REMINDER: THE ARENA PLATFORM, INC. has no obligation to monitor the Forums. However, THE ARENA PLATFORM, INC. reserves the right to review any materials submitted to or posted on the Forums, and remove, delete, redact or otherwise modify such materials, in its sole discretion and for any reason whatsoever, at any time and from time to time, without notice or further obligation to you. THE ARENA PLATFORM, INC. has no obligation to display or post any materials provided by you. THE ARENA PLATFORM, INC. reserves the right to disclose, at any time and from time to time, any information or materials that we deem necessary or appropriate to satisfy any applicable law, regulation, contract obligation, legal or dispute process or government request. Click on the following hyperlinks to further read the applicable Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
Design Talk
- Thread starter griffinsurfboard
- Start date
I got a MC EEV Shorty through Real. I have only had three sessions on it and none in the kind of waves that Trip Foreman refers to. I also upped my volume on it. So far, it is much more 'friendly' than a Mermaid Mach 3 I had from Maurice. The Mermaid had very hard edges that were not tucked under like this EEV. That Mermaid gave some great speed and I came out of some turns much faster than I thought I came out of turns on other thrusters, but I also would catch rail and botch turns in very dramatic fashion. I am sure most of it was my doing. My EEV's hard edge is significantly less than the Mermaid's through the front 2/3 of the rail but more edge than any other shaper's rail I have owned. I have been able to ride mine (5'11x20x2 11/16 33.9L and I am 5'10 x 195) in grovel conditions (by east coast standards, not the video footage of guys surfing 'grovelers' in waist to chest high surf fun surf). It paddles well but feels like a shortboard and not some of the 'groveler' boards I have ridden at even less volume (e.g. Lost Motivator, CI Fred Stubble). There is more concave in the bottom than I thought and it does have fair amount of rocker, but its in the tail. If I had to guess I would say that it is 'staged' rocker with the exit adding the high performance dynamic with the bump squash. Mine also has a different fin placement than the standard 11" up from the tail. My side fins are at 10.75" from tail. I am pleased with it so far, but I have not had it in anything over chest high peak that tapered into thigh high faces.
In short, I think Nick Carroll's description is accurate to my experience while my EEV may have more concave than what he seems to be describing in his two EEV's. I would say it is it a fuller figured hspb with some friendliness sown into the design. Your mechanics require someone who knows how to surf a hpsb thruster but you don't have to be as athletic and nimble as you were in your late teens and early 20's. It seems to reward the surfer who does the where, when-and-how-to-lay-into-his-board-on-the-right-time-and-place-on-the-wave surfing, not the hoppy-jumpy-impatient-able-bodied-but-less-skilled-mind-younger-guys-get-away-with-but-looks-horrible-to-the-eye kind of surfing.
In short, I think Nick Carroll's description is accurate to my experience while my EEV may have more concave than what he seems to be describing in his two EEV's. I would say it is it a fuller figured hspb with some friendliness sown into the design. Your mechanics require someone who knows how to surf a hpsb thruster but you don't have to be as athletic and nimble as you were in your late teens and early 20's. It seems to reward the surfer who does the where, when-and-how-to-lay-into-his-board-on-the-right-time-and-place-on-the-wave surfing, not the hoppy-jumpy-impatient-able-bodied-but-less-skilled-mind-younger-guys-get-away-with-but-looks-horrible-to-the-eye kind of surfing.
Attachments
Great review! My guess is that when you get it in good open face waves arcing carves will be amazing robotic. I had a 6"8" T/C shaped bt Craig that I grabbed out of the factory in maybe 91 (was custom for someone on E coast but flaked out or something) it had vee from nose to tail and was amazing in steep walls for burying the rail. in my top 5 board list. I really want to try the reverse V!
-Just read N Carrols review, similar to what I felt. Interesting that I would have thought Vee would be slower than concave and the hard edge harder to turn. but I suppose the hard edge (and additional concave s fro the original version) with Vee work in harmony. Amazing that this design was discovered on accident!
Last edited:
I had a 6"8" T/C shaped bt Craig that I grabbed out of the factory in maybe 91 (was custom for someone on E coast but flaked out or something) it had vee from nose to tail and was amazing in steep walls for burying the rail. in my top 5 board list.
? Craig
? Craig
Craig Sugihara. You used to work there around that time, yes? If my memory serves I was told he didn't shape many at the time, maybe the vee nose to tail was something from the early 80's before rocker and concaves became dominant features?
Last edited:
I was there in 91
That was possibly the first year concaves started to be used and promoted on modern surfboards
That was possibly the first year concaves started to be used and promoted on modern surfboards
No, it was not your doing. You have discovered the reason why modern boards feature a tucked under rail edge. I discovered this in the early 80s when I made myself a board testing the theory of maximising planing area in a normal width board by bringing the flat planing surface very close to the rail perimeter with minimal tuck. It was a short twin fin, 5' 4" x 20" wide and quite difficult to surf, because it was prone to catching or accidentally sinking a real and I really had to concentrate to avoid this happening - a very unforgiving board. I know it is the lack of tuck that was the problem. From this I blame the lack of tuck for your Mermaid's lack of forgiveness - nothing to do with the hard edge, because my twin fin had what is best described as rounded corner - no hard edge forward of fins, but was still difficult to surf.
Edges do give us speed because they encourage the water to leave the hull cleanly rather than wrapping drag. So the modern tucked edge is giving us a board where we can turn on and off the wrap at will, bury the inside rail and the water will find its way around the edge and onto the main body of the rail to give us some stabilising push back. As we go rail to rail and the outside rail starts to lift out of the water in a turn, the water goes from wrapping to release aided by the edge. It takes more energy to make water turn a hard corner, so with the reduced pressure it succumbs and releases.
Many years later I built myself a board featuring a full length hard edge that was tucked - this board did not suffer from any of the unpredictability of the "no tuck" twin fin. Pinched rails in the mid section of a board do however make a board less forgiving - but at least in the case rail volume can be tuned to how much push back we want to feel when intentionally buried in a turn or going rail to rail and provide us with predicatability. For this reason I don't think rounded/chunky rails provide holding suction - instead they increase the push back and reduce the chances of accidentally sinking or catching a rail. Too chunky and we can't get them buried deep enough to get hold and really push our weight into the turn. Burying the rail for grip allows us to get more of that flat hull in the water banked over and pushing with some sideways force. So the hold comes from the flat hull and not "rail suction". My version of the full length tuck ,although forgiving and fast did feel a bit more "skatey" than a conventional rail though, which is why I wouldn't try it again, particularly as I like to ride conventional HP shortboards. I expect a designer who has put a lot of work into this sort of rail could balance out the skateyness with suitably thinned volume rails and bottom contours.
I do a lot of skimboarding nowadays - took it up a bit late in life, so I will be forever a beginner, but I have learned to get it to hold in and grip. The board has a dead flat underneath - Greg would approve
It is just 3/4" thick in the mid section with rails tapering to 5/8" in nose and tail - so very low volume and minimal tuck - actually not dissimilar in profile to my unstable twin fin experiment, although much thinner. No fins to rely on for hold when going into a turn - instead I have to get it banked over It will hold perfectly well if I do this and with such low volume rails I think we can debunk the idea that chunky rounded rails provide suction from water wrapping.