I'm embarking on building a large volume wave board.
Something for 2-4ft summer waves that can fill the gap between sup and float and ride.

the boards will be built as prototypes only. I have a couple of ideas to try with different volume distribution and tail shapes.
the obvious issue with this type of board is the sheer size of the board making it feel slow and heavy in turns. That's something to try and solve along the way.

the first design is wide style. i'll build that first then take a hand saw to it and reshape some areas. Along the way i'll be getting some help from a local shaper.

the board is very large. 2320x678x138 135lt quad/thruster.
once the board is built and surfed i'll cut a fish tail into it.

the shape is nothing special. just the usual stuff on a board the size of your linen cupboard door. I know a few guys on here have built some big boards. my local shaper has 120lt quad that works great but this is just that bit bigger.

feel free to have your say. it's an idea being explored. negative or positive I'm ok with anything you have to say.

LeeD please don't wreck this thread. this is not a board for skinny old men.

Looks interesting. Quad/ thruster is it to be one of those penta, finned things with 5 boxes then ?
i will follow with great interest, and look forward to updates.
what about slightly overweight old men? Or you prejudiced , old men, it's likely you will become one

Select to expand quote

forceten said..
Looks interesting. Quad/ thruster is it to be one of those penta, finned things with 5 boxes then ?
i will follow with great interest, and look forward to updates.
what about slightly overweight old men? Or you prejudiced , old men, it's likely you will become one

yup a penta with the quad setup having the fins out on the rails.
might see if the centre finbox can be powerbox so I can use existing fins. other boxes maybe slot box.

the board probably won't be vacuum bagged. thinking of using high density eps and 6oz volan. 2 on the deck, one on the bottom then maybe timber around the strap area for impact. still working through things plus I need to talk with the CNC guy to find out what foam he has in stock.

once the blank is cut i'll take it to my shaper and talk things through with him as well. he's been building boards since 60's so no i'm not prejudiced. lol.

Looks good, possibly more tail rocker if small waves are steep.
That overall rocker can almost be found in the RRD Firemoves of the past 4 years.
Not skinny, 22 lbs over my average weight at 35 years of age.

Depends if you want early planing, or float and ride. At 105kg, my go-to quads for a few years have been 110-115L and used from 15kn to almost 30kn.
As a heavy guy I wanted early planing and wave ability so a FSW just got frustrating as its too stiff and many pure wave boards too small or too rockered.
I thought the Goya 118L was a blessing and it got me off FSW's about 6yrs ago......but eventually I realised that its too slow to plane as the width means entry rocker is pushing too much bow-wave. Its a float n ride board for normal folks not a "big guy's wave board"
Hoops put me onto it, and I didn't listen to him early enough. His 120L NuEvo was a lot narrower than the Goya and planed a lot earlier. More of a big guy's waveboard.

Now I realise there is a big difference.

So if you want float n ride then that board will be great, but if you want an early planer you might narrow it down a bit?

I find several key areas , of heated debate. presented or ignored.Early plane , tri or quad, or that 5 box abortion, really, Mark. Of course you install the powerbox as the center, cause you already have a powerbox fin. Well at least it's a big board, and a little extra weight won't make much difference.



define high density EPS? I was given a **** storm on this forum when I said that, and a 105liter.

I will follow , to see how it goes. Too many cooks spoil the soup.

Why can't I write SHIP HIGH IN TRANSIT?

Select to expand quote

Mark _australia said..
Depends if you want early planing, or float and ride. At 105kg, my go-to quads for a few years have been 110-115L and used from 15kn to almost 30kn.
As a heavy guy I wanted early planing and wave ability so a FSW just got frustrating as its too stiff and many pure wave boards too small or too rockered.
I thought the Goya 118L was a blessing and it got me off FSW's about 6yrs ago......but eventually I realised that its too slow to plane as the width means entry rocker is pushing too much bow-wave. Its a float n ride board for normal folks not a "big guy's wave board"
Hoops put me onto it, and I didn't listen to him early enough. His 120L NuEvo was a lot narrower than the Goya and planed a lot earlier. More of a big guy's waveboard.

Now I realise there is a big difference.

So if you want float n ride then that board will be great, but if you want an early planer you might narrow it down a bit?

we are in slightly different territory with this board v the goya. mainly because this board has a very wide tail. about 10cm wider than the goya.
it could be the tail is so big that it simply doesn't work. only reason i'd go this wide is because it works on my sups.

the board is based on a wave rocker i know works but flattened out somewhat to improve planing. i hear you though. i don't want to be pushing water. i mucked around between 66 and 67cm wide again this morning and managed to shave a 1cm off it and keep the volume. the entry rocker is quite flat to assist iwth the early planing. it's the tail im worried about. i'll be cutting it down once the first board hits the water.

so i guess you've identified the conumdrum. float and ride v early planing. i'm hoping for both. we will see. if i get those 2 things working but can't get the board to feel nimble it's back to the drawing board.

Select to expand quote

forceten said..
I find several key areas , of heated debate. presented or ignored.Early plane , tri or quad, or that 5 box abortion, really, Mark. Of course you install the powerbox as the center, cause you already have a powerbox fin. Well at least it's a big board, and a little extra weight won't make much difference.



define high density EPS? I was given a **** storm on this forum when I said that, and a 105liter.

I will follow , to see how it goes. Too many cooks spoil the soup.

high density is around 32kg/m3 and doesn't absorb water.

I reckon that what you want in such a board is not so much early planning but 'glide'. Kinda the same thing maybe, but the 'glide' allows you pickup waves earlier as opposed to a sail powering you onto the plane earlier. More length and less width helps here (in both cases). But a stubby is then much better when on the wave.

Experimentally :

Extra rear footstrap offset and forward of where a 'normal' strap would be (on the bottom turn rail side). Plenty of boards had them back in the day. Asymmetric rear straps might be the terminology.

Stepped rails. Not stepped longitudinally along the board at the hips, but when you look at the rail in profile it steps in such that at the waterline it is sharp and thin (sharp enough to shave with), but then also enables the thickness to be in the board above. Sort of like a reverse cutout, but much longer along the rail, if that makes sense

Very pronounced increase in thickness under the backfoot (kinda like a hump), to allow you to get as much leverage as possible from your toes and heel when riding slowly

Channels. Big, deep, hard edged channels. Maximum grip in turns, minimum fin area for drag. Then have a tri-fin (3 equal fin) setup, rigid chord, flex tips, the old Kalama Black-tip style (or flexy K4s).

I am pretty sure this would look like a radical custom board from about 1989. Except shorter, wider and with a bigger volume. Maybe I am just too old and fat ?

Select to expand quote

Gestalt said..

forceten said..
I find several key areas , of heated debate. presented or ignored.Early plane , tri or quad, or that 5 box abortion, really, Mark. Of course you install the powerbox as the center, cause you already have a powerbox fin. Well at least it's a big board, and a little extra weight won't make much difference.



define high density EPS? I was given a **** storm on this forum when I said that, and a 105liter.

I will follow , to see how it goes. Too many cooks spoil the soup.

high density is around 32kg/m3 and doesn't absorb water.

Ok, this coverts to lbs as 1.99, this is what I have. It's been a long time gaining any progress, tp many things keep getting in the way. no end of , oh that's too heavy.

Looks like an interesting project.
That blank will be around 4.5kg. Might be worth looking at lower density EPS for such a big board.
There's plenty of SUP's built with a similar lay up to what you're suggesting but with 15kg EPS. They seem to hold up pretty well.

Select to expand quote

hoop said..
Looks like an interesting project.
That blank will be around 4.5kg. Might be worth looking at lower density EPS for such a big board.
There's plenty of SUP's built with a similar lay up to what you're suggesting but with 15kg EPS. They seem to hold up pretty well.

Told ya, they will pick it apart. this is mine to date.

I'm having no luck with edit or update. I heard that 1.5 lbs was strong enough,I agree if your going to add all manner of carbon, glass bla bla. My Flikka came packed with the core material, it's 1.5lbs, big difference in feel.
A non vacuum could be better with the denser, 32 bla bla you intend to use.
the arguments for lower density are all valid, my purchase came down to it was available,10minutes from me, cheap and the guy cut what I wanted shaped.i also shaped piece the same as shown and a smaller one, maybe 85liters.
long ago I did a test, using different density's including a styrofoam cooler lid, I used a can , maybe tuna fish, from my deck, I couldn't fix the impact in the same manner, I should have used a bowling ball.

at the time I was convinced the heavier 32kg/3 was the best option.Ahhh,I still do.
Hoping the covid19 gets under control and maybe if the star align, I will gett her dune.

I'm not picking it apart Force Ten. It's just a suggestion based on experience.
Your board's looking good. Keep us updated.

Select to expand quote

Carantoc said..
I reckon that what you want in such a board is not so much early planning but 'glide'. Kinda the same thing maybe, but the 'glide' allows you pickup waves earlier as opposed to a sail powering you onto the plane earlier. More length and less width helps here (in both cases). But a stubby is then much better when on the wave.

Experimentally :

Extra rear footstrap offset and forward of where a 'normal' strap would be (on the bottom turn rail side). Plenty of boards had them back in the day. Asymmetric rear straps might be the terminology.

Stepped rails. Not stepped longitudinally along the board at the hips, but when you look at the rail in profile it steps in such that at the waterline it is sharp and thin (sharp enough to shave with), but then also enables the thickness to be in the board above. Sort of like a reverse cutout, but much longer along the rail, if that makes sense

Very pronounced increase in thickness under the backfoot (kinda like a hump), to allow you to get as much leverage as possible from your toes and heel when riding slowly

Channels. Big, deep, hard edged channels. Maximum grip in turns, minimum fin area for drag. Then have a tri-fin (3 equal fin) setup, rigid chord, flex tips, the old Kalama Black-tip style (or flexy K4s).

I am pretty sure this would look like a radical custom board from about 1989. Except shorter, wider and with a bigger volume. Maybe I am just too old and fat ?

I have glide with my sups. as you say, they are great for picking up waves. when on the wave tho they surf like longboards. so that got me wanting to chase the idea of a board that surfs like a shorter board.

i'm taking a lot of cues form the mini simmons. the idea with a mini simmons is that planning speed trumps everything. that's is in large part the basis of the experiment.

nothing has been taken by me as unconstructive. to be honest I work in a design field and so have thick skin and understand the value of questioning the choices that get made when designing things.

I touched base with the cnc company on the goldy today. they specialise in surfboards and do a lot of the major shapers. $45 to shape the blank. whilst the cnc company can supply blanks the sizes aren't quite thick enough for a windsurfer so in this case I can supply my own foam.

currently talking to foam suppliers. so far 2 densitys available from first contact. 14kg and 28kg but they glue the blank to keep costs down so chasing up a couple more so I have options.

Select to expand quote

forceten said..

hoop said..
Looks like an interesting project.
That blank will be around 4.5kg. Might be worth looking at lower density EPS for such a big board.
There's plenty of SUP's built with a similar lay up to what you're suggesting but with 15kg EPS. They seem to hold up pretty well.

Told ya, they will pick it apart. this is mine to date.

my other design is really similar to yours just with a wider tail.

Select to expand quote

hoop said..
Looks like an interesting project.
That blank will be around 4.5kg. Might be worth looking at lower density EPS for such a big board.
There's plenty of SUP's built with a similar lay up to what you're suggesting but with 15kg EPS. They seem to hold up pretty well.

to be honest if it falls apart i'm ok so maybe should use the light foam anyways.
if the board works and it's fun to sail i'll get a vacuum bagged version made by a pro.

Select to expand quote

Mark _australia said..
Depends if you want early planing, or float and ride. At 105kg, my go-to quads for a few years have been 110-115L and used from 15kn to almost 30kn.
As a heavy guy I wanted early planing and wave ability so a FSW just got frustrating as its too stiff and many pure wave boards too small or too rockered.
I thought the Goya 118L was a blessing and it got me off FSW's about 6yrs ago......but eventually I realised that its too slow to plane as the width means entry rocker is pushing too much bow-wave. Its a float n ride board for normal folks not a "big guy's wave board"
Hoops put me onto it, and I didn't listen to him early enough. His 120L NuEvo was a lot narrower than the Goya and planed a lot earlier. More of a big guy's waveboard.

Now I realise there is a big difference.

So if you want float n ride then that board will be great, but if you want an early planer you might narrow it down a bit?

Hi Mark/Hoops,

That's an interesting observation about the Goya 118 being float and ride. I've got one too and at 94kg I reckon that description is spot on. I've had that board since 2013 and hardly ever got it on the plane! If I can plane with the 118 I'm clearly on the wrong board because a smaller one would have got going much quicker. So it spends most of its time in the shed waiting for the really light wind, good wave days.

As a float and ride concept it works really well. You can putt upwind and have a chat to the surfers on this board, sail it in such light winds that pumping onto a wave face becomes an issue, a new skill to learn. Riding it in really light winds is fun because it does all the things that your normal waveboard does, albeit much more slowly. So you need to be aware that you probably need to initiate the bottom turn a bit earlier and a bit harder to make it to the peak on time. As long as you do that, its all good: it can handle mast + waves, big drops, aerials etc.

Mark/Hoops, so what happens when you go for narrower width? Do you lose out on the float & ride potential what you gain on the all round big guy's waveboard? I'm guessing that with the narrower width you plane earlier, move more dynamically on the wave face, but lose some of your float and ride, putting ability?

Cheers, Jens

Select to expand quote

hoop said..
I'm not picking it apart Force Ten. It's just a suggestion based on experience.
Your board's looking good. Keep us updated.

Ok, bad choice of words YMMV . My bad. I knew that your suggestion was coming about , which is use a less dense inner core. And fully expected a platoon to leap on it. It may happen yet, it's early in the hunt.

my stick, I'm still not certain of the tail shape. I have in mind to do a single winger to a swallow tail, but another part says KISS ( keep it simple stupid) it will be a 2+1 Tri fin, with US center, and surf boxes on the sidebites , weight savers. I'm using all recycled , parts except the side bite boxes, extracted from a cracked board.



Gestalt, not meaning to hi jack your thread. I say go with the 32.

Select to expand quote

Jens said..

Mark _australia said..
Depends if you want early planing, or float and ride. At 105kg, my go-to quads for a few years have been 110-115L and used from 15kn to almost 30kn.
As a heavy guy I wanted early planing and wave ability so a FSW just got frustrating as its too stiff and many pure wave boards too small or too rockered.
I thought the Goya 118L was a blessing and it got me off FSW's about 6yrs ago......but eventually I realised that its too slow to plane as the width means entry rocker is pushing too much bow-wave. Its a float n ride board for normal folks not a "big guy's wave board"
Hoops put me onto it, and I didn't listen to him early enough. His 120L NuEvo was a lot narrower than the Goya and planed a lot earlier. More of a big guy's waveboard.

Now I realise there is a big difference.

So if you want float n ride then that board will be great, but if you want an early planer you might narrow it down a bit?

Hi Mark/Hoops,

That's an interesting observation about the Goya 118 being float and ride. I've got one too and at 94kg I reckon that description is spot on. I've had that board since 2013 and hardly ever got it on the plane! If I can plane with the 118 I'm clearly on the wrong board because a smaller one would have got going much quicker. So it spends most of its time in the shed waiting for the really light wind, good wave days.

As a float and ride concept it works really well. You can putt upwind and have a chat to the surfers on this board, sail it in such light winds that pumping onto a wave face becomes an issue, a new skill to learn. Riding it in really light winds is fun because it does all the things that your normal waveboard does, albeit much more slowly. So you need to be aware that you probably need to initiate the bottom turn a bit earlier and a bit harder to make it to the peak on time. As long as you do that, its all good: it can handle mast + waves, big drops, aerials etc.

Mark/Hoops, so what happens when you go for narrower width? Do you lose out on the float & ride potential what you gain on the all round big guy's waveboard? I'm guessing that with the narrower width you plane earlier, move more dynamically on the wave face, but lose some of your float and ride, putting ability?

Cheers, Jens

really interesting questions jens to add to the thread.
we need context too. for example. whats wide? whats not wide? if we want a board longer, than how long?

for you at 94kg, the 118lt goya is the equivalent of me being on a 132lt board and that is really the crux of the constraint. what does a 132lt wave board look like?

the second design I was going to build is a more traditional plan shape. so this is the same length, rocker and width but with a pulled in nose. my shaper friend prefers the more traditional shape.
so board gets thicker to keep the volume and when I compare directly between designs the rails get thicker too.
there is not really much difference between volume distribution along the length of the 2 designs.




to get down to 64cm wide with a 400mm ofo the board goes from 2325mm to 2450 (7.5'to 8') and 14.8cm thick.

Here's a 127 I had made, Never really used it much as I can pretty much get out in anything with my 115.

how did you find it?

Jh2703, is that the Hotrod model?

Select to expand quote

Gestalt said..
how did you find it?

Worked well on the glassy (DTL) days but any sort of chop it would bounce out of bottom turns, Top turn was always sick(slides madly). This is a quad (10s & 17s) with a short tail and extra wide (70??), We wanted to keep the rails thin for proper turns which added to the width. When a big board is narrow and short you end up with a very rounded deck, Not an issue as I think as it give you more leverage over the board for the turn. This one due to the width is much flatter across the deck and requires an aggressive rider to make it work.

It always got going quite easily but was loose in the tail if you were heavy on the back foot.
I might drag it out of the shed again and stick some K4's in it to see if it helps the bottom turn like they have on my other boards.
To be honest going that wide seems to have reduced the float, Well it feels that way under foot as I mentioned I'm just if not more comfortable slogging on my 115.
...Anyways I'm now tempted to get it wet again.

Select to expand quote

olskool said..
Jh2703, is that the Hotrod model?

Yep

Select to expand quote

jh2703 said..

Gestalt said..
how did you find it?

Worked well on the glassy (DTL) days but any sort of chop it would bounce out of bottom turns, Top turn was always sick(slides madly). This is a quad (10s & 17s) with a short tail and extra wide (70??), We wanted to keep the rails thin for proper turns which added to the width. When a big board is narrow and short you end up with a very rounded deck, Not an issue as I think as it give you more leverage over the board for the turn. This one due to the width is much flatter across the deck and requires an aggressive rider to make it work.

It always got going quite easily but was loose in the tail if you were heavy on the back foot.
I might drag it out of the shed again and stick some K4's in it to see if it helps the bottom turn like they have on my other boards.
To be honest going that wide seems to have reduced the float, Well it feels that way under foot as I mentioned I'm just if not more comfortable slogging on my 115.
...Anyways I'm now tempted to get it wet again.

interesting re float comment.

it's a guess but that could be related to the thin rails

my current board is 125lt 720x2400 with flat deck and boxy freestyle rails and it's pretty stable. one of the reasons sups have boxy rails is to improve stability.

I've had this internal turmoil about the rails on the board above. what's too thin, whats too thick.. if you look at your simmer quantum that thing is really stable and has very boxy rails.

If you can get hold of the Quantum 115 specs and up scale that I think you'd be on a winner. The 115 is by far the best big board I've ridden for aggressive DTL turns....And it wizzes around very efficiently, I often use it on the lake to go cruising.

Select to expand quote

jh2703 said..
If you can get hold of the Quantum 115 specs and up scale that I think you'd be on a winner. The 115 is by far the best big board I've ridden for aggressive DTL turns....And it wizzes around very efficiently, I often use it on the lake to go cruising.

I've got a quantum 95lt I use for high wind bump and jump. agree it's super fun shape, really quick on a reach and turns on a dime.

just compared for fun.
the 115lt quantum is 2300x660
the 135lt board i'm looking at is 2325x668
almost the same size which I didn't realise. once my board is built it will loose some volume because of weight. i picked up the extra 15lt or so is in the nose and tail width.

the simmer has a very different bottom shape with single concave from nose to fins where as my board is based on a double concave to V.