Quad Concave Body Board Study

What works and what doesn't. Share design ideas, references and contacts for paipo board builders.
PhillyViking
Big Wave Charger
Posts: 86
Joined: Sat Aug 20, 2011 8:38 am

Re: Quad Concave Body Board Study

#61

Unread post by PhillyViking »

Wow, my eyes tricked me. I looked at actual specs of MND compared to Hubb board. There is actually more difference between wp to nose and wp-tail of hub than MND. The defining difference is in the NTWP (Nose to wide point). Hubb is further forward than MND. I suppose that makes it look less rounded because the transition is more gradual.

Hubb MND
Len 42.5 42.5
Nose 11.75 12
NTWP 17.5 19.75
WP 21.375 21.125
Tail 18.25 18.125

WP-Tail Delta 3.125 3
WP-Nose 9.625 9.125

https://hubboards.com/products/hubb-edi ... e277&_ss=r
https://bodyboardking.com/p/9419012/nmd ... model.html
User avatar
krusher74
Big Wave Charger
Posts: 842
Joined: Wed Nov 07, 2012 3:53 pm
City: easkey
State or Province: co sligo
Country: Ireland
Interests: Surfing, vintage cars and motorbikes
Location: Easky, Co sligo , ireland
Contact:

Re: Quad Concave Body Board Study

#62

Unread post by krusher74 »

Hub design is quite unusual in the bodyboard pro world. most including myself ride a board that has a curve that balances of speed/maneuverability. His leans more to the speed side. He is also one of the few pros that ride a battail, this also promotes more speed, but make the tail looser and easier to disengage/slide out in a hard bottom turn.

I have never tried one of the quad channels so can't speak to how much extra grip/projection it gives over the standard 2 channel design. but i agree with your theory of going too far forward on the board would be bad.

bodyboard design had been very stagnant for 20 years, and that quad concave has given bodyboarders something "new" to justify a new board purchase. And I bet it has sold a lot of new boards. Whether it has a great deal of R&D behind it I don't know, but it's been out in a single form for a few years now with little changes that I am aware of.
As most companies boards come out of one factory in indo I dont think a alot of them have much intereatcion in the design process, certianly not like a shaper in a room with a fresh blank. Design concepts like my belly nose arnt possible with bodyboard construction. So thing like channals are about as far as you can go. So you end up with the l=design being limited by what you can actually make.

I can't say that many bodyboarders that i speak to have much interest or knowledge of board design. And many will ride a board for 10 or 20 years because it "does the job" and they don't know or care whether another might do the job better. Its like "we" all basically ride a 6.0 short board and the varitions are a 5.11 or 6.1. Thats why I came to paipos they gave me scope to design and try things.
User avatar
krusher74
Big Wave Charger
Posts: 842
Joined: Wed Nov 07, 2012 3:53 pm
City: easkey
State or Province: co sligo
Country: Ireland
Interests: Surfing, vintage cars and motorbikes
Location: Easky, Co sligo , ireland
Contact:

Re: Quad Concave Body Board Study

#63

Unread post by krusher74 »

User avatar
krusher74
Big Wave Charger
Posts: 842
Joined: Wed Nov 07, 2012 3:53 pm
City: easkey
State or Province: co sligo
Country: Ireland
Interests: Surfing, vintage cars and motorbikes
Location: Easky, Co sligo , ireland
Contact:

Re: Quad Concave Body Board Study

#64

Unread post by krusher74 »

PhillyViking wrote: Sat Oct 24, 2020 12:17 pm Wow, my eyes tricked me. I looked at actual specs of MND compared to Hubb board. There is actually more difference between wp to nose and wp-tail of hub than MND. The defining difference is in the NTWP (Nose to wide point). Hubb is further forward than MND. I suppose that makes it look less rounded because the transition is more gradual.

Hubb MND
Len 42.5 42.5
Nose 11.75 12
NTWP 17.5 19.75
WP 21.375 21.125
Tail 18.25 18.125

WP-Tail Delta 3.125 3
WP-Nose 9.625 9.125

https://hubboards.com/products/hubb-edi ... e277&_ss=r
https://bodyboardking.com/p/9419012/nmd ... model.html
you did well to find the DIMS, back in the day they always use to be on boards, but then they realized them hardly meant anything to most people and they just bought from length, colour, and is it my fave pros model. Most online shops won't give dims.

you also never get thickness, so you can get very differant volume 42" boards if they are 1/4 1/8" thickness difference.

One thing you also struggle to get is a thick short board is you are a heavy short guy or a thin long board if you are a tail skinny guy. even most custom shaper all sharp with one thickness core.

out of interest i just measures the board my paipo is taken from
len 42"
nose11.75
ntwp 20.5
wp 21.25
tail 18.
I found that board to be my fav size and template over 15 years ago, not much changes in the bodyboard world.
Nels
Big Wave Charger
Posts: 254
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2011 3:58 pm
City: Camarillo
State or Province: California
Country: USA

Re: Quad Concave Body Board Study

#65

Unread post by Nels »

bodyboard design had been very stagnant for 20 years, and that quad concave has given bodyboarders something "new" to justify a new board purchase. And I bet it has sold a lot of new boards. Whether it has a great deal of R&D behind it I don't know, but it's been out in a single form for a few years now with little changes that I am aware of.
As a long-time bodyboarder - since 1977 - the lack of design evolution in bodyboards has bugged me for decades really. But in recent years...I am getting over it. A lot of my angst probably came from coming into standup surfing a decade before bodyboarding, in the "transition era" as it's called now. The shortboard revolution. All that excitement and that really carried on until the thruster was developed. One gets spoiled.

But in recent years the thought comes to me that maybe Morey invented something that was 60% "there" right at the beginning. That seems insane, right? But it's going to be 50 years, a half-century, next year...and the latest most high-tech bodyboard is easily traceable to the original. The word "stagnant" does come to mind, but then...maybe it's more about riding the wave than riding the board. Does that make sense?

That said, I watched the vid of Ben Player I think it was on a quad channel, and it looked like he was on ball-bearings or something in some of the earlier shots. He would be accelerating out onto the shoulder with a heavy upward nose angle on the board - should have been pushing water and slowing down. That says to me the bottom of the board was doing something good...

If my primary computer didn't blow up last night...if there were any selection of new bodyboards still out there for sale after the first 7 months of the pandemic ravaged the surfing hard goods supply...I'd pony up and try the design...

Nels
Nels
Big Wave Charger
Posts: 254
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2011 3:58 pm
City: Camarillo
State or Province: California
Country: USA

Re: Quad Concave Body Board Study

#66

Unread post by Nels »

Follow-up to previous post:

Spent some time cruising the net looking at bodyboard stuff. Saw vids of boards with different bottoms, spent a fair bit of time poking around Bodyboardking I think it was from Australia. Man oh man...the variety of stuff available down there. Finally called up a currency exchange calculator too, and that reminded me of one of the inhibitors for bodyboard design advancement and acceptance of change.

Jay Reale of ebodyboarding.com here in California told me a couple of years ago that bodyboard materials start to give it up after a year. Heat and other factors make them start to deteriorate. Inevitable no matter the care. I'm one of the people who hang on for years. To be fair in periods where I can surf more I mix up the equipment so things don't tend to get ridden into the ground quickly.

From the look of the massively more advanced Bodyboardking website, the most advanced bodyboards are running in the U.S. $350-$400 range. That's a lot to spend for something that has a short shelf-life for peak performance. That has to slow forward movement down when it comes to design. I know, still cheaper than modern shortboards that may only have that shelf-life or less with regular use - but take a look at the general "health" of modern surfing. Surfing hard goods had a great 2020 but if the general world economy tanks at the start of 2021, there are lean times coming.

That said, there are heaps more interesting things happening in bodyboards than I was aware of with what must be a local tunnel vision I've developed. This year was reduced frequency but I haven't seen many serious bodyboarders at all in recent years. Can't tell off the beach who is on state of art boards. I see more geezers on decent bodyboards than serious younger people recently.
User avatar
krusher74
Big Wave Charger
Posts: 842
Joined: Wed Nov 07, 2012 3:53 pm
City: easkey
State or Province: co sligo
Country: Ireland
Interests: Surfing, vintage cars and motorbikes
Location: Easky, Co sligo , ireland
Contact:

Re: Quad Concave Body Board Study

#67

Unread post by krusher74 »

Nels wrote: Mon Oct 26, 2020 2:12 am Follow-up to previous post:



Jay Reale of ebodyboarding.com here in California told me a couple of years ago that bodyboard materials start to give it up after a year. Heat and other factors make them start to deteriorate. Inevitable no matter the care. I'm one of the people who hang on for years. To be fair in periods where I can surf more I mix up the equipment so things don't tend to get ridden into the ground quickly.
The history of bodyboard materials is quite interesting. Blanks for surfboards are specifically chemically designed and made for the job. Whereas bodyboard are made from materials made on much larger scale for other uses.
Back around the late 90's boards were made from large bead polypropylene, that material had "pop" that lasted. I still have a BZ from that era that i ride and has retained it spring even though well used for 20 years. then all of a sudden the industry that used that material switched to something else and overnight the bodyboard world lost its best core. (useless someone wanted that factory do a foam block production run, which would be a 1/2mil$ order)
so the core we now have is what took MEZ of NMD and the factory in indo that make all the boards a couple of years to find. As Jay say they have POP now for maybe the first 6 months and then they go kinda dead. its not like they it makes a big difference. but the pop of a fresh board is nice while it lasts. You forget what it feels like on an older board till you buy a new one.

As far as design and innovation, no one is doing more (and local to you) than https://www.roninbodyboards.com/ right now. you could have quad from him for around $250.
User avatar
krusher74
Big Wave Charger
Posts: 842
Joined: Wed Nov 07, 2012 3:53 pm
City: easkey
State or Province: co sligo
Country: Ireland
Interests: Surfing, vintage cars and motorbikes
Location: Easky, Co sligo , ireland
Contact:

Re: Quad Concave Body Board Study

#68

Unread post by krusher74 »

Nels wrote: Sun Oct 25, 2020 11:24 pm But in recent years the thought comes to me that maybe Morey invented something that was 60% "there" right at the beginning. That seems insane, right? But it's going to be 50 years
Nels
The original Morey Boogie Board was 45 inches, long, 25 inches wide, So that's a 1.8 length to width ratio.

A standard 2020 bodyboard is about 42" by 20.5" a ratio of 2.05

So he was at 90% of the modern length to width ratio on his first go. And the modern average length ended up being 93% of his first board also.

and in only 12 years the mach 7-7 was where most modern boards have been every since. (just one of tom's many inventions)

I think without the easy ability to move (foot) position like a standup surfer can then deviation much from these ratios makes a board very difficult to perform all "needed" parts of modern surfing.
Which wraps me back round to the philly nose discussion of not to much/long
PhillyViking
Big Wave Charger
Posts: 86
Joined: Sat Aug 20, 2011 8:38 am

Re: Quad Concave Body Board Study

#69

Unread post by PhillyViking »

Usher, what is about the Hubb that leads you to say its design is faster at the expense of 'turning' than others,e.g. MND? The aspect ratio and dims are close except for the WP being further forward.

Following is my attempt to pull togeather some things we have been talking about. I hope I am not just repeating myself.

Yes, there are details of BBs to consider but the essence of those descendants of the Boogie (e.g.Mach 7-7) foam boards is that they are planing hulls with aspect ratios reflecting the science of Linsay Lord and are right sized so that the rider can readily weight fore and aft for trim and turning without having to slide up and back on the board itself. Only leaning fore and aft is required.

Usher expressed the aspect ratio of his board as equal to Length / Width, i.e 2.05 is his reference board example. Linsay Lord and followers express the aspect ratio as W/L which is .49 for the reference board and .50 for the MND and Hubb boards we have looked at.
Lord's test results show a .4 ratio as the ideal for rough water and the ability to go wider in smooth conditions. (https://mypaipoboards.org/pubs/LordLind ... _ratio.pdf) In this article, John Elwell mentions .5 as a target. (https://mypaipoboards.org/interviews/Jo ... 0823.shtml) Of course there are design attributes to consider but the main Boogie board linage is right in line with Lord's science perhaps explaining the stability of the design over the years.

Noses complicate the comparison of BBs to paipo boards with extended nose features. In reviewing Lord' science (https://mypaipoboards.org/pubs/LordLind ... _ratio.pdf) I noticed his discussion of adding displacement bow- noses to otherwise planing hulls to smooth out water entry. When calculating aspect ratio he excludes the bow (nose) from the dims used to calculate the aspect ratio. Usher's rolled nose serves the same purpose as Linsay's bows especially at slow speed before planing.

A couple of weeks ago I stumbled upon and watched the bodyboard movie on Amazon Prime, Holding On - The Skid Kids Story. They rode conditions that were too intense for other craft and thought using a BB in weaker conditions was not a good application of the BB design or their interest. The shortness of BBs do seem optimal for intense conditions where you need to 'hold on' above all else and just do not want any excess out front to jam in. Likewise, once planing speed is reached the nose is not engaged so will not drag. But how about smaller conditions or places that have slow sections that peak back up?

I do see that as downside to be addressed. Usher added a couple inches to his reference design in his SDF board and used it for a belly in the nose to displace water prior to hitting planing speed. He felt he could get going sooner. He did not feel he sacrificed his ability to pivot fore-aft. Any surface area is gave up in the main planing area was not missed. However, He also used a conventional BB with a wider nose for slower summer surf.. more surface area and float up front to get and keep planing upon.

I now see why the BB community will tell you to go wider rather longer if you need more float or planing surface beyond the right sized length. You do not want to sacrifice the fore-aft pivot ease with more length. However, Lord points in his test results that in rough water that at a point, width will create more drag then help. See chart 7 in the article.

Concaves seem to be just a refinement of the basic BB planing surface. John Elwell (https://mypaipoboards.org/interviews/Jo ... 0823.shtml )talks about Simmon's concaves and touches on the Bournouli Principal science that explains it. Those who have gone to quad concaves cite the same principals.

From https://bodyboardking.com/p/9419012/nmd ... model.html:

"The QuadConcave can be broken down into two parts:
1. Central Double Concave - Tracks laminar (water) flow through the centre of the board keeping you higher on the wave face, which allows you to generate more speed into your bottom turns.
2. Outer Venturi Channels - Draws the laminar flow from a wider entry point into a narrow exit through the tail. Based on Bernoulli’s principle, the laminar flow increases in speed as it progresses through the channel, giving you more drive. "

There are some actual references to Bournouli somewhere on one of the sites if you are looking for connection to science. However, whether quad concaves are any better than a single concave is up for debate. Quads might be the breakthrough for stagnant BB design or just the latest fad.
User avatar
rodndtube
Big Wave Charger
Posts: 1158
Joined: Thu Aug 18, 2011 10:34 pm
City: Arbutus Land
State or Province: Maryland
Country: USA
Interests: Waveriding, travel and the Paipo Research Project
Location: Maryland, USA & Where the Waves Are Breaking
Contact:

Re: Quad Concave Body Board Study

#70

Unread post by rodndtube »

Keep in mind that Lindsay Lord's tests demonstrated the 2:1 aspect ratio excelling in the flats, i.e., having the least drag resistance, and one might see this while riding straight down from the crest to the bottom of a wave. The concave boards principally gain their best performance in riding the face of the wave without the entire bottom surface engaged. Thus the two board features are not necessarily exclusive over the course of riding a wave. NomasTomas had a rather good discussion on the forums about plan shape of a board relative to the face of a wave when riding down the line.
rodNDtube
"Prone to ride"
I love my papa li`ili`i

"The sea doth wash away all human ills."
-- Euripides.
PhillyViking
Big Wave Charger
Posts: 86
Joined: Sat Aug 20, 2011 8:38 am

Re: Quad Concave Body Board Study

#71

Unread post by PhillyViking »

Yes, Per Lord, W/L = .5 is great for clean and .4 ratio is more optimal for rough. See figure 7 at https://mypaipoboards.org/pubs/LordLind ... _ratio.pdf. Clean flats would definitely benefit from more width but for rough flats, wider becomes counter productive at a point according to the tests.

Will look for NomasTomas thread.

The Bonzer design also highlights the use of concaves and fin cant for traveling across the wave at an angle rather than straight. https://bonzer5.com/boards/bonzer-mechanics/
https://hjmknight.files.wordpress.com/2 ... 4n3p64.jpg
I can attest to the benefits. I built one to use in Central America that is based on Rodndtube's. See his at https://mypaipoboards.org/Paipo-14Harle ... _XII.shtml

Of course we are mostly talking finless BBs so more of the work that would be done by Bonzer fins needs to get done by the concave, rails, etc.
User avatar
krusher74
Big Wave Charger
Posts: 842
Joined: Wed Nov 07, 2012 3:53 pm
City: easkey
State or Province: co sligo
Country: Ireland
Interests: Surfing, vintage cars and motorbikes
Location: Easky, Co sligo , ireland
Contact:

Re: Quad Concave Body Board Study

#72

Unread post by krusher74 »

PhillyViking wrote: Tue Oct 27, 2020 10:53 am Usher, what is about the Hubb that leads you to say its design is faster at the expense of 'turning' than others,e.g. MND? The aspect ratio and dims are close except for the WP being further forward.
On older models if used to have a straighter rail, it appears now not to.

Lords info is related to an optimum for speed, the same as Simmons designs (which has the same single concave to V I have used) but i feel that optimum ratio either make a board to long if I have around a 21" width I am comfortable with (less feels too skinny to not slipping off the side) and we have already talk of the problems needing to move on a longer board.

I feel personally I'm at the point where I have a board that is very difficult to better for my personal use. if I was trying to make it do something it struggles to do then I may try a design change in that direction. But it does not struggle to do anything I try to make it do. So an attempt at a quad-channel bottom would be an expensive stab in the dark.

I can get Mike Stewart science bodyboards through the shop I work at trade price so if he starts to do a quad I might give in a go.

My next board will hopefully be my normal paipo design in balsa or paulownia.

(I did send you a message asking for email address to send the CNC file to but got no reply)
PhillyViking
Big Wave Charger
Posts: 86
Joined: Sat Aug 20, 2011 8:38 am

Re: Quad Concave Body Board Study

#73

Unread post by PhillyViking »

Lord's aspect ratios for optimal speed are just that .. there are other concerns for design. Its also true that turning is used to generate speed. My mat is very fast straight out but has limitations to do a hard turn. After riding a couple of 18.5-20.5" wide paipo boards for a while, wider designs feel to wide. I dismissed my 23" wide build immediately even though others might like it. So, one dimensional design attributes need to be kept in perspective.

I love my solid paulownia paipo (Xylem) but in many conditions wish for more float. Maybe when I settle on a stable design for myself I will make a wood version as well. I started on my building path thinking I was going to work with wood. I like the idea of adding some float by going hollow. I think the airplane wing approach makes sense but just does not resonate with me. The Chambering approach appeals more to me .. You do a rough shape before gluing up the wood strips (ala butcher block) and then glue and final shape. see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BPxs6Oa8KkQ

I also like the idea developed earlier in this thread of putting all the stiffness structures on the inside of a blank rather than the final outside shape. If the outside skin was cork it could be easily reshaped and material added/subtracted. 1/2" of cork on the bottom would cover a lot of potential concave refactoring. The standard BodyPo (see https://mypaipoboards.org/forum3/viewto ... ?f=4&t=542) had internal fiberglass layers for stiffness and cork top and bottom .. you can sand cork to shape and add cork with Titebond glue. Likewise, one could nail down a couple of fit for purpose internal structures that could be used with a variety of top/bottom/rail shapes. The internal structures could use fiberglass, basalt, linen, carbon etc with epoxy or with wood veneers. The core of the structure could be foam, cork or just the structural material, A couple layers of veneer give a lot of strength and can be easily bent.

I will do a board along your lines and another with the quad concaves. Taking a chance on a build long shot is still cheaper than betting on the ponies or going to the casino. I asked my wife to get me a blank for Christmas so I do not feel i am squandering the family budget,

I got your file .. THANKS! I think we beat the aspect ratio and L &W to death. I want to look at the rocker. My instinct is to have as little as possible in the nose and none in the rear. That is, no tail rocker on the rail plane. Doesn't the concave create a tail rocker of sorts? I never get to see high end BBs so do not know how they are doing tail rocker these days. My old Mach 7-7 has lots of rocker but I suspect it developed over time.
User avatar
rodndtube
Big Wave Charger
Posts: 1158
Joined: Thu Aug 18, 2011 10:34 pm
City: Arbutus Land
State or Province: Maryland
Country: USA
Interests: Waveriding, travel and the Paipo Research Project
Location: Maryland, USA & Where the Waves Are Breaking
Contact:

Re: Quad Concave Body Board Study

#74

Unread post by rodndtube »

Much evolved with the boogie board from the earliest versions:
Advertisement and article snippet. (1974-(Dec)/Jan). International Surfing, v09 n06 p021
p021-MoreyBoogie_Article.jpg
p021-MoreyBoogie_Article.jpg (159.37 KiB) Viewed 163883 times
Notice the flex in the advertisement pic.
Also see this advertisement [pdf]
Attachments
p021-MoreyBoogie_Adv.pdf
(160.72 KiB) Downloaded 135 times
rodNDtube
"Prone to ride"
I love my papa li`ili`i

"The sea doth wash away all human ills."
-- Euripides.
User avatar
Uncle Grumpy
Big Wave Charger
Posts: 450
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2011 12:57 pm
City: San Clemente
State or Province: California
Country: USA
Interests: Surfing, Surfboards, Surf History, Fishing, Boats, Dogs, Books
Contact:

Re: Quad Concave Body Board Study

#75

Unread post by Uncle Grumpy »

Those first gen boogies perhaps too flexi. Still fun.

morey
morey
Paipo surfer in repose,
Nose on the nose,
No grunting he-man pose.
See how fast he goes!
What is it he knows?
User avatar
rodndtube
Big Wave Charger
Posts: 1158
Joined: Thu Aug 18, 2011 10:34 pm
City: Arbutus Land
State or Province: Maryland
Country: USA
Interests: Waveriding, travel and the Paipo Research Project
Location: Maryland, USA & Where the Waves Are Breaking
Contact:

Re: Quad Concave Body Board Study

#76

Unread post by rodndtube »

Combination of a surf mat and modern bodyboard! They were so floppy riding Waimea they scooted through the cross-chops like mats.
rodNDtube
"Prone to ride"
I love my papa li`ili`i

"The sea doth wash away all human ills."
-- Euripides.
PhillyViking
Big Wave Charger
Posts: 86
Joined: Sat Aug 20, 2011 8:38 am

Re: Quad Concave Body Board Study

#77

Unread post by PhillyViking »

I still prefer the feel and ride of a shape shifting mat over anything else. The advantage of a mat over flex foam is that you can harden the turning edge by squeezing the opposite side. I can make that work to a point then need something more rigid for certain conditions. I am trying to leave a balance of flex in the boards I am making. My ideal would be mat like flex that could turn on a dime and take a leash. But compromises are required.

I rode a super flexy BB two summers ago. A kid had one. He was interested in my solid wood board so we traded for some rides. The flexy BB caught waves so much easier than my rigid board and really fit into those small waves and felt connected. I would expect the super floppy BB to side slip on any juicer waves but it was fun on those waves.
CHRISPI
Big Wave Charger
Posts: 340
Joined: Sun Dec 28, 2014 2:48 pm
City: Durban
State or Province: Natals
Country: South Africa

Re: Quad Concave Body Board Study

#78

Unread post by CHRISPI »

Try thin foam core ,I am using two 5 mm sheets off airex laminated with 6 oz cloth covered with polyethylene foam to whatever thickness you need ,gets good flex .I think a thin plywood core would work well
Nels
Big Wave Charger
Posts: 254
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2011 3:58 pm
City: Camarillo
State or Province: California
Country: USA

Re: Quad Concave Body Board Study

#79

Unread post by Nels »

I also like the idea developed earlier in this thread of putting all the stiffness structures on the inside of a blank rather than the final outside shape.
One benefit of having been around semi-forever and still having a halfway good memory : I recall reading an interview with Tom Morey 20 or 30 years ago in which he started riffing about how all evolved creatures have their hard structures inside and are soft outside.

I used to detest the moniker of "sponge" for bodyboards, until one day I realized The Sponge is Alive... ocean sponges are living things. Maybe Morey saw the Boogie the same way. I distinctly remember the first time I took my kit board out, laying on it...so unlike anything else in surfing.

Yes, I know, mats...but not back then when Boogies were new. The mats of those days were heavy nasty canvas things. I still have one in the collection.
PhillyViking
Big Wave Charger
Posts: 86
Joined: Sat Aug 20, 2011 8:38 am

Re: Quad Concave Body Board Study

#80

Unread post by PhillyViking »

My own mat riding goes back to around 1960 in Ocean City NJ.
60sMat.png
60sMat.png (147.96 KiB) Viewed 163855 times
That one was not the stiff canvas type. It was very very flexible but surfed. I am kicking myself for not picking up an old school rubber/canvas Surfoplane when they made them again a couple years back.

I have to actually build the BB inspired boards under discussion with blanks I already have. I am then going to move on to try an internal structure that will have flex. I will need to labor over whether to make the internal core out of synthetics or wood veneer/cork. One additional upside of internal structures is that since they would be sealed from water there are more material options. E.g. Maple veneer that is used in skateboards could be used with a lighter material such as cork to make a sandwich, That would get heavier than synthetics but be eco sensitive.
Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 37 guests