Wake 101
Home   Articles   Pics/Video   Gear   Wake 101   Events   Community   Forums   Classifieds   Contests   Shop   Search
WakeWorld Home
Email Password
Go Back   WakeWorld > Wakesurfing

Thread Tools Display Modes
Old    Jeff Walker (surfdad)      Join Date: Sep 2004       02-02-2009, 8:55 PM Reply   
In another thread I mentioned wanting to try building a surfstyle board that has a maximum thickness of 1". In testing some panels, I couldn't keep them in one piece.

My inspiration for the solution came from this picture:

Old    Jeff Walker (surfdad)      Join Date: Sep 2004       02-02-2009, 9:01 PM Reply   
The multiple parabolic stringers closer to the centerline seems to be the ticket for allowing me to thin out the tail without having to go to a higher density foam or more layers of 'glass.

I started with a 1" thick piece of EPS hotwired (top and bottom) with the bottom rocker. Pictured here with the board I want to duplicate resting on top.

Old    Jeff Walker (surfdad)      Join Date: Sep 2004       02-02-2009, 9:04 PM Reply   
I used an outline template to draw the cut line, although I wound up change it as I didn't like the placement.

Old    Jeff Walker (surfdad)      Join Date: Sep 2004       02-02-2009, 9:06 PM Reply   
Then I cut it up! :-) I will wet out some carbon and then bag the whole mess to connect it all back up tomorrow.

Old    Andrew Taft (taft)      Join Date: Jul 2006       02-03-2009, 12:18 AM Reply   
If you need a tester give me a shout!
Old    Lakewakes Wakesurf Boards (brewkettle)      Join Date: Jan 2009       02-03-2009, 6:02 AM Reply   
Surfdad ,
now instead of the carbon strip can you just maybe router a v-groove .25 deep in the hull in the locations on your first posted pic. maybe this would give you the strenth without the added work
Old    Jeff Walker (surfdad)      Join Date: Sep 2004       02-03-2009, 6:29 AM Reply   
Definately a great idea brewkettle. My tail will be 1/2" thick. I'm going to build this board as a sandwich, so the EPS core at the tail will be 1/4" thick, with two 1/8" skins.

The groove, like you suggest, was one of my failures, in my test panels. It's significantly easier, as you know, but I'm guessing that the depth of the groove needs to be some minimum cross section to be effective. I'm sure there is some formula that describes the dimensions of the groove and the increase in stiffness, but I don't know it. I have such minimal amount of foam to work with, so far this carbon web in an I-beam scenario is the only thing I could get to work with the low density foam and light glass schedule I want to use...well, that's not is he LIGHTEST and stiffest of the options that didn't fail.
Old    Lakewakes Wakesurf Boards (brewkettle)      Join Date: Jan 2009       02-03-2009, 8:20 AM Reply   
make groove .5 wide .25 deep and lay 1" carbontape in groove then lam on top
Old    Lakewakes Wakesurf Boards (brewkettle)      Join Date: Jan 2009       02-03-2009, 10:45 AM Reply   
Old    Jeff Walker (surfdad)      Join Date: Sep 2004       02-03-2009, 11:38 AM Reply   
Great ideas! Thanks for the suggestions and following along.
Old    Andrew Taft (taft)      Join Date: Jul 2006       02-03-2009, 12:01 PM Reply   
So what exactly will a thinner board do for you? Let you rip faster, and pop higher?

Would the buoyancy be affected? Would you have to size-up?
Old    Lakewakes Wakesurf Boards (brewkettle)      Join Date: Jan 2009       02-03-2009, 12:42 PM Reply   
I think Surfdad wants for his boards to fit in the board racks he has and like everyone has, the concave on bottom should help in lift and if the board has enough area it should be fine.
Old    Jeff Walker (surfdad)      Join Date: Sep 2004       02-03-2009, 1:20 PM Reply   
Brewkettle is accurate in most all of that. I'd like to be able to slide my boards in the rack and NOT have to buy a new rack specifically for wakesurfers.

After completing my one zylon and kevlar board it occurred to me that I was still building based upon convetion rather than what made sense for the best ride, with these new materials available to me.

If you look at the skimmers like Phase 5 or Calibrated those boards are exceptionally thin in comparison to a traditional surf style board. 5/8", 3/4", 7/8", etc are the norm.

The bouyancy question is a great one. You're correct in your assumption that a thinner board reduces bouyancy, but what does that mean in terms of ride quality? A less bouyant board will allow the rails to sink easier and as such, it seems to offer mor aggressive performance, with a deep multiple fin pod.

One of the issues being floated around in the shaping community was that thicker surf style boards weren't built that way for performance, instead they were to keep the board from breaking. THINNER boards rode better. Remember that we don't have to paddle in, nor are we faced with the power of an ocean wave.

If you watch some of the popular skim video's or some of the YouTube video of the WWSC you can see that a 2" thick board just isn't required for floatation and in some instances reduces manuverability. Once the rail is set, you really don't need additional thickness. Well at least in my opinion and if you watch Drew and Dominic's runs from the WWSC, those boys would ride thicker boards if it offered them more performance.

On the skate deck inspired board, (zylon/kevlar) it was faster than James' signature board. I'm not claiming that is associated with thinness so much as it was the stiffest board I've ever built! :-) Pumping translated to immediate forward motion. I believe properly shaped, it has the potential to pop higher than a thicker board. For one, it will release better. This is something I've found with skim style compared to surf style in general. The one issue though is insuring the board doesn't become floppy as I thin it out.

There is a relative range with size and bouyancy. I think that thinning the board out, for James at least, will still keep it in his size range at 150 pounds, but it may become too small for me at 1 (ahem, clearing throat, what's that over there! diverting attention) 80 :-) Whereas, I can ride his 1 13/16" board without problem.'ll be a piece of crap. :-)
Old    wardovision (caskimmer)      Join Date: Apr 2006       02-03-2009, 1:35 PM Reply   
Nice, now you're really getting somewhere. I've been saying this for a while about board thickness.

This looks like something I'd really like to ride. I'd want the tail thicker than 1/2" though.
Old    Jeff Walker (surfdad)      Join Date: Sep 2004       02-03-2009, 1:49 PM Reply   
Thanks CA. The Walzer - which I believe caskimmer was involved in the design, IMO, is probably the most innovative foray into this concept.

I intend to use the Zylon and Kevlar again for this build, and that stuff produces such a stiff board, but as brewkettle points out, it might just be easier to shape the board with a 3/4 to 7/8 inch thick tail and might be the best performance option too as caskimmer feels. In my panel tests, the 1/2 thick tail responds similarly to the 7/8" tail that James is used to.

Time will tell.
Old    Lakewakes Wakesurf Boards (brewkettle)      Join Date: Jan 2009       02-03-2009, 2:12 PM Reply   
any link to the hydro boards???
Old    Jeff Walker (surfdad)      Join Date: Sep 2004       02-03-2009, 2:17 PM Reply   
No! I serached forever trying to find them. I found that picture in the Wakesurfing archives, I posted that...shoot late '07 I believe. I can't seem to find anything on those blanks now at all.
Old    Jeff Walker (surfdad)      Join Date: Sep 2004       02-03-2009, 8:11 PM Reply   
A little sloppy with the cut, but I am going to be hitting the deck with a planer, so I'll get rid of the loose "threads". In the bag cooking as I type this.

Old    Jeff Walker (surfdad)      Join Date: Sep 2004       02-04-2009, 8:45 PM Reply   
I have all my parts cut and assembled for glue-up tomorrow night. 3 strips of CF, H-80 rails and the trimmed core.

Old    Kona (konaking)      Join Date: Mar 2008       02-05-2009, 7:28 AM Reply   
Good work SD looking forward to the rest of the build
Old    Phil Jakubowski (65sanford)      Join Date: Feb 2007       02-05-2009, 11:46 AM Reply   
Good work--looks like my old Hyperlite Landlock--which I love
Old    Jeff Walker (surfdad)      Join Date: Sep 2004       02-05-2009, 12:13 PM Reply   
Thanks guys, hopefully in the bag tonight.

However, I do have a bone to pick with you Phil. :-) looks like my old Hyperlite Landlock You didn't just say that to me did you?! That's like your wife asking you if her BUTT looks big in these jeans and you say - yep, sure does. :-)

So for future reference - things like: "Wow! That looks incredibly futuristic, NOTHING like a Hyperlite/Liquid Force/CWB" would be acceptable :-)
Old    Jeff Walker (surfdad)      Join Date: Sep 2004       02-05-2009, 8:24 PM Reply   
In the bag cooking. Rails attached with a few layers of CF in between.

Old    Phil Jakubowski (65sanford)      Join Date: Feb 2007       02-05-2009, 8:40 PM Reply   
No offense--just seeing if you do read all the posts---it looks great and you are an inspiration to all of us who love the sport and hopefully one day, I will achieve building just one on my own(that works). When my wife asks if her butt looks big in anything I would reply yes and it is not the jeans doing it--I would not say that today with a baby on the way but it has been said--at least she has a sense of humor--keep up the good work and keep posting the pics as they come. I am hopefully receiving a 6"X 25"X 12'(yes I typed that right) block of foam very soon to try my own build(or 4)--take care
Old    Phil Jakubowski (65sanford)      Join Date: Feb 2007       02-05-2009, 8:42 PM Reply   
(i really do love my old landlock)
Old    Jeff Walker (surfdad)      Join Date: Sep 2004       02-05-2009, 8:48 PM Reply   
LOL You are a brave man telling your wife that! 12'? Really? That's a bunch of foam! I'm glad that you are inspired! You'll have to post up your builds, it's always fun to watch folks.
Old    Phil Jakubowski (65sanford)      Join Date: Feb 2007       02-06-2009, 5:33 AM Reply   
maybe brave, a little slow or just plain stupid--i don't know
Old    Jeff Walker (surfdad)      Join Date: Sep 2004       02-06-2009, 6:15 AM Reply   
:-) Not stupid, just forthright!

Out of the bag this morning, it's starting to take shape. The tail is significantly stiffer than the rest of the blank. At 1" it
's going to need to be thinned to keep it balanced. The area in front of the fin placement is solid, so I am encouraged by that. That is where most of my boards fold, my presumption is that area recives a significant amount of stress and has been the weakest in past builds.

Old    Lakewakes Wakesurf Boards (brewkettle)      Join Date: Jan 2009       02-06-2009, 8:09 AM Reply   
nice rail wrap , what oz. are you going with 6/6??
Old    Jeff Walker (surfdad)      Join Date: Sep 2004       02-06-2009, 3:27 PM Reply   
Hey brewkettle, thanks. I am going full sandwich on this. 1.7 oz Kevlar sandwich layer, an additional Kevlar patch under the deck, 5 # deck skin, then 4 oz Zylon.
Old    Jeff Walker (surfdad)      Join Date: Sep 2004       02-06-2009, 9:30 PM Reply   
I did a little shaping until I got rained out! It seems like ages since we've had rain here. I didn't get a picture, but I've shaped the concave in the bottom and it's ready for attachment of the bottom skin.

Old    Andrew Taft (taft)      Join Date: Jul 2006       02-06-2009, 11:31 PM Reply   
That's a good hobby you've got going there. How long have you been shaping boards Jeff?
Old    Jeff Walker (surfdad)      Join Date: Sep 2004       02-07-2009, 6:31 AM Reply   
Thanks Andrew. I find to be a great deal of fun. I can remember my first effort, I was about 12 years old. So that's 40 years ago! Sheesh. :-) I haven't shaped that entire time, I'd have to say that I took it back up as a hobby about 6 years ago.
Old    Kona (konaking)      Join Date: Mar 2008       02-07-2009, 7:03 AM Reply   
You just dated yourself SD
Anyways yes it is a fun hobby although I am nowhere as far a long as you are. Thanks for all the post. My board shop is now my ski shop for winter. I need more room.
Old    Jeff Walker (surfdad)      Join Date: Sep 2004       02-07-2009, 7:08 AM Reply   
I thought I already had dated myself when Chris (Rio_Sanger) and I were laughing about making skateboards out of 2 x 4's and (stolen) steel (steal? :-) ) wheeled skates!

My shop is consumed with "stuff" also, it seems that I accumulated said stuff to fill all available space! :-)
Old    Johnny Stieg (jstieg)      Join Date: Apr 2007       02-07-2009, 12:50 PM Reply   
tell me about it jeff, i have a jet ski im rebuilding, 2 dirt bikes, a long travel mini sand rail, a quad, and piles and piles of random junk that we cant seem to bring outselves to get rid of because we may find a handy use for it one day. on top of that i have tryed to shape a few boards a longggg time ago and im still finding foam ill all the crap we have.
Old    Jeff Walker (surfdad)      Join Date: Sep 2004       02-07-2009, 8:06 PM Reply   
LOL foam gets EVERYWHERE! :-) Do you have a mini sand rail? Those look so cool.
Old    Jeff Walker (surfdad)      Join Date: Sep 2004       02-08-2009, 10:12 AM Reply   
I have been LAZY! :-) I finally got the bottom in the bag this morning. 1.7 oz Kevlar sandwich layer and 3mm Divinycell H80 bottom skin.

I did one to show one hack I did to make the skin fit. I didn't have a piece of 3mm H80 large enough to cover the bottom, so I had to piece that skin together. The nose of the board doesn't receive much stress. No doubt most folks have seen the squared off noses of boards, as that last few inches isn't needed.

I merely trimmed some off-cut to match the area that wasn't covered.

Old    Jeff Walker (surfdad)      Join Date: Sep 2004       02-08-2009, 4:41 PM Reply   
The bottom skin attached and the deck shaped.

Old    Jeff Walker (surfdad)      Join Date: Sep 2004       02-08-2009, 4:44 PM Reply   
I believe it was caskimmer that was trying to tell me that the actual shaped rails on a wakesurfer don't consume more than a 1" square area. I couldn't quite "hear" him until I shaped the rails on this board. Principally they are identical to what James has always ridden.

Crappy photo, but suffice it to say enlightening for me to go through this build.

Old    Ryan Bates (surfin247)      Join Date: Dec 2008       02-09-2009, 2:23 PM Reply   
Jeff, how does the board handle the landing after getting air. Not just being strong enough not to break, but being so thin do the landings tend to bury the board under the water (pearling). We use to use a junior size surfboard that was quite thin about 1 1/4" to 1 3/8' thick with a similar shape,and if you didn't land flat on the board each time it tended to pearl at the nose or either rail. There just wasn't enough bouyancy to handle our weight on impact. You could cruise and do surface tricks just fine, but air tricks were harder to land. No exotic materials were used,as in your project. Maybe they added more bouyancy along with strengthening the board. Can't wait to see how the new board handles, especially for the 185 lbs.and up club.
Old    Jeff Walker (surfdad)      Join Date: Sep 2004       02-09-2009, 3:33 PM Reply   
Hey Ryan! It good to hear from you again. How are things down FL way? Thanks for following along. I would imagine that smaller, thinner boards aren't as forgiving and may possibly "bury" at the nose or rail if you don't land spot on. The board I'm making is super light. I did a weigh-in, yesterday, for my build log and it's just a tad over 1 pound, I think it's 18 oz. I'm projecting a finished weight under 3 pounds...close to 2.5 pounds (fingers crossed! :-) ), naked.

This thinner board will have considerably less volume, so I'm guessing even with the lower weight, it will have less bouyancy than what James is used to.

I was trying to find an old picture of James on a Walzer. That board was, I think, 7/8" thick nose to tail. James never seemed to have any difficulty with the burying issue. Perhaps it has something to do with the width. That grom board, was it around 16 to 17 inches wide? James typically rides a board with a width of about 20 inches, this board included. I do believe that wider plan shapes add more stability and forgiveness.

This is a crappy picture and it's several years old now, of James on a Calibrated Lovett Pro. Jaime is skimming for Zap now, quite a talented young man..anyway, this board was maybe 1/2" thick, very thin and didn't display any on the burying issues you describe. It also is about 20" wide.


This is a picture of Tommy Czeschin from the WWSC. I believe he will be offering his Crowley Wake line this summer. This is also an extremely thin board, I think it's in the 5/8" thick range and that board has a slight concave through the bottom, it also is right around 20 inches wide.


My "instinct" tells me that width must have an impact on the stability after landing.
Old    Chris (rio_sanger)      Join Date: Apr 2007       02-09-2009, 4:04 PM Reply   
I agree with you Jeff, it's the width, and how one lands on the board.
Both my sons ride their skimboards, (about 5/8" thick and 20" or so wide), and have no problem landing airs.
Old    Rob (wakesurf_ohio)      Join Date: Jun 2007       02-09-2009, 4:36 PM Reply   
Agreed .. the landings on a walzer or any calibrated hasn't been a problem for me from the board being too thin.
Old    Ryan Bates (surfin247)      Join Date: Dec 2008       02-09-2009, 6:45 PM Reply   
Width is important, but at the weights (185 lbs and up) it is not everything. Most boards start to lose response once they get much wider than 22-24 inches and you are trying to keep the length under 60 inches. The board your designing sounds a lot like a CarbonTek Comp X 4.6 or 4.9. by Walker. If I remember right, they were 4'6" or 4'9" long and just under a 1" thick and width under 22". The PU ones had breaking issues on underwater starts. They also, had pearling issues for bigger riders. I believe a bigger nose rocker helped this issue. I have only heard of one CarbonTek Comp X that was sold on TWP. It was one of Mike's personal ones. Most of the success I've seen with thinner boards are for riders usually under 180 lbs. I loved my Comp X 5.0, but when I designed my custom I wanted it to be a little shorter and around 21" wide, but more bouyant for bigger riders, so something had to give(width). The new board sounds great for James, but let me know how that new board rides for you. You'll be a better gauge for someone of my size.
Old    Jeff Walker (surfdad)      Join Date: Sep 2004       02-09-2009, 7:04 PM Reply   
If I don't fall off, I consider it a success for me! :-) Right now I'm at a stand still, my HD foam hasn't shipped and I can't seem to get in touch with the vendor - sheesh, I hope it doesn't turn into an e.wood style adventure! :-)
Old    Dennis (dennish)      Join Date: May 2005       02-09-2009, 7:14 PM Reply   
Hey Ryan,
I ride a Comp X 5.0 and I am about 275. The new Comp X boards are a whole lot different than the original ones.
Old    Ryan Bates (surfin247)      Join Date: Dec 2008       02-09-2009, 9:46 PM Reply   
Dennis, Yea I know. I went through Gen.I, II and I now still own a Gen.III Comp X. I think there is even a Gen.IV. I went for a custom CarbonTek Bullet and love it. I don't have to land perfect. The Bullet has a more "room for error" factor. I can recover from just about anything. It also, helped with riding my off side "regular". I still use the Comp X 5.0 as a training board because just about anyone can ride it. I have had a 7 year old 50-60 lbs. girl rope free and up to 250 lb guy ride it. It is a very versatile board. We even ground down a pair of 3.5" sidebites to about 1.5" for those who like to ride more skim style, and for the surf style we ride the Vector 3/2. The Comp X makes a good first board to find out what kind of ride/style a person prefers.
Old    Ryan Bates (surfin247)      Join Date: Dec 2008       02-09-2009, 9:54 PM Reply   
Dennis, If you want a real good workout, try riding that Comp X 5.0 finless. Talk about a leg and hip BURN!!!!
Old    Jeff Walker (surfdad)      Join Date: Sep 2004       02-18-2009, 8:33 PM Reply   
Finally got my Corecell today, it was damaged in shipment, so I fanagled it as best I could. I'm not going to wait another two weeks! :-)

My favorite underlayment at the moment is 1.7 oz Kevlar. Kevlar is substantially stiffer than 2 oz eglass and Kevlar is also great in tension.

Old    Jeff Walker (surfdad)      Join Date: Sep 2004       02-18-2009, 8:36 PM Reply   
This is a crappy picture, but I am trying to bend in a tiny bit of nose flip in the last 3 inches. I taped a chunk of EPS to the rocker bed. It's exaggerated, so that when the top sandwich layer cures, it will relax a bit.

Old    Kona (konaking)      Join Date: Mar 2008       02-19-2009, 5:51 AM Reply   

What is the board in the bag behind pic one. Also what bag are you using. Just about ready to give it a try.
Old    Jeff Walker (surfdad)      Join Date: Sep 2004       02-19-2009, 6:16 AM Reply   
Hey Kona,

That is so cool that you are going to start bagging! :-) Keep us posted of your progress, please.

Which board?! :-) Actually I'm working on a mold, so most likely that is the project you are seeing.

I am only about 40 miles from ACP Composites, so I use them for most all of my supplies. The yellow'ish bag in the pictures is their 36" wide Nylon tubing. You can find it here. Most commercially available bagging films come in different flavors. Just ask for it in LFT (Lay Flat Tube) and you have the same concept as the above.

The board out of the bag, this morning, ready for final trimming.

Old    Kona (konaking)      Join Date: Mar 2008       02-19-2009, 7:03 AM Reply   
Wow looks like it has been on weight watchers ;)
Thanks for the info SD
Old    Kona (konaking)      Join Date: Mar 2008       02-19-2009, 7:11 AM Reply   
This one

(Message edited by konaking on February 19, 2009)
Old    Kona (konaking)      Join Date: Mar 2008       02-19-2009, 7:17 AM Reply   

Old    Lakewakes Wakesurf Boards (brewkettle)      Join Date: Jan 2009       02-19-2009, 8:18 AM Reply   
surfdad , i have gone to the 27" bag and 2oz breather from another suppier ,CST

(Message edited by brewkettle on February 19, 2009)
Old    Jeff Walker (surfdad)      Join Date: Sep 2004       02-19-2009, 9:21 AM Reply   
Oh yeah, CST is a good supplier. They are about the only folks that carry Rohacell at retail. That 27" LFT is a better size, less air to evacuate.

Love your graphics Kona!

I think that picture isn't a bag. I religously hang my bags up in the south east corner of the shop. I believe that is some release film that I left on a test sample. It's a carbon/spectra blend fabric. MISERABLE to work with, but seriously WAY COOL technicals. :-) I'll have to see how it holds up.
Old    Jeff Walker (surfdad)      Join Date: Sep 2004       02-19-2009, 9:26 PM Reply   
Deck skin trimmed and blended. I want to fill the seam between the d-cell rails and corecell skin with a bit of bondo and then it's ready for external lamination.

Old    Jeff Walker (surfdad)      Join Date: Sep 2004       02-22-2009, 5:22 PM Reply   
I prefer the 1.7 oz Kevlar to a 2 oz eglass underlayment. The one issue with Kevlar (which doesn't sand) is that when I blend the deck skin into the rails, I typically expose some of it. With the Kevlar, I've found that a thin bead of Bondo over the seam covers the exposed Kevlar.

Old    Jeff Walker (surfdad)      Join Date: Sep 2004       02-22-2009, 5:23 PM Reply   
Then a quick hit with the surform and some 60 grit and it's read for covering.

Old    Jeff Walker (surfdad)      Join Date: Sep 2004       02-24-2009, 8:40 PM Reply   
External lamination done. Fin boxes are curing now. I decided to do a "Stinger" fin pod on this board to see how it worked on a thin board.

The rail boxes are standard 3/4's. I did hack into the deck skin about 1/16" towards the back, but I did it! :-)

Old    Jeff Walker (surfdad)      Join Date: Sep 2004       02-24-2009, 8:43 PM Reply   
All the boxes in. The C-5's are only 1/2" depth, so no problems with that part of the install.

Old    Jeff Walker (surfdad)      Join Date: Sep 2004       02-24-2009, 8:47 PM Reply   
This is a quick photo comparison of the build on top of a Calibrated Telum.

Old    Kona (konaking)      Join Date: Mar 2008       02-25-2009, 6:49 AM Reply   
I need to try a quad fin this summer. This is about all you use anymore ?
Looks good cant wait to see how it rides.
Old    Jeff Walker (surfdad)      Join Date: Sep 2004       02-25-2009, 2:57 PM Reply   
Thanks Kona. I'm hoping we get some good weather here over a weekend so that we can get out and ride, I have some boards to test. Yeah, we just ride this setup, or a standard twin fin. It's probably best referred to as a twinzer, with the leading canards that are smaller than the rail fins and closer to the rails. Wil Jobson is the father of that design. This fin set up "steals" from the Jobson twinzer and Rusty C-5 sans the trailer fin.

The quads are most commonly set like the Comp I by Shred Stixx that Chase and Johnny ride. The trailing fins are inset and behin the rail fins.

I's amazed at the different ride you can generate from playing with fins.
Old    Lakewakes Wakesurf Boards (brewkettle)      Join Date: Jan 2009       02-25-2009, 5:10 PM Reply   
i think the only time you will need quad fins would be if you ride 12 to 14 mph and have a rocker like a potato chip. i can generate plenty of drive with a twin or thruster and better with a c/5 setup
Old    Jeff Walker (surfdad)      Join Date: Sep 2004       02-25-2009, 8:52 PM Reply   
Hotcoat on the deck. I'm not going to apply any graphics to this project, so just the hotcoat on the bottom and it's done!

Old    Jeff Walker (surfdad)      Join Date: Sep 2004       02-25-2009, 8:55 PM Reply   
I had to share this one picture of James. He is studying "surfboard shaper" for his senior project. One of the requirements is job shadowing, James visited Mike Walker for that part and now he is "making" a surfboard as the last step. :-)

Old    Jeff Walker (surfdad)      Join Date: Sep 2004       02-26-2009, 9:03 PM Reply   
The joys of hotcoats in the early spring - bugs :-)

Old    Derek (ds3)      Join Date: Jun 2008       02-26-2009, 9:46 PM Reply   
Those bugs are SO wrong!!
Old    Jeff Walker (surfdad)      Join Date: Sep 2004       03-08-2009, 7:25 PM Reply   
We got a chance to go out today. This board rode well. Definately possible to shape a board this thin. The thinner rails make it more responsive rail-to-rail and there didn't seem to be any issue with too much flex or not enough foam. I'm not exactly sure why, but this board was exceptionally fast down-the-line. I don't believe it has anything to do with the thickness.



Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

All times are GMT -7. The time now is 9:03 AM.

Home   Articles   Pics/Video   Gear   Wake 101   Events   Community   Forums   Classifieds   Contests   Shop   Search
Wake World Home


© 2016 eWake, Inc.    
Advertise    |    Contact    |    Terms of Use    |    Privacy Policy    |    Report Abuse    |    Conduct    |    About Us