My f-one anakao has some pretty crazy beveled rails starting about 2" in from the where the rail would normally start. Hard to get a good pic but hopefully you can see how much they have cut out to make the rail more thin.
certainly reduces the stability of the board! Not sure if I like them or not yet

Select to expand quote

benjl said..
My f-one anakao has some pretty crazy beveled rails starting about 2" in from the where the rail would normally start. Hard to get a good pic but hopefully you can see how much they have cut out to make the rail more thin.
certainly reduces the stability of the board! Not sure if I like them or not yet

To see some of the original bevel rail designs check bane chambers ,from years ago,they to were classed by many as being unstable

That makes sense, it is substantially more unstable than other boards of similar dims and volume I've tried. Only had it out twice now, once in small soft waves and it carved the ** out of it as soon as I was in a critical part of a wave. Yesterday was head to 1.5x oh and blustery off shore winds. Struggled to even get on a face or down the face so was hard to see it in action.
I wanted something a bit different to my hypernut and it is certainly that. Almost feels like a deep double concave or 'vee' right before the rail!

Select to expand quote

benjl said..
That makes sense, it is substantially more unstable than other boards of similar dims and volume I've tried. Only had it out twice now, once in small soft waves and it carved the ** out of it as soon as I was in a critical part of a wave. Yesterday was head to 1.5x oh and blustery off shore winds. Struggled to even get on a face or down the face so was hard to see it in action.
I wanted something a bit different to my hypernut and it is certainly that. Almost feels like a deep double concave or 'vee' right before the rail!

Select to expand quote

benjl said..
That makes sense, it is substantially more unstable than other boards of similar dims and volume I've tried. Only had it out twice now, once in small soft waves and it carved the ** out of it as soon as I was in a critical part of a wave. Yesterday was head to 1.5x oh and blustery off shore winds. Struggled to even get on a face or down the face so was hard to see it in action.
I wanted something a bit different to my hypernut and it is certainly that. Almost feels like a deep double concave or 'vee' right before the rail!

It appears,the current take on rail refinement is taking volume from the top of the rail (step rail) also been done before ,Bengl good on you for experimenting it's great fun

Not a fan. I had one of the PSH boards and for the width it was unstable especially in chop. Felt like a much narrower board therefore I don't see the point. May as well get the narrow board. Less board to throw around. (My balance isn't as good as others)

Funnily enough my other blue planet 8'4 x 28 x 101 l board has that! Hah. So got to experiment with both! Although quite different designs. The blue planet ninja star has a lot more volume in the nose and flatter tail rocker (use a wafer thin tail and tail to hold) where the f-one board has a Chunk of volume in the middle with a narrow now and tail.

I have the same issue with my beveled rails, discussed here:
www.seabreeze.com.au/forums/Stand-Up-Paddle/Review/Beveled-rails-vs--stability--speed

I'm now on a Quatro Glide 8'6 x 32, 130 liters, it's much (much!) more stable in choppy conditions.

Unfortunate by-product of foil boards. They try to achieve the 'look' that is expected by the consumer..........if it looks new AND PROGRESSIVE IT MUST BE GOOD
and its going to not work on a normal board.

Select to expand quote

AlexF said..
I have the same issue with my beveled rails, discussed here:
www.seabreeze.com.au/forums/Stand-Up-Paddle/Review/Beveled-rails-vs--stability--speed

I'm now on a Quatro Glide 8'6 x 32, 130 liters, it's much (much!) more stable in choppy conditions.

Awesome thanks, yeah Interesting topic. Mines clearly a stability nightmare haha. Already thin nose and tail without the bevels and lots of concave + rocker and only 99l !

So would these be similar to 'step down' rails found on the new flow? It looks like yours are underneath the board opposed to being on top like the flow?

Yeah same style of idea to thin out the rail but the bevels seem to be a lot more unstable than doing it from the top down.
I haven't had enough waves in the board yet to really test them but certainly goes on rail easier than my hypernut

Select to expand quote

benjl said..
Yeah same style of idea to thin out the rail but the bevels seem to be a lot more unstable than doing it from the top down.
I haven't had enough waves in the board yet to really test them but certainly goes on rail easier than my hypernut

Yea certainly interesting because the flow rails are super stable in my opinion.

Select to expand quote

Mark _australia said..
Unfortunate by-product of foil boards. They try to achieve the 'look' that is expected by the consumer..........if it looks new AND PROGRESSIVE IT MUST BE GOOD
and its going to not work on a normal board.

No, the F-One designer of these boards, Remi Quique, has said in interviews that he had been a long time fan of the longboards with bevels by the legendary French shaper Gerard Dabbadie (who shaped under his own brand "Superfrog", and later became part of the Bic design team where he made their famous 9' surfboard that had a huge success... with bevelled rails)

See my previous post at www.seabreeze.com.au/forums/Stand-Up-Paddle/Review/Beveled-rails-vs--stability--speed?page=1#2592056

My surf quiver consisted only of custom Superfrog boards, and the longboards were all beveled, which gave them a modern handling with some feeling, looseness (and instability) of the traditional 50/50 rails. But Gerard never put bevels on boards less than 9'.

It's to liven up response time on a wave, on a wider than desired board.
If all you want is stability, make the rail full square and blocky.
Just one solution to one problem.

Select to expand quote

LeeD said..
It's to liven up response time on a wave, on a wider than desired board.
If all you want is stability, make the rail full square and blocky.
Just one solution to one problem.

Lee it could be one solution ,but creates other problems C4 we're doing this early on and it did not go well for them in oz,to much buoyancy creating instability in chop blah blah all been done and said before,going the same way as surfboard design,recycling ideas from the past to sell prouduct

I would think ANY solution would raise other problems.
Bevel thinking is to allow wide standing deck and increased rail to rail ease.
It creates instability for some folks, but also ease in response for others. Who's it for?
Riding a wave or trying to static balance?

Select to expand quote

LeeD said..
I would think ANY solution would raise other problems.
Bevel thinking is to allow wide standing deck and increased rail to rail ease.
It creates instability for some folks, but also ease in response for others. Who's it for?
Riding a wave or trying to static balance?

Yes Lee from what I've read and experienced the step rail design was for more deck comfort (stability) to not only widen it but to flatten it out,this is why the step deck rails are now down low and in /under water,with less width in the deck but still flatter,no static balance in the ocean,at least Not for me as I'm old as balance challenged,hope you are getting waves

I had a talk with George Panton Here on the picture who did chine rails in the early 70' and then gives me on some FB pages some prescriptions about that I want to apply to the SUP shapes. The purpose to follow George's knowledge was to adapt its concept fitting wide boards as SUP can be. The difference with the bevelled rail recently used by Quique or Dabadie is that the bottom shape and rocker shaped by George Panton in end 60' is FLAT compare of the actual SUP rockers. And my conclusion would be that there is more issues coming from rocker rather than rails shape itself. So I think that flat rocker would add some paddling stability and glide while surfing when bevelled rails would add more advantages than issues as does explain George below.

So I paste here what he wrote about and keeping it on a note to design it from, later on Shape3D...

note the flying Saucer its an RPT 6, ' 6 " x 23 x 3 and a single fin .that board allowed me in 1972.to do aerials off the lip about 3 ft high and return to redrop in and continue the wave..really had me stoked grunt less, yet no one even understood my riding crazy style ..so go wide and enjoy the ride..but not at Pipeline or Waimea..fun surf up to 8 ft calif size..coincidently the size most surfers like.

Chine rails..from the flow point of the nose (@15" back to the same point @ 15 " up from the tail and 3/4 " at the widest point of the chine's centre point.) It works on all widths of boards up to 23 " wide..then a softer hard rail works better because the waves those really wide boards ride are 6ft and smaller( great for beginners).

what happens is you make it 3 " thick and 21 wide because the chine reduces the bottom width to 19 1/2 and the actual board thickness to 2 1/2 ..ain't that cool? Watch my video on the chine rail pintail winger done shaping at Ricky T s factory in cocoa by my son Goofyfootgeorge on U tube..where I explain it..you can see the foil, and rocker tail 1 " and nose 2 1/2..bottom fast and flat. at 6,7" add a little of each for larger boards. p.s no 3 fins are necessary. long box far back as possible 8 " fibre filled speed fin to adjust ..board weight should be medium after finished @ 12 lbs..too light is just too scary for even good surfers because it turns so easily that you'll spin out or just fly out of the wave if you do make the turn..also after the turn acceleration is amazing and you'll fall backwards..3 waves and you are supermans.

Select to expand quote

Kami said..



I had a talk with George Panton Here on the picture who did chine rails in the early 70' and then gives me on some FB pages some prescriptions about that I want to apply to the SUP shapes. The purpose to follow George's knowledge was to adapt its concept fitting wide boards as SUP can be. The difference with the bevelled rail recently used by Quique or Dabadie is that the bottom shape and rocker shaped by George Panton in end 60' is FLAT compare of the actual SUP rockers. And my conclusion would be that there is more issues coming from rocker rather than rails shape itself. So I think that flat rocker would add some paddling stability and glide while surfing when bevelled rails would add more advantages than issues as does explain George below.

So I paste here what he wrote about and keeping it on a note to design it from, later on Shape3D...

note the flying Saucer its an RPT 6, ' 6 " x 23 x 3 and a single fin .that board allowed me in 1972.to do aerials off the lip about 3 ft high and return to redrop in and continue the wave..really had me stoked grunt less, yet no one even understood my riding crazy style ..so go wide and enjoy the ride..but not at Pipeline or Waimea..fun surf up to 8 ft calif size..coincidently the size most surfers like.

Chine rails..from the flow point of the nose (@15" back to the same point @ 15 " up from the tail and 3/4 " at the widest point of the chine's centre point.) It works on all widths of boards up to 23 " wide..then a softer hard rail works better because the waves those really wide boards ride are 6ft and smaller( great for beginners).

what happens is you make it 3 " thick and 21 wide because the chine reduces the bottom width to 19 1/2 and the actual board thickness to 2 1/2 ..ain't that cool? Watch my video on the chine rail pintail winger done shaping at Ricky T s factory in cocoa by my son Goofyfootgeorge on U tube..where I explain it..you can see the foil, and rocker tail 1 " and nose 2 1/2..bottom fast and flat. at 6,7" add a little of each for larger boards. p.s no 3 fins are necessary. long box far back as possible 8 " fibre filled speed fin to adjust ..board weight should be medium after finished @ 12 lbs..too light is just too scary for even good surfers because it turns so easily that you'll spin out or just fly out of the wave if you do make the turn..also after the turn acceleration is amazing and you'll fall backwards..3 waves and you are supermans.

Thanks Kami,an interesting read ,that was the era that I can relate to As I did some shaping in the 70's as well,nothing that forward thinking though,I to have loved design from the first wave I caught now @68 I'm still intrigued and looking for the next break through to try, ps Kami thanks for your contribution to design posts always worth a read!

So my guess of the chine rail making my 28" wide board feel like only 26" wide is accurate! Haha

Thanks Kami,an interesting read ,that was the era that I can relate to As I did some shaping in the 70's as well,nothing that forward thinking though,I to have loved design from the first wave I caught now @68 I'm still intrigued and looking for the next break through to try, ps Kami thanks for your contribution to design posts always worth a read!

Agreed. Wayne Deane of Coolangatta shaped me an 8' 6" x 23" shortboard shape with chined rails which reduced the board to a bit over 18" in the early 90's. No one else did anything like it and it was a killer on the southern GC points-catch anything and perform along the lines of a shortboard but with flow. Stability wasn't an issue as I was prone and std sb rocker with central axis.
I can really see a place for chines in Sups and am surprised its unstable for you Benji. BTW whats the original and chined width of the F-one? Be an interesting concept to pull apart as to how the chines detract from the stability

Haha put it this way.. the board is already an unstable beast with thin nose, thin tail and lots of rocker. Add that to only 28" max width (on the top) and 99l. The chines make it about 25.5" wide on the bottom, with vee in the tail and constantly wanting to roll on to tail (also domed deck). It's got less volume than my 7'2 x 28 hypernut despite being 8'4!

This has certainly been an interesting read. Right on time, as I've been looking over the Hypr Hawaii board bottom design, and wondering about how it all works.

Had a chat with Blaine C. a while back. He was making boards for BIG Moke's.

A thicker wider board was too stiff and the chines were a way to get the rails thin enough to turn without being too stiff

Step rails are another way to solve this problem.

Tom Carroll designed some boards which did not do well

I rode a prototype and it was the tippiest most unstable board I ever rode.

Figured I was a small Moke and asked the guy who owned it. Much better rider also, but told me it was the most unstable and tippy board he had ever ridden.

As I remember from SeaBreezer's posts about the TC, TC has a bunch of rockers and a convex double concave all along from Nose to tail... can be that bottom shape and high rocker which make the tippy behaviour, tippy effect is probably not coming mainly from the chines...

Most TC's have a very flat nose rocker, moderate width, thin profile, thin deck rails.
Add bottom chine front to backfoot gives looseness once on a wave, and some instability while static.
Maybe TC has better balance than us? And cares more about wave surfing than flat water stability.

I'm kind of intrigued why they'd put them on an 8'4 rockered, thin tailed and heavy concaved 99l board then as it doesn't really fit the 'big wide board, needs help turning' approach.
Kind of used to it now but first session was bloody tippy and I'm a well season supper at 70kg

Could it possibly have been designed for a surfer with great balance and light weight for wave spots with easy paddleouts, little current and low wind?
Could it have been designed for wave riding, not slow paddling?

It would be quite interesting to compare boards with the same shape but the same stability, one being narrow and the other wider but with bevels. In other words: are bevels the better stability/performance compromise?

My - unproven - gut feeling is that it depends on the board speed. As basically water forces are proportional to the square of the water speed, when speed increases the ability for a board for going rail to rail will be much hampered by each extra inch of width, that is moreover far from center and thus with a lot of (counter) leverage, bevelled or not.

This could explain with you see bevels only on slow-moving surfboards, like longboards, and always never on performance boards: at speed reducing the width could be much more productive than bevels. And it may be the opposite on noseriders.

Select to expand quote

colas said..
It would be quite interesting to compare boards with the same shape but the same stability, one being narrow and the other wider but with bevels. In other words: are bevels the better stability/performance compromise?

My - unproven - gut feeling is that it depends on the board speed. As basically water forces are proportional to the square of the water speed, when speed increases the ability for a board for going rail to rail will be much hampered by each extra inch of width, that is moreover far from center and thus with a lot of (counter) leverage, bevelled or not.

This could explain with you see bevels only on slow-moving surfboards, like longboards, and always never on performance boards: at speed reducing the width could be much more productive than bevels. And it may be the opposite on noseriders.

Not sure about your comment that bevels has no effect on paddling speed is on the ball. The use of bevels is known for reducing wetted
surface or frictional resistance.
Taking for example the same design of 9.2x31 longboard hybrid with beveled rails, I went and removed the bevels reduced the width by
2" but kept everything else essentially the same resulted in identical wetted surface.

So on paper both will carry the same speed but which one will be easier in engaging the rails? Now the narrower board even-though
about 10 liters less in volume still carries more volume and thickness in the rails compared with the wider beveled railed board

Also, which one will be more responsive and faster to get up to speed given the difference in volume?