thought deforest was tomo in the first cutback pic.
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.
Tomo MPH
- Thread starter VaB
- Start date
Could anyone enlighten me on the difference between the use-cases for the Cymatic vs. Hydroshort vs Sci-Fi? I feel like they have a lot of overlap in terms of optimal/recommended wave range. Edit: and they all seem to be targeted towards more carvey high-performance surfing.
I have an Helium Evo, and even that board works better as a daily driver for me. It grovels okay, but I'd rather be on something else on those 1-2ft San Diego days.
I have an Helium Evo, and even that board works better as a daily driver for me. It grovels okay, but I'd rather be on something else on those 1-2ft San Diego days.
Thanks for the reply @waxfoot. I like the evo for what it is, and I’m not necessarily looking for a groveler. I am just trying to understand the difference between the Tomo offerings for FireWire/Slater Designs. Are they all just meant to fill in that similar daily driver role (unless you’re Kelly)? It seems weird business-wise to not to discontinue/retire older models when there’s so much overlap.
As a consumer it just feels confusing. For example, if I like my evo what is the better upgrade performance-wise between Hydroshort/Sci-Fi/Cymatic? Or just keep the Evo for a daily driver and get a Hydronaut or Omni as a step-up? I’m just understanding the nuances or differences of each board.
As a consumer it just feels confusing. For example, if I like my evo what is the better upgrade performance-wise between Hydroshort/Sci-Fi/Cymatic? Or just keep the Evo for a daily driver and get a Hydronaut or Omni as a step-up? I’m just understanding the nuances or differences of each board.
Geez if you think the Firewire Tomos have overlap stay far, far away from the marketing machine of the Lost website.
“This board fits the gap between your step down and your groveler for days when it’s 2 to 2.63 feet and slopey, and there are 8-12 other people in the water...can be ridden as a thruster, quad, asym, twinzer, single fin or finless...we recommend AM2s”
I've had a Vader, an SP2 (XTR version of the Cymatic), 2 different EVOs and I still have a Hydroshort and a Hydronaut. Vader was the best MPH, SP2 was fun and smooth, but needed a clean wave. Worked from shoulder-high for me. I never really got on with any of those EVOs, but there were a couple of moments here and there. Seemed to like shoulder-high and clean to me. The Hydronaut and Hydroshort (with a squash tail) are both in XTR. The Hydronaut is an absolute beast in quality waves. Perfect for Indo and big winter swells. Especially impressive when it is steep and sucky. The Hydroshort is a perfect winter daily driver. Handles choppy conditions way better than the short MPHs. Handles good waves too, smooth, easy to handle, doesn't let you down.
Personally, the only Tomos I would order again are the Hydronaut and the Hydroshort. They worked perfectly as a combo. The MPHs are a lot more hit-or-miss in terms of wave conditions and foot placement. If you pop-up and put your feet anywhere other than their sweetest of sweet spots, then you are fcuked. Plus they don't work well if you need to cut through some bumpy faces, etc. If I was you, I'd just get those boards.
Haha nailed it. They're definitely on top of their marketing game with social media and regular media, but I'm assuming they use the same CNC machines for most of their mass produced boards and then someone hand-finishes the board. I always assumed the FW assembly lines were more specialized so there's more cost involved in keeping people trained to make the boards plus dealing with all their constructions (LFT, He, wool?, etc.). Plus if you're spending money making Sci-Fis or Spitfires, it's money you're not making if you were churning out more Seasides or something more flavor of the month.
Thanks for the feedback! The interesting thing was that the Hydroshort's range is listed as 1-5ft, and I was wondering if anyone had tried it in that lower portion of it's range. I've had a lot of fun on the Evo with anything waist high and above since I feel like I'm getting a decent chunk of speed as soon as I'm up.
I definitely know what you mean by the sweet spot thing. I had my front foot behind the widepoint of the Evo the first few rides, and it just felt tracky and weird to turn on quads. Swapping in a thruster set seemed to help, but later that session I moved my foot up another 6 inches and it just clicked. For how high I felt like I was above the water the board held pretty well through turns, especially on better waves when going faster.
Sci fi has the lowest tail rocker out of the group you mention. If you're a heavy back-footer, that one will probably work best. Cymatic and Hydroshort have more tail rocker.
Cymatic looks more like an mph evolution to me. Narrower with a straighter rail line.
Hydrosquash more of a torpedo nosed hpsb with a curvier rail line.
I think they would be all ridden in a similar wave range, as you mention. It just depends on what feel you're after.
Cymatic looks more like an mph evolution to me. Narrower with a straighter rail line.
Hydrosquash more of a torpedo nosed hpsb with a curvier rail line.
I think they would be all ridden in a similar wave range, as you mention. It just depends on what feel you're after.
In my research, it seems generally accepted that a wide tail block equates to speed in surfboard design. Which is why, I believe, lots of shapers design small wave boards with wide tails. Personally, I think any board will work in small waves it just depends on what kind of surfing you want to do (trim and cruise or do turns) and your level of expertise. The new El Tomo might be a good match for a groveler in 1-2ft waves, as you describe. It has wide tail block and is touted to have the same rocker as the evo. The stock dims on the El Tomo also seem to carry more volume in a shorter package, so if you like the Evo, then transitioning to the new El Tomo might be a great fit for you as a grovel board. The El Tomo also has the QISC like the Evo. @jshin
I am eagerly waiting on some more reviews/feedback on the El Tomo Fish. From the footage of Dan riding it, it seems to be able to turn on a dime and throw some nice spray, but the guy also surfs a million times better than me. The video I watched just had everything in slow motion though and was kind of jerky and annoying to sit through. I kills me when they speed up the footage too *cough*CI*cough*.
Back to the El Tomo, the shape definitely looks really interesting, but I'm not sure I'm sure I'm sold on the functionality of tail shape yet. I dig less popular bat tails/diamond tails and combined with channels it looks like they decrease turbulence/drag based on the computational fluid dynamics work FW did with Riccardo Rossi. I would love to see some similar CFD work based on the El Tomo shape! Maybe Dan has some crazy intuition that we just don't grasp since we don't have his years of shaping experience.
If I understand the basic principles on the more modern jet fighter shapes (like the F-22 Dan said inspired the El Tomo tail), they're more designed to maximize stealth by reducing its radar signature with the faceted/angular designs. This comes at a cost of performance in air combat since faceted surfaces aren't really as aerodynamic, and these design deficiencies seem to be covered with other technologies. The F-117 seems to be a good example of an extreme of this. I know wikipedia isn't always the most reliable source, but I think it's still valuable for getting some high-level overview on different topics:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stealth_aircraft#Modern_era
Stealth aircraft - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
Lockheed F-117 Nighthawk - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
That's not to say that you always need to maximize design efficiency to make a board work. It could be that maybe slowing down a fast board with an MPH gives more control and feels great under foot. Maybe then you don't end up with too much uncontrollable speed and slide out or go flying at the first bump you hit going down the face. I'm sure "the whole is greater than the sum of it's parts" quote applies to surfboards with the contours, bottoms, tail/nose design, rocker, fins, etc.
I'm by no means an expert, so if anyone has corrections or counterpoints, I'd be happy to learn more!
Like the old proverb goes.... "experience is the best teacher".
The El Tomo might work for you differently than it would work for someone else. I would give it a try if I were you. Camp Shred this weekend would be a great opportunity to test it out, if you're in the SoCal area.
The El Tomo might work for you differently than it would work for someone else. I would give it a try if I were you. Camp Shred this weekend would be a great opportunity to test it out, if you're in the SoCal area.
Wait...Are ANIMA and jshin both Deforest?