Getting closer with the first one, a big learning curve with the 3D glass as most normal glassing procedures don't apply. Lots of fairing being done, and the weight is coming up which is good.

www.roystuart.biz/2015/01/the-gun-project-3d-glassing-techniques.html

When it's big I like volume so I can get of trouble in a hurry. The Drip is making far too much sense. He needs a new name - something more befitting. Most are just after survival and who can blame them. I would not even want to be out there. Would be shutting myself just standing on the beach watching

Select to expand quote

Ted the Kiwi said..
When it's big I like volume so I can get of trouble in a hurry. The Drip is making far too much sense. He needs a new name - something more befitting. Most are just after survival and who can blame them. I would not even want to be out there. Would be shutting myself just standing on the beach watching

Yeah this board is for 12 foot face waves though. It will be fine for that, I thought he was talking much bigger waves you need a gun for. I'm happy on my 6'2 or 6'4 in double overhead

Same - although the newby is more suited for that. Size is all relative Mick

Select to expand quote

Ted the Kiwi said..
Same - although the newby is more suited for that. Size is all relative Mick

Absolutely mate, I'd happily board swap when paddling into a wave. Then swap back when needing to duck dive lol

I really needed a board like yours in the week before we caught up. When Mids was breaking over double head it was really hard to paddle into them with the shifting peak. That South African got into one easily early into the session one day. But we didn't see him for 1/2 an hour coz he got caught inside...but gotta admit, so did I

Select to expand quote

MickPC said..

Ted the Kiwi said..
When it's big I like volume so I can get of trouble in a hurry. The Drip is making far too much sense. He needs a new name - something more befitting. Most are just after survival and who can blame them. I would not even want to be out there. Would be shutting myself just standing on the beach watching

Yeah this board is for 12 foot face waves though. It will be fine for that, I thought he was talking much bigger waves you need a gun for. I'm happy on my 6'2 or 6'4 in double overhead

Resorting to making stuff up for your troll fodder.. shame.

The board is being made as the first part of a project for gun surfboards designed to ride the biggest waves able to be paddled in to. We'll be going longer but at 9'5" this board will be capable in very large surf, and I did not say that it is designed specifically for double overhead.

Select to expand quote

MickPC said...

Ted the Kiwi said..
When it's big I like volume so I can get of trouble in a hurry. The Drip is making far too much sense. He needs a new name - something more befitting. Most are just after survival and who can blame them. I would not even want to be out there. Would be shutting myself just standing on the beach watching

Yeah this board is for 12 foot face waves though. It will be fine for that, I thought he was talking much bigger waves you need a gun for. I'm happy on my 6'2 or 6'4 in double overhead

I think Roy is aiming at much bigger waves, mick. I seem to remember him mentioning 24 foot faces which is starting to head towards gunnier boards. I would still be on my 7' in that size. Double head I would be happy to surf one of my 5'10" twinnies if the wave was suitable. That's the other thing - size is so relevant. I have mates come from Perth and go for surfs and they call things 8', yet if you claimed that in the pub the boys would slap you for exaggerating a pleasant day of solid 4 footers. 6' inji - chilling, man; 6' womb - I want my mummy (and why did I paddle out? Why? Why why?).

Select to expand quote

RoyStuart said...
I've ridden these shapes loads of times at 18 to 24 feet at reefs, points and beaches and they just keep on going better as the size increases... the control is outstanding and the pintails handle the steepest of drops with ease... enough to know what's going on. Hydrodynamically the main factor is the speed at which the boards operate rather than wave size per se.

I'd rather take off on one of these than any of the guns I have seen, that's for sure... I cringe at some of the disastrous results seen using the current equipment, due to major handling and control issues which are avoidable.

Board speed and wave size are related but not in a linear fashion i.e. a wave twice the size won't necessarily deliver twice the speed, there are a couple of reasons for this.

The 9'5" isn't intended for the upper end of the wave scale, we'll be going longer, up to 12 feet for that.

There it is. Page 3. On Page 4 he elaborates and says in "normal lingo" 9-12' waves. So big enough to be out of many peoples comfort zone, but without being monstrous. That's why I reckon some scything cutties aren't unreasonable. 3-6 times head high? My head high of course I am 6'2" btw.

Select to expand quote

thedrip said..

MickPC said...

Ted the Kiwi said..
When it's big I like volume so I can get of trouble in a hurry. The Drip is making far too much sense. He needs a new name - something more befitting. Most are just after survival and who can blame them. I would not even want to be out there. Would be shutting myself just standing on the beach watching

Yeah this board is for 12 foot face waves though. It will be fine for that, I thought he was talking much bigger waves you need a gun for. I'm happy on my 6'2 or 6'4 in double overhead

I think Roy is aiming at much bigger waves, mick. I seem to remember him mentioning 24 foot faces which is starting to head towards gunnier boards. I would still be on my 7' in that size. Double head I would be happy to surf one of my 5'10" twinnies if the wave was suitable. That's the other thing - size is so relevant. I have mates come from Perth and go for surfs and they call things 8', yet if you claimed that in the pub the boys would slap you for exaggerating a pleasant day of solid 4 footers. 6' inji - chilling, man; 6' womb - I want my mummy (and why did I paddle out? Why? Why why?).

Gotta head off to work...but yeah I've only ever snapped 5 leggies & 4 of them were along the Ellenbrook stretch of coast. Plenty of power in those waves

Select to expand quote

thedrip said..

MickPC said...

Ted the Kiwi said..
When it's big I like volume so I can get of trouble in a hurry. The Drip is making far too much sense. He needs a new name - something more befitting. Most are just after survival and who can blame them. I would not even want to be out there. Would be shutting myself just standing on the beach watching

Yeah this board is for 12 foot face waves though. It will be fine for that, I thought he was talking much bigger waves you need a gun for. I'm happy on my 6'2 or 6'4 in double overhead

I think Roy is aiming at much bigger waves, mick. I seem to remember him mentioning 24 foot faces which is starting to head towards gunnier boards. I would still be on my 7' in that size. Double head I would be happy to surf one of my 5'10" twinnies if the wave was suitable. That's the other thing - size is so relevant. I have mates come from Perth and go for surfs and they call things 8', yet if you claimed that in the pub the boys would slap you for exaggerating a pleasant day of solid 4 footers. 6' inji - chilling, man; 6' womb - I want my mummy (and why did I paddle out? Why? Why why?).

I said I've ridden these designs in waves of that size, I also made it clear that the current project is aimed at the upper end of what can be paddled in to.

Post deleted

Select to expand quote

MickPC said..

thedrip said..

MickPC said...

Ted the Kiwi said..
When it's big I like volume so I can get of trouble in a hurry. The Drip is making far too much sense. He needs a new name - something more befitting. Most are just after survival and who can blame them. I would not even want to be out there. Would be shutting myself just standing on the beach watching

Yeah this board is for 12 foot face waves though. It will be fine for that, I thought he was talking much bigger waves you need a gun for. I'm happy on my 6'2 or 6'4 in double overhead

I think Roy is aiming at much bigger waves, mick. I seem to remember him mentioning 24 foot faces which is starting to head towards gunnier boards. I would still be on my 7' in that size. Double head I would be happy to surf one of my 5'10" twinnies if the wave was suitable. That's the other thing - size is so relevant. I have mates come from Perth and go for surfs and they call things 8', yet if you claimed that in the pub the boys would slap you for exaggerating a pleasant day of solid 4 footers. 6' inji - chilling, man; 6' womb - I want my mummy (and why did I paddle out? Why? Why why?).

Gotta head off to work...but yeah I've only ever snapped 5 leggies & 4 of them were along the Ellenbrook stretch of coast. Plenty of power in those waves

Fascinating that you have to go to work.. anything else off topic of a personal nature which you'd like to share with the group? How was your last poo?

Anyone can snap a leggie once it has a small cut or is slightly perished... it proves nothing and we don't even know or care if it is true or not. The biggest waves I've ridden in the past 20 years were all without a legrope by the way.

Select to expand quote

RoyStuart said...

thedrip said..

RoyStuart said...
I've ridden these shapes loads of times at 18 to 24 feet at reefs, points and beaches and they just keep on going better as the size increases... the control is outstanding and the pintails handle the steepest of drops with ease... enough to know what's going on. Hydrodynamically the main factor is the speed at which the boards operate rather than wave size per se.

I'd rather take off on one of these than any of the guns I have seen, that's for sure... I cringe at some of the disastrous results seen using the current equipment, due to major handling and control issues which are avoidable.

Board speed and wave size are related but not in a linear fashion i.e. a wave twice the size won't necessarily deliver twice the speed, there are a couple of reasons for this.

The 9'5" isn't intended for the upper end of the wave scale, we'll be going longer, up to 12 feet for that.

There it is. Page 3. On Page 4 he elaborates and says in "normal lingo" 9-12' waves. So big enough to be out of many peoples comfort zone, but without being monstrous. That's why I reckon some scything cutties aren't unreasonable. 3-6 times head high? My head high of course I am 6'2" btw.

I said I've ridden these designs in waves of that size, I also made it clear that the current project is aimed at the upper end of what can be paddled in to. I made no comment on what size limit the 9'5" is intended to handle.

Anyone with a basic grasp of language can see that... stop trying to misinterpret what I wrote in order to suit your naysaying agenda... do it with the truth or not at all.

You also sneakily posted that the 24 foot faces i.e. 12 foot waves in the common lingo ( which I said that I've ridden) is only 12 foot faces... it's insulting to expect us not to notice such blatant attempts at sleight of hand.

Lol.My naysaying? I am actually keeping an open mind about the whole thing. I quoted you. You are the one who said up to 24 foot, then clarified a page later and referenced it as 12 foot in the common parlance. I was quoting you as I believed Mick was underestimating the size you were aiming at. So maybe your grasp of the nuances of English isn't as sharp as you think.

Although, to be fair, I have missed the bit where you said you were aiming at the outer edge paddle surfing so that correction is warranted.

And don't have a go at my understanding of language. I have a lot of pieces of paper that would suggest my understanding of language and its multifacetedness is superior to yours. Indeed, someone with a good grasp of the nature of language would understand that communication is only ever approximate as meaning is a vague and mutable thing. I suggest you read some Russian Formalism (victor shlovsky is a good start), Ferdinand Sausurre's ideas on parole and langue, and perhaps the French Post-structuralist Roland Barthes and his ideas on Writerly and Readerly texts. You might then realise that just because someone hasn't understood your utterance (and I use that in the Linguistic sense) does not mean a negative motivation on their part. That apportioning of intention is entirely from you. A little defensive and paranoid Roy?

Like I said, I am completely open to these boards doing what they are supposed to do. They look weird, but then people reckon the boards I surf everyday look weird. Take a deep breath Roy. Not everyone here is a naysayer and healthy scepticism is not naysaying either.

Sorry I hit the wrong button thought I was replying to Mick.

Select to expand quote

RoyStuart said..

MickPC said..

thedrip said..

MickPC said...

Ted the Kiwi said..
When it's big I like volume so I can get of trouble in a hurry. The Drip is making far too much sense. He needs a new name - something more befitting. Most are just after survival and who can blame them. I would not even want to be out there. Would be shutting myself just standing on the beach watching

Yeah this board is for 12 foot face waves though. It will be fine for that, I thought he was talking much bigger waves you need a gun for. I'm happy on my 6'2 or 6'4 in double overhead

I think Roy is aiming at much bigger waves, mick. I seem to remember him mentioning 24 foot faces which is starting to head towards gunnier boards. I would still be on my 7' in that size. Double head I would be happy to surf one of my 5'10" twinnies if the wave was suitable. That's the other thing - size is so relevant. I have mates come from Perth and go for surfs and they call things 8', yet if you claimed that in the pub the boys would slap you for exaggerating a pleasant day of solid 4 footers. 6' inji - chilling, man; 6' womb - I want my mummy (and why did I paddle out? Why? Why why?).

Gotta head off to work...but yeah I've only ever snapped 5 leggies & 4 of them were along the Ellenbrook stretch of coast. Plenty of power in those waves

Fascinating that you have to go to work.. anything else off topic of a personal nature which you'd like to share with the group? How was your last poo?

Anyone can snap a leggie once it has a small cut or is slightly perished... it proves nothing and we don't even know or care if it is true or not. The biggest waves I've ridden in the past 20 years were all without a legrope by the way.

Why are you interested in Mick's poo,,,

All this is rhetoric.... all I want to see is it in action....is this board a prototype or is there actual footage of it being ridden in said Big Waves ?

7 Pages = great publicity.

Select to expand quote

thedrip said..

RoyStuart said...

thedrip said..

RoyStuart said...
I've ridden these shapes loads of times at 18 to 24 feet at reefs, points and beaches and they just keep on going better as the size increases... the control is outstanding and the pintails handle the steepest of drops with ease... enough to know what's going on. Hydrodynamically the main factor is the speed at which the boards operate rather than wave size per se.

I'd rather take off on one of these than any of the guns I have seen, that's for sure... I cringe at some of the disastrous results seen using the current equipment, due to major handling and control issues which are avoidable.

Board speed and wave size are related but not in a linear fashion i.e. a wave twice the size won't necessarily deliver twice the speed, there are a couple of reasons for this.

The 9'5" isn't intended for the upper end of the wave scale, we'll be going longer, up to 12 feet for that.

There it is. Page 3. On Page 4 he elaborates and says in "normal lingo" 9-12' waves. So big enough to be out of many peoples comfort zone, but without being monstrous. That's why I reckon some scything cutties aren't unreasonable. 3-6 times head high? My head high of course I am 6'2" btw.

I said I've ridden these designs in waves of that size, I also made it clear that the current project is aimed at the upper end of what can be paddled in to. I made no comment on what size limit the 9'5" is intended to handle.

Anyone with a basic grasp of language can see that... stop trying to misinterpret what I wrote in order to suit your naysaying agenda... do it with the truth or not at all.

You also sneakily posted that the 24 foot faces i.e. 12 foot waves in the common lingo ( which I said that I've ridden) is only 12 foot faces... it's insulting to expect us not to notice such blatant attempts at sleight of hand.

Lol.My naysaying? I am actually keeping an open mind about the whole thing. I quoted you. You are the one who said up to 24 foot, then clarified a page later and referenced it as 12 foot in the common parlance. I was quoting you as I believed Mick was underestimating the size you were aiming at. So maybe your grasp of the nuances of English isn't as sharp as you think.

Although, to be fair, I have missed the bit where you said you were aiming at the outer edge paddle surfing so that correction is warranted.

And don't have a go at my understanding of language. I have a lot of pieces of paper that would suggest my understanding of language and its multifacetedness is superior to yours. Indeed, someone with a good grasp of the nature of language would understand that communication is only ever approximate as meaning is a vague and mutable thing. I suggest you read some Russian Formalism (victor shlovsky is a good start), Ferdinand Sausurre's ideas on parole and langue, and perhaps the French Post-structuralist Roland Barthes and his ideas on Writerly and Readerly texts. You might then realise that just because someone hasn't understood your utterance (and I use that in the Linguistic sense) does not mean a negative motivation on their part. That apportioning of intention is entirely from you. A little defensive and paranoid Roy?

Like I said, I am completely open to these boards doing what they are supposed to do. They look weird, but then people reckon the boards I surf everyday look weird. Take a deep breath Roy. Not everyone here is a naysayer and healthy scepticism is not naysaying either.

Classic comeback

i think I bumped into you about 3 weekends ago, you had a yellow and white pintail. On a Saturday there was about 100 people over 2 breaks

Select to expand quote

surferstu said..

thedrip said..

RoyStuart said...

thedrip said..

RoyStuart said...
I've ridden these shapes loads of times at 18 to 24 feet at reefs, points and beaches and they just keep on going better as the size increases... the control is outstanding and the pintails handle the steepest of drops with ease... enough to know what's going on. Hydrodynamically the main factor is the speed at which the boards operate rather than wave size per se.

I'd rather take off on one of these than any of the guns I have seen, that's for sure... I cringe at some of the disastrous results seen using the current equipment, due to major handling and control issues which are avoidable.

Board speed and wave size are related but not in a linear fashion i.e. a wave twice the size won't necessarily deliver twice the speed, there are a couple of reasons for this.

The 9'5" isn't intended for the upper end of the wave scale, we'll be going longer, up to 12 feet for that.

There it is. Page 3. On Page 4 he elaborates and says in "normal lingo" 9-12' waves. So big enough to be out of many peoples comfort zone, but without being monstrous. That's why I reckon some scything cutties aren't unreasonable. 3-6 times head high? My head high of course I am 6'2" btw.

I said I've ridden these designs in waves of that size, I also made it clear that the current project is aimed at the upper end of what can be paddled in to. I made no comment on what size limit the 9'5" is intended to handle.

Anyone with a basic grasp of language can see that... stop trying to misinterpret what I wrote in order to suit your naysaying agenda... do it with the truth or not at all.

You also sneakily posted that the 24 foot faces i.e. 12 foot waves in the common lingo ( which I said that I've ridden) is only 12 foot faces... it's insulting to expect us not to notice such blatant attempts at sleight of hand.

Lol.My naysaying? I am actually keeping an open mind about the whole thing. I quoted you. You are the one who said up to 24 foot, then clarified a page later and referenced it as 12 foot in the common parlance. I was quoting you as I believed Mick was underestimating the size you were aiming at. So maybe your grasp of the nuances of English isn't as sharp as you think.

Although, to be fair, I have missed the bit where you said you were aiming at the outer edge paddle surfing so that correction is warranted.

And don't have a go at my understanding of language. I have a lot of pieces of paper that would suggest my understanding of language and its multifacetedness is superior to yours. Indeed, someone with a good grasp of the nature of language would understand that communication is only ever approximate as meaning is a vague and mutable thing. I suggest you read some Russian Formalism (victor shlovsky is a good start), Ferdinand Sausurre's ideas on parole and langue, and perhaps the French Post-structuralist Roland Barthes and his ideas on Writerly and Readerly texts. You might then realise that just because someone hasn't understood your utterance (and I use that in the Linguistic sense) does not mean a negative motivation on their part. That apportioning of intention is entirely from you. A little defensive and paranoid Roy?

Like I said, I am completely open to these boards doing what they are supposed to do. They look weird, but then people reckon the boards I surf everyday look weird. Take a deep breath Roy. Not everyone here is a naysayer and healthy scepticism is not naysaying either.

Classic comeback

i think I bumped into you about 3 weekends ago, you had a yellow and white pintail. On a Saturday there was about 100 people over 2 breaks

Except that as I said above my post wasn't intended for TheDrip it was intended as a reply to MickPC... I'm used to the quote buttom being at the bottom of the post not the top so quoted TheDrip by mistake. I have no argument with him at all, it's MickPC who has been spinning **.

Select to expand quote

Cobra said..

RoyStuart said..

MickPC said..

thedrip said..

MickPC said...

Ted the Kiwi said..
When it's big I like volume so I can get of trouble in a hurry. The Drip is making far too much sense. He needs a new name - something more befitting. Most are just after survival and who can blame them. I would not even want to be out there. Would be shutting myself just standing on the beach watching

Yeah this board is for 12 foot face waves though. It will be fine for that, I thought he was talking much bigger waves you need a gun for. I'm happy on my 6'2 or 6'4 in double overhead

I think Roy is aiming at much bigger waves, mick. I seem to remember him mentioning 24 foot faces which is starting to head towards gunnier boards. I would still be on my 7' in that size. Double head I would be happy to surf one of my 5'10" twinnies if the wave was suitable. That's the other thing - size is so relevant. I have mates come from Perth and go for surfs and they call things 8', yet if you claimed that in the pub the boys would slap you for exaggerating a pleasant day of solid 4 footers. 6' inji - chilling, man; 6' womb - I want my mummy (and why did I paddle out? Why? Why why?).

Gotta head off to work...but yeah I've only ever snapped 5 leggies & 4 of them were along the Ellenbrook stretch of coast. Plenty of power in those waves

Fascinating that you have to go to work.. anything else off topic of a personal nature which you'd like to share with the group? How was your last poo?

Anyone can snap a leggie once it has a small cut or is slightly perished... it proves nothing and we don't even know or care if it is true or not. The biggest waves I've ridden in the past 20 years were all without a legrope by the way.

Why are you interested in Mick's poo,,,

I thought that we were already getting it in his posts.

One thing Id like to hear from Roy is- what design facets do you incorporate into your boards that make them superior to the boards ridden by big wave surfers at the moment.What are these shapers, (many who have been shaping boards for decades) doing wrong in their designs.Id like to know your theories on design in relation to your boards as this thread has had very little information on actual design theories but a hell of a lot superficial statements that this design works and that design has major problems etc- fill us in on why these designs will work compared to whats being ridden at the present.

Select to expand quote

surfbroker said..
All this is rhetoric.... all I want to see is it in action....is this board a prototype or is there actual footage of it being ridden in said Big Waves ?

7 Pages = great publicity.

Not exactly since I've been working every day to finish the board asap.

It's the first of many, a prototype based on a design proven over the past 20 years.

Select to expand quote

RoyStuart said..

surfbroker said..
All this is rhetoric.... all I want to see is it in action....is this board a prototype or is there actual footage of it being ridden in said Big Waves ?

7 Pages = great publicity.

Not exactly since I've been working every day to finish the board asap.

It's the first of many, a prototype based on a design proven over the past 20 years.

Hahahahahhahahahaha. You funny

Select to expand quote

surferstu said...

thedrip said..

RoyStuart said...

thedrip said..

RoyStuart said...
I've ridden these shapes loads of times at 18 to 24 feet at reefs, points and beaches and they just keep on going better as the size increases... the control is outstanding and the pintails handle the steepest of drops with ease... enough to know what's going on. Hydrodynamically the main factor is the speed at which the boards operate rather than wave size per se.

I'd rather take off on one of these than any of the guns I have seen, that's for sure... I cringe at some of the disastrous results seen using the current equipment, due to major handling and control issues which are avoidable.

Board speed and wave size are related but not in a linear fashion i.e. a wave twice the size won't necessarily deliver twice the speed, there are a couple of reasons for this.

The 9'5" isn't intended for the upper end of the wave scale, we'll be going longer, up to 12 feet for that.

There it is. Page 3. On Page 4 he elaborates and says in "normal lingo" 9-12' waves. So big enough to be out of many peoples comfort zone, but without being monstrous. That's why I reckon some scything cutties aren't unreasonable. 3-6 times head high? My head high of course I am 6'2" btw.

I said I've ridden these designs in waves of that size, I also made it clear that the current project is aimed at the upper end of what can be paddled in to. I made no comment on what size limit the 9'5" is intended to handle.

Anyone with a basic grasp of language can see that... stop trying to misinterpret what I wrote in order to suit your naysaying agenda... do it with the truth or not at all.

You also sneakily posted that the 24 foot faces i.e. 12 foot waves in the common lingo ( which I said that I've ridden) is only 12 foot faces... it's insulting to expect us not to notice such blatant attempts at sleight of hand.

Lol.My naysaying? I am actually keeping an open mind about the whole thing. I quoted you. You are the one who said up to 24 foot, then clarified a page later and referenced it as 12 foot in the common parlance. I was quoting you as I believed Mick was underestimating the size you were aiming at. So maybe your grasp of the nuances of English isn't as sharp as you think.

Although, to be fair, I have missed the bit where you said you were aiming at the outer edge paddle surfing so that correction is warranted.

And don't have a go at my understanding of language. I have a lot of pieces of paper that would suggest my understanding of language and its multifacetedness is superior to yours. Indeed, someone with a good grasp of the nature of language would understand that communication is only ever approximate as meaning is a vague and mutable thing. I suggest you read some Russian Formalism (victor shlovsky is a good start), Ferdinand Sausurre's ideas on parole and langue, and perhaps the French Post-structuralist Roland Barthes and his ideas on Writerly and Readerly texts. You might then realise that just because someone hasn't understood your utterance (and I use that in the Linguistic sense) does not mean a negative motivation on their part. That apportioning of intention is entirely from you. A little defensive and paranoid Roy?

Like I said, I am completely open to these boards doing what they are supposed to do. They look weird, but then people reckon the boards I surf everyday look weird. Take a deep breath Roy. Not everyone here is a naysayer and healthy scepticism is not naysaying either.

Classic comeback

i think I bumped into you about 3 weekends ago, you had a yellow and white pintail. On a Saturday there was about 100 people over 2 breaks

Yellow may be dignifying it a bit, but that certainly would fit the bill. Yellow and white single fin pintail? That's my all rounder these days. Unfortunately the yellow has also been described as baby poo brown.

Select to expand quote

RoyStuart said..

surfbroker said..
All this is rhetoric.... all I want to see is it in action....is this board a prototype or is there actual footage of it being ridden in said Big Waves ?

7 Pages = great publicity.

Not exactly since I've been working every day to finish the board asap.

It's the first of many, a prototype based on a design proven over the past 20 years.

Hahahahahhahahahaha. You funny

Select to expand quote

RoyStuart said..

Cobra said..

RoyStuart said..

MickPC said..

thedrip said..

MickPC said...

Ted the Kiwi said..
When it's big I like volume so I can get of trouble in a hurry. The Drip is making far too much sense. He needs a new name - something more befitting. Most are just after survival and who can blame them. I would not even want to be out there. Would be shutting myself just standing on the beach watching

Yeah this board is for 12 foot face waves though. It will be fine for that, I thought he was talking much bigger waves you need a gun for. I'm happy on my 6'2 or 6'4 in double overhead

I think Roy is aiming at much bigger waves, mick. I seem to remember him mentioning 24 foot faces which is starting to head towards gunnier boards. I would still be on my 7' in that size. Double head I would be happy to surf one of my 5'10" twinnies if the wave was suitable. That's the other thing - size is so relevant. I have mates come from Perth and go for surfs and they call things 8', yet if you claimed that in the pub the boys would slap you for exaggerating a pleasant day of solid 4 footers. 6' inji - chilling, man; 6' womb - I want my mummy (and why did I paddle out? Why? Why why?).

Gotta head off to work...but yeah I've only ever snapped 5 leggies & 4 of them were along the Ellenbrook stretch of coast. Plenty of power in those waves

Fascinating that you have to go to work.. anything else off topic of a personal nature which you'd like to share with the group? How was your last poo?

Anyone can snap a leggie once it has a small cut or is slightly perished... it proves nothing and we don't even know or care if it is true or not. The biggest waves I've ridden in the past 20 years were all without a legrope by the way.

Why are you interested in Mick's poo,,,

I thought that we were already getting it in his posts.

Roy I will only say this once,
Learn how to play with the other children
Or you can come inside

Select to expand quote

Ricardo1709 said...
One thing Id like to hear from Roy is- what design facets do you incorporate into your boards that make them superior to the boards ridden by big wave surfers at the moment.What are these shapers, (many who have been shaping boards for decades) doing wrong in their designs.Id like to know your theories on design in relation to your boards as this thread has had very little information on actual design theories but a hell of a lot superficial statements that this design works and that design has major problems etc- fill us in on why these designs will work compared to whats being ridden at the present.

My understanding of surfboard design is only rudimentary, but the things I see that would work include: a)the extended pintail for control (although turning maybe an issue but other design elements can help with that); b)the rails, which may appear hideously thick, but I have had lots of discussions with several shapers (Mark Ogram and Tom Hoye) who reckon it's only the volume in first inch or two that is actually the surfable rail and not the bit our hand reaches around when you grab the side of a board (which means if Roy's chine loses a heap of volume then you can still be surfing quite a bitey rail); c) lots of volume, which I am a fan of, means paddling into waves isn't a problem.

Things that have a query for me: a) the rocker is a bit hard to judge from photos and it doesn't appear to have much (I don't have much in most of my boards but this looks really planky) and I do wonder how low rocker and long length will handle late drops; b) turning on that pintail; c) where the hell do you stand on it?

But I can't wait to see Camel surf it. Tom Hoyes isn't afraid to go to four inches and there are lots of guys here who rate his boards in big surf. Tom's board for Camel I saw getting shaped a few years back was a beastly thing. I think sometimes these sorts boards are so far out of most people's experience that we don't necessarily know what we are looking at. Hence I remain curious and open.

Ps: I surfed on three foot(maybe) waves with Camel and a mate of his in South Oz on Chrissy day and the stuff Camel was doing on an Alaia (?) was amazing. My wife couldn't believe her eyes. So I think it's great Camel has put his hand up. He is certainly wiling to try different things - I have read posts of his where he reckons he uses asymmetrical fin set ups to optimise his forehand and backhand riding.

Select to expand quote

Ricardo1709 said..
One thing Id like to hear from Roy is- what design facets do you incorporate into your boards that make them superior to the boards ridden by big wave surfers at the moment.What are these shapers, (many who have been shaping boards for decades) doing wrong in their designs.Id like to know your theories on design in relation to your boards as this thread has had very little information on actual design theories but a hell of a lot superficial statements that this design works and that design has major problems etc- fill us in on why these designs will work compared to whats being ridden at the present.

It's a good question thanks for raising it... I've also been shaping for decades by the way.

I've written a lot about the design facets you are asking about, much of it is on my blog.

The problems with existing designs are plain to see via existing video. Spend some time looking at the wipeouts happening and the control issues are obvious. The question is what is causing them and what is the solution.

In my past experience explaining the design features doesn't lead to a design conversation, it goes over people's heads and they just revert to saying 'let's see it in the water' or 'the board is a piece of ****' and that sort of thing. It takes a lot of detailed explanation and a lot of visualisation is involved. Most people lack the concentration span needed for the task.

Anyway the number one problem is the position of the pitch fulcrum, that's the axis about which the board rotates when the nose is pitching up and down. With existing boards this fulcrum moves fore and aft through a big range as the board changes speed, when it pitches up and down due to surface chop and when the rider tries to turn. This movement is a natural thing in planing hulls but it requires the rider to apply a lot of input to keep it under control as it changes the handling reaction of the board as it moves. You'll notice the soft railed very narrow tail on my boards. That is a displacement tail. It produces very little planing lift, which reduces the fore and aft movement of the pitch fulcrum.It can also be sunk beneath the surface when under pressure, this further reduces the movement of the pitch fulcrum and at the same time gives the effect of a variable rocker .

To put it another way the tail on conventional boards produces a lot of lift, and this lift increases dramatically ( by the square) as speed increases and also as the leading edge of the wetted surface area and associated high pressure zone moves aft. The tail then takes over causing the board to pitch wildly, drive the nose rail in, or prevent the board rolling into turns. Displacement tails don't have this effect, they maintain a more stable and predictable reaction to control input.

So, no hard edges in the tail, reduced area, no fin cant, a constant rail section of a diameter which is larger than normally used in the tail, and redistributed volume is the key.

This kind of tail uses a planshape curve which does not accelerate towards the tail... basically a circular arc, this has benefits also for example when rolling the board to turn the nose is lifted and released, reducing or eliminating the rail catching which is the cause of so many ride failures.

The result is a board which can turn anywhere, has a very predictable response, and a smooth ride with less pitching. The board gets out of trouble in a self tending way instead of having to be managed constantly just to keep basic control, this leaves the rider free to plan and react to the big picture.

an essential element of this sort of board is a more central riding position, this gives far better balance and allows turning and trimming with less fore and aft weighting changes. tail ridden boards are fine in shorter lengths but are a menace for longer boards.

Select to expand quote

thedrip said..

My understanding of surfboard design is only rudimentary, but the things I see that would work include: a)the extended pintail for control (although turning maybe an issue but other design elements can help with that);

Correct re. control but it's a myth that pintails are hard to turn, they are actually easier to turn but don't turn as tightly.

Select to expand quote

b)the rails, which may appear hideously thick, but I have had lots of discussions with several shapers (Mark Ogram and Tom Hoye) who reckon it's only the volume in first inch or two that is actually the surfable rail and not the bit our hand reaches around when you grab the side of a board (which means if Roy's chine loses a heap of volume then you can still be surfing quite a bitey rail);

That's right as far as the rails in the middle of the board go, they are actually thinner or lower radius than is the norm, this makes the facet above the rail bigger and it is also more obvious as it isn't hidden by deck roll, blending into the rail.

The tail is a different story, the water wraps around the rail there progressively as the tail sinks and vice versa. all the 'release' is at the tip of the pintail.

Select to expand quote

c) lots of volume, which I am a fan of, means paddling into waves isn't a problem.

Yep

Select to expand quote

Things that have a query for me: a) the rocker is a bit hard to judge from photos and it doesn't appear to have much (I don't have much in most of my boards but this looks really planky) and I do wonder how low rocker and long length will handle late drops; b) turning on that pintail; c) where the hell do you stand on it?

Nose rocker is 5" tail is 3 & 3/8"which is moderate rather than low. The board is quite short and the same shape at 12 and 13 feet handles late drops nicely.

Turning via the pintail I mentioned above, but might need more explanation. The idea that pintails don't turn well is partly due to thin tails, partly due to them being reserved for guns so made too narrow, and partly due to the emphasis on hacks rather than longer carving arcs.

Select to expand quote

But I can't wait to see Camel surf it. Tom Hoyes isn't afraid to go to four inches and there are lots of guys here who rate his boards in big surf. Tom's board for Camel I saw getting shaped a few years back was a beastly thing. I think sometimes these sorts boards are so far out of most people's experience that we don't necessarily know what we are looking at. Hence I remain curious and open.

Camel is into quads in a big way but has ridden a lot of different boards including single finned guns so it will be interesting.

Select to expand quote

Ps: I surfed on three foot(maybe) waves with Camel and a mate of his in South Oz on Chrissy day and the stuff Camel was doing on an Alaia (?) was amazing. My wife couldn't believe her eyes. So I think it's great Camel has put his hand up. He is certainly wiling to try different things - I have read posts of his where he reckons he uses asymmetrical fin set ups to optimise his forehand and backhand riding.

He's been very open minded and helpful in my conversations with him.

Select to expand quote

thedrip said..
Unfortunately the yellow has also been described as baby poo brown.

Poo comes up again.......

So the tail, being a displacement hull, creates a drag point to enhance control? Makes sense I guess. My understanding is that pintails have been popular for forever in guns as the low surface area planes at higher speed and makes the board more controllable than something like a fish board which has a wide tail to plane earlier, but gets skittish. I guess our tow boards do the same thing, narrow to enhance control at speed.

Being a predominantly single fin surfer as the result of an ankle injury, I certainly appreciate the purity of a long arc carve on an open face. I miss the hacks in my old short boards sometimes though.

And the rails at the back, sounds like the way nose rider rails are wrapped by the water, and once again it is for control, without sacrificing too much outright speed? I think nose rider rails are out and out stall points though aren't they? So a bit different but similar.