Yesterday is History

... tomorrows a Mystery and today is a gift that is why its know as the present, a wonderful Chinese proverb… Paulownia, a wonderful Chinese wood. For now the board building is definitely on hold as I have signed a contract to return to DBGI in Wollongong, Australia, starting 01/12/2008. So the wait must go on until a suitable building area is arranged and material sort... thats if I don't redesign the whole thing between now and then. I will be staying with a friend (John) initially until Marta and Miguel head over or a nice place comes up, I just need to get myself a bike and East Corrimal here I come.

• View Google Map

I guess I will also shelve this BLOG and start more of a general blog to regularly post for my son to read... I have just installed a neat little "gadget" on this vista side bar thingy that may make posting even easier, so let's see how this goes, if all is good it is a much easier way to publish.

The wait...

It’s been a while without any hard progress on the construction of the board but it will hopefully recommence in 2 months time... I hope!

What has been happening: We have just moved out of town to the family get-together house/farm/vine-yard that no one has actually lived in for quite a few years and have been spending quite a bit of time rewiring and putting things in place (when not sitting on the veranda drinking a beer and trying to have an intelligent conversation with the dog). It has a shed around 7 x 3m that I will be fitting out to build the board (just the basics to start with) but still more then half full of junk that needs to be removed... Also my laptop blew up yet another reason for me not updating anything including the finalisation of the designs; but I got myself a nice 17" HP laptop now so with a little bit of luck I can still salvage enough of the info from my burnt out Toshiba to finish of the designs.

Why 2 months and not right now: well I am off back home to Australia in a couple of weeks to spend a month mucking around with friends and family. I hope everyone is well, the dream is well and truely alive... Note that my email gsmith@netcabo.pt is not active, in future please use:

• g5mith@hotmail.com
• greg-smith@live.com.au

D FIN - PROFILE

I still haven't got stuck into the meat and potatoes of the project but I have started the D Fin with thanks to "Le Perit" and his thread on MSW entitled: "cheap fins"…

It all commenced when walking with my lovely wife through a house-hold shop when suddenly out of the blue they caught my eye. A stack of beautiful thick wooden chopping blocks and all I could think about was what lovely fins they would make.

So, 1.74 euros, 3 beers and a Jig Saw... PRICELESS! I made it as far as cutting it out, next I need to recalculate the foil with respect to the new thickness, map out the dimensions and work on the process to complete the profiles to as near as possible to the designed foils. Also a planer and electric sander to foil it wouldn't hurt; but don't hold your breath as I can’t see much happening within the next few months.

Useful Links:

• MSW Thread: "Cheap Fins" by Le Perit
  

Forum Posts relating to the progress of my design:

• MSW Thread: HWS -9'6x22.5"x3"x18"x16.5"
• Surfing-waves Thread: HWS -9'6x22.5"x3"x18"x16.5"

Fish Bones...

I won’t write much but will say that final designs for the inner structure and blank are only hours away, so pretty excited... when I get time to complete the final few hours of work is yet to be determined.

Frame details:

Density= 0.0000004 kg/mm^3
Volume= 8160994.662 mm^3
Mass= 3.264 kg
Surface Area= 1780029.383 mm^2

Center Of Mass (& Volume); with respect to the Global Coordinate System:

X= 1486.6 mm (total length aprox. 3m)
Y= 0.0 mm
Z= 54.6 mm

The total weight of the blank before any deck/bottom profiles and rails are in shaped stands at around the 23kg dependent on material. I am expecting the final weight (without glass) to fall down below 20kg.

The overall design for the skin has diversified eliminating the 45 degree slats to reduce the degree of dificulty in building the board. You may also notice that the inner structure has also been modified for similar reasons. My brother in-law is talking with a friend that owns a Carpenter’s shop and he seems willing to help out with the procuring of material, maybe even the use of machines such as bench drills that will greatly improve the quallity of the finished product.

Useful Links: By the way, thankyou for all the GREAT comments in the post below... noting the sarcasm! Now some links that I want to save; the first few give a good idea of the building process:

• Wood_waverider - First hollow wooden board (picture heavy)
• Robbo's Hollow Wooden Pics
• Paul Jensen - Lets here the construction Process
• Channels on longer boards
• Cberryh2o - Noserider nose - if not concave, then what?
• Paul Jensen - Hollow Board Builders...
• Meatball – Building decoritive wood core longboard fins.

Rocker – Just lines

Well progression has been slow but finally after many reworks I have developed a continuous low profile rocker that I believe should be quite functional for a nose riding Longboard. One element that I would like to have included is a nose concave. Being unhappy with the way in which it integrated with the bottom roll and my inexperience in building HWS, I have decided to remove it from the current design but may reapply it for the next board.

I kept it rather simple concentrating on three primary rocker profiles, Bottom, Rail and Deck that have been developed with reference to each other. The Deck Rocker has approximately 50% of the lift of the Bottom Rocker ie. If the bottom rises 2” the deck raises 1”. This has created two independent profiles that are relatively parallel with respect to any two points of close proximity and results in overall cord thicknesses over the 114.5” (plainer length not curvilinear length) in the range of:

• 1.5” from the nose = 1.53”
• 45” to 50”mark from the tail (Wide point ) = 3”
• 1.5” from the tail = 1.65”

This was done in an attempt to encourage a more equilateral flex ratio through out the centre of the board with further restriction on bending placed on the nose and tail flex through rib placement. My idea behind doing so is that when one is on the nose bending will be permitted or limited to the centre of the board further flattening the bottom profile and in turn aiding nose ridding. The bending in the tail region has also been restricted to enable the structure to cope with the coaxial forces that may be produced by pressure from the D Fin whilst undertaking such things as turning.

Nose lift is approximately 4” whilst the tail lift is around the 4 3/8”; Noting that these values are for maximum rocker at point 0 (tail) and 114.5 (nose) and including an addition of lift resulting from the rail profile. Through my research I have identified that tail lift is extremely important for boards designed for nose riding, even more so then such things as nose concaves and the like. It is hoped that the functional ability of the design as a nose riding board will be enhanced by keeping a flat rocker profile with the wide point and apex of rocker shift behind the centroid of length.

Naturally the Bottom Rocker was the first to be developed with points on the nose side of the apex obtained simple by adding a linier deviation of 3/8” in the Y-direction (Y0 = 0 @ 50”). The Tail side of the Bottom rocker in the Y-direction was obtained using the following limiting equations:

Y0 = 0 @ 45.5”
Yn = (Yn-1 + 0.25) + [0.025 x (n - 1)] …(where, n > 0)

Positions in the X-direction (from the nose) where determined through the use of the separate limiting equation; refer to the Excel plot for results. The Rail Rocker was initially set to enable the development of 50/50 rails through the centre with a modification in the nose and tail that enable it to taper into 60/40 down rails at the nose and 40/60 up rails at the tail.

As any designer knows, actual values will undoubtedly deviate from the desired values and the reality is that it’s just a plan or grouping of ideas; as one of my high school teachers always said: “failure to plan is planning to fail”. This first board may just be a dog, but having the data to reflect back on will definitely be beneficial next time around.

Rocker - The basics

Rocker can be defined as the curve or profile from nose to tail of a surfboard when viewed from the side. It is generally accepted and considered to be the single most important feature in the design of a surfboard as it is the primary profile that governs the fluid flow from its entry point to its release.

Through my research into the feasibility or application of an appropriate rocker profile, I have come to understand that a complex balance of curves and/or straight lines are blended together to create a well designed surfboard; some to enhance speed, others to increase manoeuvrability, maybe even a focus on flexibility. These curves include but are not limited to such things as Rocker lines (nose, tail, entry, deck, bottom, and rail), bottom profiles (such as concaves, V’s or rolls), rail form (up, down, 50/50, boxy, knife, soft, etc. etc.), foil thickness right through to the basic plan shape or template. So, rocker may just be “the single most important feature in the design of a surfboard”, but the art or manner in which these curves are blended, merged or conjugated is of equally high importance. In considering the points above, I feel that it is better to state that a well designed bottom rocker that is both functional and in tune with the design parameters on a whole is the foundation in the search for that “magic board”.

In my search I have identified three basic Bottom Rocker forms categorised as: (1) Continuous curve, (2) Staged and (3) hybrid. I have designed my rocker around the continuous rocker concept and hence will explain very little, if anything about the other two forms.

As the name implies, continuous curve rocker is a bottom profile with no flat areas that commences with tighter curves through the nose and entry area of the surfboard and in turn are developed to flow into curves of a larger arc in the mid and tail section of the board. The primary design concept in the application of a continuous curve rocker is to enhance or create a smooth transition in and out of a turn. As for all three rocker types, many governing factors such as the length, cord thickness and other relevant curves that exist as previously outlined above must also be considered in order to develop a functional profile that benefits the overall design.

My understanding is that when continuous curves are applied to the design of a bottom rocker for a Longboard it’s done in such a way to produce a curve that is flatter through out. The flatter rocker inherent in the design of the nose and mid sections of a Longboard helps to develop the trimming area of the board. The curves positioned behind the peak of the rocker curvature are primarily for turning purposes although often adjusted to influence the riding performance or characteristics; ie. Symmetrically centred boards diverge and ascend about the central point or centroid of length, where as boards designed with nose riding as a primary function generally have the maximum width or wide point shifted behind the centroid of the length and conversely exiting rocker curves are initiated beyond this point. In the case of a nose rider, tighter curves are generally utilised in the tail (referred to as tail rocker or tail lift) to encourages such things as water flow over and around the rails (highly dependent on rail rocker and profile) and in doing so induces a drag force that impairs maximum velocity and in part causes the tail to be sucked into the wall. In turn this aids or in some instances enables a board to be ridden closer to the curl. Cutting it short, this addition of tail rocker benefits nose riding for a number of reasons and therefore should be considered and applied if nose riding is a functional aspect of your design.

Some basic rules to rocker, by Dave Parmenter, February 2001 (taken from: SURFLINE)

Some basic 'rules' concerning rocker are as follows: The more rocker or bottom curve that a board has, the looser (but slower) it will be. Water flow has to follow the excess curve, ends up pushing water, and drag is the result. Flatter rocker brings more speed but brings a decrease in manoeuvrability. Generally, boards with more rocker work better in larger, hollow waves where the added curve and drag can contribute to more control for the rider. Flatter bottoms are normally used on small-wave boards designed for slower, mushier surf, where the speed (and added leverage) helps keep the board planning.

As with every other aspect of surfboard design, the best option lies in the happy medium of compromise. The better-designed surfboard steers clear of extremes and finds that an even, neutral rocker serves best: flat enough to be fast and efficient, but with enough curve to let the surfboard fit into the curved face of the wave and allow for the tight turns that are the mainstay of performance surfing.

A section taken from SCSURFERS site, entitled: What rocker does, one by one, comments geared towards longboards:

Nose rocker - more here makes a board resistant to nose diving or pearling. Less rocker here makes a board go faster and stall less, easier paddling as the board glides through the water, not pushing the water. Less rocker here is better for nose riding, rocker all the way through; generally slows it all down some, but makes a board turn well.

Tail rocker - makes a board turn real well, easier drops into the wave for a speedier entry, and also aids in nose riding... but pays a large speed penalty due to drag both while riding and paddling.

The best is a combination of all. Modern boards need to be able to turn to get speed, so tail rocker is important, and it's not exactly true that "flatter is faster" on a wave, maybe on flat water with a sailboard, but not on a wave.

Thats not a FIN

... this is a FIN. Well I am pleased to say that as of this week I can confirm that my HWS design is no Chinese shark as the fin design is finally all but finished... Frontal height from base to tip has been set at 9” with a perpendicular base cord length of around 10”. The actual fin base finished up around the 9.5” mark. The trailing edge has been setup to extend 1” past the tail at a height of 8”, measured from the center line of the rail at the tail and the fin height from the back stands at 10”.

The cord length used to calculate the foil was one inch larger then the designed cord length as explained earlier in the section entitled “The D Fin”. Due to the thickness (approximately 1.5”) obtained when using a NACA 0012 foil in conjunction with my cord lengths, a NACA 0007 foil was chosen. This was done partly due to a gut feeling but more on the fact that Tom Wegener makes his fins ¾” thick. Hopefully I can get some numbers for such things as the total surface area, volume, etc. at a later date if I ever get around to modeling it in 3D. I am now contemplating whether or not to glass the fin lightly to create a positive buoyant fin which could provide some positive benefits in terms of increased buoyancy, reduced weight, higher flex coefficient, increased angular thrust force, etc. or to go with the original idea of thick glass primarily for use as a counter balance.

Foil design:

Three major influences have historically effected the design of foils, Bernoulli´s Principle, Coanda Effect and Newton’s Third Law of motion.

Bernoulli’s Principle basically states that with a high velocity fluid flow, a lower pressure is exerted on a surface parallel to the flow. Wikipedia states “It is a common misconception that the pressure differential (caused by the Bernoulli principle) is the direct cause of lift”. Therefore it is safe to say that Bernoulli principle provides a means for generating the deflection which inturn generates lift, or alternatively drag. The Coanda Effect states that “a fluid stream will follow a surface that curves away”. Newton’s Third law helps explain that a downwards deflected fluid flow is balanced by an equal upward force on the foil, hence lift.

For symmetric foils (eg. NACA 00xx) with zero angle of attack the factor for lift is cancelled or equivalent to zero. This is the case in general for a surfboard center fin moving in a straight line; hence foils are a very important factor when designing surfboard fins. In order to calculate the profile of a symmetric NACA 00xx foil the following formula can be used, with "xx" representing the percentage of the thickness of the chord:

y = (t/0.20).[0.29690.(x^1/2) -0.12600.(x) – 0.35160.(x^2) + 0.28430.(x^3) -0.10150.(x^4)]

Where :

y = The thickness of the foil at any given value of X
x = Possition along the cord from 0 to 1
t = The maximum thickness as a fraction of the cord

The leading edge of the foil is approximated by a cylinder with a radius (r) of:

r = 1.1019.(t^2)

Alternatively, you may prefer to use the link posted earlier to a site that automatically calculates the the foil with minimal amount of user input.

Useful Links:

• Wikipedia - Foil
• Phil's Foils - Design Tips
• Surfline - Foil
• Swaylock's - Myth of Bernoulli's Principle
• Coanda Effect: Understanding Why Wings Work, by Jef Raskin

Unwritten Rules

With the seemingly ever increasing commercialisation or shale we say exploitation of surfing, one negative aspect of surf culture continues to raises its ugly head, namely "Localism". One article that explains a lot is entitled: “The Stain on the Soul of Surfing”, by Glenn Hening. Although the pure violent aspects of localism should "probably not" be condoned, other more positive aspects encompassed by the term are in place to establish respect and assure safety for everyone in the immediate area. Either way you look at it, there is a need for every surfer to understand why such things are often in place, how to work within the boundaries and how to avoid the problem area altogether.

"In general usage, localism (local+ism) refers to a tendency of local groups (cultures, nations, communities) to be narrow in their worldview, and dismissive of concepts which emphasise broader concepts of community, such as globalism and universalism. In this context, localism may refer to exclusive or self-oriented concepts (ethnocentrism, nationalism, and classism), and is often a suitable substitute for terms which may be considered more pejorative in particular contexts." (wikipedia)

Generally speaking, if one respects and adopts the etiquettes of surfing they generally will not run into problems; remember, give respect and get respect, an easy concept that goes along way. It is in the best interests of everyone out there to have a working knowledge of, dare I say " the rules" and therefore one must seek to educate ones self. I have picked out a few articles/sites and may add more links at a later date, so have a read; it is in your best interests as a surfer!

The Unwritten law:
Surfrider Foundation - Surfers Code of Effics
http://www.surfit.com.au/Surfit/Display.asp?ss=5&AID=263&CID=78
http://www.hawaii.rr.com/leisure/reviews/neal_miyake/images/2003/10/2003-10_turosurfing004.jpg
THE UNWRITTEN LAW OF SURFING AND THE RULES IN BLACK & WHITE
communicate on wave

A few tips on how to avoid or limit problems:
Nat Young - Plaque, The Spirit of Surfing
How to deal with localism

Surf Culture:
Surf Culture
Spirit of Surfing
How to spot a "KOOK"

Articles on Localism:
Surfmag - Localism Works
The Stain on the Soul of Surfing
Law of the Surf Forum, Ed. Brian Fitzgerald & Geoffrey Clarke

Soul Surfing

Thanks to Chuck for pointing out a mistake in my spelling of soul that I would normally pass off as being Australian and an Engineer. So, I will get off track this week as I have decided to outline the differences of both words and attempt to delve into the mystery or lack there of, for the use of the term "soul surfing".

"Sole or soul? Do not confuse the spelling of sole and soul, which sound similar. There are several words spelled sole: one means "the underside of the foot or of a shoe," and can also be used as a verb meaning "put a sole on a shoe"; another is a noun denoting a fish; a third is an adjective meaning "only" or "exclusive" (as in the sole reason, sole responsibility). Soul is a noun meaning "a person's nonphysical aspect or spirit," "spiritual depth," or simply "a person," as in heart and soul, a novel that lacks soul, not a soul to be seen. Soul is also used in such compounds as soul-destroying, soul mate, soul music, and soul-searching." (wikipedia)

Soul Searching: "deep and careful consideration of inner thoughts, especially about a moral problem." (Cambridge Dictionary)

Soul Surfing: "...generally used to describe the type of riding practiced by a non-commercial, non-competitive surfer; a "pure" surfer; a surfer who rides for personal enrichment only... ...the origins of "soul surfing" are rooted in the late 60's, as the sport or "art," or "dance-form," or "lifestyle," as surfing was variously described at the time threw itself headlong into the counterculture." (surfline.com)

In a brief search of the internet I stumbled upon some interesting sites, including this one entitled: "The Seven Levels of Surfers - a guide to surfing Soul". After reading this article I tried to categories myself to see just where I sit in the eyes of the author. Looking back over the last 10 years I can automatically cancel out Level 7, 6, 3, 2, and 1 for obvious reasons although having many of their traits. I then find myself caught between Level 5, the Amateur and Level 4, the weekender.

The amateur is described as a person who “loves to surf for its own sake; the simple pleasure of riding the wave is enough". The author caries on to state that "Amateurs almost always use boards from small custom shapers that are local to their break. Amateurs have Stoke and use it frequently." I feel that before venturing to Portugal I fitted well within this Level, but at present the "Weekender" as described as "the guy who goes to the beach to surf on weekends or his odd vacations days but may not put the highest priority on making time for surfing compared to other pursuits such as family, work or some other Art." My current geographic location restricts me from fulfilling my need to surf and I find myself falling solidly into the status of a "weekend warrior". He continues stating that "Weekenders have Stoke but sometimes don't get to show it as often as they would like”, so I am leaning more towards the authors classification of a weekender; in the end who really care.

People surf for a number of different reasons but in general surfers are all just out there to have fun and enjoy them selves, when this enjoyment is removed so is the stoke and the spirit that proves that surfing is more than just a sport.

Useful Links: A few other articles/sites that I came across that are worthy of a mention are:

• http://www.soulsurfing.com/kg-interview.htm
• http://www.soulsurfing.com/soul-surfing-quotes.htm
• http://www.surf4thesoul.com/soulsurfnow.htm
• http://www.surfline.com/community/whoknows/whoknows.cfm?id=1114

Plastic Machine

After writing about D-fins I feel that a section should be dedicated to highlight the incredable design achievements of the late 1960's. By this I am refering to the teaming up of Bob Mctavish, George Greenough and Nat Young to develope the V-Bottom or otherwise know as the "Plastic Machine". This design has been acredited with starting the shortboard movement that created a shift in the norm and hence the progression away from the longboard.

• http://www.surfresearch.com.au/00000003.html
• http://www.surfresearch.com.au/00000026.html
• http://www.surfresearch.com.au/00000107.html
• http://www.surfresearch.com.au/00000115.html
• http://www.surfresearch.com.au/00000168.html

With the innovative fin designs of George Greenough the keel fin design was laid to rest... combining this knowledge with the likes of Bob McTavish and the skill and aggressive surfing of Nat Young the shortboard era commenced; hence the early retro shortboards took over as the norm. A good movie for anyone interested in George is CRYSTAL VOYAGER. For now here is a clip of George mating: YOUTUBE

There is a fair bit of infomation within the links above... The following statement was taken from the Surf Research site: "The short board just didn't suddenly 'happen' in sense - although it did in another. In the 1967-68 season the innovators (primarily Bob McTavish and Midget Farrelly) came up with an 8 to 8' 4" board with a vee bottom, a wide tail and a full nose. This started the slide away from the classic 9-footers. The Vee-bottom lasted just one season. Then it was the year of the Pintail and the Tracker. And the surge to shorter boards was on!". Note the high aspect George Greenough influenced fin in the photo to the left that were incorporated into the design.

The following statement was taken from the Surf Museum site: "In the beginning of 1967, McTavish concentrated on an entirely new bottom design. The design consisted of a deep “V” shaped into the back third of the board, and a wide tail. He called this surfboard the “Plastic Machine.” For seven months, these boards got lighter and smaller; down to 7'6" with a weight of 14 pounds. All had the new type of fin invented by George Greenough. These “high-aspect ratio fins” came from the template of a blue fin tuna. For the first time, fins gave turning leverage to surfboards rather than just steering them."

This design is a tribute to team work and the inspiration of others. By working together and sharing ideas great things can be acomplished.

The "D" Fin

Well I was tossing up what to talk about next, but with a thread on D-fins popping up on swaylocks I have decided to go into the chosen fin for my HWS design or more to the point the magnificent D-FIN; a design that effectively incurs a drag coefficient that reflects positively on the overall design concept of a 1960's nose rider.

The D fin was popularized back in the early 60's before George Greenough came on the seen with his radical high aspect fin profile based around the shape of the tuna fish fin. The most notable feature or difference between fins such as the D-fin and those based around his design concept is the way in which they affect the turning capabilities. D-fins are generally considered as a pure turning fin that provides the user a means of turning a board. George’s designs were considered radical in their time as they not only enabled turning but added a new dimension to fin design known as DRIVE.

Driving fins have a characteristic flex built into their design and coupled with their streamlined foiling; a spring is effectively created driving the boards out of a turn bring it back to speed. Although I love the work of George Greenough, it was a given fact that if I was to design a HWS based around the design concepts of the late 50's early 60's it would definitely need to have a D-Fin attached.

The general profile of a D-fin exhibits higher drag forces then other designs, but this is not considered as a limitation to the overall design when the board in question is being designed with nose riding in mind. By inducing drag forces at the fin position the fin can effectively be used as a cantilever pulling the tail down into the wave or the curl to aid nose riding by lifting the nose up. Further more by positioning the tip beyond the tail position of the board the effective lever arm is increased. A major draw back in their use is the lack of maneuverability. Check out Tom Wegners paper entitled "fins": http://www.tomwegenersurfboards.com/html/fins.html

My fin will be constructed internally of wood before being glassed. This could result in a positive buoyant fin if glassed lightly but I have plans to finish the fin with several layers of glass in turn dramatically increasing its weight, so I am guessing this will not be the case. The plan at this stage is to foil the fin according to a NACA0012 foil for a given cord greater then that of the actual cord length of the fin. In doing so the leading edge and fin surface will follow the profile of a NACA0012 foil but finish short as the actual cord length will be less then that of the designed cord length and in turn reduce the efficiency of the fin by inducing drag at the trailing edge. Length or depth of fin has not been set yet and will not be finalised until the rocker profiles have been set in place; preliminary designs have it set at around 9" to 10".

• Swaylocks - Need help with D fin template

Design Theory

To kick off the design process a basic understanding of the underlying design constraints and theories was required. I started developing this back in 2003/4, where I initially focused on fin design and flow across the fin surface with the hope of understanding how a fin should be foiled. One nice piece of work that dives into a comparison of the fluid flow about a single fin with that of a three fin thruster setup can be found here: CFD_report. I had just started to understand the relevance of Naca numbers and how the developed profiles can be applied to the fin design of a surfboard when I stumbled across SWAYLOCKS, the definitive surfboard design forum: www.swaylocks.com/forum. After many hours of interesting reading two pdf files were obtained that really help explain the basic design aspects of a surfboard.

• Surfboard_Design_and_Construction_1977.pdf
• SurfboardDesign.pdf

In addition to these two documents you may like to have a look at a brief but descriptive section on the Surf Line site. This section entitled: "A Surfboard Anatomy" is aimed at explaining the anatomy of different forms of the surfboard: www.surfline.com/mag/features/anatomy. Another site for Design ideas is: http://scsurfers.com/boardpage.html, but you just cant beat Sway's: Surfboard design theory

Before any of the above is put into practice you should also try to understand a little more about a surfboards application by considering the fluid dynamics that are employed when riding a wave. I wish that I had paid more attention in my Heat Transfer and Gas Dynamics lectures as it would definitely have made this area a little less baffling. Also have a read through Sway's as like most topics, there is some interesting information there. One thesis that I would love to get a complete copy of is "Hydrodynamics of Surfboards" by Michael Paine.

• Terry Hendricks, Ph.D. (sdbchguy) on Surfboard Hydrodynamics

History although a topic on its own, is one very important information gathering device that further helps you to gain a greater understanding of where the surf board came from to what it has become today. I urge you to have a read, there are a lot of sites around the net but keep in mind that not all the literiture documented is entirerly true. One popular misconseption that I have seen documented is that of who was the originator of the first 3 fin triangular configured surfboard. Simon Anderson is often acredited with this for show caseing his design in 1980 known as the "Thruster" setup. It is interesting to note that Malcolm and Duncan Campbell first built a 3 fined "bonzer" in December 1970 that also utilised single to double concave. Duncan states: "In 1970 there were three groups of designer/shapers who were working on the three-fin idea: Bob McTavish in Australia, Dick Brewer, Reno Abellira and others in Hawai'i; and my brother and I. But there were two differences between their designs and ours. We were the first to put the two side fins in front of the center fin. All the other three-fin systems prior to ours had the side fins either parallel to the center fin or behind it. Ours is the same fin position that you see today on all Thrusters — the dominant design on contemporary surfboards. In this sense, our Bonzer had the archetypal three-fin system. Just to get started here is a link to get some ideas: http://www.surfpedia.com/history/boarddesign.html

Along the way I also came across a good "free" piece of surfboard design software entitled APS3000 (now aku) that is downloadable at: http://www.aps3000.com/; Although after a bit of a play I have decided that both AutoCAD and/or Solid Edge (amongst other software) can complete the design activities for a HWS better. APS3000 looks great and is relatively user friendly; if you were planning to make a board out of a solid piece of material such as wood, EPS, PU, etc. this program would undoubtedly be a very useful tool.

Another neat site that I found quite interesting is entitled Surf Board Interactive, where you can play about with board shapes online.

Useful Links:

• sticktheory.com - Virtually a data base on surfboard technologies
• Surfpedia - History
• Terry Hendricks, Ph.D. Surfboard Hydrodynamics
• Michael Paine, "Hydrodynamics of Surfboards"
• SCSurfers.com - Ideas and principles

In the begining

Well it is 11:55pm and this BLOG is set to kick off its life on the 7th of November 2006 at 12:00am, so welcome and I hope you enjoy the site...

As previously stated, this current Blog will have a focus on the design of a Hollow Wooden Surfboard (HWS) or what also could be referred to as a chambered wooden board that at this stage may or may not be built. Throughout the course of this project minor projects such as fins maybe designed and produced for my current board in order to build up the necessary tools and experience that I will undoubtedly require to construct such a board. So with that said and done I thought I would kick off the Blog by uploading one of the many hand drawn sketches that I completed in the preliminary design stages.

At present I have commenced creation of 2D CAD drawings in order to develop a suitable Plain Shape and Rocker profile/template. Before I get into any of that I feel that it would be beneficial to provide some background information into why I have chosen to attempt such a project and some of the many motivations behind deciding on a HWS. Over the coming days I hope to fill in some more detail to bring this Blog up to my current stage of the design process.

Why wood? A number of influences led to the selection of wood as the primary building material include weight (ie. momentum), life, beauty, traditional material, practicality, workability and availability... and I guess the few forum discussions (or rants, depending on your perspective) that I have been involved in with Mr. Roy Stewart (father of 12) where he has continually expresses his love for the wooden Olo as a tool in a continuous (or dare I say monotonous) search for speed. Check out Roy's site: olosurfer.com

Another great board builder who’s work I love is Mr. Tom Wegener. He has a number of interesting articles on his site: http://www.tomwegenersurfboards.com/; he also states that "the wood surfboards ride better than the foam boards and will last many times longer". I hope to build a board that can be used by me, my friends and family for many generations to come, wood just seems natural.