Select to expand quote
chrispy said..Hydromann said..chrispy said..Hydromann said..BTW what do people think of Joel Fitzs Cosmic Twin that I linked?
I'm kinda smitten by it ATM, as if that wasn't obvious.
The only thing that I would likely change is the fin placement.
Another set of Futures 3/4" box a fin length forward and out wider.
Would allow you to mix it up a bit or even set it up quad style.
Would likely also whack in one FCS slot for a tail biter if needed.
But that's just me loving experimenting with fin options.
Other than that board I'm intrigued by Gary McNeils torus twinnies. But they only go up to 6'6 and are hitting 46L. Would like that in a 6'8 or 6'10 at around 45L, and again with some fin placement options

Do you walk into a restaurant and go straight to the kitchen and tell the chef how to cook his food or to change his recipies ?
No because I don't eat out much.
But if I didn't like the food I would send it back and tell them why.
So to me it seems fair and reasonable to discuss with a shaper exactly what I do and don't like in a meaningful way, and to also accept back qualified exceptions to anything that I have discussed based on facts and not just subjective assertions or perceptions.
I'm fairly sure that just about any shaper would want to get it right for a client first up rather than risk having it sent back to his kitchen?
And more so if I am not ordering the generic sweet and sour pork version of what he does.
If that offends then that shaper will never be my chef ......... sorry shaper.
You say all shapers are idiots and snake oil salesmen without any proof of design or concept and should not be trusted....and you come up with that
Ok
Haha, yeah righto mate whatever.
I said there where a lot of snake oil sales men out there, and that everyone needs to check the facts attached to any claims made.
i also said that this was difficult to do and that it was hard to know who to believe in this regard because so many shapers seem to have their perspective on what makes a good board, and then try to come up with some sort of marketing hubba bubba around that to make it a niche product. I also stated that even among shapers there is dissent on who actually knows what, and then CW boards pops up a priceless add stating just that, exactly the point that I was trying to make, shapers bagging out other shapers.
I also recall stating that Webber and others seemed to have a very good intuitive although non engineering based understanding of hydrodynamics and the effect of subtle differences in geometry on the performance outcomes.
So please do not try to classify me as being completely anti shapers or the industry, or of classifying them all as idiots and snake oil sales men, That is a misrepresentation of the context of my statements and a fallacy of your own imagining evidenced by my actual praise of shapers whos designs and concepts make hydrodynamic and engineering sense.
So if I still **** you to tears try Isle 9, I'll show you how to get there old mate.
And for anyone else....
Not all shapers are the amazing shaping gods that their web sites and marketing would have you believe. As I have stated very clearly in the past the real ones that have proven their worth have stood the test of time.
And any new shaper gods that are presenting product to the market do not need to justify or validate to anyone the effectiveness of their product, it will speak for itself.
The point being that only you will ultimately know what works best for you, so don't get snake oiled by a whole lot of marketing mumbo jumbo and fake claims. Do a little research, find out what does work and does not work, and 9/10 time you will discover that simplicity of form beats supposed innovation and shaper specific design concepts.
And as per my past example put Bob McT and Mr McCoy in a room together and let them argue which form is better. Because based on their historical differences in design concepts and the product outcomes I think this proves my point. Also feel free to add in as many in betweeners including Mr Myerhoffer's sexy looking hour glass, I guarantee if you asked Bob McT to shape that for you way back when he would have kicked you outta the shop.
And then if I mix in the fourth dimension of time and say let's compare a 70's state of the art board to a modern one as well as different styles of riding and expected performance outcomes of each board............ the answer is always going to be very very subjective.
And no I'm not against experimentation, just saying that that is all it is. Not tried, not tested, and not proven to meet the claims attached to it just like so many so called design innovations of specific shapers.
McNeils Torus is a classic example, a design concept that he applied experimentally and then allowed significant feedback and testing of before making it a standard concept in his design offering. And take a good hard look at what he applied it to, tried, tested and proven shapes and design concepts.
In other words simplicity of form and tried and tested over unverified claims. Which I don't think as a consumer is too bad advice.
So are we all clear now? Can we please move on from past offence and hurts and be big kids again?
Cheers.