Page 17 of 144
Re: Midlengths
Posted: Fri May 22, 2015 4:17 pm
by Roy_Stewart
Here are the first rides on the board... dropping 3 to 6 feet in length for the first time in about 15 years I wasn't sure if I could go back down in length but part of the brain starts to recall can't wait to get some more waves on it and dial in... catch is this one's off to Bali with someone else and the next one's spoken for too.
At 44 litres i wasn't sure if i could duckdive it, but she was all good on that score, in fact I was enjoying getting caught inside by the bigger sets as I hung inside for the scraps, starting at the bottom as it were.. didn't want to blow it on the peak in front of the crew of 45 the day before the Raglan pro. No mercy next time though
https://youtu.be/0K6XYMS3Efo
Re: Midlengths
Posted: Fri May 22, 2015 4:25 pm
by Roy_Stewart
huie wrote:for farcks sake roy give it a break
vol reduction was on many shapers minds in the sixty's ( when you were in short pants i would guess) with so much else going on it was an ongoing process,
but i will tell you this an 1.75 thick with fat ends would be laughed at then, ''as it is today''
volume placement is more where you need to look.
'For farcks sake Huie give it a break'... right back at you boy.
The thing about a parallel profile is that it's the same thickness everywhere, so you can't call it fat at the ends at 1.75" and skinny in the middle because it just doesn't make sense... no one's laughing at this board by the way, it was admired and felt up by plenty of the crew at the point.... you are just stuck in your old ways, the old paradigm.... it's the fat in the middle 70's boards which deserve to be laughed at...
... and regardless of what you say none of you have shown me a parallel profile board pre 1994. F c k n LOL
The parallel profile gives the thinnest and most flexible board for a given volume, that's a fact and it can't be changed... taper it and straight away you are riding something thicker than you need to... ok if that's what you are into. I'm not.
Re: Midlengths
Posted: Fri May 22, 2015 6:19 pm
by kayu
Here ya go Roy....it's wood....it has a PP....plenty of nose lift ...it's pre '94.........and it has a rubber dodgem car bolted to the deck....very similar to a Future Salmon....
Re: Midlengths
Posted: Fri May 22, 2015 7:50 pm
by huie
Roy_Stewart wrote:huie wrote:for farcks sake roy give it a break
vol reduction was on many shapers minds in the sixty's ( when you were in short pants i would guess) with so much else going on it was an ongoing process,
but i will tell you this an 1.75 thick with fat ends would be laughed at then, ''as it is today''
volume placement is more where you need to look.
'For farcks sake Huie give it a break'... right back at you boy.
''boy'' nice compliment roy thanks
The thing about a parallel profile is that it's the same thickness everywhere, so you can't call it fat at the ends at 1.75" and skinny in the middle because it just doesn't make sense... no one's laughing at this board by the way, it was admired and felt up by plenty of the crew at the point.... you are just stuck in your old ways, the old paradigm.... it's the fat in the middle 70's boards which deserve to be laughed at...
you have been using this tactic for many years roy why you do not just post some pics say a few words,
but no its all about everyone is wrong roy roy roy roy? its only last year you were asking stupid questions about glassing,
if you were more able to glean from the time you spent on comp-sand you would be doing your boards 2to 1 fiber to resin in vacuum no sanding required, ''old paradigm will remain'' ---you will slowly learn sony boy
... and regardless of what you say none of you have shown me a parallel profile board pre 1994. F c k n LOL
and regardless of wot you might say show me proof of your new paradigm extolling the virtues of all other?
The parallel profile gives the thinnest and most flexible board for a given volume, that's a fact and it can't be changed... taper it and straight away you are riding something thicker than you need to... ok if that's what you are into. I'm not.
i do not remember anyone telling you wot to be into
cheers huie
now retired
Re: Midlengths
Posted: Fri May 22, 2015 9:40 pm
by Roy_Stewart
huie wrote:you have been using this tactic for many years roy why you do not just post some pics say a few words,
but no its all about everyone is wrong roy roy roy roy?
You are not very observant Huie, I mentioned parallel profile on this thread merely as an expression of agreement with a post about lowering the centre of gravity, one can't agree with the principle more than by spending 20 plus years using the profile which does the most to lower it.
Re: Midlengths
Posted: Fri May 22, 2015 9:43 pm
by Roy_Stewart
kayu wrote:Here ya go Roy....it's wood....it has a PP....plenty of nose lift ...it's pre '94.........and it has a rubber dodgem car bolted to the deck....very similar to a Future Salmon....
... except that it isn't a surfboard.
Re: Midlengths
Posted: Sun May 24, 2015 3:24 am
by kayu
Roy_Stewart wrote:kayu wrote:
... except that it isn't a surfboard.
.....no , but the similarity in design is spooky !
Re: Midlengths
Posted: Sun May 24, 2015 7:09 am
by Beerfan
The vast majority of surfers worldwide are perfectly happy on fat in the middle boards. They must be all wrong.
Re: Midlengths
Posted: Sun May 24, 2015 10:50 am
by steve shearer
Are you meaning parallel profile in terms of the thickness/foil or the planshape?
Re: Midlengths
Posted: Sun May 24, 2015 1:50 pm
by Roy_Stewart
Hi Steve, the thickness distribution/profile
Re: Midlengths
Posted: Sun May 24, 2015 1:53 pm
by Roy_Stewart
Beerfan wrote:
The vast majority of surfers worldwide are perfectly happy on fat in the middle boards. They must be all wrong.
An illogical deduction ( yes I realise that it's a sarcastic comment) and FYI boards have tended towards a more parallel (or less tapered ) profile in recent years.
It's just a way of promoting flex and making the board as thin as possible for any given volume... I didn't say that one has to do it to make a board work, ok?
Re: Midlengths
Posted: Sun May 24, 2015 2:26 pm
by Davros
Do you think its possible to over analyse and or complicate surfboard design?
Re: Midlengths
Posted: Sun May 24, 2015 2:54 pm
by Roy_Stewart
Not for you by the sound of it.
Generally surfboard design analysis is acceptable if:
a) It makes no sense, thereby lessening the need to think.
b) Is well publicised by respected media outlets.
c) Has 'patent pending' on the same page.
d) Includes dinky diagrams.
e )Doesn't rock anyone's boat.
Re: Midlengths
Posted: Sun May 24, 2015 3:18 pm
by Roy_Stewart
Re: Midlengths
Posted: Sun May 24, 2015 4:35 pm
by kayu
DVS Surfskate.....short , midlength or long.....surfblanks pink core....unmatched durability with full "bombproof" deck(terminology only - you could destroy it with a bomb).....good travel boards......DVS carbon quads....single foiled leaders....double foiled trailers....(or vice versa). The board pictured has been hammered over the last year or so around Burleigh area ...she's come up trumps and will head back out after a tidy up.....it's 6ft by 20 1/4" -7lb without wax....anyone interested in a demo ride , just PM.....the 6fter is currently in Currumbin.
Re: Midlengths
Posted: Sun May 24, 2015 8:21 pm
by Davros
Well people also design rockets that fly into the ground on take off as clever as they think they are and even when their rockets are pretty or ugly as a P76 and prove to be just as functional.
Re: Midlengths
Posted: Mon May 25, 2015 6:16 am
by Beerfan
How good does a 25" wide board go on a rail?
Re: Midlengths
Posted: Mon May 25, 2015 6:31 am
by Roy_Stewart
Rail feels good, width is no issue, and tail width is normal.
