cant throw buckets like the maker here.

http://vimeo.com/77564461

steve shearer wrote:having the "right" volume is the biggest con job perpetrated on the surfing public since fibreflex.

What a prat of a statement.

Go and surf on those 1990's wafers for the rest of your days then SS.

Volume not being relevant to surfing like wings aren't relevant to flying.

you just completely validated my statement Olds.

the only right volume is the one that enables a surfer to catch waves.

The "right" volume is purely a function of fashion.

People obsessing over a whether a board is twenty nine or thirty litres is ridick.

Of course. But what 26 litres compared to 30 litres?

Two rounded square boards 5'11 x 19 1/4 x 2 1/2; 5'11 x 19 1/2 x 2 1/2. They don't sound too different. One is 27 litres the other 31 litres. Big difference in how they'll perform and what waves they're made for.

Volume -- at least in the shortboards I ride -- is as important as any other dimension, imo.

Precisely.
if you can pick the board up and feel the rails and foil then yes, volume is just a number.
it is just shorthand for ease of communication in a digital world.

Braithy wrote:Volume -- at least in the shortboards I ride -- is as important as any other dimension, imo.

But you can have identical volume and totally different boards eg due to rocker or rails or fins or channel or any number of other things.

This suggests that volume is only relevant if all else is equal or, perhaps putting it another way, volume is in last place for useful measurements. Relevant if you have two similar boards in all other aspects, but not the first thing you should look at.

So if you are surfing more or less the same shortboard, then by all means consider it; but I suggest that is actually the last distinguishing factor you have taken into account, having already decided on appropriate length, width, rocker, rails etc etc. Then you check volume right at the end as a confirmation that you made the right decision (or to check that you havent missed some hidden volume).

On the other hand, starting with volume is completely pointless. A gun and mini mal and a big shortboard or fish might all have the same volume. A highly rockered shortboard and a tiny dumpster diver type board may have the same volume. It doesnt tell you anything.

I noticed that Grant Miller on his site says he is publishing an article in PLB (Pacific Longboarder, I presume?) in July about this very issue "It is a critical examination of the concept and legitimacy of using litres and volume calculators in the selection of surfboards. I believe that this practice has no legitimate place in the surfboard industry and cannot go unchallenged. It will be several pages long and include both shaping and surfing photos. It is not a feel good article' .

volume of what?

take two boards with identical shape and identical volume.

one is tuflite, the other is standard PU (let's say a denser, heavier foam).

the tuflite will be much more buoyant, probably a lot lighter and feel very different.

rocker and planing surface probably have as much effect on paddling.

has anyone ever done any proper science on this?

No, you're actually the first person to ever consider the variables in a scientific manner.

Sorry, couldn't resist.

Each of these boards has 31 or 32l in volume. They range from 5ft3 to 6ft10. (they are all firewires because that site lists the volume for all their boards).

.

alakaboo wrote:No, you're actually the first person to ever consider the variables in a scientific manner.

Sorry, couldn't resist.

oh well, i didn't think i was the first, just curious. there's so much bs talked about what features of surfboards actually 'do' as an oppose to how they feel. but those sway locks forums are soooo boring though.

hey philw how they feel is what counts.

I think the volume for and against thing is a big jerk off, to me it's both very important and infinitely variable based on a vast range of things, learning about it is a big part of any keen surfer's development and arguing against measuring it is just silly.

the cheap chinese pop-outs with shitty looking bamboo veneer are appearing thick and fast on the southern goldie.
complete with those cruddy plastic moulded fins

Nick Carroll wrote:hey philw how they feel is what counts.

I think the volume for and against thing is a big jerk off, to me it's both very important and infinitely variable based on a vast range of things, learning about it is a big part of any keen surfer's development and arguing against measuring it is just silly.

Yeah nick, that's what I meant. So many board builders sites are full of pseudo jargon. Feel is a better gauge.

However, I am genuinely curious if anyone has tried to quantify the variables of volume density planing surface rocket spray logo placement etcccccc

Like at some point the ratio of volume to planing surface, if you isolated those with otherwise identical shapes ( and rider ) would be 'right' . Maybe most good shapers know it by feel, but I'm still curious about efforts to measure it

But I'm not curious enough to wade thru swaylocks

I just want someone to do it and package it up in a few lines - maybe you'll do it nick?!!

ha ha ha fcuk no I won't.

Why, well take planing surface. Which planing surface? Like which part of the planing surface do you use most while you're surfing? Which part do I use most? When? Is it the part you put most of your weight on that counts for most, or the part you only occasionally put your weight on at critical moments during a ride? How do you factor in the curves in the planing surface? And where's the volume distributed in relation to the planing surfaces? Aaaarggghhh a blizzard of chaos.

Volume to planing surface ratio feels just a little bit too far down the track of Stat Worship to me. Boards arent stats, they're made to be surfed.

I think most surfboard stats etc are just clues as to how it might go, sometimes very useful and accurate clues, but just clues all the same. You can guess from the clues but you can't really tell, you can't get a feel, till you ride it.

The closer the board is in length/widths/thickness/volume to your last board, the quicker you'll get a feel for it, I think that's the best you can say about board measurements in general. And that's pretty good by the way.