**** slab

[mal-nourished]

thats where ypur wrong roy i saw spoons shaped like these in australia california and even here in uk beetween 73-76 by my reckoning thats 30yrs prior to your producing one.... regardless i have seen some good kneeboarding on spoonshapes.

[Roy Stuart]

Hardly exactly the same ... 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.

[Roy Stuart]

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?

Wake up.

I did not comment on how well it rides !

I commented on the spoon designs which I've ridden.

You can't weasel out of the fact that bottom roll reduces lift, very sorry but all the shapers who have been parrotting it are wrong, and that's that.

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.


"

Hahahahahahaha what a muppet, when I ride a design for many years and comment on the performance you still say I'm wrong !

I'll tell you something for free: If two oranges plus two oranges equal four oranges, then two apples plus two apples equal four apples.

Nose roll reduces lift in any design, and yes I've tested it.

[Chai Wallah]

No Roy - there are huge differences between this board and the previous boards you shaped (or posted the photo of) that are obvious to all.

So are you surfing or not? Why wont you surf this board? Why have we not seen any new footage of your boards in the water for over 2 years?

[mal-nourished]

-- when you go for a uk driving test over here you have to sit a theory as well as practical test .....pity you and your boards dont have to do same you would fail miserably ... and roy if you had two pears [pairs] and two pears [ pairs] and added them you could have 4 or 8 so things sometimes as straightforward as they seem....

[deak]

thank the lord for wireless

this thread is really heping pass the time while i sit on the throne indulging in a leisurely post work shit

keep fighting the good fight chaps

[mal-nourished]

having a wee jobbie... dont forget to flush..

[seasofcheese]

Roll does not cause lift and does cause drag. Mainly used in my case to make transition from rail to rail smooth but in the nose as a blended feature of the overall design. Rocker is more important in initial take-off and less is more. The Simmon's made by Bauguess incorporated a lower rocker with a little kick at the knuckle which has the odd effect of flicking it onto the plane without pushing water. The knee board of someone like George Greenough's design has lots of roll in the nose but almost immediately becomes flat. I have the original outline and rocker templates from his 1967 Velo which is perfect, and so it should be as he was using and modifying it almost daily for years.

[kayu]

The reason you don't have the needed roll in the entry Roy is that it would be difficult to incorporate into your build method. Planing happens on the wetted surface towards the tail. 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.

[kayu]

... 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.

........... there's been 1001 interpretations and copies of GG spoons , none yet have worked as good as the original.

[Roy Stuart]

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]

Simmons did not have a good understanding of hydrodynamics, he simply did a cut and paste job from Lord's book.

The fact that he used nose roll and unfoiled fins is evidence of this as is the application ( or misapplication) of the shorter design to longboards.

[Roy Stuart]

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]

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.


.

Your quoting boat theory again Roy....there are differences ( and similarities) ...however , your interpretation of thoery does not give you better performance.

[kayu]

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......flat tail rocker will get you down quicker and increases with wave size and power....

[Roy Stuart]

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 you are so far behind the play that it's laughable.

I didn't propose a one size fits all theory that was seasofcheese who proposed one i.e. ' less rocker is more'.

Less nose rocker means less lift produced, that means that the board takes longer to get on to the plane.

What you've done though is try to cover up your totally incorrect statement about bottom roll by blathering on about rocker, but never mind at least you'll never make that mistake again ! It must be embarrassing that so often you make nonsensical statemants parrotted from industry myths, and then get caught out.

Anyway regarding rocker we constanty hear the industry BS these days of 'lower rocker for early wave entry' it's total crap.

This board is one of the fastest on takeoff I've ever experienced. The combination of a lot of weight, great width, a massive amount of area and high rocker in the nose and a long flat tail with huge lifting foil make it a rocket, It can make sections on takeoffs which no regular longboard can even look at. Adding roll to the nose would reduce the advantage. On a wave of even moderate steepness all the nose area is used at the moment of takeoff, the nose dips and then lifts the board on to the plane almost instantaneously. It eats mals for breakfast !



This one is similar:










.

[kayu]

........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.. .......and endless pictures of you walking around the beach with a surfboard on your head shows little about performance...

[Roy Stuart]

........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.

.


Indeed it does deliver advantages in performance and these can be seen in the videos.

.

[Roy Stuart]

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.

The bottom line is that roll in the hull reduces lift, always.

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.

[danny1]

i think you boys should show all these mad threads to your mums and see what they say

[mal-nourished]

i know what mine would say danny she would ask who the freak with the gimpsuit is..

[Roy Stuart]

Your idiocy is partly but not entirely inherited genetically then Steve.

[kayu]

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.

Your back to your simple 'one size fits all theories' ......." SLGHT BOTTOM ROLL UNDER THE NOSE"....with concave of varying lengths through twin keels - planing chines from initial roll decreasing towards the tail.......you are incapable of using these hydrodynamic features with your build method . Show me the concave on the front of the slab bottom Roy.....I dont believe it exists because your photo conveniently hides that view of the board. ......so back to the mythical concaves that dont exist.....

[kayu]

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.

........My statement regarding the above laser cut pattern in relation to flex was made in jest , its only your lack of a sense of humour that prevented you from realising it..... ............edit = above pattern used nose to tail to join wooden planks for a deck would work quite well , and be more than strong enough for the deck........I might try something similar soon, sounds interesting !....would certainly be easier and quicker than clamping !....

[mal-nourished]

you want to bring family into it well thats just say your a bigger embarassment than the other idiot stewart...

[Black]

ok caught inside -> please

[mal-nourished]

-caught inside best place for this thread...

[flacky]

eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee, that's me out.

[Rickyroughneck]

Well Roy, there is no "one size fits all" for rocker. Theoretically a high front rocker gives maximum lift (as it allows the rest of the body to be flatter), but that is only for very large craft such as your wooden olos.

For a shorter boards, less rocker is more for the take-off because lying flat on the board, the entire board would be submerged which would work against you. The rider has to move back a bit pointing the board up so the tip is above the surface; the whole board effectively becomes the rocker. Since the board you created was a short one, Kayu was right about that.

Your idiocy is partly but not entirely inherited genetically then Steve.

Not a very nice thing to say, not true either since the genetic portion of intelligence is determined by thousands of loci. Environmental factors count much more towards character development.

[Black]

Its clear he's caused you great upset Mal but that last stuff can't be stated without direct irrefutable evidence. You aren't making a better more convincing point. The thread is lost to me.