Surfing Waves

Okay this may seem like an absolutely stupid question but why do board makers leave the blanks inside the board once they are done? Surely the glass and resin make the board watertight so would it not be better from a weight point of view to get rid of the inner foam, probably by dissolving it in liquid chemicals and draining them out, before glassing that final hole and finishing. Non constructive criticism is welcome

Not sure about the physics of float/displacement, but a glass without foam inside would be extremely fragile. Also what would hold the stringer? I reckon, the minute you put your feet on it it would crack, fill up with water and sink. There have been cardboard surfboards that are along the same lines as what you are describing. But I think you definitely need something in there to give it strength.

http://www.designboom.com/weblog/cat/8/view/3255/cardboard-surfboard-by-mike-sheldrake.html

Benl20 wrote:Okay this may seem like an absolutely stupid question but why do board makers leave the blanks inside the board once they are done? Surely the glass and resin make the board watertight so would it not be better from a weight point of view to get rid of the inner foam, probably by dissolving it in liquid chemicals and draining them out, before glassing that final hole and finishing. Non constructive criticism is welcome

There were and have been a number of fibreglass boards without foam, most have been abject failures.
I experimented with an early McTavish fishbone glass only board, it was designed to have different strengths of deck so if you stood on one section compression would cause the bottom to go convex and tge rolled bottom would aid the turn, stand on another section and the water pressure would force the bottom to a concave and the board would go faster!. This all failed as without the added rigidity of foam the glass flexed and allowed water to penetrate and begin to fill the internal cavity.
This lead to me getting a hernia trying to make a semi water filled ( where all the water ran to the nose) board to bottom turn.EPIC FAIL
But was absolutely hilarious to watch.

You also have to provide a vent to allow internal and external pressures to equalise and the actual pressure on the entire structure when you turn or go underwater is immense. It is almost impossible to duck dive try pushing 53 litres of air under a six foot wave. leave a hollow board in the sun POP
As for doing it from a blank and then dissolving a blank nuh! the boards that have been done have been based on two shells lapped and bonded at the rails, very easy to fail there you have lateral stress compression stress,torsion, longitudinal stress, impact stress, the only thing that might come close in reality is fibreglass vaulting poles and fishing rods with carbon fibre and they are round and wound. With contra-rotated fibres that are specifically pre-stressed.

There are a number of inflatable surfboards and SUPs, that surf like barges.


One more thing, imagine trying to take off on a steep wave with a near weightless board and a strong offshore wind blowing.

Can I weigh in on this one and suggest that the problem is that the skin is just glass/ resin and thats why these experiments fail. Maybe if the skin on the deck was a glassed 1/2 in foam sheet and the hull was the same.
A board would then be 2 curved sections brounght together at the nose and tail like bringing your hands together to clap but keeping your hands curved.
Currently boards are strong because of the thuickness of the foam and strength of glassing but theres little strength gained through the engineered design.
Basically you could build the harbour bridge in solid foam and glass it until it was strong enough, but it has engineered strength so the materials are different. Maybe the same could work for surfboards, look to engineer them in componentry rather than as a single solid piece.
Possibly the hull could be foam/ carbon/veneer/glass but the deck component would be a moulded plastic section that connects to the hull or could be capable of being connected to several hulls using a FCS style of connection. The deck section could also be hollow to provide bouyancy.
Im an engineer rather than a board maker but if you keep making/ looking at boards as a single piece of foam and glassed all over then theres not a lot of room to innovate away from the basic shape or materials.
The current modern surfboard is perect in many ways and its also so minimal that theres little physical room to change the shape without drastically changing its appearance as well.

Interesting post Jaffa, I'd like to know more about the experimental boards ?

There have been some interesting boards around the foam centred board has been with us since the 60s possibly some earlier.
there has been extruded honeycomb aluminium, carbon fibre hollow boards( got a very bad rap due to delam issues Agave cactus, balsa, alone, chambered and on foam, redwood, hollow wood wood veneers on foam, bamboo alone and on foam,
Paulownia, alone, chambered and on foam. Assorted foamed chemicals some with glass some depending on a casement shell.
Plastic hemihulls glued together blown plastic with a rubber bung and the current soft core and soft board systems.
There is probably more, but that is what I can remember hearing about. Some have been abject failures in their own right others have gone the way of the dinosaur because there is a noticeable element of fashion in what drives the marketing of surfboards, this evident both in design and materials. The majority of newish surfers are scared of anything outside the advertised norm older heads just want something that works for them under most circumstances. Not really a recipe for deviation>
Fortunately there are people who mix and match and apply weird ideas. Some of which filter through and slightly engage the evolutionary path.
Surfing is not intelligent design , there are huge epochs of stagnation, or florid flamboyance without substance

My motto; ride what works best for you it is the best board you can get

Ive seen most of those variations too and all the effort makes me think that surfboard design is dead, and has been for a long while, its snookered itself into such a tight corner that the only advances are in the advertising claims and bizarre names. And using a new weaved fabric or type of foam doesnt qualify it as an advancement.
Sure theres the redux of designs like Simmons, singles and quads. Which shows that any real design advance is likely to come from other surfcraft, maybe foam bodyboards because they started as a single design and (commercially) have never ventured far from the "rectangle of foam",WP forward, "vacuum rail" mold.

CLINT wrote:Ive seen most of those variations too and all the effort makes me think that surfboard design is dead, and has been for a long while, its snookered itself into such a tight corner that the only advances are in the advertising claims and bizarre names. And using a new weaved fabric or type of foam doesnt qualify it as an advancement.
Sure theres the redux of designs like Simmons, singles and quads. Which shows that any real design advance is likely to come from other surfcraft, maybe foam bodyboards because they started as a single design and (commercially) have never ventured far from the "rectangle of foam",WP forward, "vacuum rail" mold.

I'm very much in agreement with those thoughts I somehow feel that so many of our attempting shortboarders have bought the advertising pup. Which is like car advertising never a word about average , mediocre, adequate , just ramped up superlatives.

Which way to go? FIIK?

What more is there you want a board to do? "Necessity is the mother of invention" and all that. I think the reason board design is stagnant, is because you can find a board to do anything you are capable of doing. There are pros tweaking the finer points who can push boards to their limits, but for the vast majority of the market, the products available are all you'll ever need.

Durability, I'll admit, is lacking (and I'm surprised we haven't gotten any further with it), but as for shape etc. I just don't see a big demand. The beauty of surfing is the simplicity. One person, one board, one wave.

garbarrage wrote:What more is there you want a board to do? "Necessity is the mother of invention" and all that. I think the reason board design is stagnant, is because you can find a board to do anything you are capable of doing. There are pros tweaking the finer points who can push boards to their limits, but for the vast majority of the market, the products available are all you'll ever need.

Durability, I'll admit, is lacking (and I'm surprised we haven't gotten any further with it), but as for shape etc. I just don't see a big demand. The beauty of surfing is the simplicity. One person, one board, one wave.

Yep my board is certainly more capable than I am! There is no way I can transcend its limits, but I can push mine.

What I'm talking about is the belief that boards will give beginners abilities they haven't developed.

Durability is a big one, hopefully without being barge like. The breakage rate of ultra lite boards I think is environmentally irresponsible, especially when you consider their ingredients!

I have no answer or any real ideas about this other than what I think works for me!

I agree with the beauty of the simplicity!

garbarrage wrote:Durability, I'll admit, is lacking (and I'm surprised we haven't gotten any further with it), but as for shape etc. I just don't see a big demand. The beauty of surfing is the simplicity. One person, one board, one wave.

Agreed. I also think the reason for the relatively poor durability is that people are afraid of change. Epoxy and Kevlar have revolutionised all other glass fiber fields from aircraft to ocean-going yachts even whitewater kayaks!

I seriously think if you got your shaper to do a board as per normal, but instead of using 2 layers of glass, use 1 layer of kevlar all over, and another layer of regular glass on the deck for thickness, in epoxy (still using hand layup techniques) you would end up with a permanent surfboard - impervious to all but the most severe impact.

I think people are resistant because a) it costs twice as much as cr@ppy polyester and glass; b)it won't look white - like a surfboard should look; and c) people associate epoxy with cr@ppy popouts.

Maybe I'll have a chat to my shaper when I need a new board!

I tend to steer clear of epoxy. Not for any performance related reason, but because when they do get damaged they are harder to repair. Or maybe I just suck at it. They are slightly more durable, but I'd want one to be near indestructible. I couldn't care less about the colour though.

garbarrage wrote:What more is there you want a board to do?

Lots, every surf I want more from my board and I believe we all do.

When Simon Anderson invented the Thruster, he wanted to surf better and thats what he wanted from the board.
And every surfer has that same want as him. What I want my board to do is to make me surf better. Thats what should be pushing design forward because theres always the want/need/desire for the surfer to surf better. And also durability, versatility, economy, and a bit of WOW too.

Watch a few surfers and time the rides, I have and it comes to an average of 3 to 5 seconds. Lots of sub 3 sec rides and a few longer ones. With most surfers riding low volume thrusters, is that design the one that gives them the best performance?
The older crowd embrace longer boards and more volume understanding that bigger boards give them more pleasure but for 90% of the pack, its session after session of 5 sec waves.

Going back to Simon in the 70's, the riding standard between pro and your average surfer back then wasnt huge as it is today, now current contenders train as elite atheletes and their equipment is also highly tuned and no where appropriate for the average surfer today.

Whats missing for the past 2 decades is the cutting edge experiments that were fueled by the professionals looking for more from their boards.

From those designs, changes came down to the average rider but for a long time board design has been ignored, they all ride similar dims, single into double, thruster combos thereof but only skill seperates their performance.

When MR brought out his twins and ripped manouvers that singles couldnt do, everyone followed, with todays pros doing more air manouvers, thats where the focus is and the modern surfboard is a perfect creation, for a pro.
Maybe business forces stifle any design creativity but if any shaper can come up with something that gives more to the surfer the way the twin and the thruster did, it will put the thruster to bed.
And it will be a revolution of design.

garbarrage wrote:I tend to steer clear of epoxy. Not for any performance related reason, but because when they do get damaged they are harder to repair.

It's identical to polyester - just use epoxy resin instead of sun-cure poly.

Rough up the area, then smear on the epoxy, and sand smooth after it's set.

The key thing with epoxy is that it needs to be mixed well, and at the correct hardener/base ratio otherwise it won't set.

Also it's bad for your hands.

Jimi wrote:

garbarrage wrote:I tend to steer clear of epoxy. Not for any performance related reason, but because when they do get damaged they are harder to repair.

It's identical to polyester - just use epoxy resin instead of sun-cure poly.

Rough up the area, then smear on the epoxy, and sand smooth after it's set.

The key thing with epoxy is that it needs to be mixed well, and at the correct hardener/base ratio otherwise it won't set.

Also it's bad for your hands.

Had an epoxy longboard repaired by a pro and he made pigs ear of it. Started to flake off after a couple of months. Might reconsider and try another epoxy for my next shortboard though, as I like my boards quite light. Might test it out with a 2nd hand one though.

Clint, my point is, I think there's only so far we can take board design, as it's limited by what a surfer is capable of. For the average surfer, a board that makes them surf better usually involves a little extra foam in a few specific (to the surfer) places. For the pros it usually means removing foam from a few select places. Currently there are already boards out there that will do anything I want them to do. And pros work closely with their shapers to squeeze every last ounce of performance out of a design. But the design template is nearly always the same.

There may be some revolutionary design yet to come, but I can't imagine it will be any time soon. Eventually the optimum design will be reached, and I believe it has been in each area (short long etc). Its only finer details that are tweaked for an individual surfer.

(best discussion in a while , appearing on homepage shortly. )

garbarrage wrote:Clint, my point is, I think there's only so far we can take board design, as it's limited by what a surfer is capable of. For the average surfer, a board that makes them surf better usually involves a little extra foam in a few specific (to the surfer) places. For the pros it usually means removing foam from a few select places. Currently there are already boards out there that will do anything I want them to do. And pros work closely with their shapers to squeeze every last ounce of performance out of a design. But the design template is nearly always the same.

There may be some revolutionary design yet to come, but I can't imagine it will be any time soon. Eventually the optimum design will be reached, and I believe it has been in each area (short long etc). Its only finer details that are tweaked for an individual surfer.

I think the surfer is limited by design and not the other way round. Surely we've now reached a gymastic peak in performance but who knew in the 60s/ 70s/ 80s that surfers would eventually do reverse 720s? Surfers have been stuck on ~6'1" X 18" 1/2 X 1" 3/8 for decades and thats led to a spectacular refinement of whats capable and of the design itself but time has stood still for too long. Surfing is becoming the new Golf where everyone has the same equipment and are judged by the same rules.
What did everyone think when they saw the first video of Laird foil surfing at Jaws? Was it surfing ? Did you want to do it too? I know nothing about foiling but surely thats an area for design exploration. Where can surfing go ?
Its not the surfers who arent trying to push the limits so why can the designers offer something more?

A good point, well made Clint, but Laird's foil board has all but disappeared. Big wave surfers didn't buy into it, and are still pushing the limits. Garrett McNamara at Nazare, surfed that wave on what appears to be a conventional big wave tow-board. I can't help but feel the task that we want our boards to do is essentially very simple, and any innovations from here on out will be little more than a novelty, as the foil appears to have been.

Your point about surfing being the new golf has got me thinking though. I would love to see a competition where big progressive airs, and gymnastic ability weren't necessarily the criteria. Maybe allowing surfers to choose any craft they want and judging more on flow, and aesthetic performance than anything else. Kind of like what ballet is to gymnastics. When I started surfing I was very impressed by guys ripping, but lately I've found myself more drawn to watching the more understated surfers in the line-up. They are often over-looked, but some of them are absolutely brilliant at what they do. May be unworkable but would definitely be worth a shot.

Its going to be a failure of the industry that for a generation of surfers their boards will have progressed incrementally, if at all, offering little more than financially safe designs. With business viability ruling production, the next step is likely to be along the 'popout' production line where surfboards follow fins and are 99% machine made and are only hand finished. It'll be heralded as a quantum leap forward and will reduce their production costs to increase profits but will further squeeze out local craftsmen/shaper/glassers who cant compete with the technology or the sticker price of the high -tech popouts.
Imagine Simon offering up the Thruster in 1980 and being told that no-ones interested at all because it doesnt fit the current business model ????

CLINT wrote:Imagine Simon offering up the Thruster in 1980 and being told that no-ones interested at all because it doesnt fit the current business model ????

But the thruster didn't pop out (excuse the pun) of nowhere in 1980. It came as the culmination of a series of incremental changes.
If you look at a log from the early 1970s and then a thruster from 1982, then of course it will look like a huge leap. But the development was more gradual (actually in one-step-forwards-two-steps-sideways jumps) and Simon Anderson certainly wasn't the first person to put three fins on a board.


I've got a Simon Anderson board... it's a quad

But Simon didnt take 32 years to develop it. At that time, 1980 everyone was looking and testing new ideas, now its a wasteland of conformity. Its like everyone today has given up and just accepted that boards wont/cant/shouldnt progress any further.
The mod Thruster is certainly a precisely refined missile and I wonder if Simon wonders why design died in his hands that day.
In the spirit of Simon, MR and other great shapers of that era, wheres the ingenuity being hidden these days??