Tomos new bottom

Have not seen the new Tomo bottoms, but they have always intrigued me as well. How the volume is squashed, but the rails are sharp in the back, and the bottom chines and contours are crazy. It would be fun to test drive one in waist to shoulder high clean surf. A couple guys I surf with from time to time have them and swear by them. They shred.

 

Bassmon, is tomo your new jappa girlfriend or are you butt-screwing your dog?? Not that there is any difference......

 

If I had the luxury of unlimited access to clean, lined up surf I'll be willing to play around with the most radical of bottom contours. But in reality some of these boards are just too specialized.

 

^^^agreed. You can "make it work" for just about any board in any wave. But is any board really a better choice for you at your go to spot? The question I always ask is... how much is your board really holding you back? I'd guess 95% of us would say our skill level limits our performance waaaaaay more than our board design.

But I couldn't agree more... when designs get really specialized, they become the "ideal board" for fewer and fewer people... either because of the waves they work best in, or ability of the rider to maximize the advantages the design brings.

 

Well, agreed. I do have a board I "usually" use, every day use, board is "wide spectrum" functions om most waves. Other boards I own, get used infrequently, given where I live and surf. The tomos are not for herein coastal New England where the average ride is 5-7 seconds. just opinion....

 

Have any of youze guys seen anyone ride them? If not, keep an open mind. They shred.

 

I have... and yes, the guy was ripping. He was clearly an exceptional talent, and might be able to benefit from some pretty advanced designs. I'd say he was in that top 5% that is looking to up their game with better equipment.

To my point, here's an example: Tomo's design theories have a lot to do with making boards as small as possible... really, as efficient as possible... when up and riding. So naturally the volume is going to be relatively low, which in itself presents some challenges for the remaining 95% of us.

But your advise is sound: People need to keep an open mind (about a lot of things). At the same time, people need to be realistic about their abilities and the expectations they have about their boards.

 

Saged advise sir. That's why I haven't shelled out the dinero for a Tomo. I'm not surfing NSSA level or better, so I use my trusty thruster in good surf and my go to fish in most surf, and my LB in clean small to medium stuff. If anything, I'd get a local shaper to make me a stretch quad for speed and ease of wave catching, as an addition to my quiver.

 

It's not too clear to me exactly what's going on along the bottom of the Sci-Fi. What I think he's saying is that it's a single concave cut in as normal, then a "channel" down the middle of the main concave, giving you a single concave inside a single concave. The quad (or quad/thruster convertible) fin boxes are then set inside the concave, with the rears just on the edge of the channel so the flat side of the fin is aligned with the channel edge.

He talks about this bottom configuration as a lift-generating design, and there's theoretical validity to that. I've seen noseriders with single channels under the nose used the same way... to provide lift. Tomo draws similarities to water skis.

Another way all concaves create lift is through "ventilation," whereby air mixes with water under the board reducing drag and and suction (created by the "adhesive" properties of water), and generating greater lift... theoretically.

It's an interesting concept, for sure.

 

So... for me, the recommendation for an EVO would be 5'9, to put me on a a board around 37L... and that's at 2 3/4 thick! There's no way I could ride a 5'9 as a performance shortboard. My fish is 6'0, and my shortboard is 6'4. I'm 6'1, 190. So for me, the dims and volume for the EVO are way off.

The SKX is more in my wheelhouse... 6'4 at 37L... but still a little thick at 2 13/16 (I like 2 11/16).

The Sci-Fi (which isn't a Tomo... it's a Slater Designs) would be a 6'2, to give me 37L, and again, at 2 13/16. So a little shorter than I like, and a little thicker.

My 6'4 x 2 11/16 ends up around 37L because the volume carries out to the rails, and is foiled a little thicker all the way around. So it's thinner, but slightly longer and more fully foiled to end up at the same volume.

 

And the most poorly understood. Think about the constantly changing angles of attack, velocities of water flow, shifting of forces fore and aft/rail to rail, the changing slope of the wave face, changing speed of the wave, how different parts of the wave travel at different speeds...how the rocker curve changes from end to end, how the board flexes in response to forces... The variables are infinite.

 

My buddy William is a very good surfer, 45 years old, 6'1" and aboot 190 lbs plus or minus and I saw him out with an Evo at the Juno Pier on a weak chest plus day. Perfect for a LB, a funshape or a fish. I had a LB out, and got my share, but was stoked to see him shred the waves effortlessly, and it was as easy for him to get set waves as it was for me on my 9'er. It floated him fine. I'm intrigued, I think he uses snowboard technology combined with black magic.

 

I'm not too sure about all these new models... but 2 of my most memorable boards had channels- of the 6 Channel variation. The boards where very very fast. And performed best in clean steeper surf...

Lbcrew is right on it about the lift- you can actually feel the lift while riding. The air and water mixture actually feels like it lubricates the board...

Channels have been around for some time.. I'm not sure about the design of the tomo channels- I will have too look up a picture... But from what I remember, I didn't really like the shape and outline of that board..and the fact that it's so tiny, almost a snowboard! Lol anyways, just not my thing...but I will say this- if you have never ridden channels- try it!! So much fun!