RealSurf Surfers' Forum

Actually bought the mag
So I have my questions answered except about caps.

Cpt.Caveman wrote:Another of this species http://www.misfitshapes.com/news/mermaid-killer

The guy rips but the waste of fruit loops and glazed donuts was a travesty.

Nick Carroll wrote:

Donweather wrote:

Nick Carroll wrote:The Tomo Nano is fcuken amazing by the way, best board I've ridden in ages, thruster or quad it's all gold.

So Nick, was it definitely a Nano and not a Vanguard? Can I ask what dimensions you were riding and was it PU or Firewire? Also, I've heard rumours that Tomo's boards are now mass produced/shaped in Thailand? Can anyone confirm or deny? My concern with the Nano is the apparent reduction in volume from what I'm currently riding? Tomo reckons ride around 6 inches shorter than your current HPS. I'm currently riding a 6"1' with around 31.6 ltrs. Tomo would then have me riding a 5"7' (6 inches shorter). I can't find the volume for a 5"7' but based on this 5"9' (28.6 litres) the 5"7' would be even less (27 litres?).

http://www.mitchssurfshop.com/Tomo/Tomo ... _XTR_Clear

That's a significant reduction in volume and hence my concern is paddling/wave catching ability? Is this reduction in volume due to the cutting off of the tail and hence not a major loss in paddling/wave catching ability?

And finally, what fins did you have in it Nick? As both a thruster and quad?

Yes it was a Nano, Firewire, 5'4"x181/4" x 21/4" with a bottom centre stringer of high density foam composite. The volume felt ideal for me, I weigh around 76kg but am v surf/paddle fit. Can't quite recall but I think it was around 25 litres which is a bit less foam than in most of my boards.

I have a FW Vanguard as well, it's 5'3" and feels like maybe it's an inch and a half too long and a bit too much volume.

Firewires are manufactured in Thailand, to me this is a so-what thing, I'm interested in how well a board goes, and I like the Firewire technology in any case.

Fins, both the above boards have five Futures boxes, on the Nano I used Mayhem thrusters and Clay Marzo's five fin set as both thruster and quad, I love Marzo's quad set up for those short planing hulls, the fins have a bit more rake and help to whip out a little more length in turns.

In the Vanguard I've used F4 Black Cat futures as a thruster and Rasta's futures set as a quad, it feels to me like both work OK but the Rastas are a bit upright for a short hull, will prolly try the Marzos in that one too.

I'm gonna get Daniel to make me a board in Feb, something a bit beyond both of these boards, psyched.

Nick , care to elaborate on " something a bit beyond both of these boards " ......what it is your thinking with changes ???

Thanks

guessing Nick is getting 2014 Tomo models:

-Sci Phi
-Evo
-Vader

Picking up my Sci Phi and Evo today woohoo!

Pics please!

Annesley's description of the KU on the website is pretty rich. No mention of tomo influence and a bs story how the design was developed, even though it's pretty much a direct copy of the vanguard.

I've got no problem with copying - but geez its a bit rude putting up a bs story about how you came about it without crediting the originator of the design

Yeh its kinda silly, because anyone who hasn't been living under a rock has seen the online marketing of Tomo surfboards and his collab with Firewire, and anyone following the Hydrodynamica progress.

Ends up shooting himself in the foot a little. A little mention is not that hard.

airboy808 wrote:guessing Nick is getting 2014 Tomo models:

-Sci Phi
-Evo
-Vader

Picking up my Sci Phi and Evo today woohoo!

Why no Vader Airboy ? You have a VG already ??

Pretty ordinary form from Annersley not to mention in some form it's origin, even if it was pre TOMO
that got a word or two.

no vader as a FW might be putting that one into production

had a tomo vanguard with the tips cut off. was best tomo yet. sold to friend so I could get my new ones

I think theres a big future in these designs, thats for sure. Its faster and more stable, making performance surfing easier for everyone. The theory is not unique to Tomo, its basically the 50's Simmons theory or the Lis Fish reworked to bring back control and to reduce the volume.

I think a great factor with these boards is they challenge that volume is everything when trying to make a fast surfboard, and that the shape of the surfboard pushing through the water plays a larger role than originally thought. Even skim boarders can surf waves if they're towed in and those would paddle like driftwood.

Just that new possibility alone opens up all sorts of design ideas that are not uniquely Tomos, its opening up a whole avenue of fine-tuning again, respecting how little things effect the pressure and release under the board. Watch Maurice Cole talk about the theory behind his boards and you get an idea of it.

I reckon were going to see all sorts of great stuff going on with board design at the moment. Its all happening. Tomo is just lucky that he marketed the idea well to the performance crowd, brought it into the performance surfing limelight (which most shapers don't bother with because of how conservative most shortboarders are), and then had credibility added by getting picked up by Firewire.

There are many other shapers having great ideas like these, just due to the pure marketing system they don't get picked up in a mass media sense. Shapers like MP with his dumplings, JD with his twin+1 flex engineered boards, Jed for Bushrat with his flex-tail semi-fish, Mich Mackie with his flex tail fish, Webber with his afterburner (lets not forget that this board was a much earlier application of what Tomo has been claiming as his theory and wasn't harped on about as a "revolution". It just quietly sat in the background as a good all-rounder shortboard). They are all boards that are trying to make good functional use of a straighter outline.

I think this design tangent is pretty rich and sitting in the background, but now is more exposed due to Tomo and Firewire's good marketing. Its pretty good times!

I tried the firewire nano in a 5'6, really liked it even though it felt big for me, despite surfing in me 6mm suit

Thinking of getting one, but no clue as to how these guys scale, i usually surf a 5'11 x 18 5/8 shortboard, weigh 76k

Sharkie - when i got a custom a few years back. It was chin to nose height and then the rest of the dims were like my normal HPSB. How tall are you? Once you gauged that, find the firewire that is closest including the width and thickness of your normal HPSB. All else fails, you can try and do that volume stuff they do. Never quite works for me. I like the ol' hold the board under the arm test.

batoes wrote:Sharkie - when i got a custom a few years back. It was chin to nose height and then the rest of the dims were like my normal HPSB. How tall are you? Once you gauged that, find the firewire that is closest including the width and thickness of your normal HPSB. All else fails, you can try and do that volume stuff they do. Never quite works for me. I like the ol' hold the board under the arm test.

thanks mate, i am like 5'8
wasn't it something like chin height for the vanguard and brow height for the Nano? not sure. I usually ride 18 5/8 width but just spoke with Tomo and he reckoned the 5'4 nano would be perfect for me

cheers

An interesting side observation on the Tomo Firewires is the number of them creasing or snapping just based on my own observation. I'm wondering why given they are short relative so wouldn't think this would be any more relevant than a normal board? Is it the concave depth?.

Guy in our boardriders had one. Third surf and creased right through the bottom in 2 foot waves.

Guy up at Boomerang last week on a new one. Snapped clean in half. Man he was pissed.
Nick's little bro recently took one out for a test. Deep crease right through the bottom from a floater.

Spoke to a local repairer who confirmed my observations that these boards are having a much higher hit rate than normal with snapping and creasing. Why is it so?

Possibly all this is just a coincidence ?

actually a local bloke here who rides one....asked him where it was the other day.....creased.

been interesting watching Dan T surfing Lennox Point the last couple of swells and comparing it both to normal boards and his surfing on previous boards.

steve shearer wrote: been interesting watching Dan T surfing Lennox Point the last couple of swells and comparing it both to normal boards and his surfing on previous boards.

And ... ?

Womble wrote:

steve shearer wrote: been interesting watching Dan T surfing Lennox Point the last couple of swells and comparing it both to normal boards and his surfing on previous boards.

And ... ?

and.... x 2

Natho wrote:An interesting side observation on the Tomo Firewires is the number of them creasing or snapping just based on my own observation. I'm wondering why given they are short relative so wouldn't think this would be any more relevant than a normal board? Is it the concave depth?.

Guy in our boardriders had one. Third surf and creased right through the bottom in 2 foot waves.

Guy up at Boomerang last week on a new one. Snapped clean in half. Man he was pissed.
Nick's little bro recently took one out for a test. Deep crease right through the bottom from a floater.

Spoke to a local repairer who confirmed my observations that these boards are having a much higher hit rate than normal with snapping and creasing. Why is it so?

Possibly all this is just a coincidence ?

I think the Rapdifire technology the first vanguards were using is just unfortunately very weak. From what I read its only EPS/epoxy with two carbon rods near the rail. Its super lightweight and seems very flimsy its that light. I reckon the FST would be a better construction to buy a Firewire in.