Research Project: what makes a good wave good?

[Guest]

Im doing a research project in science class about surfing and i figured you guys would probably know as much as any encyclopedia. So... how would you define a perfect wave for surfing?

thanx alot mates!

[Guest]

Look up any of the research done by Dr Kerry Black. He is based at the Waikato Uni and works in Raglan, New Zealand and has written & published many papers....not surfer talk but proper research.
He designs & uses computer modeling to design artifical reefs. In order to do this he had to define "good waves" to start with.

Go to it...

[Roy Stewart]

Im doing a research project in science class about surfing and i figured you guys would probably know as much as any encyclopedia. So... how would you define a perfect wave for surfing?

thanx alot mates!

It's a moot point, or it should be.

Defining a perfect wave for surfing will probably start with the assumption that it is 'better' to be riding a hollow wave on a relatively tiny board than it is to ride a gently sloping wave on a long board, and that the 'correct' goal of surfing is to a) get tubed and b) pull heaps of radical turns and tricks, rather than to surf without uneccessary bodily movement.

What I have to point out is that these are uneccessary assumptions, and that they presuppose that some kinds of surfing are of no consequence.

It is undoubtedly true that the current mindset (due to marketing) dictates that the 'perfect' wave is regular and hollow. It does not follow from this that an academic discussion of the 'perfect' surfing wave should be equally narrow.

The act of surfing consists of riding waves. By allowing that extremely long 'Olo' boards can ride a much wider range of wave types than shortboards (and current 'longboards') can, and that they can ride waves much further, we are forced to widen our definition of what perfect waves for surfing are so much, that it becomes impossible to define exactly what they are in terms of shape, other than to describe the known limits of currently rideable waves.

The trouble with these 'academic' research projects, and with surfing in general is that no one ever questions the equipment factor. This is bizzare, because the current state of surfing equipment is quite simply a fashion. Pursuing a supposedly objective study into the physics of surfing without recognising that the study is limited by fashion is silly. The research project always winds up designing some kind of hollow shortboard wave, and it is assumed by everyone involved (including the public) that some kind of fundamental truth about what wave shape is necessary for surfing is being discovered.

There is no doubt that the wave motion and reef building experts of this world are able to design any and every kind of wave. Unfortunately the assumption that some surfing waves are better than others means that we are forced to accept very short, hollow, artificial reef waves as some kind of holy grail.

What is happening in my neck of the woods is that there is currently a reef project underway which will destroy an excellent all round surfing break (which presently produces a huge variety of wave shape) in favour of a 50 metre 'pipeline'ride. This is in an area where hollow waves are already available only a short paddle away at Matakana Island. As if this isn't bad enough, we are trading the existing break, which is a free surfing area, for a sponsored commercially owned reef where the sponsors will have surfing priority, naming rights, and the power to enforce lineup rules through the local district council.

Throughout the fund raising process, the public, (surfing and otherwise) have been sold the idea that the existing break at Tay St is substandard and needs to be improved. No one has questioned this idea, but it is absolute nonsense . . what is substandard is the equipment which some people choose to take out there!

I design and build surfing equipment with purely functional wavemaking qualities (like speed), and I must say that this gear enables the rider to enjoy almost any kind of wave, hollow or otherwise,and to connect sections into long rides. To the rider who enjoys the interesting challenge of making long satisfying rides in shifting beachbreak conditions, the short hollow section (while nice in itself) just doesn't cut it.

Perhaps you should take a deeper look into the driving force behind your research project, question all of your initial assumptions, and start from first principles.

That would be something new.

Regards,

Roy Stewart.

[babyboarder89]

wow, great rant! id sa it was a personal thing but for me (wimp longboarder) about 1-3ft, clean, glassy, slow, gentle and nicely peeling would be just lovely thanks. oh yeah and no peope in the way oh well you can always dream

[Brent]

Roy; mate, what are you posting...
The facts.

1) the reef in questions has been "designed" (on a scale of 1-10)about a 6-7 in difficulty, it will be a faster right and a more gentle left. It is quite suitable for a "good" mini-mal or mal rider and an "average" shortboarder. Ironically More Mal riders were involved in the design consultation process than shortboarders (mostly older guys turned up at the meetings)...none of the young guns could be bothered coming along.

2) It will under "perfect" conditions (1-3 meter groundswells of more than 12 sec period) produce hollow waves, but you forget to mention at this break that is 5-6 times per year if you're lucky. Most times it will produce nice tumbling gentle waves of whatever sized swell is currently happening. Just like the beach does now.

3) The reef will be 240 meters off the beach (at the lowest astronomical tide) it may refract some swell but the local surfing community were prepared to accept this for a consistant take off area regardless of the swell.

3) The reef will focus attention to a defined area of the beach,this will, by default, free up immediately nearby breaks like Hart Street & Sutherland Ave for older or less interested surfers like yourself. This is a good thing is it not? I'd imagine for a man who ride huge heavy boards without legropes this is a good thing. It's much safer for us.

4)The community were consulted for 18 months about this project, did you voice your opinions when asked?

5) The local City Council has no naming/operational/usage rights whatsoever. None. This project is offshore of high water mark and is legally out of their juristriction. EBOP have some research interest in the marine life...but that's it. No-one has contest rights or anything of the sort. No one has naming rights...but it'll be good when the final naming sponsor fronts up, with the extra 300K we're asking them for the whole community will be getting the extra toilets, rubbish bins, board walks, new concrete footpath on the other side of the road, better (more regular) litter collection the local residents want... the whole community wins...not just us surfers.

All the Luddites hang out on the Swaylocks site Roy.

[meister]

whoa those were both crazily huge posts ...

i dont know much about waves, but id say big, glassy and offshore

[Roy Stewart]

Brent, In my opinion the City Council have made an appalling botch of just about everything they touch at the Mount, they have promoted alcoholism, high density housing, and have allowed the chopping down of ancient native trees.

But in answer to your points:

1)No comment

2) The wave will be only 50 metres long, when the existing wave can provide rides of about four times that length.

3) Tay street is not 'notoriously inconsistent' at all. It is a shifting beach break . . this is part of its charm, and only incompetent surfers with poor equipment find it difficult to ride.

3b) I am as fit as anyone on the beach and will ride your reef if I feel like it. Only alcoholic meat and sugar eating bureaucrats call themselves 'older' at 43. Mind your manners!
Your theory that the reef will make adjacent breaks less crowded is yet to be proven, and I for one don't mind crowds at all.
If you are implying that I am in any way a danger to other surfers then you are ignorant of the facts. In 30 years of surfing I have never injured anyone. The dangerous people in the surf are generally those who use legropes and then throw their boards away, and there are plenty of them!

4) I submitted relevant information to the Bay of Plenty Times, but the chief reporter, John Cousins, said that unless the greater part of my income was derived from the surf industry that I had no right to comment. I am entitled to express my opinion when and where I choose to do so, and wouldn't waste my time making any sensible submission to a Council Bureaucrat, because you are a really hopeless bunch. Anyone who can work for the Council has to have trashed any finer sensibilities they might have once had, and I don't associate with people who work for organisations which promote large scale alcoholism.

5) EBOP is part of the Council! You speak with a forked tongue like a true politician.

6) Nonsense! Matakana Island is in fact accessible via a short paddle, as you know perfectly well.

7) What do you mean that no one has been sold the idea that Tay st is sub standard? You have just tried to sell me the idea that Tay St is "Notoriously inconsistent". You are indulging in doubletalk.

I have checked my facts, and the fact is that in my opinion the reef is an expensive waste of energy, and is only being promoted because most people are too stupid to appreciate the excellent waves provided naturally at Tay st, and insist upon altering the beach rather than riding equipment suitable for the waves.

I notice that you have entirely missed the main point of my previous post, which was to do with the subjective nature of 'perfect wave' value judgements.

Why do I get the feeling that I am talking to a non surfing Kook?

PS I have been surfing Tay St since 1968. I am fond of the place the way it is.

[Roy Stewart]

What a snake in the grass you are! While I am answering your post you edit out three of your points!
Are you quite sure you know your own mind?

And don't call me a 'less interested surfer'!!!

I have devoted most of my life to surfing!!!!

If you want to insult me then come to my office and do it in person. . .it's at The Main Beach.

<edit dead link>

[Brent]

And before you post your esoteric & mis-informed comments you should a) not assume I'm 23 years old & been surfing shortboards for 4 years...I've been surfing longer than you Roy.
and b) call in to see me at my office - it's at the local city council. I'll happily give you some correct information.
I'll not post again on this thread, you're a flame war waiting to happen. We don't do that stuff on this site. we're a happy bunch.

Brent.

[Phil]

Roy chill mate thats the attitude that got you baned from swaylocks

[Roy Stewart]

Roy chill mate thats the attitude that got you baned from swaylocks

I am perfectly chilled. . .and why don't you address your criticism to both participants in this discussion?

[k mac]

yo dudes like phil says chill out,lean back crack open a cold beer go check out the 'babe of the day' thread(or hunk of the day if thats your thing ) and think you two live in NZ great waves great weather and so on,its freezing cold here in england,pi**ing down ,then again the surf isnt bad which is a plus ,theres moreimportant things in life than aruguing over somthing so small in perspective to other things that are going on in the world, really!

[Roy Stewart]

And before you post your esoteric & mis-informed comments you should a) not assume I'm 23 years old & been surfing shortboards for 4 years...I've been surfing longer than you Roy.
and b) call in to see me at my office - it's at the local city council. I'll happily give you some correct information.
I'll not post again on this thread, you're a flame war waiting to happen. We don't do that stuff on this site. we're a happy bunch.

Brent.

What on Earth are you on about? Instead of replying to some of my criticisms of your posts, you accuse me of something that I didn't say. If you look at my posts you will discover that I didn't say anything about your age or how long you have been surfing.
Putting words into people's mouths which they have never uttered, and then attacking them for it is a dishonest and illogical tactic.
Why not answer what I am actually saying?

Regarding the reef, I notice that the only advantage which you have spoken of (apart from the three hundred thousand dollar beach development) is that the break will now have a regular take off spot. Is this worth more than a million dollars? I don't think so. With a little bit more effort you could paddle up and down and catch those shifting peaks!I do it all the time!

By the way Brent, I only mentioned that I have been surfing Tay street for 30 years because it shows that I like the place.

[Roy Stewart]

yo dudes like phil says chill out,lean back crack open a cold beer go check out the 'babe of the day' thread(or hunk of the day if thats your thing ) and think you two live in NZ great waves great weather and so on,its freezing cold here in england,pi**ing down ,then again the surf isnt bad which is a plus ,theres moreimportant things in life than aruguing over somthing so small in perspective to other things that are going on in the world, really!

Thanks for the free advice, mate, but I don't drink alcohol.

I think that every beach on this planet is important, and worth discussing and protecting. There are some things in life that have to be said, sorry, and I will say them if I feel that it is necessary. For example, when the Council allow (as they have done) an ancient native Pohutakawa tree to be chopped down to make room for another alcohol outlet (when there are at least 20 already within 100 metres) then they are working in darkness, and no amount of grandstanding will change that. They are doing this kind of thing all over town, and it sucks. As a resident of Mount Maunganui/Tauranga for the past 43 years, I must say that I mourn the passing of many of the beautiful trees which are falling to the chainsaw to make way for hotels, drinking areas and pubs.

And the reef is a bad idea.

[oslo]

<edit>snip</edit>

[Roy Stewart]

What a truly rude thing to say.

I wonder what Christopher Reeves would have had to say about your attitude.

A lot of handicapped people are not retarded at all, whereas your attitude, which apparently despises rational discussion, is of a very low mentality.

[Brent]

Oh what the heck; I can't resist a good argument.
I retracted my first post and removed three paragraphs to reduce size Roy. Same content - less words. Better.
I can't comment about the tree in question...yet, give me an address or location Roy, I'll dig out the file and see what deal we were able to leverage against the developer, there is a huge cost to private property owners when the remove protected trees, even on their own land. We get lots of money out of them to replant dozens more trees in better sites...providing for the future residents.

Regarding apartments & other issues you mention; we are trying to manage rampant growth and pressure from property owners to develop their land further, we cannot stop people moving here to live Roy, we cannot erect fences & say "no more residents in our town thank-you, go away". All we can do is manage growth as best we can. Apartments are a legitimate way to slow land encroachment and reduce ecological footprint. Frankly I despair over some key planning decisions made in the late 1970's allowing them to be built where they are now, we can blame our parents generation for their lack of foresight on this issue but that won't solve anything in 2005.

In reply to your reef-related comments...

1) The chief reporter of our local paper has all sorts of people attempting to lobby him, he, being a responsible journalist has to qualify what he writes in his articles or risk losing credibility for his newspaper; I suspect he was only interested in comments from those with (in his readership's eye) a vested economic interest in the Reef project. Surf shop owners, local Hoteliers and the like. That stuff makes interesting reading - not mis-informed ramblings. That's what the Web is for eh Roy?

2) There was extensive public consultation for the reef; this lasted 8 months informally at public meetings for starters, then the Reef Trust interviewed those whose houses directly front onto the beach at Tay Street, then other sporting clubs (divers, canoeists, lifesaving, fishing clubs etc) even guests staying at the Motels & Hotels nearby were canvassed. After that came the formal Resource consultation the government requires by law, this was open to the whole community. There were 1641 written submissions received on the project, of these around 30 were opposed (some were a little vague, ranting and hard to grasp). Each objection was worked through and considered by an independent planner. There was only one major group opposed to the reef (Mount Reef Apartments) the Council asked their particular and quite valid objection be taken to the High Court and tested under existing case-law. This was done & took 18 months to complete, the Council meanwhile held up the whole project in the interim to ensure this was done properly. In his positive judgment for the reef Judge Hansen commented on how through the whole consultation process had been.

You had the chance to offer your comments/opinions when it really mattered Roy and chose not to. What's the point in complaining about it almost three years later?

3) There is no such thing as a "perfect wave" that's subjective. We each have our own definitions just like skateboarders who's idea of a "perfect" skatepark varies considerably. The designer of an artificial reef can only cater for the biggest majority of users and the most common type of surfing being "done" at this point in our sports history. Take a skatepark as an example, one designed in 1980 looks completely different from a modern one. Sports morph & change Roy. You can only cater for the now…or your facility will be an expensive & underused white elephant…I believe they've made the best judgement and designed a reef that will be a good wave for an average/good surfer under rare perfect conditions. Other times it'll just be a good fun wave with a consistent takeoff for everybody who chooses to use it.

4) Council has no direct link with this project other than donating 300K in 2001 to get the project underway. The expected positive impact for the greater community warranted financial support. As I posted earlier it's below the mean high-tide line and therefore legally out of Council jurisdiction, they have no interest in deeds of use, rules, contest formats or frequency.

5) Part of the deal is when done the Council will recieve new public toilets with external fresh water showers and screened changing areas, several new public BBQ's on the grass reserve, further boardwalk extensions, a badly needed pedestrian crossing on that stretch of road among other things, in the same manner I mentioned above regarding the now removed tree.…you'll obviously not use any of these facilities out of principle eh Roy?

6) This reef will be an interesting science project and one we're lucky enough to have happening right on our doorstep, it might work perfectly…it might end up a complete flop…who knows. it is however clearly written into the five year resource consent that if the reef fails or does not comply with terms set by the Environment Court, if it adversely affects the coastline, local residents, businesses or the greater community the textile bags will be opened, the sand dispersed and the reef removed.

From everybody's point of view, from qualified environmental & geotechnical engineers, marine biologists, hoteliers, the police, corner dairy owners right through to middle-aged women surfers it's a cool thing worth trying.

If you're interested in seeing this project people, go to www.mountreef.co.nz
Make up your own minds.

Roy I'll await the address details so I can report fact rather than fiction regarding that tree.
Brent

[Roy Stewart]

Thanks for taking the time to make a reasonable reply, Brent. We are going to have to agree to disagree on the reef and probably a few other topics also (like whether or not you are able to slow down housing development). That's OK by me.

Regarding trees, there are so many which have been axed for development when the development could have gone ahead around the trees that I can accept no excuse whatsoever. To take just one case, the Pohutakawa which was felled to make way for a bar attached to the new movie theatre which replaced the old Mount Regent Theatre really stands out as a despicable action. I realise that a dispensation is required for taking the tree out, and that one was granted, but that is just BS paperwork, the bottom line is that any architect could have designed the new theatre around the tree, either by avoiding the bar, or by repositioning it. I remember that tree well, we used to go to the Regent to see surf movies during the seventies, and I always admired it. That tree was old enough to have seen the Mount long before anything was built there and in my opinion it has a right to live regardless of whether or not it can speak or fight for survival. There is no way that any person who works for the council should have let that happen without handing in their resignation as a protest. If you work for evil, you become evil, it's as simple as that.
One more example is the Pohutakawa hedge at Herries park, which succumbed to pressure from developers and police (who didn't like late night drunks hiding behind it!) It would have been better to have bulldozed the late night bars! We don't need them.

Anyway, I say what I think, but I don't hate anyone, so how about introducing yourself out in the surf one day? I can tell you a few funny stories about Councillor Faulkner from back in the 70's when he was a drunken Real Estate agent and Q class sailor.

[Brent]

Yes I remember the tree in question. For interests sake I'll dig out the numbers tomorrow & post within a day or so. You'll be quite suprised, I believe including all the development impact fees & building consent it was over 100K to do that job. We don't just let them do it, even on their own land, we screw developers for all they're worth....on the greater communitites behalf.

[Roy Stewart]

You mean "for the benefit of the greater community according to the council" !

This member of the greater community would rather have that ancient and irreplaceable tree than the supposed benefits of a 100k council spend up, and of course it is no consolation to the actual tree that the council managed to screw the developers!

It's just as I suspected . . . the 'protection' offered by the council for significant and historic trees is able to be eliminated by the application of some money, and in this case, just for yet another booze outlet. There are no fundamental values involved, the council will sell anything, and justify it by saying that they will do greater good with the money. It's just too slick, and it smells funny. Nothing is sacred to the council except money!

By the way, when you 'improve' toilet facilities at the beach you always take away the good old tap which the old toilet had. No more washing wetties or getting a bottle of drinking water on a hot day. Bummer, but at least we get fancy glass bricks and hand painted tiles! I remember that Eric Burgraaf was trying to convince the Council that a tap at the beach is a good idea, but to no avail. No doubt the water can't be wasted (at 15c per 1000 litres!)

And the boardwalks are yuk, they put splinters in your feet and are slippery when wet.

That's about it for now.

Your organisation is currently rated at one out of ten.