
Chai Wallah wrote:
So Roy if this is the first board that you have made of this exact design and you are not going to ride it, how can you comment on how well it rides?
Get the board in the water, ride it in a variety of conditions at a number of breaks and then comment on how it performs until then your opinions are not relevant.
"
Roy Stuart wrote: ... parallel profile hollow wooden construction continuous 50/50 round rails 27" wide with ten inch tunnel fin did you see any like that ?
I don't think so.
kayu wrote:
The combination of slight roll and the amount nose rocker allows the board to reduce wetted surface area easier and quicker ,and get on the plane faster.
Concave produces lift ,only when the board begins to plane. It does not produce lift on take off.
seasofcheese wrote:
Rocker is more important in initial take-off and less is more.
Roy Stuart wrote:kayu wrote:
The combination of slight roll and the amount nose rocker allows the board to reduce wetted surface area easier and quicker ,and get on the plane faster.
Wrong, roll makes boards take longer to get on to the plane.
Concave produces lift ,only when the board begins to plane. It does not produce lift on take off.
Wrong again, concaves produce more lift per unit of wetted surface area than rolled bottoms at any speed including on takeoff.
.
Roy Stuart wrote:seasofcheese wrote:
Rocker is more important in initial take-off and less is more.
Wrong.
The quickest transition to planing occurs with higher nose rocker and less tail rocker.
.
kayu wrote:Roy Stuart wrote:seasofcheese wrote:
Rocker is more important in initial take-off and less is more.
Wrong.
The quickest transition to planing occurs with higher nose rocker and less tail rocker.
.
not so....any increase in nose rocker , beyond what gives efficient take off is useless and unnecessary. Depends much more on the type and size of the wave. There is no such thing as a "one size fits all" theory
.kayu wrote:
........as I said , your interpretation of theory delivers you no advantage in performance....sorry Roy , its in your home videos of the boards in action.
Roy Stuart wrote:Now regarding your comment that bottom roll increases lift, we can put it with all the other BS myths including the ridiculous 'low rocker for early wave entry' poppycock.
Roy Stuart wrote:
You've been making an idiot of yourself all over the net with your embarrassingly stupid pronouncements, including but not limited to the latest nonsense that this deck pattern is a good one for flexible wooden boards. You are talking about a subject you know nothing about and getting it wrong as usual.
Your idiocy is partly but not entirely inherited genetically then Steve.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest