McCoy Nuggets

Any discussion on shaping, designing, repairing and riding surfcraft of any type or shape. Also a good place to ask the 'what board should I buy?' question.

Re: McCoy Nuggets

Postby Bearded Gimp » Tue Jul 31, 2012 3:46 pm

only know the volumes given for the surftechs - 45l for the 5'10 zap, 6'0 nugget and 6'6 interchange; 54l for the 7'0; 63l for the 7'6; 69l for the 7'11 and 78l for the 8'2. I'd say based on that that you're very much in the right ball park

there might be the odd bit of info over on Swaylocks - someone may have run a mccoy copy through AKU shaper and posted up the result
Bearded Gimp
 
Posts: 245
Joined: Wed Nov 04, 2009 11:37 am

Re: McCoy Nuggets

Postby nawgy1979 » Tue Jul 31, 2012 3:58 pm

Thanks.
Actually, I have a 5'10 Surftech Zap and it is 45 litres as you say, but to be honest I found this a little misleading due to the EPS core being so much more floaty and it probably has the equivalent of a normal 6'4 Nugget (only my opinion though).
I'll have another dig around on Swaylocks (I have looked) but there are so mant arguements on there it makes it hard going :lol:
nawgy1979
 
Posts: 129
Joined: Fri Nov 18, 2011 9:50 am

Re: McCoy Nuggets

Postby Bearded Gimp » Tue Jul 31, 2012 4:07 pm

you're right about the surftech zap, it's way more buoyant than my PU 6'3. not sure whether that's all to do with the EPS core mind you - it does keep its 3" of thickness pretty much all over. (PS in case you haven't already, chuck away the plastic futures and get some fibreglass panchos or AM2s. far, far better)

you've probably already looked on the firewire site - the 6'8 x 21.75" x 3" dominator has 50l and that looks way more foiled out than any mccoy I've seen
Bearded Gimp
 
Posts: 245
Joined: Wed Nov 04, 2009 11:37 am

Re: McCoy Nuggets

Postby cricket » Wed Aug 01, 2012 5:43 am

MrMik wrote:All other boards that I have tried seem to want to get further away from the correct spot underneath my feet whenever I put my feet in the wrong places (I do that a lot :lol: ). On other boards this usually results in an instant wipe-out. But not so on the Nugget. If I land off-centre on the Nugget, then it tends to immediately move itself to underneath my centre of gravity, so that I can recover and gain (some) control. It comes towards my centre of gravity instead of shooting off away from me like other boards. I have sometimes landed on just one foot, or (really bad!) with one or both knees on the tail-pad - but still recovered to ride the wave! :mrgreen:


As I understand it, the design of the Nugget means (and requires) a lot of back foot surfing/weight (big thick tail, narrower lighter nose). So chances are you are more of a back foot surfer and so the board suits you very well. (I mean, if you land knee first on the tail pad and the board doesnt shoot off, you can tell that it copes with a lot of weight on the back!).

If you read McCoys comments around the place, he reckons most surfers are back foot surfers being forced to surf 'unnaturally' by the standard designs used. In my view it is more natural to put weight on the back foot when you are crouched down (especially going backhand), so he is right to that extent; but I dont think its all that hard to teach yourself otherwise. McCoy's approach is 'why teach yourself otherwise'.

The flip side - I imagine - is that if you are used to the Nugget style of surfing, it might be even harder to get onto a more 'normal' board because you need to make quite a few adjustments.
cricket
 
Posts: 9
Joined: Wed Jul 18, 2012 12:40 pm

Re: McCoy Nuggets

Postby Cuttlefish » Wed Aug 01, 2012 12:35 pm

Bearded Gimp wrote:only know the volumes given for the surftechs - 45l for the 5'10 zap, 6'0 nugget and 6'6 interchange; 54l for the 7'0; 63l for the 7'6; 69l for the 7'11 and 78l for the 8'2. I'd say based on that that you're very much in the right ball park

there might be the odd bit of info over on Swaylocks - someone may have run a mccoy copy through AKU shaper and posted up the result

Do you reckon those litreage figures are accurate?
Seems weird that the 6'er is 45 litres as is the 6'6".
Then 7'er is 54 and it jumps 9 litres up to 63 for the 7'6".
I wouldn't be suprised if the 6'6" was more like 50 odd litres since they are all same planshape and Geoff's foil and thickness distribution isn't going to radically change for only the 6'6".
User avatar
Cuttlefish
 
Posts: 409
Joined: Mon Aug 23, 2010 11:00 am
Location: Sunshine coast, Qld, Australia

Re: McCoy Nuggets

Postby Archy_is_God » Wed Aug 01, 2012 12:42 pm

There is a large focus on the tail-heavy foil that McCoy employs in the Nuggets and, particularly, the Zaps.

But it's more than that IMO; for me, the shift in weight was pretty straightforward, as was riding a singlefin, but adjusting to a convex bottom and rails that didn't release when you expected or indeed, wanted them to, was too much of a mindfcuk TBH.... :lol:

As I said earlier in this thread, Zaps and Nuggets could be compared to a 911 - rear engine, rear wheel drive and not for everyone, but some people just click with them.
User avatar
Archy_is_God
 
Posts: 4112
Joined: Thu May 08, 2008 9:52 am
Location: Whey out Whest

Re: McCoy Nuggets

Postby Archy_is_God » Wed Aug 01, 2012 12:46 pm

Cuttlefish wrote:
Bearded Gimp wrote:only know the volumes given for the surftechs - 45l for the 5'10 zap, 6'0 nugget and 6'6 interchange; 54l for the 7'0; 63l for the 7'6; 69l for the 7'11 and 78l for the 8'2. I'd say based on that that you're very much in the right ball park

there might be the odd bit of info over on Swaylocks - someone may have run a mccoy copy through AKU shaper and posted up the result

Do you reckon those litreage figures are accurate?
Seems weird that the 6'er is 45 litres as is the 6'6".
Then 7'er is 54 and it jumps 9 litres up to 63 for the 7'6".
I wouldn't be suprised if the 6'6" was more like 50 odd litres since they are all same planshape and Geoff's foil and thickness distribution isn't going to radically change for only the 6'6".


The Interchange is more refined I think, so maybe they could be similar.

Litre figures are good in a way, but won't tell you much about how that volume is distibuted or how well a board paddles unless you look at the rocker and bottom shape as well.
User avatar
Archy_is_God
 
Posts: 4112
Joined: Thu May 08, 2008 9:52 am
Location: Whey out Whest

Re: McCoy Nuggets

Postby MrMik » Wed Aug 01, 2012 12:46 pm

cricket wrote:...

The flip side - I imagine - is that if you are used to the Nugget style of surfing, it might be even harder to get onto a more 'normal' board because you need to make quite a few adjustments.


That's probably true, but I think the opposite is also true and probably more than compensates for this effect: I catch and ride so many more waves on my Nuggets than I would manage to ride on anything else, that my surfing on any board improves in the process.
At the moment I have no intention of trying anything else, except for the custom 7'1" Zot that is waiting to be picked up. :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen:

About a year ago I came across a cheap "Meyerhoffer" board at a second hand shop: 8'0" peanut shape, epoxy, brand new for $400.- so I thought it's worth a try at that price. I think it might have been a factory second, because there are some barely visible grubby paw prints under the glassing. I had absolutely no problems surfing it, catches waves easily, trims well, turns well (limited by my lack of ability only, and with centre fin in the very front of the box), probably too small for me (86kg) to noseride, but it is not as forgiving as the 7'2" Nugget. The tail on that strange board is just about the opposite shape to a Nugget tail: A very long drawn out pintail. I did not find it difficult to get used to it at all though. But maybe the long tail (far behind the fins) has a similar effect to the fat Nugget tail right underneath the fins. It also has pretty much the opposite bottom shape to the Nugget, at least in the tail area: A double concave. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M0HHuSTkF1M
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J-SS7XpY ... ure=relmfu
User avatar
MrMik
 
Posts: 94
Joined: Wed Jul 18, 2012 3:12 am

Re: McCoy Nuggets

Postby Bearded Gimp » Wed Aug 01, 2012 1:24 pm

I was a bit suss on the 5'10, 6'0 and 6'6 all being the same too. I've ridden both the 5'10 and the 6'6 and I reckon the 6'6 has got a fair bit more volume in it. Mind you, unless you're a proper lardarse you won't have to worry about any of the surftech mccoys floating you

I could see maybe that the 6'0 would have the same as the 6'6 as it's 1/8" thicker and the tail is 1.5" wider.
Bearded Gimp
 
Posts: 245
Joined: Wed Nov 04, 2009 11:37 am

Re: McCoy Nuggets

Postby NickZed32 » Thu Aug 02, 2012 3:14 am

Hi there,

I was wondering if anyone might have an AKU Shaper file of a Mccoy Nugget that they could share with me?

I'm wondering about a new board purchase and would like to fiddle with the dimensions on AKU Shaper to see the impact upon Volumes.

BTW - I've got a few Mccoys, one of them being a 6'6" Surftech...I'm 92 kegs and it has plenty of buoyancy for me. I haven't ridden a 6' Surftech nugget, it does say that it has the same Volume as the 66, this may be due to it being a wider board than the 6'6"?????
NickZed32
 
Posts: 2
Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2012 3:07 am

Re: McCoy Nuggets

Postby wurfysurfy » Thu Aug 02, 2012 11:19 am

mister Mik, ive got the 8/0 myabonka as well as the 9/2.the larger is the better board(i'm same weight as you) but thats not to mean the 8/0 isnt good....the 8/0 is excellent.mine was brand new(325)and (375) for the 9/2.they were clearing the outdated stock hence the bargain price.
the negatives are the SLX(also known as pissWEAK)epoxy.its not up to standard, the weakest surfboard construction ive encounted .POSITIVES are light, highly manoueverable and you always have someone to talk to(other surfers always ask about the weird shape).
the narrow tail is useless imo,and the more recent update has smooothed the lines out and widened the tail to what it should be.DEFINITELY small waves boards, because if u tried to ride them in grunty waves theres a high risk of breakage.i had a SLX Webber mini fish and after 2 surfs the deck was like 5 years old.they swapped it for a new one, a friend had a similar experience with a different model in SLX, he wont buy that construction again.
a good quiver for cruising weak waves, then pull out a McCoy when the power starts :lol:
wurfysurfy
 
Posts: 79
Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2011 6:44 am

Re: McCoy Nuggets

Postby nawgy1979 » Thu Aug 02, 2012 12:07 pm

Bearded Gimp wrote:you're right about the surftech zap, it's way more buoyant than my PU 6'3. not sure whether that's all to do with the EPS core mind you - it does keep its 3" of thickness pretty much all over. (PS in case you haven't already, chuck away the plastic futures and get some fibreglass panchos or AM2s. far, far better)

you've probably already looked on the firewire site - the 6'8 x 21.75" x 3" dominator has 50l and that looks way more foiled out than any mccoy I've seen


I have the clear plastic Futures which I belive are the MC500 (well they are 5" depth). Planning on getting some fibreglass ones but they arent cheap and was hoping to get some 2nd hand but they are like rocking horse poo.
nawgy1979
 
Posts: 129
Joined: Fri Nov 18, 2011 9:50 am

Re: McCoy Nuggets

Postby Bearded Gimp » Thu Aug 02, 2012 12:29 pm

the MC 500s are the right size, just made out of the wrong material. apparently, geoff wanted the surftechs to be sold with fibreglass MC500s but surftech went for plastic ones (probably to maximise profit). I suppose because the rails are so soft, it makes sense to have a big fin that's as stiff as it can be to give you the drive. For me, the zap was bordering on unsurfable with the plastic fins but is now my favourite board with the panchos in it. With the 6'6, I think the difference is less marked, but there is still noticeably more drive
Bearded Gimp
 
Posts: 245
Joined: Wed Nov 04, 2009 11:37 am

Re: McCoy Nuggets

Postby MrMik » Fri Aug 03, 2012 10:24 am

Bearded Gimp wrote:I think that with people not going well on the mid-lengths, it's often more the rider than the board.


That certainly applies to myself :lol: :lol: :lol:

If it was not for my Nuggets, chances are I would not be surfing any more. I probably would have given up due to lack of rewards and too much punishment out in the water.

I still fall off a lot and my only chance to achieve youtube video fame would be in the "Kook-section" :lol:

I'm approaching 50 years of age, but my surfing has not peaked yet, because I only started when I was almost 30. I frequently catch the best wave of my life and one day - soon - I shall get properly tubed. :mrgreen:

I have no intentions of wasting the precious time I get in the surf on equipment that makes surfing any harder than it inherently is.

Archy_is_God wrote:Haha! When singlemindedness morphs into arrogance... I mean - how dare the minions modify their own equipment! :lol:


I think the warnings against modifying the boards are meant for people like myself, not for surfers that have surfed most days for most of their life and maybe shaped a couple of boards themselves. I have no reason for wanting to muck up perfectly fine boards by modifying them - because I would not know what I'm doing. It would be a different matter if the boards did not out-perform my abilities in every way. If that ever happens, then I will certainly interfere whole-heartedly. Shaping a board might be a nice project for after retirement, I'd like that, but for now I need the best boards to help me along whenever I manage to scrape together some time for surfing.

I don't care what particular "energy theory" Geoff McCoy may be using to explain why his boards work so well. What matters to me is that - for at least the past 2 decades or so - he has been consciously striving to make surfboards that make surfing easier, boards that are "neutral" and that help surfers with "average" abilities to surf better. And I think he has achieved just that. The best part of it all is that Geoff's boards, although they are easier to surf than other boards (Zap excluded), can perform better than the majority of surfers will ever be able to fully use or excel. I think one would have to be an exceptional surfer to really "need" a HPS. And when the surf is getting too big for all but a few surfers, most McCoy boards really begin to shine. :mrgreen:
User avatar
MrMik
 
Posts: 94
Joined: Wed Jul 18, 2012 3:12 am

Re: Comparing Nuggets and a Zot

Postby MrMik » Fri Aug 03, 2012 11:18 am

I recently picked up my third McCoy board, a 7'1'' x 22' x 3 1/8 Astron Zot custom.

Before messing the new board up with deckgrip, wax, paint or whatever, I took a bunch of photos, comparing it to my two older Nuggets.
Zot planshape.JPG
Zot planshape.JPG (7.19 KiB) Viewed 1211 times
Zot Rocker.JPG
Zot Rocker.JPG (55.11 KiB) Viewed 1211 times




There appears to be surprisingly little difference in appearance between the three boards, but maybe that is not so surprising because two of them are custom boards for the same untalented surfer. :lol:
Planshapes.JPG
Planshapes.JPG (15.59 KiB) Viewed 1211 times


My request to Geoff re: the Zot was this:
"In a nutshell: I want to be surfing a forgiving all-round surfboard that makes it as easy as possible for me to have fun. Should I try an Astron Zot for this or stick with the Nuggets? "
Geoff suggested that a Zot of the above mentioned dimensions should do the job and I went along with his advice. I decided that I'd just take what Geoff suggests, because when Geoff shaped a custom Nugget for me in 2006, he suggested to go longer than what I had imagined. Back then, we settled on a 6'10' Nugget and I was glad that the board was not any shorter when I got it and started surfing on it. I don't think I asked for anything specific re: width, shape or thickness, and I had no idea that Nuggets had developed different flavours by then (Potbelly, Stumpy, single fins), so I just assumed it would come with three fins, which it did. It turned out to be 6'10'' x 21 1/2'' x 3 1/4'' and it's the one with the snake deckgrip. Somehow I managed to talk Geoff into leaving the logos off the deck. I tried to get less logos for the Zot as well, but Geoff did not like the idea of leaving any logos off. But I think they are a bit smaller than standard.


The other Nugget is the off-the shelf board (7'2''x21.5''x3.125'') shown earlier in this thread, shaped by Geoff in 1998. My magic precious... :mrgreen:
User avatar
MrMik
 
Posts: 94
Joined: Wed Jul 18, 2012 3:12 am

Re: Comparing Nuggets and a Zot

Postby MrMik » Fri Aug 03, 2012 11:27 am

Here comes the visual comparison between the boards:

1998 Nugget 7'2'' x 21 1/2'' x 3 1/8''
2006 Nugget 6'10'' x 21 1/4'' x 3 1/4''
2012 Astron Zot 7'1'' x 22'' x 3 1/8''
Rockers.JPG
Rockers.JPG (51.63 KiB) Viewed 1211 times
Noses top.JPG
Noses top.JPG (19.59 KiB) Viewed 1211 times
Tails top.JPG
Tails top.JPG (21.01 KiB) Viewed 1212 times
Last edited by MrMik on Fri Aug 03, 2012 11:33 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
MrMik
 
Posts: 94
Joined: Wed Jul 18, 2012 3:12 am

Re: Comparing Nuggets and a Zot

Postby MrMik » Fri Aug 03, 2012 11:31 am

1998 Nugget 7'2'' x 21 1/2'' x 3 1/8''
2006 Nugget 6'10'' x 21 1/4'' x 3 1/4''
2012 Astron Zot 7'1'' x 22'' x 3 1/8''
Tails bottom.JPG
Tails bottom.JPG (16.79 KiB) Viewed 1211 times
Noses bottom.JPG
Noses bottom.JPG (16.14 KiB) Viewed 1211 times


This one shows how the snap-in fin of the Zot works:
Snap-in Fin.JPG
Snap-in Fin.JPG (16.39 KiB) Viewed 1211 times
User avatar
MrMik
 
Posts: 94
Joined: Wed Jul 18, 2012 3:12 am

Re: McCoy Nuggets

Postby NickZed32 » Fri Aug 03, 2012 7:45 pm

Mr Mik,
Nice photos - thanks.

I've got a 7ft Zot myself - its a great board. However, its got the old fin system.

I was wondering - with the new clip in system does it mean that you only have two fin positions that you can choose from? is it a good system (i.e. practical, user friendly etc).

thanks
NickZed32
 
Posts: 2
Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2012 3:07 am

Re: McCoy Nuggets

Postby MrMik » Sun Aug 05, 2012 12:06 pm

NickZed32 wrote:...

I was wondering - with the new clip in system does it mean that you only have two fin positions that you can choose from? is it a good system (i.e. practical, user friendly etc).

thanks


The "Effect-System" fin can be set to anywhere in the fin box.

The front of the fin slides in first, then you whack the rear end down so that it snaps into the box. No tools required.
Got to be careful when taking the fin back out: The forward angle of the gullwing can hit the stringer and break the glass. One hand in front of the fin, the other hitting it from behind will get the fin out without damaging the board.

The "Effect-System" fin will fit into other standard longboard fin boxes, and other fins fit into the standard box in my Zot. The fin came with 2 sets of adapters that would help to fit the fin into slightly wider or narrower fin boxes.

I have not surfed the board yet, but the fin system appears to be quite brilliantly simple and effective.

I think it should be possible to retro-fit similar spring-loaded ball bearings to most existing fins.

Here is a link to a video showing the "Effect-system": http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ao4hQ1M3_1k

But I cannot find their website.
User avatar
MrMik
 
Posts: 94
Joined: Wed Jul 18, 2012 3:12 am

Re: McCoy Nuggets

Postby glamarama » Sun Aug 05, 2012 12:29 pm

Ah

Whoever says Geoff is not progressive surfing type.
glamarama
 
Posts: 39
Joined: Sun Mar 20, 2011 4:38 am

Re: McCoy Nuggets

Postby Archy_is_God » Sun Aug 05, 2012 1:19 pm

that is a bloody good idea :idea:
User avatar
Archy_is_God
 
Posts: 4112
Joined: Thu May 08, 2008 9:52 am
Location: Whey out Whest

Re: McCoy Nuggets

Postby wurfysurfy » Mon Aug 06, 2012 3:03 am

yes, very progressive for single fin riders.....

mCoy would be PROgressive if he offered the same option in a 5 box set up for thruster/quad sensations which far surpass his ZOT,semi gun,longboard single offerings.

:lol:
wurfysurfy
 
Posts: 79
Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2011 6:44 am

Re: McCoy Nuggets

Postby Archy_is_God » Mon Aug 06, 2012 7:06 am

MrMik wrote: The best part of it all is that Geoff's boards, although they are easier to surf than other boards (Zap excluded), can perform better than the majority of surfers will ever be able to fully use or excel. I think one would have to be an exceptional surfer to really "need" a HPS. :


just being Devil's Advocate here, but this is a big call... Particularly from someone who, by their own admission, is not a surfer with a wealth of experience on 'high performance' (read - 'more refined/lower volume') equipment.

My experience with all McCoys I have ridden is that they excelled in certain specific conditions and were a actually quite difficult to deal with in all other instances. This extends to custom boards made for me as well as off the racks and boards borrowed from mates.

There are a couple of slightly pious assumptions from the McCoy camp (not just Geoff) that include firstly, the assertion that all other designs are inferior and secondly, that most surfers will never fully utilise a HpSB (whatever the hell that actually is these days). Simply not true.

The most erroneous assumption is that most people do not understand anything to do with surfboard design.

I like Geoff, I like his boards, but some of his statements don't ring true in reality... 1992 was a long time ago and most surfers are not trying to learn to make their 6'1 x 17 7/8 x 2 1/8" Aladdin's Slipper work in two foot high tide mush these days....
User avatar
Archy_is_God
 
Posts: 4112
Joined: Thu May 08, 2008 9:52 am
Location: Whey out Whest

Re: McCoy Nuggets

Postby Bearded Gimp » Mon Aug 06, 2012 9:14 am

^^ good points as ever, Archy

It is undeniable that - even in Wales where the waves are typically far from world class - there are many people surfing very, very well on standard shortboards. Don't get me wrong, I love my McCoys, but I very much recognise that they don't suit everyone
Bearded Gimp
 
Posts: 245
Joined: Wed Nov 04, 2009 11:37 am

Re: McCoy Nuggets

Postby wurfysurfy » Mon Aug 06, 2012 10:06 am

Archy, what specific conditions did the mcoys do well in?AND.what conditions didnt they do well in?Which models were you riding? :?
wurfysurfy
 
Posts: 79
Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2011 6:44 am

Re: McCoy Nuggets

Postby batoes » Mon Aug 06, 2012 11:04 am

Geoff's zealotry to his design is pretty full on, but everyone has their thing and i don't think he gives a toss about pleasing anyone other than himself, i've heard van straalen is similar. I got caught up in the mccoy philosophy for time, as nuggets worked better than all the other boards i'd been riding. I rode nuggets exclusively for two years and then decided to branch out - trying everything i could. After that exploration and still going back to nuggets when the waves are big, I find they don't work in mush or waves without grunt. There are so many great grovellor boards now that i wouldn't think about riding a mccoy in junk. Room for a quad in Geoff's designs? Definitely. I've been riding a tomo v4 for a few months now, which is a toothpick and at the extreme HPSB end and yet - you put it and the nugget in large waves with some grunt and they perform in a very similar manner. Therefore, it is a surfer's choice. I like nuggets and i also like HPSBs. :-)
batoes
 
Posts: 126
Joined: Sat Mar 20, 2010 9:52 am

Re: McCoy Nuggets

Postby kayu » Mon Aug 06, 2012 11:07 am

Archy , I think more to the point , Geoff has a deserved mistrust of the surf media.....he would be the most mis-quoted person in surfing without doubt.......opinionated ,yes.....but he can back it all up , for those who are prepared to listen....no surfboard will ever suite everyone , but my opinion is that McCoys come closer than any other boards ,so far ,without exception........ Geoff has a position in the market place ,that nobody comes close to ,and many other boardmakers can't accept that........but that's the way it is....
currumbinwoodworks.com.au
User avatar
kayu
 
Posts: 1113
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2010 1:17 am
Location: Currumbin , Gold Coast

Re: McCoy Nuggets

Postby MrMik » Mon Aug 06, 2012 11:59 am

Archy_is_God wrote:
MrMik wrote: The best part of it all is that Geoff's boards, although they are easier to surf than other boards (Zap excluded), can perform better than the majority of surfers will ever be able to fully use or excel. I think one would have to be an exceptional surfer to really "need" a HPS. :



just being Devil's Advocate here, but this is a big call... Particularly from someone who, by their own admission, is not a surfer with a wealth of experience on 'high performance' (read - 'more refined/lower volume') equipment.


I have a little bit of experience with smaller boards: The usual result is that I wipe out, the boards snap or crease, money gone, dumpster filled... :lol: :lol:
Let's just say I learned enough lessons that way to get it.

McCoy boards are in my opinion very refined, with the raffinesse being how so much volume is "hidden" without causing trouble.

Below are photos of the smallest board that I have managed to catch a few decent waves on: "Liberty" shaped by Rod Morgan (Twin Fin 6'08'' x 19 1/2'' x 2 3/4''). I might take it out for a surf again if my surfing improves, but usually I end up regretting it if I do not take a Nugget instead. At least this Liberty board does not seem to break too easily. It's very loose and I can duck-dive it, but it feels too wobbly for comfort for me. However, that was similar when I first started to surf on my 6'10'' Nugget.

Maybe this sums it up: "The worse the surfer, the more s/he has to gain from a McCoy"??

DSC05960cr600.JPG
DSC05960cr600.JPG (31.36 KiB) Viewed 1073 times

DSC05970cropped333.JPG
DSC05970cropped333.JPG (19.44 KiB) Viewed 1073 times

DSC05967cropped333.JPG
DSC05967cropped333.JPG (20.37 KiB) Viewed 1073 times
User avatar
MrMik
 
Posts: 94
Joined: Wed Jul 18, 2012 3:12 am

Re: McCoy Nuggets

Postby Archy_is_God » Mon Aug 06, 2012 1:04 pm

[quote="kayu"]Archy , I think more to the point , Geoff has a deserved mistrust of the surf media.....he would be the most mis-quoted person in surfing without doubt.......opinionated ,yes.....but he can back it all up , for those who are prepared to listen....[quote]

I'm going by one-to-one emails, conversations and from some of the stuff that features here:

'These are some of the subtle changes I have made to the single fin designs. I now believe these single fin designs will out perform, in all conditions, any other fin combination.'

http://www.mccoysurfboards.com/v1/compo ... astron-zot

'I have tried all available contours, V's, Flats, Concaves, Channels, Rolls and finally the Dome concept which by far out performs all the others.'

http://www.mccoysurfboards.com/v1/compo ... in-designs

http://www.coastalwatch.com/news/articl ... 7&cateId=3

There’s a surge towards single fins again. I know all the top guys have got a single fin. The big fear is, what contours they’ve got in the board. If they’ve got flats, vees and concaves they’re not going to get the best performance.

http://www.coastalwatch.com/news/articl ... 7&cateId=3

I just need to make this clear - I totally respect the way that Geoff has effectively opened the door to alternative designs being considered again. Full credit to him.

Also, full credit to him for sticking to his guns as far as design is concerned. They quite obviously work really well for plenty of folk.

As far as his comments regarding the surf media are concerned; I have no doubt he is spot-on.

I can't help but feel the Nugget and Zot are being marketed as superior to EVERY OTHER surfboard by McCoy, though.... However, this is just my interpretation

:arrow:
User avatar
Archy_is_God
 
Posts: 4112
Joined: Thu May 08, 2008 9:52 am
Location: Whey out Whest

Re: McCoy Nuggets

Postby Archy_is_God » Mon Aug 06, 2012 3:19 pm

wurfysurfy wrote:Archy, what specific conditions did the mcoys do well in?AND.what conditions didnt they do well in?Which models were you riding? :?


6'0" AR single - barrelling waves, overhead, going frontside.

5'10" Potbelly thruster - chesthigh to overhead. Bit more versatile than the single.

Neither went well in really flat-faced waves or in bumpy onshore stuff, but they felt good in clean waves with grunt (but what board doesn't :wink:)

Me - now 27yrs since first learning to surf. 6'1" (used to be 6'2") 82kgs, bad knees, dodgy back, stressed out :lol:

I learned to surf on a 6'6" singlefin when I was 11 or so. Had plenty of singlefins since, several quads, an Alaia, a load of keel finned fishes, a few guns, a few logs and some other more unusual boards, as well as a good 30 or so custom 'HP' shortboards through the years.

I've designed a few models from scratch and had them run off an APS machine, but never really picked up a planer owing to general concern over injuring myself or those around me, but have designed boards that have worked and have worked out custom orders for customers that I would then place with the shaper we used to deal with.

I think some of the concepts McCoy has come up with are great and they obviously work well for plenty of people, but I do think your relationship with a shaper works best when you can have a more balanced two-way flow of ideas. I think you would need to deal with Geoff on more of an ongoing and consistent basis to reach this point than you would with other shapers. This may not be a bad thing, actually.

I'm certainly no oracle on design, but I know what I like and why I like it, I guess...
User avatar
Archy_is_God
 
Posts: 4112
Joined: Thu May 08, 2008 9:52 am
Location: Whey out Whest

PreviousNext

Return to Surfboards - Shaping and Board Design

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Exabot [Bot] and 7 guests