Tuesday, 1 December 2009

#Baron_Surfboard project part 6: Foiling the tunnel fin and boomerang fin

Here's the new boomerang flex fin which wil be used in combination with the vort-x tunnel fin.

This fin is a development of the previous bulb tipped flex fin used on the Baron prototype. The concept here is to use an extremely thin low chord ratio in the tail of the fin , so that the fin flexes like a fish. This will reduce lift in the tail of the fin but will provide an extremely low drag fin. The bulb tipped prototype fins were excellent but we're chasing even lower drag. The chord ratio on the fin tip is around 1.6% which is very low when the usual range for chord ratios is 9% to 14%

The animation below shows the amount of deflection which the fin achieves with only moderate pressure.







Foiling the tunnel fin




Monday, 30 November 2009

CERBAE: summers coming up, cop the $20,000 surf board for polynesian royalty

CERBAE: summers coming up, cop the $20,000 surf board for polynesian royalty

Monday, 23 November 2009

Blue Pig's Makaha pintail HWS first ride report

Here's 'Blue Pig's' ride report on his board built to the Power Surfboards Makaha design:




Firstly, thanks to roy for sharing so much detail about his build method, and thanks for all the positive comments (it keeps me going) - the board goes like stink (hopefully stu got some action shots, the benny hat kept the cold out a treat) - paddles really easily, duck dives, and catches waves so easily its unreal. first wave I managed to get to my feet - unbelievable, despite the slop (4' and 4 sec, just played in the white stuff) - the speed of take off really surprised me, just a couple of paddle-strokes and it shifts!!! Awesome acceleration 8)



whether this is the thickness (tis a fat old bus = buoyancy), the shape, the tunnel, whatever I love it. I think it trumps the Mal... its a great beginner board, and very few things beat the feeling of taking a self built board into the sea and standing up on it in waves - awesome :D :D



Consequently, its gonna get treated to a roy style marine water filler for a vent, and maybe even a sand and polish in due course :shock:



I even managed to carry it to the beach and back, single handed


Tunnel fin/annular wing talk



Hey Roy, It's Rich.

I'm a fan of fin lift too. I always semifoil my twinners and like a lot of angle, with the idea to keep the tail snug into the wave at speed. I get the rail-to-rail advantage, so now I'm wondering about that bottom section of a tunnel fin. If that surface is foiled to produce lift, does that not tend to lift the tail out of the water? And what of the cost of that lift in terms of drag?

Like I said, I am just curious...





















Hi Rich,

Thanks for the questions

Regarding the middle section of the tunnel, it will produce upwards lift no matter how it's foiled, We've had good results with double foiled sections and also with single foiled ( nearly flat on the inside or 'up' side) as well. Because the tunnel is an enclosed system, pressure is more evenly distributed inside the tunnel than it would be with a planar non enclosed wing. For that reason it's easiest ( in my opinion ) to understand and visualise the lift via the Newtonian method, i.e. redirection of water flow and mass, rather than Bernoulli's system of pressure differences, although both systems ultimately give the same answers.

Whether or not it lifts the tail out of the water depends upon the angle the fin is set up at.

For example If the tunnel fin is set up parallel to the bottom, then it's running at the same angle of attack as the bottom in the fin area. So, one might expect the fin not to lift the bottom upwards. In fact it does lift the bottom though, because of the difference in the lift characteristics of the planing surface of the bottom and the tunnel. The tunnel produces more lift at lower angles of attack than the planing surface in the tail and thus lifts the board in the tail area even when running parallel to the bottom.

Adding a positive angle of lift between the tunnel and the surfboard planing surface in the fin area increases the force lifting the board.

One might expect that the tunnel, acting as an underwater lifting foil, will just keep on lifting the tail upwards if it generates enough lift to do so, in other words jacking the tail out of the water. What happens in reality is that as the tail lifts slightly, the fore and aft pitch angle of the surfboard changes. . . the surfboard pitches forward. Because the tunnel is fixed to the bottom of the board this automatically lowers the angle of attack of the tunnel. Thus a state of equilibrium is reached where the tail is riding slightly higher than it would be without the tunnel, and the tunnel is taking some of the load. The system ( if adjusted correctly ) becomes self tending.

This self tending aspect doesn't completely determine the angle of attack of the surfboard because rider mass can be redistributed to alter the trim of the board. Thus the rider can trim the board nose up and the tunnel and planing surfaces working together will lift the board out of the water, in much the same way as a surfboard usually behaves when trimmed nose up, with some added lift from the tunnel. When trimmed nose up the efffect is not to lift the tail up more than at low angles of trim, what happens is that the whole board is projected forwards and upwards in the direction in which it is pointing. . .. this is because the tunnel and the surfboard tail have a fixed relationship to each other.

The self tending aspect is greater on longer and/or heavier boards, but is still there on lighter boards.

As far as lift vs drag goes, the tunnel has a better lift/drag ratio than the surfboard planing surface because it is effectively a wing of infinite span. Tunnels also have low induced drag. So, whenever the tunnel does part of the job of producing the necessary lift which is usually done by the planing surface of the board, there is a drag advantage to be had.

According to some tunnel analyses tunnels are better at low speeds because they have high surface area, ( skin friction drag due to surafce area predominates at high speed and induced drag at low speed) Such analyses make a couple of misleading assumptions, one is mileading because it doesn't apply to the surfboard application of tunnels and is based on the areonautical assumption that the wing must provide all the necessary lift ( not the case with surfboard fins ), the other is an anomaly in the way annular wing area is measured when comparing lift/drag characteristics with planar wings..

Testing identical boards with and without tunnels it's immediately apparent that the tunnel equipped boards are faster as well as haveing more drive and hold . I'm not claiming that tunnel finned boards will always be the fastest in all situations, as there are other ways of achieving low drag, but they certainly work and are a force to be reckoned with.

Saturday, 21 November 2009

Pipeline FP13 challenge update: keeping the record straight


grubster wrote:


I dont think anybody has said Roys board cant be ridden in waves of consequence.



The whole pipeline challenge started precisely because Bill Barnfield said on Swaylocks that none of my boards would ever handle a drop on a North Shore wave, ever. He then proceeded to call me a deluded charlatan for claiming that my FP12 design would be ( my words ) " an exceptionally good board for pipeline " Dozens of other surfers and shapers have backed him up by saying the same things. Bill also sent PM's stating that I am irresponsible for trying to risk the lives of North Shore surfers with such a hopelessly bad board, and that i should get medical help for my ( alleged ) psychological problems.

That's what started it. . . . actually what prompted all that was that I called BS on Bill's statement that the physical forces that govern a wave a pipeline are completely different from those governing other waves. When I suggested that perhaps he meant that they were the same forces as other waves just different in magnitude he said no that they were com[pletely different forces that only pipeline riders understood. When I called BS on that and said that my FP12 would do well there he flipped his lid. . . .. and later had a heart attack. I think he has a frustration/anger problem.



What everybody is waiting to see with Roys board is it out-performing all the other longboards at Pipe,Isnt that what Roys Pipeline callenge was supposed to be all about.



Not exactly.

It was initially about

1) Proving that Bill Barnfield and his supporters are wrong in their claim that none of my boards could make a drop on a North Shore wave.

2) Proving my claim that the FP12 design is an exceptionally good LONGBOARD for pipeline.

I've said repeatedly that if one respected pipeline rider says that it's a great board for pipeline then we have achieved 1) and 2) The board doesn't have to be liked by all pipeline riders, just one well respected one, and we've proved our points.

Given that Garrett has already said that he loves riding the board and given that he's planning to ride 2nd and 3rd reef pipeline when it breaks again, I'd say we are in a good position for some interesting results.


Friday, 20 November 2009

#Baron_Surfboard project part 5: The tunnel fin

Here's the tunnel fin for the #Baron_surfboard taking shape.


Because this tunnel fin setup also has a planar fin in the form of a bulb tipped flex fin, it won't have to handle high angles of attack, so we are able to use a very thin fin for low drag, just as we did with the original D 11-9 prototype shown below:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WQ6M9GY1XC0


Tunnel fin surfboard



image


image



The tunnel is only 6mm thick, and has a chord ratio of 6% which is very low.


Because the tunnel is so thin we are making it from 22 layers of thick brown paper and resin, it's the same paper which we use for drawing plans. Paper and resin is a sort of low tech carbon fibre laminate and is immensely strong.


The tunnel mould is a piece of plumbing pipe of 200mm diameter, we,e added some poster pint to tint the glue lines


image


image