Discussing Roy's surfboard designs.

What has that to do with surfboard design?

You speak as an 'official' and for other members... impressive.

Thanks for the conversation.

Back so soon?

Is the assessment made by yourselfon the value of my boards also 'official' and published on behalf of 'most others' or is it just your personal opinion?

 

Actually all I'm doing is making my case as calmly and precisely as possible in an environment which is full of vague, imprecise and incorrect ideas... and I'm staying calm amid a considerable amount of personal abuse.

In reality the amount of board which is out of the water at any given time depends upon, amongst other factors the speed of the board and the wave shape. You seem to be suggesting that performance is hindered when the board is able to increase or decrease the wetted surface area in response to rider demands and wave conditions, when clearly that isn't the case.

It's low tech and it works, so I'm happy with the method. All power to you if you use mechanical or vacuum clamping.

.

 

I remind you that I you don't have to visit this thread, and that I have a right to reply, I'm remaining logical and honest, but if you don't like the thread I suggest that you ignore it.

.

 

I appreciate your taking the time to check it out and ask about what you are seeing.

Firstly, a correction regarding the rocker on the Makaha 12-9. It is exceptionally low throughout the entire 9 feet of tail, from memory the rocker over the whole long tail is around 1 inch.

Also, the board planes at all times at surfing speeds, although as all planing craft do it displaces some water and thus gets some lift from displacement.

Regarding weight she's a lightweight at 24 pounds, and is very responsive.

I'm trying to understand what you are asking about. Are you referring to the occasions when the nose rocker comes into contact with the wave? There's one moment in the video where I stall and when the pocket catches up with me and as the tail lifts the nose rocker enters the water. The board then accelerates out of the pocket. The high lift produced by the nose comes with a drag penalty, but due to the high lift it is only momentary as the lift brings the nose up. For the vast majority of the time at surfing speeds the highly rockered nose area is out of the water, it's used for a quick lift onto the plane when taking off from low speed and for lifting the nose out of situations where needed. The advantage over even rocker ( which I use on other designs) is that as speed increases only the flatter faster part of the rocker is used.

The acceleration in response to the wave is very prompt.

Flex is a nice bonus but isn't strictly necessary on this shape in terms of nose lift. She's a very flexible board in a land test but as is always the case the feeling in the water from the 'twang' is subtle ( though powerful). There are two high pressure area on the board. One is of course at the leading edge of the wetted surface area, and the other is at the tail, due to lift from the tunnel fin. This is a secret to effective use of flex, it enables the board to load up in between the two high pressure areas.

 

None of what I say consititutes an 'amazing claim' if one understands what I'm actually saying instead of flying off the handle with only limited comprehension... and I prove what I'm saying in theory and in practice on a daily basis.

I'm interested to know though, if you can tell me what one of these so called 'claims' are.

.

 

I've never said anything of the sort.

You can't proceed by making up statements on my behalf.

No such claims have been made.

I've never said that either, I've simply pointed out that when they do what you are doing ( i.e. make stuff up which I've supposedly said) that they have obviously not read and understood what has been written i.e. it is a reading comprehension issue on their part.

I'm entitled to point out that if the rider stands way back on the displacement tail and thus fails to ride the board as designed that it is rider error... and this hardly constitutes an outrageous claim.

One can hardly 'bray' using the written word, and again I've never said anything of the kind.

When I am correct it is for reasons to do with physics, logic, experience and reporting of past events, it is ludicrous to suggest that something can be correct because of something which hasn't been done by someone else... at least make your Roy parody slightly believable, please, since direct quotes are beyond you.

Would you like me to start posting the long list of positive reviews on the board which is now in San Francisco?

As for video, the footage on this very thread is prime evidence of unusually fine longboard performance.

.

 

I fixed your grammar, don't worry there's no charge the first time.

Please remind me what your questions were.

.