Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Global Surf Talk' started by Roy Stuart, Jan 28, 2013.
Ha ha I think your dreaming.
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?
Roy says Joel Tudor's surfing style is a handicap.... lol.
Fake Roy you have done nothing good for yourself here. you just are trying to insist that your board shape is the best shape to ride a wave... which I think if you just want to stand in front of a pushing wall of water its ok. but you can't do anything with your board that takes advantage of a wave shape in terms of speed or def. not manueverability.
It seems that most comments about Roy's boards are refuted by either the points being irrelevant or that you the commentator are wrong. For brevity, let's just say the price point and other things people may take issue are not relevant to this thread. It just seems odd that Roy makes a point to respond to most of these "irrelevant" comments, but seems to ignore the legitimate questions about his designs, like the one above...
Old people that can't physically take advantage of a performance board anymore? His videos honestly look like any random 60+ y/o beginner on an SUP.
My sh*tty SUP would outperform those lincoln logs
Beautiful left point wave in that vid. Wish we had one like that around here.
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...
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.
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...
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.
Added a sound track:
Yes that's true.
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.
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.
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.
I'm not sure what you are asking here, are you referring to wave size?
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.
So... what does the "torsion" in "flexible torsion" mean, since you're saying (and I agree) that torsional flex is limited while horizontal flex is desirable? Does causing the board to flex by weighting/unweighting help generate speed through storing and releasing energy?
I disagree that gravitational potential energy provides the vast majority of surfboards' forward kinetic energy. Granted, for longboards it may be greater, and more significant than shortboards, but there's no hard data that I'm aware of to support either argument. Regardless... can you explain how heavier boards/riders accelerate at the same rate as lighter boards/riders? It's my understanding that more energy is required to overcome the inertia of a motionless object if it has greater mass. Also, can you explain how lowering a surfboard's center of gravity will make it ride smoother... particularly if it is of equal weight? I would suggest it is the weight and not the location of it's center of mass.
I believe so.
It does though, it's a simple matter of physics.
It can be calculated for any given situation. The amount of physical energy which the rider can apply is a very small percentage of the overall energy equation.
Physics determines that gravitational potential energy is proportional to mass, and it is the main means of propulsion.
Rider energy is not proportional to surfboard mass but is a small part of the equation.
The magnitude of the mass and its position both have an effect.
A high centre of gravity leads to instability. The centre of gravity is lowered both by increasing the mass of the board and by reducing the thickness of the board where the rider stands.