LOGIN | REGISTER

Results 1 to 10 of 10
  1. #1

    ...Lost V2 "Stub" Rocket / a review

    SIZE / CONST: I'm 6 ft/180 lbs, riding a 5'11" V2 Stub (maximum recommended size for my weight and other factors). Mine is stock standard poly.

    PROS: Somewhat of a hybrid, but with a snappy shortboard/thruster feel. My Stub isn't too thick, boaty or corky and, even at 35.5 liters vol, it duck dives easy. Rails are full, but not too much. Nose isn't "beaky", but there's a noticeable flip at the tip to help prevent pearling. Fairly lightweight for full poly, but not too light. Widest point is 1.5" behind the board's center.

    Paddles well for this much of a pulled-in shape...just don't expect flat rocker glide (like on the Couch Potato).

    It's got tons of concave (single), so it's fast under foot and enough rocker to handle a steep, bowly wave...great in the pocket. It rides best in waist to shoulder, maybe head high waves. It can handle some mush (not gutless), but thrives in pushier, steeper waves.

    I bought mine off the rack, but I specifically looked for a 3-ply stringer (Arctic foam)...my theory being a 3-ply stringer might keep its lively flex longer than a standard one-piece stringer (I think they're all 3-ply now, but, for a while, they were making these with standard stringers).

    CONS: Longevity. The glass is sketchy. It looks and feels sturdy, but I keep finding dings...even when I don't remember doing anything to cause them. If I could go back in time, I'd get HydroFlex "Natural" construction (epoxy glass over poly foam).

    Although not really a con (the Stub definitely has it's place), I also wonder if I shoulda bought the regular V2 Rocket (not to be confused w/ the V2 Shortboard), just for it's ability to handle a slightly bigger wave. The Stub can get a little squirrely on powerful/dumpy head high waves...although, I guess if I rode it all the time, I might get used to that (and maybe bigger fins, too).

    RIDE: What stands out most to me is the V2 Stub's stability. It's reminiscent of Al Merrick shapes in that it wants to finish a maneuver...even if you botch it.

    If there's such thing as a "front footed" board, the V2 Stub is in that category. Pump for speed and pivot/turn with your front foot balanced right in the middle...no need to jump on the tail for sharp turns (like on the bottom feeder and some other hybrids).

    I think the "rocket" tail is gimmicky. It's basically a round tail with a little bite. I prefer a standard squash.

    FINS: I first used WCT/TechFlex tri-fins in on this board...I like the ultra pivoty turns this upright template gives. I'm at the top of their weight range and they have slid out on me a couple times while on the Stub. Unfortunately, tri-fins slow this board down...the center fin really does act like an anchor. Unless you're an expert, you really need good, punchy waves for tri-fins.

    I also tried the Stamps quad set and was surprised how much better they made this board ride in mushy waves. The Stub is not a groveller, per se, but this quad set makes it a decent substitution. If you're still riding thrusters in weak waves, you're really holding yourself back.

    CONCLUSION: Excellent, advanced/fine tuned, small wave performance design...but the stubbiness and med-full nose don't help nearly as much in mushy waves as you might think. Paddles easier and rips a lot harder than the hybrids our local shapers have made me. If the waves are small but too steep for your mini-sim or LB, the V2 Stub might be the right choice.

    a.jpg b.jpg quad2.jpg
    Attached Images Attached Images
    • File Type: jpg c.jpg (100.3 KB, 36 views)
    Last edited by waterbaby; Aug 26, 2014 at 07:51 PM. Reason: got some quad fins for it.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Ocean County NJ
    Posts
    1,024
    Images
    1
    I loved mine. I got it for summer, but wound up riding it in everything for a year. I went quad, and only recently tried it as a tri. Still fun as sh!t! I bought it during the onset of last summer and broke it during the onset of this summer. I'll be getting a fresh one because it was that good of a shape for me. I've ridden lots of boards over the years, and the v2 stub is my fave (for nj).
    I went 6'0" because I'm 190 and I wanted extra grovling ability. I thought that may take away from performance though............Wrong!!! So wrong!!! The board was sick at all times.

  3. #3
    Quote Originally Posted by waterbaby View Post
    SIZE / CONST: I'm 6 ft/180 lbs, riding a 5'11" V2 Stub (maximum recommended size for my weight and other factors). Mine is stock standard poly.

    PROS: Somewhat of a hybrid, but with a snappy shortboard/thruster feel. My Stub isn't too thick, boaty or corky and, even at 35.5 liters vol, it duck dives easy. Rails are full, but not too much. Nose isn't "beaky", but there's a noticeable flip at the tip to help prevent pearling. Fairly lightweight for full poly, but not too light. Widest point is 1.5" behind the board's center and there appears to be an extremely subtle hip about a foot up from the tail.

    Paddles well for this much of a pulled-in shape...just don't expect flat rocker glide (like on the Couch Potato).

    It's got tons of concave (single), so it's fast under foot and enough rocker to handle a steep, bowly wave...great in the pocket. It rides best in waist to shoulder, maybe head high waves. It can handle some mush (not gutless), but thrives in pushier, steeper waves.

    I bought mine off the rack, but I specifically looked for a 3-ply stringer (Arctic foam)...my theory being a 3-ply stringer might keep its lively flex longer than a standard one-piece stringer (I think they're all 3-ply now, but, for a while, they were making these with standard stringers).

    CONS: Longevity. The glass is sketchy. It looks and feels sturdy, but I keep finding dings...even when I don't remember doing anything to cause them. If I could go back in time, I'd get HydroFlex "Natural" construction (epoxy glass over poly foam).

    Although not really a con (the Stub definitely has it's place), I also wonder if I shoulda bought the regular V2 Rocket (not to be confused w/ the V2 Shortboard), just for it's ability to handle a slightly bigger wave. The Stub can get a little squirrelly on powerful/dumpy head high waves...although, I guess if I rode it all the time, I might get used to that (and maybe bigger fins, too).

    RIDE: What stands out most to me is the V2 Stub's stability. It's reminiscent of Al Merrick shapes in that it wants to finish a maneuver...even if you botch it.

    If there's such thing as a "front footed" board, the V2 Stub is in that category. Pump for speed and pivot/turn with your front foot balanced right in the middle...no need to jump on the tail for sharp turns (like on the bottom feeder and some other hybrids).

    I think the "rocket" tail is kinda gimmicky since the ride doesn't differ significantly from a standard wide squash...but it does look interesting.

    FINS: I've only used WCT/TechFlex tri-fins in on this board...I like the super pivoty turns this upright template gives. I'm closer to the upper suggested weight range for WCTs, but they're working fine. If I were to try something else, it'd probably go EA or YU...although those larger templates might gravitate more toward a standard V2.

    Haven't tried it as a quad, yet.

    CONCLUSION: Excellent, advanced/fine tuned, small wave performance design...but the stubbiness and med-full nose don't help nearly as much in mushy waves as you might think. Paddles easier and rips a lot harder than the hybrids our local shapers have made me. If the waves are small but too steep for your mini-sim or LB, the V2 Stub might be the right choice.

    a.jpgb.jpg
    doesn't that make it a back footed friendly board if you don't need to move your back foot? all boards you're trimming off your front foot and turning off your back but i thought if you can kinda anchor the back foot and not have to mess with it and the front foot didn't have to be weighted to the front all the time its more back foot friendly. i could be wrong though. i know the mini driver is supposed to be like that bc of the wide point being pushed pretty far back and not much foam up front. it would make sense for this to be more front seat driver instead of a back seat driver bc of the wider outline and its wide point is forward right? you said it doesn't suffer from a ton of foam up front though so maybe its pretty neutral lol?

  4. #4
    I'm just trying to figure out all that in my head honestly because i want a new board soon so i don't want to describe the wrong thing lol

  5. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by Doug View Post
    ...I went 6'0" because I'm 190 and I wanted extra grovling ability. I thought that may take away from performance though............Wrong!!! So wrong!!! The board was sick at all times.
    I used the volume calculator on the Lost site and dialed it to the "domesticated" rider. I went ahead and cranked the guild factor up to the max of 42 because I'm also old

    Learned my lesson with the a Bottom Feeder not to go too much volume or you'll end up with a boat.

    Quote Originally Posted by elementdtlop View Post
    I'm just trying to figure out all that in my head honestly because i want a new board soon so i don't want to describe the wrong thing lol
    I'm not that technically knowledgeable in surfboard design/physics to be able to answer you. What I wrote in the review is my version of the whole front/back footed idea.

  6. #6
    bought the Stamps quad set and they work better than tri-fins in this board. Stamps are not canted much at all and have a surprisingly pivoty feel for quads. Still can't do abrupt/right-angle direction changes quite like on thrusters (although Stamps do a pretty good impersonation), but the increase in speed is very noticeable.

    quad porn:




    Last edited by waterbaby; Aug 26, 2014 at 09:35 PM.

  7. #7
    Someone famous said this (maybe Matt Biolis or JC):
    "There are no front foot or back footed surfers. All turning is done with the back foot. Trimming is done with the front foot.
    You either rip turns like Taylor Knox, or you're a flicky little kid"

    With that said some boards have more tail rocker than others. If you really work off your back foot more, in the pocket, top to bottom, vertical surfing, you have a tendency to surf more back footed. Taj Burrow surfing is classic example. East coast surfers are not heavy back footed surfers because most of the time our waves don't suit that style of surfing when it gets good. We are more down the line, through the barrel, with more front footed pressure to trim the board and beat the wave.
    A strong back footed surfer doesn't need a ton of tail rocker because he is already surfing off the the tail a lot to begin with.
    A weaker back footed surfer can benefit from more tail rocker because he doesn't need to (or his style of surfing) doesn't apply as much pressure on the tail. So more flip/rocker in the tail will allow for more radical turns

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Out on the island
    Posts
    379
    Quote Originally Posted by stinkbug View Post
    Someone famous said this (maybe Matt Biolis or JC):
    "There are no front foot or back footed surfers. All turning is done with the back foot. Trimming is done with the front foot.
    You either rip turns like Taylor Knox, or you're a flicky little kid"

    With that said some boards have more tail rocker than others. If you really work off your back foot more, in the pocket, top to bottom, vertical surfing, you have a tendency to surf more back footed. Taj Burrow surfing is classic example. East coast surfers are not heavy back footed surfers because most of the time our waves don't suit that style of surfing when it gets good. We are more down the line, through the barrel, with more front footed pressure to trim the board and beat the wave.
    A strong back footed surfer doesn't need a ton of tail rocker because he is already surfing off the the tail a lot to begin with.
    A weaker back footed surfer can benefit from more tail rocker because he doesn't need to (or his style of surfing) doesn't apply as much pressure on the tail. So more flip/rocker in the tail will allow for more radical turns
    well put

  9. #9
    I've been looking at this board. I like small wave shapes even in big waves.....rode one like this in INdo this summer and it was frickin fun. 5'11/35 looks perfect to me. Thanks for the write up./....also debating between this and the firewire v2/rocket without the stub factor for better waves...we'll see

  10. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by ukelelesurf View Post
    I've been looking at this board. I like small wave shapes even in big waves.....rode one like this in INdo this summer and it was frickin fun. 5'11/35 looks perfect to me. Thanks for the write up./....also debating between this and the firewire v2/rocket without the stub factor for better waves...we'll see
    You're welcome. Yeah, the regular V2 Rocket probably would've been better for my break and usual conditions. The tail on the Stub is relatively wide, so it favors a quad setup...and, although I dig some aspects of a quad, a thruster is more radical (if the waves have enough power for it).

    I surfed Folly for two years and would say the Stub is the better choice for SC...or a Round Nose Fish. However, I highly recommend using the volume calculator on the Lost site, or you could end up with corky rails.

    Anyway, some people might (understandably) think I'm a fashion victim having fins the exact same color as the fin boxes and logo...but I didn't seek that. I actually wanted Stretch quads, but I found some barely used Stamps on sale. As for the board's matching logo and fin boxes, I've rarely seen that on Mayhem's off-the-rack boards, so mine is just a coincidence.