LOGIN | REGISTER

Page 24 of 128 FirstFirst ... 1422232425263474124 ... LastLast
Results 231 to 240 of 1274
  1. #231
    I think what a lot of people are missing, well not really missing, I think you all get it but keep arguing with him anyway, is his design goals.
    Roy has clearly stated that it is about surfing efficiency. 1 definition of efficiency: accomplishment of or ability to accomplish a job with a minimum expenditure of time and effort. I think minimum effort is key here.
    So, performance to him is getting into the wave early, setting up and staying in trim with minimal effort.
    From what I gather this means standing in the same place on the board, with minimal movement from the rider (some squatting/standing changes, no walking or shuffling and minute 'turning' adjustments to stay in trim). Everything else (to him) is bullsh t

    His boards do seem to do that rather well. While that might not be what I want to do or experience that doesn't really matter. I think that is the whole point.

    So to argue about your board out performing his...you're talking about two very different ideas of what 'performing' is.
    The money thing is a whole other topic and one that I think isn't worth arguing with him either.

    Just my opinion, I don't know, maybe I've got it all wrong...

  2. #232
    Surfing is supposed to be about having fun. All this talk about efficiency sounds like were talking about motors, tools and processes. If I surfed a tidal bore on the way to work every day then I would be looking for a board that was efficient. I don't ride a surfboard upstream everyday, nor does anyone else so why make efficiency the main aspect of the design.

    Everything is a trade off. Speed, maneuverability, flotation. You can only pick two.

    Bring an economy car to the racetrack and swear to all who will listen that you have the most efficient car and their desire to go fast is a handicap to the sport. Good luck with that.

    I guess there could be a new sport called Surfboard Drag Racing. But, I'm sure ol' Roy's design would still lag behind others that incorporated a nose design that didn't resemble a barge.

  3. #233
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Monmouth Beach, NJ
    Posts
    2,443
    Quote Originally Posted by Driftingalong View Post
    I think what a lot of people are missing, well not really missing, I think you all get it but keep arguing with him anyway, is his design goals. Roy has clearly stated that it is about surfing efficiency. 1 definition of efficiency: accomplishment of or ability to accomplish a job with a minimum expenditure of time and effort. I think minimum effort is key here.
    So, performance to him is getting into the wave early, setting up and staying in trim with minimal effort.
    From what I gather this means standing in the same place on the board, with minimal movement from the rider (some squatting/standing changes, no walking or shuffling and minute 'turning' adjustments to stay in trim). Everything else (to him) is bullsh t

    His boards do seem to do that rather well. While that might not be what I want to do or experience that doesn't really matter. I think that is the whole point.

    So to argue about your board out performing his...you're talking about two very different ideas of what 'performing' is.
    The money thing is a whole other topic and one that I think isn't worth arguing with him either.
    Exactly my point back on page 2...

    "Roy... you an I have VERY different ideas about where we want our boards to take us. Just as you have zero interest in "tricks," I have zero interest in your idea of "efficiency." That's a matter of personal preference, and not up for debate. ....I guess we have different meanings for words like "compete," "functional," "detrimental effects on surfboard design." I guess you could say we even have different meanings for the word, "surfboard."

    Still... in a thread entitled, "Discussing Roy's Surfboard Designs," I'm disappointed in the content so far... just attacks and retorts. All funny, entertaining stuff, but hardly a discussion on design. And there's plenty of room for discussion there...

  4. #234
    I think good ole Roy is done defending his boards. I will say that if this guy ever does sell one of these boards at the asking price he will be laughing at us all the way to the bank.

  5. #235
    Added a sound track:


  6. #236
    Quote Originally Posted by Driftingalong View Post

    So to argue about your board out performing his...you're talking about two very different ideas of what 'performing' is.

    ...
    Yes that's true.

  7. #237
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Stayin' Classy in San Diego
    Posts
    1,882
    Roy,
    I've got a design question, what's the point of the teeth on some of your fins?

  8. #238
    Quote Originally Posted by gutterjack View Post

    board looks fun to ride. I like the early entries before the fast section. looks to me like it's designed to suit a certain surfing preference. I noticed surfer in orange suit wasn't trying to do any squat and stretch cheater 5's or other arbitrary tricks, rather he was trimming and staying close to the pocket.
    how do the boards hold up over time? what's the maintenance to keep them from soaking up water?
    They hold up well, dings should be fixed in the usual way, after many years of use the coating can be refinished quite easily.just like a wooden boat.

  9. #239
    Quote Originally Posted by LBCrew View Post
    "parallel profile flexible torsion box construction"

    please explain... the words, taken literally, mean to me, "a hollow (box) construction with parallel template (rail outline) that allows a twisting flex pattern." Is that what you mean? If this is one of the key design features, please explain the physical/hydrodynamic principles at work and the advantages they give.

    It's the profile which is parallel i.e the board is of constant thickness, the deck curve is identical to the bottom curve. The rails are generally ( but not always) of constant section.

    The advantages of the parallel profile are that it allows the most flex, plus the lowest riding position and centre of gravity for any given volume. The flex works by storing and releasing energy as the rider weights and unweights. Hollow wooden boards of any shape and construction also have a resonance which gives good feed back through the rider's feet.

    The flex is mostly in the fore and aft horizontal plane, although there is inevitably a small amount of twist when the fin(s) are loaded as there is with any board. It's the flex in the horizontal plane which we are after. Flex can be tuned via the length to thickness ratio of the board, and to a lesser extent the width and width distribution. Some of my shorter thicker boards don't have significant flex, it starts to become useful at a length to thickness ratio of about 70:1.



    regarding weight to length... how does your theory compare to the principles governing how short, heavy tow boards used in very large waves at very high speed work so well?
    The first point which needs to be made in any discussion of surfboard weight is that mass and the associated inertia go hand in hand with an equal quantity of gravitational potential energy, which is the mechanism through which the vast majority of the surfboards motive power is delivered. Thus, heavier boards ( and riders) have no disadvantage in terms of acceleration and top speed... there is even a small theoretical advantage to a denser board in that respect.

    With heavier boards the centre of mass of board and rider is lowered, this means that the board is smoother and doesn't slow down as abruptly when hit by chop and wave irregularities.

    These features apply to small or large boards, in waves of any size.

    I mentioned weight to length in passing earlier, when talking about heavier vs lighter boards in terms of pounds, just to introduce the qualification that board weight is relative to length e.g. 'lightweight' construction on a 6 footer will result in half the weight of lightweight construction on a 12 footer, all else being equal.

    We sometimes express surfboard weight as a percentage of total board and rider weight,just as a rule of thumb. The heaviest board I've ridden was 30% of the total weight.


    And... what is the performance envelope of your various length and/or weight designs?
    I'm not sure what you are asking here, are you referring to wave size?
    Last edited by Roy Stuart; Feb 8, 2013 at 06:07 PM.

  10. #240
    Quote Originally Posted by zaGaffer View Post
    Roy,
    I've got a design question, what's the point of the teeth on some of your fins?
    Those are tubercules, which are based on those found on humpback whale fins. There's been extensive research done on them, they greatly increase angle of attack capability, reduce drag and increase lift. On wind turbines they are achieving a 30% increase in overall efficiency ( that's from memory, it might be greater). The tubercules work by introducing vorteces, these prevent flow separation on the low pressure side of the fin. The whale bump fins certainly have a much more powerful feel under load.

    A search for Dr Frank Fish will bring up some articles.