Rethinking length, wide, volume assumptions

The generally accepted assumption is that the LARGER you are as a rider the LONGER, WIDER and more volume you need. After yesterday, I am no longer a believer. I mean, that assumption is certainly true, but isn't the only answer.

I built a board, the painting is detailed here, the shape and construction isn't:

http://www.wakeworld.com/MB/Discus/messages/87668/727367.html?1252205289

The board is 4'5" long and Dennis is in the 280 pound area. Tribal knowledge would dictate a response of you'll never ride that - a minimum of waht? 5'3"?

I took this video of Dennis, so it's not great quality, but it should give a good indication of Dennis actually riding it - the lipslide is demonstrative of that:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e_pWkQzBdnY

These pictures don't do the riding justice, but I live the hang five Dennis is 6'2" or so inches tall, so hanging 5 is merely moving his front foot forward.

I wouldn't try and convince anyone that this board is perfectly sized for Dennis, but he shouldn't be able to actually ride it, based upon our collective knowledge.

I think that bottom contours and rocker shape have as much, if not more, impact on the drive of a board and that the longer, thicker, wider a board has to be to support a 250+ pound person, the less efficient that board is.

I would be convinced but I am in the camp of "Dennis could ride a 2X4". Pretty crazy.

Yeah, Dennis has mad skills, but not enough to overcome physics. We've had him on 4'5" boards before and mostly all he can do is keep up with the wake, any turns and he's done. This configuration allowed him to drive forward - with the board mostly submerged. What we do when folks have difficulty staying with the wake is try and reposition them to create efficiency (further forward, closer to the wake) failing that we resort to a bigger board. The bigger board, ignores efficiency and substitutes more volume. That's the standard to which we ALL subscribe...because it's easy.

Very interesting coming from the perspective of someone in the 250+ club! That board really is mostly submerged most the time. Just the tip sticking out and its almost painful watching/waiting for it to nosedive. I think also the size,shape,push of the wave have a lot to do with being able to pull this off. I believe on an average surf wave he would not pull this off nearly as easy. Kudo's to a sweet wave, a super cool board, and to Dennis skills!

Shame on you, DAD, for insinuating that Dennis doesn't have the skills to overcome physics. I've been told Santa Claus isn't real and neither is the Tooth Fairy. Please don't take Super Dennis from me too....

Notso,
I haven't let ANYONE know but you that I have levitation powers and that when riding a small board I really only weigh 180 lbs. I'll have to post the nose riding video on that board.

@bigcatpt: from above:

I wouldn't try and convince anyone that this board is perfectly sized for Dennis, but he shouldn't be able to actually ride it, based upon our collective knowledge.

We've had him on 4'5" boards before and mostly all he can do is keep up with the wake, any turns and he's done.

Dennis was actually riding this. Lipslides, driving forward. Even more impressive when you consider it's mostly submerged. In comparison to most of the other 4'5"'s I've put him on to test if it will support his weight, all he can do on those is trim. The point isn't that this is correct size, but that the shape (bottom and rocker) has a tremendous amount to do with whether a board can be ridden at a smaller size. All things being the same - the wake was the same, etc all of the variables you mentioned, weren't changed - this board Dennis was able to drive forward from the back of the pocket on all the others he can mostly trim in place.

Yes Jeff I totally agree with you. I may not have come across correctly. I am totally stoked with your findings here. I hope you continue to do "research" with this findings to help us bigger guys have more options for boards. If we can manipulate the shape some and be able to ride smaller/more manuverable boards then that is Super cool!!!!!! Now if you want to make me a board so I can do some "research" for you please let me know!!! LOL Keep up the good work!!!

Here is the hanging 5 video. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gTK9dpBY0VY

^ BALLER.

@ Dennis - when I click on that URL it tells me the video is private!!!!

@ bigcatpt - I'm sorry I misunderstood, Dennis wants me to shape him one too - I wanted to go 4'8", but Dennis is thinking 4'10". 4'8" would be way more impressive.

It's for goofy riders ONLY.

Sorry, couldn't resist.

You darkside riders are ALL the same. Can you actually see it dtw? Am I just a klutz in this regard? (watch your response!!!! )

I agree completely that bottom shape is just as important as dimensions on a wakesurf board. Also for me fin configuration makes a huge difference.

Flat bottomed boards are fast enough for all the 200 plus guys I ride with. But I hate twin fins, and this was reinforced on Saturday riding the IS Sweet Spot. I have the 2 small fins on the inside and 2 big Stretch FCS fins on the outside. I took out 1 Stretch heel side fin (riding regular wake), and I was surprised that I was having trouble staying in the wake. So I put the fin back in and the increased drive and pop was a big improvement. I also think the addition of some bottom contours on that type of board would be an improvement. Hopefully next year we'll see better boards for big guys.

It worked for me yesterday at the office

More important:

Bottom shape of the board
or
Bottom shape of the rider?

@ Meraculus - I read that tou swapped out a FCS fin into your IS - are you using the NSP adapter? If so, can you post up pictuires and other details for folks. If not - what'cha got going on? Please share!

@ dtw - did you actually post that question?

Jeff,
Yes the IS fin system is the same as NSP, and yes I'm using the adapter. It works but it's a pain, I wish IS would have stuck with Future or gone to FCS. I'll take a photo next time I put them in.

Yeah, I posted that question. I figure it may be easier for me to do something about the shape of my own bottom rather than the shape of the bottom of my board.