TBXL

What works and what doesn't. Share design ideas, references and contacts for paipo board builders.
User avatar
bgreen
Big Wave Charger
Posts: 1041
Joined: Fri Aug 19, 2011 5:17 pm
City: Brisbane
State or Province: Qld
Country: Oz
Contact:

Re: TBXL

Unread post by bgreen » Wed Feb 28, 2018 4:38 pm

Nomas,

Maybe we are using language differently. I would have thought a square tail would turn easier than a pintail, the latter able to draw a longer line.

My series of 7 boards on the same design, has focussed on changing 1 or 2 variables at a time. For me this was a useful way to learn, how certain changes affected the boards ride.

User avatar
rodndtube
Big Wave Charger
Posts: 1010
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: TBXL

Unread post by rodndtube » Wed Feb 28, 2018 4:48 pm

bgreen wrote:Nomas,

Maybe we are using language differently. I would have thought a square tail would turn easier than a pintail, the latter able to draw a longer line.

My series of 7 boards on the same design, has focussed on changing 1 or 2 variables at a time. For me this was a useful way to learn, how certain changes affected the boards ride.
On the tail and turning: it is a matter of degree and also has something to do with lines (plan shape) of the board. At a certain point a very wide tail is hard to turn (unless rocker, tail kick are changed, rail changed, etc.). Likewise, an extreme pin tail is hard to turn.

I agree that Nomas is making several changes at one time -- I sort of did that as well in my Bonzer paipo design, while also maintaining several design features constant, and figured I would be able to sort out a couple of things with the fin (skeg) mix. It worked out very well for me. But, yes, in the past I have been extremely incremental (and still don't make many quantum leaps, e.g., no skegs, twin-fins, super-wides...).
rodNDtube
"Prone to ride"
I love my papa li`ili`i

"The sea doth wash away all human ills."
-- Euripides.

User avatar
nomastomas
Big Wave Charger
Posts: 497
Joined: Thu Nov 17, 2011 2:30 am
City: Ojai
State or Province: CA
Country: USA
Interests: Surfing, cycling and fishing
Location: Ojai, CA
Contact:

Re: TBXL

Unread post by nomastomas » Wed Feb 28, 2018 6:49 pm

Once I have a workable shape, I believe incremental changes are useful for fine-tuning that shape. But when designing a prototype, a shape that deviates dramatically (in terms of either performance and/or design) from an established shape, a different approach is indicated. I find that a "clean slate" is the best approach. It helps to minimize design biases that are built into an existing shape. In these cases, my process is to start with a basic notion of how the shape is intended to perform. This notion will dictate certain basic design elements. Once I have assembled those elements into a cohesive shape, I scrutinize the shape, looking for obvious incompatibilities between design elements. Here, I'm relying not only upon my knowledge and experience in creating surfcraft, but the knowledge of others as well. Once I'm satisfied with the new design, I shape it, have it laminated and take it out for a test drive. Testing is a very important part of this process, and will usually lead to the small, incremental design changes necessary for fine tuning.

So, for some concrete examples. Many people have asked me how the TBGs would ride finless. I know from riding them with minimal fin size that they ride better with fins. That's because the outline isn't conducive to finless riding. The finless design I'm working on has the familiar outline of a Morey Boogie board. There's simply no denying the efficacy of this outline. Rocker and bottom contours are a different matter. My bottom contours for the TBF(inless) are very different than those of the TBGs. It would have taken me numerous iterations to take the TBG4 to TBF as now designed. This was just not necessary.

The Manta, a tri-hull bottom with full-length concaves, centered-wide point and fork nose, was the product of the "clean slate" approach.

The TBH(ull), was a hull-shaped prone-board that again, was radically different from the TBGs. Single-fin, pointed nose, convex bottom and centered outline, couldn't be much different. That too was the product of the "clean slate" approach.
So, for me, design iteration has its place, but not when prototyping.
"This is a paipo site...isn't it?"
www.tp4surf.com

User avatar
bgreen
Big Wave Charger
Posts: 1041
Joined: Fri Aug 19, 2011 5:17 pm
City: Brisbane
State or Province: Qld
Country: Oz
Contact:

Re: TBXL

Unread post by bgreen » Thu Mar 01, 2018 5:19 am

Nomas,

If you can afford and build your own prototypes, why not. An expensive option for the average punter. One day, I hope to complete an interview with the late Peter Berry, creator of radical kneeboards, he described working from a concept, which would then be pushed in different directions, looking for something a "bit wilder".

When I've made some big departures in design, they have usually been into well trodden territory (Rod's bonzer is an established design), a big change for him, but a new BB design.

Is anyone riding your finless boards?

User avatar
nomastomas
Big Wave Charger
Posts: 497
Joined: Thu Nov 17, 2011 2:30 am
City: Ojai
State or Province: CA
Country: USA
Interests: Surfing, cycling and fishing
Location: Ojai, CA
Contact:

Re: TBXL

Unread post by nomastomas » Thu Mar 01, 2018 1:07 pm

"An expensive option for the average punter"…perhaps. Every first shape is a “prototype” be it from a shaping newbie, a backyarder or a seasoned vet. Expense is relative. Indeed, some would say surfing with the need to by boards, wetsuit, etc is too expensive. Likewise, golf or fishing or bowling or cycling; each has its price of admission. It really comes down to the individual’s willingness to make the sacrifices required to follow their passion. And, of course, that’s different for everyone. But it doesn’t mean that the “average punter” can’t make that commitment. It’s a personal choice, not an externally imposed limitation…

As for a finless T-Belly, it remains a concept that is still undergoing tinkering. Not quite ready for “prime time”, although I have a very interested client, in addition to myself, so a rideable prototype should happen sometime this year.
"This is a paipo site...isn't it?"
www.tp4surf.com

Nels
Big Wave Charger
Posts: 200
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2011 3:58 pm
City: Camarillo
State or Province: California
Country: USA

Re: TBXL

Unread post by Nels » Thu Mar 01, 2018 1:56 pm

I hope to complete an interview with the late Peter Berry, creator of radical kneeboards
Dang, Bob, I know you're good...but that seems like a superhuman challenge...

Would like to see it though.

Nels

User avatar
bgreen
Big Wave Charger
Posts: 1041
Joined: Fri Aug 19, 2011 5:17 pm
City: Brisbane
State or Province: Qld
Country: Oz
Contact:

Re: TBXL

Unread post by bgreen » Thu Mar 01, 2018 4:25 pm

My latest nine boards aren't in this photo
Boards (600 x 450).jpg
Boards (600 x 450).jpg (90.89 KiB) Viewed 1262 times
Pete Berry -a man who was fond of experimenting. I'll let you know how the channelling is going.
Tracks_w350.jpg
Tracks_w350.jpg (45.8 KiB) Viewed 1262 times
PB12e_w500.jpg
PB12e_w500.jpg (40.27 KiB) Viewed 1262 times
PB14-2_w250.jpg
PB14-2_w250.jpg (31.41 KiB) Viewed 1262 times

User avatar
nomastomas
Big Wave Charger
Posts: 497
Joined: Thu Nov 17, 2011 2:30 am
City: Ojai
State or Province: CA
Country: USA
Interests: Surfing, cycling and fishing
Location: Ojai, CA
Contact:

Re: TBXL

Unread post by nomastomas » Tue Aug 07, 2018 8:53 am

krusher74 wrote:The one thing I found from bodyboarding over the years is the the bigger the wave the smaller the board I prefer.
I haven't had the time to devote to the XL design and testing, but I think Keith is on to something here. Going smaller as wave size increases reduces planing area, which in turn reduces speed potential. I would argue that "speed" on a prone board is a function of "wave size" and "planing area". As wave size increases, less planing area is required to maintain the same given speed. The ideal speed would be something less than the speed required by the shape to lift completely off the surface, where the rider loses directional control due to insufficient drag. Of course another compensatory maneuver would be to use leg drag as a way of modulating speed, the traditional and time-tested technique used to stall for the barrel.

So, with these new insights, I'm officially abandoning the XL design, which I now consider to be "barking up the wrong tree" vis a vis the "skipping stone" issue. Better to focus on reducing planing area, and rider technique when surfing waves of consequence...oh, and fins, of course.
"This is a paipo site...isn't it?"
www.tp4surf.com

asier esnal
Big Wave Charger
Posts: 184
Joined: Tue Apr 24, 2018 4:56 am
City: Astigarraga
State or Province: Gipuzkoa
Country: spain

Re: TBXL

Unread post by asier esnal » Tue Aug 07, 2018 10:04 am

I encourage you to keep working on this idea. I am also in it. I saw your design a long time ago, it is interesting, but the nose of the paipo practically never touches the water, so putting a boat nose is not a good solution.

I think the work has to focus on the middle part of the tail, there is where the water pressure works, the jumps are generated ... I keep making designs in the solidworks looking for that answer, catamaran type designs, making a design in shape of V, T-shape ... there are many baristas to contolar and little time to be able to manufacture

encourage and fight that in a long or short time we get it

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest