Board design by Ola H.

Windsurf equipment based chatter should be in here.
User avatar
Gorgesailor
Posts: 17
Joined: Tue Nov 13, 2018 11:10 pm
Has liked: 6 times
Been liked: 2 times

Re: Board design by Ola H.

Post by Gorgesailor » Fri Apr 26, 2019 7:04 pm

Good points Ola & Bouke. I agree that most modern wave boards could be considered pretty all around - if the sailor has the skill to sail them. It just depends on the conditions/preferences/abilities which board will be "best". I don't think this was as much the case in the past. Yes, modern boards have specialized but are also more versatile than ever before IMO. There may be a few more hardcore boards but I bet I would like any of the Witchy or Simmer offerings for my sailing...

Rasmus
Posts: 5
Joined: Thu Apr 11, 2019 12:04 pm

Re: Board design by Ola H.

Post by Rasmus » Fri Apr 26, 2019 10:03 pm

Hello Ola,

what you are saying is partly against its own logic.

So you are behind the 70´s swing weight idea, you need something heavy, massive to create momentum. That´s also proven wrong, it is regressive, if you think it is right, why not put a lead weight on the nose, in your own words that must be perfect. I say bullshit, a sailboard nose is always light no matter if long and thin or short and thick/stubby and does not create a lot of monentum. Compare it to setting the mastbase forth and back, that gives a lot more possibillity to shift monentum because at this point a weight of around 6-8kg is needed to be shifted around, so putting it forward some cm gives you alot more monentum, not just some hundred gramms in the last 30 cm of a sailboard nose tip. Other manufacturers claim stub noses to have less swing/weight, you are telling it different, so who is wrong?

Your next claim is because the mastbase is third leg, which is right, you need area to support it, to give enough lift. You say a snub nose has more area, which is wrong, because a snub nose has always less area, it is a cut off nose, therefore you must give more noserocker curve and or volume in the nose.
If you do different your board is going to pearl, a thick nose what is standard now in sailboards gives so much board/volume that it sticks in the waveface so much more than a longer but thin nose. And this is were normal surfboards come into play, the thickness is put to a minimum, as you might know, making the nose of a normal surfboard nearly as thin as a skimboard and voila less problem which nose fiting the wave.

But how do you create enough lift for third leg? You make the entry rocker just a little steeper, that ´s it.

But what you and other sailboard shapers do, is put a lot of volume in the nose, which gives also lift, but how much? Is this really helpfull?

To me it seems you forget the simple rules of getting lift.

The first is: The more angle between waterflow and area, the more lift. This is why rockerline is most important.

Second: the more area the more lift. More with more lift.

Third: the more static-volume the more lift.

But if you go at planning or nearly planning speed, lift from static volume becomes totally marginal, as in wake, skim or kiteboards. And even at low speeds a steep rocker gives more lift than static-volume.

So, why not make noses thinner and longer, longer because you get more space to create a steeper rocker in the last tipp, not have to make entry rocker extremly steep, and if you measure the volume of a thin, long nose against fat/stubby,the thin nose has less, making for less board to be grapped by the wave.

I would like to watch the prototype you are talking about. You show us this torrent, but why not the other one?

What i do not understand is that you had some interesting and working boards, like the Freegal but threw it away for some foolish Tomo-Look-Alike shape, that to me is crazy. TOMO is a sharlatan, a snake-oil seller, a deceiver.

Dont you get alarmed when Tomo claims all shortboards are non planning hulls because of their strongly curved OUTLINE.

Only his boards, MPH, are planning hulls because of straight outlines. Man this is enough to dismiss him, he unterstands NOTHING in hulls.

Why do you follow him?

I once rode a Freegal in onshore.mushy but clean waves and it was great. Held a lot speed when carving and was extremly snappy off the back foot.

What i did´nt like was the somewhat thick tail, making it a little unsensetive under the back foot. And its turning radius when carved in bottum turn, it was tight, but the gap to the snappiness off backfoot was to big, i would like to have it turn it tighter.

So what to do, more tailrocker, standing way more back, not possible or good for planning.

But what about setting wide point back, that makes for a tighter turning radius, not hindering planning or speed.

Yes it will cost controlabillity, but for a smallwave/onshore board, who cares. Too little lift for third foot/mastbase, more rocker and longer nose, but thin.

Also i rode it with 5.2 (77kg) and i found it was nearly maxed out in sails size. But a 58cm wide board should be easilly sailed with 5,7/5,8, at least boards years ago could be. So why change that?

Ola H.
Posts: 42
Joined: Fri Nov 09, 2018 2:39 pm
Has liked: 16 times
Been liked: 24 times

Re: Board design by Ola H.

Post by Ola H. » Sat Apr 27, 2019 7:52 am

Rasmus, I'll take your most important claims one by one:
Rasmus wrote:
Fri Apr 26, 2019 10:03 pm
Hello Ola,

what you are saying is partly against its own logic.

So you are behind the 70´s swing weight idea, you need something heavy, massive to create momentum. That´s also proven wrong, it is regressive, ...
No, I build boards as light as possible and in particular build my personal boards with very light front sections. My Point was rather that windsurfing kit in itself, even when you use the lightest there is, is bigger, heavier and carries momentum. I took this up because you indicated pointy noses was needed to punch through the lip. Well, this really is not an issue in windsurfing. My own style in in fact very vertical and late and I punch through lips quite a lot. If anything, on a windsurf board a shorter front section allows me to do this easier than a longer but pointier one. This is not theory, just empirical facts.

Rasmus wrote:
Fri Apr 26, 2019 10:03 pm
Your next claim is because the mastbase is third leg, which is right, you need area to support it, to give enough lift.
Not really area in fact and not really lift. This argument was not about sailing straight but when turning. What is needed is a comparatively low curvature in the mid/front compared to standard surf shortboards. You need some support/stability up front when you put the board on rail in a drawn out bottom turn at speed. Again, when I recently ventured into a more surfboard style outline, I ended up with a board that became too twitchy in choppy and fast conditions. Remember, wave sailing is often done at very high speeds and in very choppy conditions due to wind chop. That said, many of my shapes do have quite short noses and (for windsurfers) quite curvy front end, but you just have to find the compromise you want through testing. And the surfboard style outline I tried was in fact extremely fun in smaller cleaner stuff. And even in mast+ Ponta Preta it worked well. But while this is super fast riding, it still also super clean. The limits of this outline was in big messy stuff, but that is rather common in windsurfing

Rasmus wrote:
Fri Apr 26, 2019 10:03 pm
You say a snub nose has more area, which is wrong, because a snub nose has always less area, it is a cut off nose, therefore you must give more noserocker curve and or volume in the nose.
Maybe I was unclear it is not so much the area I think about as the outline curvature. And you have to separare a short by (more or less) pointy nose and a stub nose. The merits of a stub nose is that you can keep the board short but stick to a low curvature mid/front outline which has certain advantages. But with a short but relatively pointy nose you instead have to use more outline curvature. This is why I don't think stubbies (cut noses) and compact (drawn in noses) are at all in the same categories. I build both but for different reasons.
Rasmus wrote:
Fri Apr 26, 2019 10:03 pm
If you do different your board is going to pearl, a thick nose what is standard now in sailboards gives so much board/volume that it sticks in the waveface so much more than a longer but thin nose. And this is were normal surfboards come into play, the thickness is put to a minimum, as you might know, making the nose of a normal surfboard nearly as thin as a skimboard and voila less problem which nose fiting the wave.
First, pearling tendencies is not only a nose rocker issue but depends on the whole rocker and more rocker between your feet makes it easier to avoid pearling too because shifting your weight back will in a more direct way push the nose up when you have more rocker between your feet. But indeed it is a compromise. On my personal boards (with short noses) I try to keep nose rocker rather low, but since these boards have relatively curvy front end outlines I can avoid pearling by keeping the board slightly on rail in critical situations.
Rasmus wrote:
Fri Apr 26, 2019 10:03 pm
But how do you create enough lift for third leg? You make the entry rocker just a little steeper, that ´s it.
This is a gross oversimplification. Lift is generated by the rocker as a whole and even adding some tail kick will affect the lift at the entry point.
Rasmus wrote:
Fri Apr 26, 2019 10:03 pm
But what you and other sailboard shapers do, is put a lot of volume in the nose, which gives also lift, but how much? Is this really helpfull?
Volume only helps when not planing (as you say below), and basically, on a windsurfer you are simply stuck with having to put up with thick rails because we need the float.
Rasmus wrote:
Fri Apr 26, 2019 10:03 pm
To me it seems you forget the simple rules of getting lift.
The first is: The more angle between waterflow and area, the more lift. This is why rockerline is most important.
Second: the more area the more lift. More with more lift.
Third: the more static-volume the more lift.
But if you go at planning or nearly planning speed, lift from static volume becomes totally marginal, as in wake, skim or kiteboards. And even at low speeds a steep rocker gives more lift than static-volume.
Exactly, except that without also considering drag it is easy to go wrong.
Rasmus wrote:
Fri Apr 26, 2019 10:03 pm
So, why not make noses thinner and longer, longer because you get more space to create a steeper rocker in the last tipp, not have to make entry rocker extremly steep, and if you measure the volume of a thin, long nose against fat/stubby, the thin nose has less, making for less board to be grapped by the wave.
For volume in the front to be reduced significantly the board would have to ba A LOT longer, and my boards have been getting shorter and shorter in the nose for different reasons. They simple feel better. Remember, windsurf boards, even the shortest ones, are still very long compared to surfboards. So for me it has made sense to shorten the boards to make them fit waves better.
Rasmus wrote:
Fri Apr 26, 2019 10:03 pm
I would like to watch the prototype you are talking about. You show us this torrent, but why not the other one?
See below.
Rasmus wrote:
Fri Apr 26, 2019 10:03 pm
What i do not understand is that you had some interesting and working boards, like the Freegal but threw it away for some foolish Tomo-Look-Alike shape, that to me is crazy. TOMO is a sharlatan, a snake-oil seller, a deceiver.
Dont you get alarmed when Tomo claims all shortboards are non planning hulls because of their strongly curved OUTLINE.
Only his boards, MPH, are planning hulls because of straight outlines. Man this is enough to dismiss him, he unterstands NOTHING in hulls.
Why do you follow him?
I agree that the MPH designation is BS. I don't follow Tomo because of his talking. My stubbie (cut nose) boards have the same rocker I use on other boards, nothing is special there. The _only_ thing about these boards it that the cut nose (and tail) allows a straighter outline which in some conditions carry glide/speed in a turn better. The whole point is to fit the centrer outline of a long drawn out shape into a compact shape, and as I said, compact shapes have other advantages.
Rasmus wrote:
Fri Apr 26, 2019 10:03 pm
I once rode a Freegal in onshore.mushy but clean waves and it was great. Held a lot speed when carving and was extremly snappy off the back foot.
What i did´nt like was the somewhat thick tail, making it a little unsensetive under the back foot. And its turning radius when carved in bottum turn, it was tight, but the gap to the snappiness off backfoot was to big, i would like to have it turn it tighter. So what to do, more tailrocker, standing way more back, not possible or good for planning.
The tail thickness is a dilemma because you still have to deal with fin boxes and strap plugs which requires some thickness.I think you describe the freegal well. Actually this board was a spin off of my original short board, the Frugal which had much more tail rocker. I went on to do more Frugals on a custom basis and for a good rider they are still super good for planing and extremely fun boards. I think you would love the latest Frugal incarnations. As mentioned, if you're good you will not find it slow to plane at all (anyone that have sailed light winds with me when I'm on that board would agree I plane super early on it, but you just need to be a bit light on you feet)
Rasmus wrote:
Fri Apr 26, 2019 10:03 pm
But what about setting wide point back, that makes for a tighter turning radius, not hindering planning or speed.
What happens is that the board becomes to nervous in high speed turns.
Rasmus wrote:
Fri Apr 26, 2019 10:03 pm
Yes it will cost controlabillity, but for a smallwave/onshore board, who cares. Too little lift for third foot/mastbase, more rocker and longer nose, but thin.
Exactly. Compare with what I wrote about my board with a ghost style outline.
Rasmus wrote:
Fri Apr 26, 2019 10:03 pm
Also i rode it with 5.2 (77kg) and i found it was nearly maxed out in sails size. But a 58cm wide board should be easilly sailed with 5,7/5,8, at least boards years ago could be. So why change that?
This is a compromise indeed with Frugal/Freegal. They actually have a lot of rocker under the mast foot, even the Freegal. The Cortex( stubby) has a completely different and much less curved rocker under the mast foot and together with the less curvy outline a Cortex carries big sails very well in relation to the width. In fact, one way of seeing the stubbie concept in windsurfing is as a step back towards more drawn out outlines, just that they are still compact dues to the cut off nose and tail.

Here is the other boards I mentioned in the first post. I'll come back to the principles behind this shape at a later point.
Image

And here is the more surf inspired shape I talked about. The Liquidcat 78. 217x55.5. This board has the same rocker base as the Torrent and Cortex and Fly. Perhaps you wanna buy it? 5.3kg...

Image

Here you can see both of them. As you can see, except for the length (the nose of the Liquidcat is on fact not very long either, it just looks so in comparison) a lot of the things you talk about is incorporated in the Liquidcat, like widepoint further back and more curve in the rear part.

Image
Last edited by Ola H. on Wed May 15, 2019 11:28 am, edited 1 time in total.

Rasmus
Posts: 5
Joined: Thu Apr 11, 2019 12:04 pm

Re: Board design by Ola H.

Post by Rasmus » Mon Apr 29, 2019 10:26 pm

Hello Ola,

first i have to thank you on spending so much effort in explaining your thoughts about theories and boards.
And also showing some of your current designs, thank you.

What i´m now understanding is that stubby boards in your view should be more like an allroundboard (also waves that need more grip threw rail length), because you insist on using them also at higher speed, not just an onshore shape. For me a rather wide planshape should be used in small waves, small waves are always slow/slower making good rail control abilities unnescesary, i would specalise more. I own 4 boards in different shapes for specific conditions, but mostly onshore, that´s why i would go for a more refined shape depending on conditions.

I like the Liquidcat, and yes it looks like a JJ Florence wining Ghost board. But JJ Florence is merely the only one using this kind of step up board, i think it has a lot to do with him being a front footed surfer. Other more backfooted ones use normal step-ups like Filipe Toledo or Italo, maybe try to translate one of their boards into windsurfing. If i had money and sail an side off-spot i would like to have it. Bud both not.

What made me respond to your threat is i like some of your shapes, for instance one board for Marc Pare he used in Sylt, it must have been his board for bigger sails, he sailed it in the earlier heats. It was a wide swallowtail thruster with blue fins, despite the marginal conditions he was really carving it off the bottom and holding a lot of speed threw topturns, giving him flowing rides. Even your teamsailor ben proffit had great praise for his rides, not understanding he can´t perform to that standard too. I say it was ben using the cortex instead off marc´s prototype.
What is behind this board?

And after all i´m finding your approach on designing rather unsystematic, i would take a proven shape like freegal and analyse what i liked or did´nt , think for what conditions my next board should perform best and than make refinements. But everyone is different.

What do you think about Keith Tebouls progression of his pyramide wave, because he actually goes for longer nose and more curve in tailoutline, cutting off a litlle tail, standing little bit more back?

Image
Image

I also saw some of Marcilio Browne`s board, for small waves he used shapes similar to Quatro Mini, found them quite interesting.

Image

Image
Last edited by Rasmus on Tue Apr 30, 2019 8:52 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Bouke/Witchcraft
Posts: 98
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2018 9:32 pm
Location: Fuerte
Has liked: 1 time
Been liked: 48 times
Contact:

Re: Board design by Ola H.

Post by Bouke/Witchcraft » Tue Apr 30, 2019 6:54 am

Rasmus wrote:
Fri Apr 26, 2019 10:03 pm
To me it seems you forget the simple rules of getting lift.
The first is: The more angle between waterflow and area, the more lift.
More angle also means more drag and speed is more important to get lift so it´s the contrary to what you say: a flatter entry with less angle helps to get planing faster. This is a little different when catching waves though, especially in marginal winds when you are waiting for the wave to drop down on it. Since a waves slope is not flat.
Rasmus wrote:
Fri Apr 26, 2019 10:03 pm
Third: the more static-volume the more lift.

But if you go at planing or nearly planing speed, lift from static volume becomes totally marginal, as in wake, skim or kiteboards. And even at low speeds a steep rocker gives more lift than static-volume.
Already before near planing speed volume starts losing its importance before lift. It is well possible to float on a board with negative volume, if for example you do not have to get over white water.
https://witchcraft.nu/. Boards, sails, masts, fins.

Ruaraidh_K257
Posts: 123
Joined: Mon Jan 07, 2019 11:49 am
Has liked: 7 times
Been liked: 39 times

Re: Board design by Ola H.

Post by Ruaraidh_K257 » Tue Apr 30, 2019 8:46 am

Rasmus, Marc was riding a Flywave proto which I think was the same design as the current production model. Having watched Marc ride the Cortex and Flywave back to back in extremely marginal onshore conditions one day in Tiree; the cortex looked easier to ride while the Flywave yielded better results, but it looked harder to sail. One of the windsurf shop owners who is a decent wavesailor also have them both a go that day, and the results were much different... he windsurfed better on the Cortex, which accommodates his mistakes more, while he seemed to slow a bit on the Flywave. But Marc, who is obviously one of the best wavesailors in the world, is good enough that he could make the Flywave look like a better board in those conditions. Yes, he can also rip on the Cortex, but he looked better on the Flywave. I think Ola really has struck gold with that design, it looks super good on the wave.
16, Scottish wavesailor, sponsored by - Neil Pryde, JP Australia, K4Fins, Wild Diamond Tiree

Ruaraidh_K257
Posts: 123
Joined: Mon Jan 07, 2019 11:49 am
Has liked: 7 times
Been liked: 39 times

Re: Board design by Ola H.

Post by Ruaraidh_K257 » Tue Apr 30, 2019 8:48 am

I would be really interested to know whether a full rail turn in windsurfing on bigger waves is the same as one on a surfboard... windsurf boards allow more back foot turning without losing speed than surfboards, so is a front footed turn in windsurfing less front footed than one in surfing? It might be an odd question but it would be interesting to see if a Pyzel Ghost-like shape would work well if the turn is more back footed?
16, Scottish wavesailor, sponsored by - Neil Pryde, JP Australia, K4Fins, Wild Diamond Tiree

PK1111
Posts: 134
Joined: Thu Dec 06, 2018 6:50 pm
Has liked: 110 times
Been liked: 41 times

Re: Board design by Ola H.

Post by PK1111 » Tue Apr 30, 2019 11:55 am

Good discussions!
For me, wave sailing can be split into two aspects.
Either it’s 10 to 20 knots of wind and I favour a faster earlier planing board (even for float and ride!) or its over 20 knots, and I appreciate a more forgiving board.

The great thing about stubbies is they fit the first characteristic really well, whilst also being highly manoeuvrable. I’ll regularly use my Nano 93 with an S1 5.6, which is a new dimension in wave sailing.
The Nano continues to work well, even with small sails, provided the water doesn’t get too churned up.

Unfortunately here in the uk, anything over 20 knots unless cross off tends to get choppy, and that’s when a rounded profile with more rocker really pays big dividends.

I’d love to try these boards out (although I’d need a size up at least), but wonder which of these two use cases the boards would fit into.

Ola H.
Posts: 42
Joined: Fri Nov 09, 2018 2:39 pm
Has liked: 16 times
Been liked: 24 times

Re: Board design by Ola H.

Post by Ola H. » Tue Apr 30, 2019 4:13 pm

Many interesting questions and comments. I’ll attend to some now and get back to the other later.

First about the Quatro question:
Rasmus wrote:
Mon Apr 29, 2019 10:26 pm
What do you think about Keith Tebouls progression of his pyramide wave, because he actually goes for longer nose and more curve in tailoutline, cutting off a litlle tail, standing little bit more back?
I also saw some of Marcilio Browne`s board, for small waves he used shapes similar to Quatro Mini, found them quite interesting.
I don’t know if he has really extended the noses, the boards are still relatively short. And in fact they not super pointy either except that the the very last section of the nose is relatively pointy. The section in front of the mast box I reckon look rather standard. And in the rear part, I think that what he’s done is to add a bit of curve in between the straps and then combine this with a comparatively straight curve towards the very tail. The last thing is something you can see on many surfing short boards. The straighter tail adds grip and stability in hard carves (at the price of a little bit less looseness in very short turns). The curvy section gives the board looseness in particular at the apex of the bottom turn. Generally speaking, that is. Shortening the tail is a great trick, I reckon. I’ll come back to tails and I think I was one of the first to work with super short tails and I think I have perhaps experimented with different tail designs more than most by now. With traditional longer tails, the tail design itself pretty much changed nothing, but when tails get shorter, the tail design changes a lot. As do the tail length itself, where a shorter tail lets (in particularly fast rockered boards) turn much tighter without loosing speed (at the price of requiring good technique to keep speed in slower waves and at the price of less control in long drawn out turns).

Here are two designs of my own that incorporate a bit of that almost ”hip style” outline with straighter tails. Both build on the Fly rocker.

A 79 for Marc Paré which apart from the tail is very close to the production Fly78
Image

An 83 for Kai Katchadourian that also has its roots in the line of development that became the current Fly.
Image
Last edited by Ola H. on Wed May 15, 2019 11:29 am, edited 1 time in total.

Ruaraidh_K257
Posts: 123
Joined: Mon Jan 07, 2019 11:49 am
Has liked: 7 times
Been liked: 39 times

Re: Board design by Ola H.

Post by Ruaraidh_K257 » Tue Apr 30, 2019 5:05 pm

Did anybody see Campello’s post the other day?

The airline he was flying with to Ireland for the Storm Chase smashed the tail of one of his KT Brunotti customs, and Timo Mullen had to chop it off to repair it. This new, cut off tail board with the strap super close to the tail is apparently his favourite board ever! How does the lack of tail affect a board??
16, Scottish wavesailor, sponsored by - Neil Pryde, JP Australia, K4Fins, Wild Diamond Tiree

Post Reply