Discussing Roy's surfboard designs.

[yankee]

The demo day ... there's only one man who's ready for any conditions from Pipe to Hilton Head...
Yo!
It's he himself .....THE NJSHREDMACHINE

[Roy Stuart]

Look at this horrible style. What a Kook

Attachment 6892

I don't see anything wrong with the rider's 'style', do you?

[Roy Stuart]

Wait... Now I'm confused. This is Roy Stuart?

Hang on a minute I'll ask him....

[petesmith]

Roy, your surfboards perform terribly in all aspects compared to all other boards. Your opinion about this is different because it is wrong. You should only ask $2000 maximum, more than that is being selfish. I truly believe you are not a good person. Please dont reply to this i dont care

[Roy Stuart]

Roy, your surfboards perform terribly in all aspects compared to all other boards. Your opinion about this is different because it is wrong.

Incorrect, the performance advantages have been demonstrated countless times in the water, in comparison with all comers.

Of course ultimately I'm only talking about wave making ability.

Your moral 'judgement' is laughable.

.

[yankee]

Here is a review of a Stuart board's abilities as written by an no-agenda Randy Rarick. The whole thing is a longer article, but the part that's of interest is performance, right? Cause that's what's being claimed is 'revolutionary.'

Randy Rarick is being charitable & diplomatic in his performance review of a Stuart board he rode in Hawaii in 2008:

"For Hawaii, you don't need that much rocker. Maybe some nose lift to keep from pearling, but the extreme rocker didn't fit in the curve of the wave and just seemed to slow it down. While the soft rails in the nose are very forgiving, to extend it all the way to the tail makes if feel like an old '60's tanker. I would add some rovings and build up an edge in the tail so that you get some release off the tail. As of now, with the soft rolled rail in the tail, the water wraps over the rail and that combined with the extreme tail lift, just makes it slow down. There is simply no release in the tail. The fin as mentioned above is more area than necessary for the tail width and just tends to create additional drag. Template wise, I would of moved the wide point forward to allow more tail rail, which would of improved the "run" aspect of the board, as now with the curve in the back, it just cuts down what "turning" radius there is. The rocker is way too extreme and you could cut off two feet of nose and it would not hamper the performance of the board in any way. This particular board, as mentioned was fun to ride. The only problem is that I had to make it work. It didn't make it easy for me. I doubt I would want to take it out in anything much hollower than what I had it in, since as I mentioned above, there was no way I could get any drive off the bottom. On a big facy wave it would be fun, but the idea of taking this out to Pipeline would be a scary thought in my opinion."

Doesn't sound like it's worth being in Costco, let alone $500k. People buying this thing really are clown acts.

[Roy Stuart]

Here is a review of a Stuart board's abilities as written by an no-agenda Randy Rarick. The whole thing is a longer article, but the part that's of interest is performance, right? Cause that's what's being claimed is 'revolutionary.'

Randy Rarick is being charitable & diplomatic in his performance review of a Stuart board he rode in Hawaii in 2008:

"For Hawaii, you don't need that much rocker. Maybe some nose lift to keep from pearling, but the extreme rocker didn't fit in the curve of the wave and just seemed to slow it down. While the soft rails in the nose are very forgiving, to extend it all the way to the tail makes if feel like an old '60's tanker. I would add some rovings and build up an edge in the tail so that you get some release off the tail. As of now, with the soft rolled rail in the tail, the water wraps over the rail and that combined with the extreme tail lift, just makes it slow down. There is simply no release in the tail. The fin as mentioned above is more area than necessary for the tail width and just tends to create additional drag. Template wise, I would of moved the wide point forward to allow more tail rail, which would of improved the "run" aspect of the board, as now with the curve in the back, it just cuts down what "turning" radius there is. The rocker is way too extreme and you could cut off two feet of nose and it would not hamper the performance of the board in any way. This particular board, as mentioned was fun to ride. The only problem is that I had to make it work. It didn't make it easy for me. I doubt I would want to take it out in anything much hollower than what I had it in, since as I mentioned above, there was no way I could get any drive off the bottom. On a big facy wave it would be fun, but the idea of taking this out to Pipeline would be a scary thought in my opinion."

Doesn't sound like it's worth being in Costco, let alone $500k. People buying this thing really are clown acts.

Sorry, but Randy is totally wrong, he only rode 6 waves and fell off on four of them.

Take his comments re. rocker for example, he claims to be a surfboard designer but makes the newbie mistake of saying that the board has a an extreme rocker when it is in fact on the low to moderate side.

His comments re. release are just as silly. The tail is a low drag displacement tail, the water is designed to wrap over it and all the release occurs at the pintail.

There's a lot more BS in there too, but that's enough to be getting on with. Bottom line is that he failed to ride the board as it is designed to be ridden, and failed to realise that this was due to rider error.

[yankee]

Ok, I get it. Everyone is wrong. But you. You are the surfboard way & the truth.

BTW, you're the one who said it's essentially unparalleled in wave-catching function. Yet, a guy with decades of experience on all types of boards "failed." Not the equipment. The rider.

Got it. This is just free PR for you, isn't it? Along the lines of 'any publicity is good publicity.'

I'm out.

[brewengineer]

All you are saying is that anyone who doesn't share your taste in surfboards and opinions on value for money are stupid.

Unfortunately for you those who spend huge amounts of money on items of art, sporting equipment or fashion are often very intelligent, are spending a smaller portion of their disposable income than people like yourself would be when buying a cheapie, and are happy with the purchase.



How do you feel about Damien Hirst selling 'limited edition of 50' moulded plastic knock offs of his 'For the love of God' skull for GBP35,000 each.

Then there's the round piece of plywood daubed with house paint by one of his employees which sold for a million.

The fact is that the ultra rich do not necessarily share your grumpy poor boy communist attitudes to spending.

.

Poor boy? I am not poor. I make an honest living, unlike you. Your work isn't art, just like the knock offs you speak of. I know many artists. Some are musicians, some are painters, and some are just far out. None of them sell their work for half a mil. They don't do it for the money either. They create things that make them happy. They sell the work just so they can afford to live and create more. You are not an artist.

[Roy Stuart]

Ok, I get it. Everyone is wrong. But you. You are the surfboard way & the truth.

Incorrect, you are assuming that 'everyone' has the same opinion is Mr Rarick. That is absolutely wrong, many people who have ridden the board have a very high opinion of its performance.

Your suggestion that I've said that myself and my boards are "the way" is also wrong, I've never said that. My comments on the performance of these designs are specific, and qualified by specific performance goals.

BTW, you're the one who said it's essentially unparalleled in wave-catching function. Yet, a guy with decades of experience on all types of boards "failed."

Not the equipment.

The rider.

Got it.

That is correct.

It was rider error, and an inability to admit it or adjust to the requirements of the shape.