The Myth of the Mavericks suction zone.

We mentioned this so called Mavericks 'suction zone' recently in passing, and had a question from a reader regarding what it is all about.

Back in about 2003 or 2004 we read in Surfing magazine about a thing called the 'suction zone' at Californian big wave spot Mavericks. This was supposed to be a mysterious zone near the bottom of the wave which the riders were having trouble with where they would be unable to turn their boards and would get steamrollered by the wave as a result. The article showed a picture of Anthony Tashnick on a huge Mavericks wave, trying to turn his board, to no avail. Anthony appeared to be really trying to get a rail in, and had a desperate look on his face as he struggled to control his board. The wave at this point was not steep but still had fair bit of slope to it, so he wasn't on flat water.

Picture from surfline.com

Upon reading this article, the BS meter started red lining. Obviously the wave is just a wave and there was no mysterious wave suction zone happening, so what exactly was the problem ?

The only two possible wave related factors were the speed of the board and the slope of the wave. the slope wasn't remarkable, but the speed could well have been.

We immediately came to the conclusion that the problem was related to the speed of the board, and the fin setup. At the time we had been working for several years on 'hydrofoil' fins with horizontal wing area . We were very much aware of the powerful lifting forces produced by underwater foils and how these forces increase exponentially with increases in speed. We had also figured out ( which hadn't been mentioned in those days but which is now common knowledge ) that thruster tri fin setups have horizontal lifting area due to the cant on their side fins.

So it became clear that what was happening at Mavericks was that the thruster side fins were producing powerful lift at the speeds achieved on a big wave drop at Mavericks. The lift produced by side fins increases exponentially with speed, it increases with the square as speed increases so if the rider is doing 35 mph at the base of the wave during the drop the lift produced by the fins is four times what it would be at 17.5 mph. Of course the effort which the rider can apply when turning is limited by their weight, which doesn't increase with speed. The result is that the rider's efforts become less and less effective as the board goes faster. In the case of the thruster side fins the toe in used complicates matters further as it has a braking effect on the board, as well as possibly turning the lift downwards . Toe in increases the forces produced by the fin , which in turn further reduces the relative power of the rider over the board.

Our research with horizontal wing area lifting foils had shown that they can resist rail to rail rolling movements which are needed in order to turn the board. In short we had experienced the 'suction zone' effect with smaller waves and more lifting surface area. The problem increases when:

1) The board goes faster

2) The horizontal lifting area is closer to the rail and further from the centre of the board ( it has more leverage and thus resists rail to rail rolling more )

3) The surfboard is riding with a nose down attitude. This tends to make it harder for the rider to get his weight over the fin area, further reducing the power the rider has over the lifting force of the fins

So the problem was that thruster setups which worked well in a given speed range were being used outside of their range. Toe in and cant with thruster ( and 4 fin) setups is speed dependent. Not wave size dependent but speed dependent.

The solution we came up with with allowed us to keep horizontal lifting area while completely elininating the problem of the so called 'suction' whereby the fin takes over and prevents the rider from controlling and turning the board. Our solution is as perfect as it gets and is the half pipe tunnel fin. . . lots of lifting area and zero rail to rail resistance. The tunnel fin setup is not speed dependent in terms of handling. . .. because it offers zero rail to rail resistance the half pipe tunnel handles just as perfectly as speed increases. we have tested boards with half pipe tunnels at speeds up top 37 mph and their handling remains docile.. . . while the benefits of lift increase.

During 2004 I wrote a long article about all this suction zone and lift area business, and suggested that the solution would be to use a tunnel fin , or to reduce side fin cant and toe in. I also suggested that a four fin setup would be an improvement over the thruster setup, but that the tunnel fin ( in line with a singlefin) would be the best solution of all as it allows the beneficial lift area to be maintained . . . the other solution, i.e. reducing toe in and cant, does away with the vertical lift.

Because optimising side fin toe in and cant is specific to the speed range the board will experience, it isn't possible to make an all round surfboard with side fins. A 'gun' board will be too tracky and stiff in small waves, whereas a small wave board will get the problems described above. Half pipe tunnel fins on the other hand work perfectly well at any speed, if set up correctly and used on the right kind of surfboard .

The visible response to my 2004 article was ridicule, ridicule, and a fair dose of anger from the Californians. To them, solutions needed to come from californians familiar with the break. .. . an understandable emotional knee jerk reaction. Miraculously however, the Mavericks guns started to use reduced toe in and cant, and the 4 fin setup became popular.

The suction zone vanished without trace. . . it was a modern surfing myth !

Tom Blake surfboards at US vintage surf auction

Some beautiful Tom Blake wooden surfboards being auctioned at the United States vintage surf auction:


12' 9"Tom Blake Surfboard by Catalina

12' 8" Blake - Hawaiian Surfboard
13' 9" Tom Blake Surfboard by Rogers

Future Primitive 12 hollow surfboard construction part 7

Just a quick mug shot of the surfboard, now that it is sealed with resin. So far we have done three coats, still one or two more to go:

Longboard design rant:

Tea time rant:

After 15 years of railing against the fact that all longboards are noseriding icecream sticks, and suggesting that decelerating rockers (i.e. low tail rocker and more nose rocker ) be used along with more planshape curve in order to make more functional longboards, we are finally starting to see it happen.

Of course, these trends ( long hulls, long fish, etc ) have to be started by Californians ( preferably deceased ) and the underlying hydrodynamic concepts i.e some frigging nose rocker are NEVER spoken of, it's all mysterioso ripped jeans and misunderstood genius with a tin of beans stuff. . . . that way there is no conceivable connection to what he who can't be mentioned has been doing and talking about for years.



We know that they have been listening though, just like they did regarding the Mavericks suction zone back in 2004.

At least the noseriding monopoly has been broken, we have to be thankful for that I suppose.

.

For the surfer who wants everything: The world's most outrageous 18 board surfboard quiver

Cruise with the most unique, beautiful and functional surfboards in the known universe:

Board of boards........... 21 feet
Sun board ............19 feet
Star board................ 17 feet
X-15 ......................14 feet 9 inches
Dragonboard ..............13 feet 9 inches
Future Primitive 13 ....... 13 feet
Makaha ..................12 feet 9 inches
Future Primitive 12 ........12 feet
D 11-9 .........................11 feet 9 inches
Resolute Salmon ......... 11 feet 8 inches
Future Primitive 11....... 11 feet
Havana 12 ...................... 12 feet
Thrusterbuster.......... 11 feet
Havana 10 ....................10 feet 6 inches
Heart series pintail .........10 feet
Heart series roundtail......... 10 feet
Squidfish ..........................9 feet 7 inches
Duke............................ 9 feet 3 inches


Delivery time 24 months, each board is protected by a top quality surf tubes travel case.

Better than Scientology!

Tom Blake approves of this Power quiver

Tsunami Funds Misused For ASR surfing reef

Surfing reef Scamsters ( in our opinion ) ASR limited continue their 'Rake's progress' by diverting tsunami relief funds to feather their own nests. Given that the last in their chain of failed projects ( the 100 metre long reef at Bournemouth ) cost 1.5 million pounds in order to reach the usual incomplete status shared by all ASR reefs, it seems surprising at first that the 500 metre long reef in India is quoted as costing only 'more than half a million pounds' . With ASR one definitely has to read the fine print though, and we suggest that a figure of 25 million pounds ( and an incomplete reef ) is consistent with a quote of 'more than half a million pounds' . .


http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/World-News/Tsunami-Funds-Are-Being-Spent-On-Indias-First-Surfing-Mecca-While-Fishermen-Struggle-To-Live/Article/200902315226008?lpos=World_News_First_Home_Article_Teaser_Region_0&lid=ARTICLE_15226008_Tsunami_Funds_Are_Being_Spent_On_Indias_First_Surfing_Mecca_While_Fishermen_Struggle_To_Live

Future Primitive 12 surfboard construction part 6, resin coat

Here's the shaped surfboard, showing the unique Power Surfboards displacement tail

The first resin coat. The weathered plank edges achieved through 5 years of air drying show up as a chocolate brown colour.. . an instant antique !


Thw swooping rocker . . . . . women and surfboards go better with curves !

Keeping them honest: Nonsensical 'release' theory in Surfer Magazine buyer's guide.

One of the latest buzzwords used in surf industry slang is the term 'release'

Unfortunately in their typically arrogant and sloppy fashion Surfer Magazine have been spreading misinformation about this term and about surfboard hydrodynamics via their surfboard buyers guide.

In my opinion the 'yeahguys' of the surfing industry discovered long ago that brainless and nonsensical marketing works better than the truth for the simple fact that surfboard buyers don't want to think, they just want to sound and feel like experts.

Here's the quote from the Surfer Magazine buyer's guide:

"Release-The effect that allows water flow to be accelerated as it passes along a surfboard's surfaces. Causes of release are usually available in the second half (tail) of the board, through tail rocker, outline curves and trailing fin edge, and through bottom features which open up opportunities for water to move, such as concaves and channels. Controlled release (along with it's opposite- drag) is essential to successful surfboard design."

OK so this sounds informative, well researched, authoratitive and intelligent, at least at a first casual glance.

Unfortunately it is Absolutely Brainless Bunkum ( ABB ) and is therefore dangerous propaganda, or would be if it actually said anything comprehensible.

Let's have a look at it. The heart of the problem lies in the first sentence:

" Release-The effect that allows water flow to be accelerated as it passes along a surfboard's surfaces. "

The idea that surfboards accelerate water flow backwards thereby driving the surfboard forwards is a very common myth. A surfboard does no such thing, it merely travels over and through the water, and is unable to project water backwards. In fact, the only acceleration of water which occurs as a surfboard moves through the water is in the opposite direction. . .. water is dragged along with the surfboard, this is Drag, not Release. . .it slows the surfboard down and is to be avoided as much as possible, it is not an advantage it is the bane of all watercraft designers and is certainly not "essential to successful surfboard design"

The myth of accelerating water flow is based on the idea that by enclosing and directing water flow backwards a forwards thrust can be created, but in reality the best situation is merely to leave the water as undisturbed as possible and to drag as little as possible along with the board. . . . to accelerate the water forwards as little as possible. The "lets accelerate the water flow backwards" myth is one of the various venturi based myths are around which hold that by squeezing water flow it will project backwards better, In reality no water is projected backwards unless the surfboard has an engine powered pump !

So the first pemise is completely wrong, and what follows is (inevitably) just as bad. Acceleration of water as a surfboard moves always causes drag. 'Release' in fact reduces water acceleration by allowing the surfboard to part company with the water it is sliding over as cleanly as possible, thus leaving the water where it was if possible rather than causing drag by having the water attached to the board as it travels forward.

Acceleration of water flow at right angles to the path of the surfboard is called lift, and it is necessary and useful to produce it. .. . the production of lift produces forwards acceleration of water, this is drag and is a disadvantage. No backwards acceleration of water flow occurs at all, and 'release' is merely a reduction in drag due to LESS acceleration of water via a clean wake and water flow exit.

One of the reasons why the annular wing tunnel fin is so low in drag is that it produces lift using a large volume of water which it accelerates only slightly, unlike flat plane fins which work on a smaller volume of water and accelerate it more.

Doesn't that 12 footer have too much rocker ?

That's a question I hear often, even from well respected shapers.

Unfortunately having the great respect does not equal having a great brain, so we are always 'up against it' when trying to explain the truth about rocker in longer boards, but here goes anyway, let's start by eyeballing the board in question, which has 7 inches of nose rocker and 7 inches of tail rocker:


This 12 footer rocker when used on a 6 footer is only ONE AND A QUARTER inches overall. ... . it's a really low rocker ! . . . and the board has NEVER pearled, ever, even on very fast hollow takeoffs.

So when people say that the board has a lot of rocker they really don't know what they are talking about, they just don't understand surfboard design, how rocker is measured, or how rocker works and looks in very long surfboards. This applies to every surfboard shaper i have ever met or talked to, down to the last man they still don't understand rocker measurement even when it is explained to them.

The essay I wrote attempted to put into logical thought a partial explanation of how the design works, and why it has outperformed the other boards out there so easily. It's not possible to know what the words really mean unless one has experienced what the board can do, so unfortunately discussion on the matter is always going to be handicapped by the fact that it's not really possible for others to know what the words really mean. For myself the words conjure up to some extent the beautiful reality of the rides I have experienced, and amusing memories of the frustration those with conventional boards experienced when trying and failing to compete . .. . . this can't happen for people who haven't experienced what the board can do, which is why with the best will in the world they are limited to some fairly general and rather spurious ad hoc comments. This is of course frustrating, probably for all of us, but there's no harm in trying !





.

Future Primitive 12 footer construction part 5, sanding and rail shaping

First rail facets underway, bottom and deck initial sanding done

FP surfboard design theory, rocker, planing lift, fin lift, speed, and displacement tails

Questions from Archy on Magicseaweed:

Hi Roy, I'm also interested in a couple of design points:

1) Why the combination of a relatively narrow tail with what appears to be a considerable amount of tail rocker? My understanding is that this could possibly retard the board's ability to build and maintain speed for the compromise of greater control possibly? Simmons held that a wide tail with little rocker could be very functional, so I was just wondering...

2) The rails also appear to be rolled in the tail-would this not release water as well as a sharp rail through the tail section?

Thankyou


Great questions, I'll do my best to answer them, and thankyou for asking


Firstly my fastest boards have almost zero tail rocker and underwater lifting surfaces which increase effective tail area and tail lift, as they also have pronounced nose rocker they are similar in some respects to the Simmons boards, although this might not be apparent visually. Some also have wider tails with hard edges in the stern.

You are asking about the FP design though, which as you say has more rocker than some boards, soft tail rails and a narow tail, all of which might seem to be detrimental to speed. The design has shown itself to be fast and able to make sections which other boards can't make, provided that there is a little bit of power in the wave it has 'long legs' and a good turn of speed.

How is this possible?

Basically the design is all about maneuverability and control. It makes distance and gets speed primarily because it is always able to reposition itself into the optimum position on the wave, and it can do so without making lots of drag through turns. So in spite of what people say the board is incredibly maneuverable and excells at positioning and turning at speed. The soft rails and narrow tail allow the board to roll rail to rail without corners digging in and causing drag. .. . so the lack of release is actually a drag reducing tactic in those situations.

The story doesn't end there though. Now comes the part which is hard to explain: The planing hull theory which Simmons and Lindsay Lord subscribe to assumes that the lift comes from the hull. We know however that lift during turns ( and when trimming, as the board is effectively turning when in trim) can also come from fins. The FP boards are designed to use a lot of fin based lift. In order to use fin based lift from a vertical singlefin fin ( as opposed to a horizontal lifting foil or canted fins ) the fin needs to be presented at the appropriate angles of attack by the surfboard rail.

Now,presentation of fins to fins at an angle of attack to the water flow is done via an angle between the rail and the fin . In the cae of a board with rail fins ( like the Simmons board) this is done via parallel rails and fin toe in. With a singlefin the fin is not toed in, instead the rails converge toward the tail, creating an angle between the fin and the rail.

Ok, so when the board is turning and trimming the fins can provide lift. Now here comes the crux of the matter: When the board has a lot of rail convergence like the FP does, it adpots a nose down outside rail down attitude when trimming. This is because engagement of the tail rail does this automatically due to the tail rail convergence. Now the happy result of this is that this trim angle also angles the fin slightly horizontally. . .. . this in turn means that the fin produces vertical lift, taking load off the tail and the surfboard hull. So the feeling is that the hull gently rolls and squeezes up and down the wall, keeping the fin on an accurately controllable downwards glide path , with a slightly horizontal attitude.

That is why the fin is so big. . . . it is there to provide loads of lift. . . . and doing it as an underwater foil is more efficient than relying on the hull only for lift.

So doesn't the Simmons board do the same thing ? No it doesn't do it anywhere near as effectively ( not saying that it is wrondg, it's just a different approach) for several reasons:

1) The straight parallel rails do not give good control of the angle of attack on the fin , as there is basically a set angle of attack. . . this makes it harder to use the fin effectively and harder to reposition and adjust the line.

The FP pintail has a lot of curve in the rail which enables the fin to be presented at a wide range of angles of attack by using more or less rail. The soft round rails also make this easier as they do not lock in or track, they can roll and release in and out of the wall with ease ( a different kind of release from the hard tail edge release usually spoken of)

2) The Simmons rail fins are much smaller and are low aspect ratio. . . there's less lift to be gained from them ( I use the Simmons board as a pure example of planing hull theory )

With the FP on the other hand we have a very large powerful fin, which can produce a massive amount of lift.

The net result of this is a board which thrives in hollow waves as it can reposition and maneuver effortlessly ( and it appears, sometimes invisibly :lol: ) it also thrives in choppy water, and in waves which require frequent repositioning and line adjustments, waves with sections, boils, double ups, and so on. This ultimately leads to a good turn of speed, but the rider needs to be actively looking for the optimum position (and the high line if possible ) at all times in order to make gains via optimum positioning. . . . sometimes these adjustments are subtle, but they give big gains.

Two further points are:

1) that rocker is relative to wave curvature. . . . so when the wave gets hollower the rocker is effectively flattened. That's why boards with more rocker go well in hollow waves. Now with the FP this also applies, but the wave curvature doesn't have to be extremely hollow. This is partly because the rocker curve on the board is not as great as it seems. . . . if measured in rate of curve per foot of board ( which is what the wave experiences ) the rocker is not at all extreme. . . it merely appears so when extrapolated over 12 or 13 feet. For example I have built a 10 footer on the same rocker and it appears to have moderate rocker.

2) Generally speaking the Lindsay Lord/Simmons planing hull theory is based on the assumption of flat water, and in the case of Lord, turning via a rudder. When turning in a surfing situation wide tails can lose much of their gain by inhibiting maeuverability and by creating drag while moving rail to rail. Toed in fins are used to improve turning, these however also produce a braking effect during rail to rail turns. Having said that, flat rocker certainly has the potential to move fast, but it needs to be used in a way that doesn't lose the lift drag gains during trimming and turning.

3) Width. Planing hull theory tells us that when planing, hull width is an advantage in terms of efficiency. That's why Simmons uses a wide tail. This is correct, however it is possible to gain the advantages of hull width and the turning and control advantages of a narrower tail, by having a hull which is wide further forward and narrower aft. This only works if the riding position is in the area of the maximum width, but it works very well indeed . The FP design is not unusually wide, however at 23 to 24 wide it has ample width for planing efficiency with the advantage of excellent control through a narrow tail. Some of our faster boards with flat tails like the thrusterbuster and X-15 have width of 27 inches at the widepoint and very narrow tails for just this reason.

4) Displacement tail: The FP has a displacement tail. The last foot of the tail (in the fin area ) produces insignificant planing lift, but due to its thickness still produces displacement lift. Lift through displacement is actually more efficiently produced than planing lift, so the displacement tail is quite innocuous in terms of drag. . . it's really pod to mount the fin on, and it is able to be sunk with ease during turns and when trimming this adds control and shortens the turning acrc when necessary. .. . . . not only that, unlike a wide tail, which when underwater ( e.g when a wave breaks on the tail ) makes the board hard to turn by inhibiting rail to rail movement , the narrow tail of the FP can roll rail to rail without fuss when submerged. . . . this is GREAT in tight situation particularly when buried in a section or during a relatively tight turn.

In addition, this kind of board gives a wonderful feeling of being intimately connected with the wave. . . it's a facscinating and 'trippy' feeling which is not easily seen but is felt strongly. . .. in that respect I imagine the feeling has a lot in common with the Liddle hull experience.


RS

The Simmons board

http://olosurfer-woodensurfboardsatpipeline.blogspot.com/2011/05/original-sim-paulownia-slab.html


Thinking about what makes the Simmons boards tick according to Simmons:

I had a look at the piece below and identified a few important features:

1) Nose rocker. This is used in order to gain more lift per square inch from the nose area so that the board can accelerate more quickly on takeoff

2) A relatively parallel rail line. Lindsay Lord's planing hull theory ( used by Simmons) implies that a parallel rail line reduces drag.

3) A wide tail. Planing hull theory tells us that a wide planing hull has a better lift/drag ratio than a narow one.

4) A hard edge at the tail. planing hull theory again. . . a hard edge gives a cleaner wake and thus, less drag

5) Zero tail rocker, this reduces drag




"Interpreting the Simmons Board"

In John Elwell's detailed study of the contributions Bob Simmons made to surfing, published in a 1994 edition of The Surfer's Journal, he wrote an analysis of the Simmons board:

"The Simmons surfboard is as strange an apparition today as it was when it first appeared. In its time it broke all the rules of the day. It represents a shift from heavy displacement to light displacement along with the application of scientific theory. It was a radical departure, far ahead of its time, like the designer, and misunderstandings hindered its full acceptance. Bob Simmons disregarded criticism and just went surfing, which was his great love; his surfing proved the validity of his boards along with their use by a small cadre of followers.

"From what he said and the body of research he had in his possession, along with a visual appraisal, one can get an idea of what he was pursuing. He was an erodynamicist and a mathematician. That viewpoint must be kept in mind.

"The boards had maximum width. Width was favored for the least resistance. Width plays a key role in delivering kinetic energy to the airfoil rail, the leading edge, that gives deflection. All planing hulls are deflectors. The airfoil is a special shape that is calculated. Width divided into length, is aspect ratio, giving a magic number related to lift. Width also allows the hull to leave a clean wake. An impressive example of the value of width is the bodyboard.

"The wide, unusually cambered, uplifted noses created a lot of criticism. The unknowing critics said they were pushing water, but they were in fact working, spreading the water, momentarily, to the high pressure rails before take off. In a tough spot, where the nose comes in contact with the water, in a steep takeoff or large chop, they lifted. Changing the noses was not a big deal to him, saying they stick out when we surf. He rejected points as too fragile and dangerous. Some of his early boards had points. Constant form, flat noses are perfectly acceptable in smooth water. Simmons opted for camber, because sea conditions can change rapidly due to weather changes.

"The outlines were fair parallelism, contiguous rails, fared-in near the tail for clean stable running. Non-uniform outline shapes were rejected, because of eddy flow resistance that increases with planing speed. This occurs at 10" in width. He is on record that trying to modify paddleboard shapes into surfboards was wrong; destroying the wide tail reduced early lift and clean resistance wakes. Those forms pulled the rail away from the wave and required a single fin, partly corrected with a tri-fin today, which undoubtedly would have been rejected, because of increased appendage drag. Rocker was rejected for reasons made obvious by his theory. 'Ya just don't need it!'

"He rejected the notion that wide tails were the cause of 'spin out,' and considered it a fin problem. He moved a small fin to each outboard rail at the end and towed them in to 10º. This is because the water is moving the fastest at these points as it leaves the hull. A single centered fin is in the low pressure area of the board and away from the wave. He simply expressed, you need more fin at low speeds and less at high speeds. Simmons and his 'test pilots' never spun out with dual fins, surfing the biggest and hardest breaking surf. However, he warned that non-uniform hull shapes could 'spin out.' This is because uneven side pressures build up, inducing a possible sudden yaw. These shapes require a deeper fin, increasing appendage resistance as the board surfs forward and sideways. He noted with criticism that narrow tails, give a tubing, sucking wake. Anything that has eddy flow resistance, was a 'disaster' and 'not the way to go!'

"The rail and fins had a 'chord value' percentage dimension, to allow a smooth release of water flow, allowing the least amount of cavitation. An illustration was contained in a text he had. He dismissed this with a cackle by saying, 'Generally just lead round, end thin, and that is good enough.' A true planing hull adjusts itself with speed, where it eventually works itself to a minimum in the aft inside section of a surfboard, unless as Simmons and others found out, it leaves the water in a launch and a skip. He dumped ultralight to keep the boards in the water. Due to the extreme thinness in the nose and tail, he recommended two coats of glass, and even a coat of marine fiberglass paint to protect the board from the destructive rays of the sun, '... if you want to keep it.' He added, 'the extra weight doesn't make that much difference.'

"The center of gravity, was precisely placed on these boards. Load has to be forward of lift, a commonly known fact in aerodynamics and naval architecture. Most of his boards would balance on a sawhorse in the middle or slightly forward. The decks were domed smoothly into the rails, shedding water rapidly off the airfoil, this concept greatly reduced unneeded weight. A density calculation was done of materials to get an exact flotation for the weight of load, to barely support the rider. Some surfers, skeptical of this, asked for more flotation and he complied reluctantly.

"A very few of his boards had concave bottoms. Simmons said he did this to get air into them briefly, reducing the suction. The center of the hull has a low pressure flow down the center area anyway. He reduced it even more with a concave. But his concentration was focused on what was happening out on the rail.

"Simmons had piles of computations in advanced math. (All of these are apparently lost, along with test models.) His boards were a complex creation. His efforts were the result of a comprehensive scientific approach using experimentation and Newtonian mechanics. However, planing hulls suffer a penalty at low speed, struggling to get over the hump. Resistance points can be identified where water breaks away in small waves. Simmons attempted to solve this by flow slotting aft of the nose, and spoiler slots in the tail. Only a few boards had this feature. It was very difficult to do correctly. Each of these boards had to be surfed without glassing, with a tack coat of resin. This was applied 'boomerang science;' throw and adjust to desired performance. He was also checking the desired attack angle; the immersed, thin-wide tail had to be between 15-20º. This was the secret for quick and early lift for gaining position. Strategically, Simmons wanted to be in the wave first and as soon as possible, for the right-of-way, second he wanted speed, to cover distance for long rides. Big waves and long rides were his criteria for performance. Everything else was folly! He was successful at this. It was commonly said in his day, 'No one has ever gone as fast on a surfboard!' It was noted by contemporaries the he usually got the best rides.
class="post""Length plays a role in speed, to a point. Appropriate length captures the maximum principle of resurgence, as water is pushed away, it rebounds and assists the hull. The only way a non-contiguous narrow shaped form can come close to a wide hull is to increase length, but it will never lose its lateral instability. He settled for a 10'6" for bigger surf and 8' for quick, hard breaking inside breaks."
class="post"
More here:
http://www.legendarysurfers.com/surf/legends/ls15.shtml

Future Primitive 12 foot wooden surfboard construction part 4

Here's the surfboard completely laminated with the planshape cut out, ready for sanding and rail shaping

Weight is 21 pounds, which will most likely be the finished weight also.

Power Olo surfboards: The mighty and expensive 21 footers

These three 21 footers will make a fine quiver of wooden olo surfboards for gentlemanly enjoyment of the sport of Kings.

We have had them designed for a few years, and once the new 19 foot 'Sun board' is built we'll be making a start on the first one of the three.

Only those of a kingly disposition have the desire to experience the ultimate olo wave glide.

Duke Kahanomoku said that the greatest experience of his life was riding a big heavy olo board in Castle surf. He rated the experience higher than winning his olympic gold medals in swimming.

The full quiver of 21 foot Power olo boards is available for US $ 2,223,000 , delivery 9 months.

.

The Power surfboards "Thrusterbusters'

Images from the Thrusterbuster archives:

The Thrusterbuster is defined by a widepoint position which is 30% aft in planshape and rocker, an elliptical nose planshape and rocker, and a pintailed circular arc tail section in planshape and rocker. . Rocker can be extremely low or highly curved. . . the board is tolerant of a wide range of rocker provided that it is matched to the planshape foil.


A parallel profile of course, with round 50/50 rails or downrails at 30/70%


The Thrusterbuster can be a singlefin:

or a singlefin with inline vortex tunnel

Paulownia Future Primitive 12 foot wooden surfboard construction part 3

The next step is to add small vertical struts to some of the frame junctions, this will strengthen the board against possible internal pressure. Even though the surfboard is to be vented, it's still a good idea .










Here's a short video from yesterday's lamination job:





Here's what the finished board will look like: The second FP ever built, at Mount Maunganui's main Beach year 2000:

Pictures taken by Emma Stewart with an Olympus OM10 and Sigma 600mm mirror lens, ASA 400 B@W film

New paulownia Future Primitive 12 foot wooden surfboard construction part 2

Today we laminated the second internal frame layer on to the Future primitive board:

Makaha model power surfboard to feature in Mandarin Oriental magazine

Conde Nast publishers ( publishers of Vogue, GQ magazine, Wall Street Journal and a host of other top mags) contacted us a couple of months ago inviting us to display a surfboard in their upcoming watersports feature. The requirement was a high resolution surfboard picture with the board on a white background, and a deadline of 24 hours.

Needless to say we jumped at the chance did a studio session at short notice. . .


. . .. . and submitted this picture of the Makaha model, which has been accepted. The magazine will be published in April and will be available at all Mandarin Oriental hotels.





Looking at the advertising rates for Conde Nast publications was an eye opener, over US$60,000 for a full page, or US $960,000 plus for a 40 page insert !

Here's one of the Mandarin Oriental locations :



.

New paulownia wooden surfboard to the Future Primitive design

This one is built to the original Future Primitive design from 1997, she's 12 feet long by 23" wide by 2 inches thick.

Today's work:

Here the underside of the deck can be seen with the first frame panel laminated on to it, there's a nylon cloth patch covering most of the deck panel, this is added to strengthen the single layer deck. The slight curvature of the frames is visible as they conform to the rocker.

No extreme bending is required because the frames run at 45 degrees across the board


Frames sandwiched between rail blocks

Sufficient glue squeeze out:


The dark stringer like lines on the underside of the deck are due to weathering of the planks, the timbers these planks were milled from were air dried for 5 years under cover but exposed to the light, this makes a deep chocolate brown edge to the planks. Who needs resin and pigment art when the wood has so many interesting features like this ?


There's not much paulownia about which has matured for 5 years !

There'a dark plank visible too, that's the outer face of the timber. The deck and the bottom will each have one of these.