Did you forget the newest breed, being wider as you said, are mostly all tri and some quads?
And refined with big rears. Narrow hips,
widepoint forwards!
Not wide hips, or centered WPoints.
Select to expand quoteseabreezer said..
Big boards for my weight now I'm prioritising thruster set-up ... I feel they offer
1) extra pivot vs quad - ie crank a tighter turn ,
2) you can ride them stance further back vs quad , and therefore turn off the tail a bit more
3) reduce the length of rail in turns etc and unstick as much as possible ... Bigger rear in middle pitches nose up more
4) and thruster for me hold the rail better when dealing with volume ... (ie bigger backfin can take more committed bottom turn power before getting skittish on the rail in chop vs quad
5) And I can have a faster rocker with thruster and still tap into as much looseness because of extra pivot ...
This above is all based on faster rockers (which for yr big board is obviously good) ... If your on a big design with lots tail kick - maybe quad in that case works better ... ?? there's a few production examples where this might be true ...
WHats everyone else liking as their big board ? ... .quad or thruster ?
Hi Seabreezer,
I agree with what you're saying here to an extent. I'm no too sure about the pivot concept though. I'd always prefer to see a full rail turn with good release through the tail.
This can be achieved in larger volume wave boards by designing the whole board correctly.
It's not just having a narrow tail as LeeD says.
If you balance the whole design and be clever about it, it will work.
LeeD is looking at 1 small element of board design and is completely blind to the rest of it.
Hi seabreezer
I'm curious what it is about thrusters that enable faster rockers. Looking at a quad at the moment and its pretty quick. Just not as sure footed as a thruster. Not ridden a lot of quad but they feel looser to me.
I think that thruster pivot is really important to me for pushing more vertical sailing ... I was back on a really 'tuned in quad' old faithful a few weeks ago solid size DTL , and trying to ride vertically like I do on my thruster (trying to hit that 12-1am on port , or 11-12pm on starboard) - the quad had this bit of annoying latency off the top , getting a bit stuck when trying to get back on the heel rail off the top that never happens on my thruster , I could offset it a little with lots of body language just before topturn - but it was still nowhere near as quick to re-direct ... I always had to compensate some time for this little rail to rail fudging at that critical moment ... a thruster you can just crunch straight through that phase ..
And you can apply that a little to bigger boards / and / or smaller waves - when your throwing around MUCH more volume - having that pivot helps to throw big boards around in tight spaces on a wave ... I like rail turns as well - quads as you say - feel nice the way they feed the rail off a shallow topturn , and then have that bit of release , ... but I also like hacking a turn right in the throat of a wave on a thruster - feeling that torque that the bigger single rear gives - and spray go flying ... - think say along lines of how vintage polakow used to turn back in the single fin days , all through the tail and huge fantail sprays - equally as sick imo ... , but for me the thruster still does rail turns pretty good when asked ..
There's many different ways to turn that look sick - take for example Stones vert whips into fin clear and drift the tail in the air ... still throwing loads of spray - not so much a rail turn - more an almost taka throw and tweak ... unreal ...
You just nailed it there Seabreezer, " so many ways to turn that look sick"
Not so much right or wrong, just how you want it to be 
Select to expand quoteGestalt said..
Hi seabreezer
I'm curious what it is about thrusters that enable faster rockers. Looking at a quad at the moment and its pretty quick. Just not as sure footed as a thruster. Not ridden a lot of quad but they feel looser to me.
Hoop should answer this , but I'll have a go based on my experiences ...
Imo the fact that you can stand further back on the board (thruster) and lever some of that say flatter big board mastfoot rocker out of the equation - as quads by nature - smaller rears - sit more nose down , engaging unwanted rocker in some cases ...
Ive sailed a fast rockerline that on say on an 85 ltr feels amazing as quad ..... then you go to a 95 ltr same rocker , but bit of extra width , and suddenly that release'y rocker feels REALLY handbrake like with quads and nose down , and say fast speeds on the front foot ... When you add width on a board - with same rocker - you start instantly having more contact / drag area (even if the board / rocker is same length as smaller version) ... and big boards obviously add width
Ive also found sometimes with chunky volume rails AND quad I have to have my straps (and therefore fins) further forward to keep the rail engaged ... a set of 15 rears will never have the security of an 18 rear for me ... To qualify this - Ive also had medium to fast rockerline boards that feel just PLAIN AVERAGE as quad - not alot of spark or excitement factor , then Ive plugged in thruster in the 5 box , moved straps back - and that rockerline just becomes a whole different level of fun and performance ... I like to take quads out now and again .... and enjoy that drift to the fins mid turn .... but more often than not I miss the power of a thruster at all different angles ..
btw - Just to qualify my thruster preference ... for maybe 7 years I was riding quads exclusively - as I could never get the feel I wanted out of thrusters ... (they always seemed overly tracky etc ) .... and therefore LOVED quads alot ... and couldn't understand why a few thruster advocates were so ... 'anti quads' ... Then I finally got thruster working , changed my sailing up a bit , looked for more fin power etc .... and now see more restrictions in how quads sometimes work / feel ... and I see it particularly in 'big volumes vs yr weight' .... I just don't think I would buy a dedicated high volume 'quad only' now ... it would have to be 5 box and use as thruster , or I'm totally fine with weight saving and 3 box only ... 5 box is the obvious answer ... and with my bias - don't mind thruster exclusive boards , but a quad exclusive ? not for me ...
What was the largest EVO, the one primary discussed, not the newer IQ?
i had a Angulo Amigu, that was similar , maybe a year newer than the EVO , I had both, 80liters or thereabouts.
the Amigu was really kool, converted to tri fin .See google images , Angulo Amigu, it's the one leaning against the shed.
less said about the EVO the better, it was a pretty shade of blue.
i also had the Tabou DaCurve 79 liter, long and narrow, single. The Angulo worked for me much better than the others.
im a real world sailer, I put on pants on 1 leg at a time, the only quality I have with Matt Prichard is when I fall in as does he, we both get wet.
thread has morphed from big wave board to the plus minus of 3 4 or 5 fin boxes.
my ?2, what ever that is.
twins don't get mentioned .
3 fins, the character can be changed by size, to feel like a twin, a 2+1 which equals a single( long center, short sides)
moderating the fin size , lesser or more in the fin cluster will alter . Trailing tri fin, which has inboard fronts, compared to a tri fin thruster configuration, had some play, mine is ok, but the board itself is not a good example as a test bed.
4 fins, more complicated , size larger rear, larger front , same size all 4, alters the character ,the feel.
given the choice , as I've had with 2 customs, the tri fin is my weapon of choice.
a Brian Cartwright custom from MAUI, bred to sail in Hood River a tri, 83l, sweet ride, very very light.
I had a Flikka, FSW 99, 5 boxes, rode more a tri than quad, spent too much time playing with fins, I finally said quad or tri for that day.
OTOH, I've a NAISH Titan, Freeride that I reshaped the nose, tail , removed powerbox. Installed slotbox rears, and ProBx surf boxes for a quad, also moved straps and mast track. This a $50 swap meet board , approx 92l, unreal performance.
ride it quad only, twin a possibility.
the board which I compare most to is a Witchcraft Chakra 88l, tri fin.this generation l, looks odd sails wonderful.
I have no use for 5 boxes.
i feel I can make a quad feel like a twin, a tri , to some degree, you can't alter the board itself, just its personality traits.
photos available , and been posted before.
I have 79 and 89 litre Starboard quads with raked back Drake fins and 86 and 98 !!! Litre Quatro Cubes with upright MFC fins.
I'm a quad man in case you hadn't noticed.
Hat off to you Scottie, the Starboards let you get away with murder in knarly waves but my Quatros suit the conditions we get here on the east coast better.
Hoops and Scottie may or may not agree with me here, and they are board shapers and I am not but.......single, twinnie,thruster, quad.
They are fin configurations and do not solely determine the nature or performance of a board. .
All the other elements of the board design is as if not more relavent.
I think that my proof of this, is just how different my Starboards are to my Quatros.
Both quads but so,so different.
But I will say that although the Starboards are better in steeper waves, the Quatros don't disgrace themselves in the same conditions.
I like to flatter myself by doing my version of Scott Mckercher's Gouge in the pocket hahaha
but if you are heavy on the back foot then quads may not suit you. They turn off the rail ,even off the top if you want to wrap.
But that's how I sailed my single fins anyway.
????????
Doesn't matter what you are sailing, just so long as you are enjoying sailing it.
Stay safe everyone.
Forgot to mention, and this is for LeeD especially, the one foot off tail measurements are wider on the Starboards than on the Quatros , but if I was dropping into a Hookipa wave, I would choose the Starboard.
Rocker, vee, rail foil, blablabla
The times they are a changing.
What about the hip where the front strap lies?
Or the centered WidePt making the hip outline curve even more drastic?
Causing great low speed short radius turns to help you ride your slow moving weak waves.
Specialized board for slow moving waves.
I had a Starboard Evo 92 from 2005/2006 ish, same shape as the board in this picture. Was absolutely brilliant. I kept it as my go to board until the Quatro Cubes came out in 2013 ish.
Back to the original question, it got me thinking - there are actually quite a few quality boards over 100 litres, I've listed some below:
Quatro Cube 106, Goya Custom 4 114, Goya Custom 3 106, JP Ultimate Wave 102, Rrd Wave Cult 114, Fanatic Grip 102, Simmer Quantam 115, Tabou Da Bomb 104, Severne Nano 102, Naish Assault 105, Witch Craft Wave v5 110 & 117 - and Haka 110 & 115, Partik QT Wave 103 & 113, NoveNove C5 101... and quite a few very close to 100 litres..... and I'm sure there would be others, especially when you start to include the free wave category - that would really open up your options!!!
I'm sure the answer to the original question simply comes down to costs, and demand - if the volume for demand was high enough I could guarantee there would be a lot more options over 100 litres. How much bigger would you want a production wave board to be anyway - given the list above. Are there many people out there wanting a production wave board bigger than 114+ litres and if so what size would you want??? Let me know, I'd be really interested.
Also if you know of other production wave boards that I have missed over 100 litres let us know what they are, I'm sure I will have missed some.
Cheers
Select to expand quoteLeeD said..
What about the hip where the front strap lies?
Or the centered WidePt making the hip outline curve even more drastic?
Causing great low speed short radius turns to help you ride your slow moving weak waves.
Specialized board for slow moving waves.
Ive sailed 4 starboard quads alot previously ... They would have wide point at mid , and hip curve .... They were pretty intuitive imo - way more intuitive in response to some other production boards I wont name ( that had less hip curve incidently / straighter sections of rail and that wavesailed pretty bad imo) ... I would be pretty happy having starby quads in my quiver ... There's some instances Ive found say riding mast hi waves - and slightly underpowered - in VERY SIDESHORE waves - the type of conditions where the wind in your sail disappears fast at your bottom turn entry ... where on a narrower tail you start losing speed quick (particulary on a point reef break - ie all the action is close and you cant gun DTL ) ... not so much of a problem in smaller waves as you can turn tight and quick to offset ... but on bigger say mast high faces - the board loses drive to claw back up - this is an area where say Wider squashtail and bit of hip width is really beneficial ... to keep driving back up a big wave with EASE and have enough speed and power to execute a powerful topturn ... And starboard quads were particularly good at this - keep plowing straight back up at that uphill lip ... As soon as the bend kinks a few degrees off this total sideshore - then you can generate apparant wind and get speed easy on narrower tails .. But again - the traits you list Lee'D can be very beneficial in big surf ... And I can see Margaret river DNA in the starboard quads - ie Very sideshore and often big surf ..
Ive also sailed the starboard 77 quad - and have to say in smaller Half mast or less - sideshore conditions - was a dream - almost unbeatable performance - incredibly fun , reactive , intuitive , good arc varaibility and radical off the top in its response WITHOUT being random / unpredictable (again like some other brand production waveboards that I just do not like fullstop) ....
Squash tails and wider hips have their place ... all angles of wind (side-on , side , side off ) ... and below halfmast conditions they can rip ... ! (not just slow weak onshore waves as you assert ) Whats the big deal ? - in the surfboard world there's millions of boards designed to rip hard in below head and half etc ... and give ultra responsive performance ... then surfers switch to another model for bigger surf ...
Just maybe LeeD , if you had had a wider tailed waveboard - your sessions at PSC would have been WAAAAY more productive and fun ( ie add drive to the tail to offset the softer wave power) ,.... and you wouldn't have had to drive all those extra km's to P Abreojos and act like such a Hero .. just a thought ...
You can't be so blind to miss my saying the Evo is a very good board for PSC.
The Evo is very good for PSC, a slow incoming soft, but fast peeling mushy wave.
Select to expand quoteLeeD said..
You can't be so blind to miss my saying the Evo is a very good board for PSC.
The Evo is very good for PSC, a slow incoming soft, but fast peeling mushy wave.
So why didnt you save the km's , and take an Evo to PSC ? ...
I did miss you saying that - you were saying always onshore mushy wave ? .
And in answer to the question you NEVER had the knowledge or NOUS to answer - in 1999 , Mark Nelson made Nik Baker an experimental proto for the Punta San Carlos PWA event .... Everyone at the time was riding 255's .... Mark Nelson's proto was 235 ! compact design - wider tail , probably bit of extra v etc , Nik Baker finished 2nd place to JP in 1st ... I would argue that board , along with say starby fish - were the first true compact boards ... Then starboard were first to go volume production with a compact shape EVO quite a few years later ...
Select to expand quoteLeeD said..
Did you forget the newest breed, being wider as you said, are mostly all tri and some quads?
And refined with big rears. Narrow hips,
widepoint forwards!
Not wide hips, or centered WPoints.
Again ..... conflating different ideas and presuming same outcome ... Ie all wider tails are like Evo , despite different concave depths / v , rocker , etc
Your big rear , narrow hips modern day boards - like you seem to arguing above as being fine -( ie not wide tailed and wide hipped) ... what about 1st Reactor ?? - that would fit above 'fine nowadays ' definition ? would it not ? wide point forward , big rear , narrow hips ... Yet I would say the starboard quad (wide tail squash and wide hip ) has way more range , application and topend in decent conditions ... ? ... So please explain how that fits with your universal BS theories ????!!! ... Thats the sort of blinkered thinking that makes you look a D1ck
So what looks more like the evolutionary link here LeeD to current day ? ....
The extremely narrow pintail 75ltr x 54 cm x 248 ish - 2003 ish - pin nose ... , with 3 feet of pintail hanging out
or the evo 2005 ish , 235 ish x ?? 56.5 ish ... wider nose , backstrap rear , wider hips and rear of board
Ooooh - that goya looks a bit curvy in that hip area to me - that will not handle those epic waves of ... better get KT on the phone tell him to get that line to the dumpster quick
Select to expand quotestonny said..
Forgot to mention, and this is for LeeD especially, the one foot off tail measurements are wider on the Starboards than on the Quatros , but if I was dropping into a Hookipa wave, I would choose the Starboard.
Rocker, vee, rail foil, blablabla
The times they are a changing.
Interesting statement, in that it's far to generalized, Which Starboard and Quatro?
i don't have the measure but my Starboard Acid was pretty narrow tail.
perhaps you mean the newer designs, not 2002-era , but most discussion is about the EVO , what 2004?
Seabreezer,
nice 3 photo , evolution.
i am not going to answer for lee, he seems quite capable to answer, ( notice I said nothin about content )
the Goya , or any equivalent newer board say 2015 onward I have not ridden. I'm getting old and sick, I have far too many boards already. I always felt both Quatro and Goya were mostly MAUI oriented designs, their larger FSW boards did compare well to others. The Quatro freestyle custom I had , was a far cry from my Skate, or my JP freestyle, both I still have 105 and JP 93.
i didn't like my EVO, 74, there I said it. Starboard has innovative stuff on occasion, they also do stupid things.
They dropped the Carve series, they did bring it back, the first quad fin boxes were a joke. The wood on most decks did not hold up, the Evil Twin , lasted but one yet, succeeded by the quad mentioned above,very good board as were its successors. I ve had a lot of Starboard, and Tabou boards. My current stuff is mostly custom boards,MOO Custom, NELSON, Brian Cartwright, Witchy, and my own creations.
from the Rocky Mountains , 7 degree F, with snow, self isolation due to covid19. Hope to sail sometime this year.
cheers.
however, for those like me who don't know much about shape and how water flow on a board this thread is amazing!!
My apologies, I'm to lazy to go back and nailed who said this, but someone said with the arrivals of the multi-fin..the length after the backstrap has been reduce since the rail (like a rudder) it's not needed.
I have a Nano 83 2019 that I really love! That was my first reaction when I attached the strap back, gee it's really far back. The nano2020 looks even more back. Now what is the purpose to have that much back compare to the mako(or other brand not just severn) or maybe it's just an illusion? It seems to be an overall standard, "DTL board" seems to have their strap a notch more fwd.
If your head hurts, STOP doing what makes it hurt.
OTOH, if you can't see that every company makes a WidePt. forward narrow hip wave board for real wave sailing, you're excused.
And phasing out those wide hip snappy tuning boards.
Select to expand quoteNordRoi said..
however, for those like me who don't know much about shape and how water flow on a board this thread is amazing!!
My apologies, I'm to lazy to go back and nailed who said this, but someone said with the arrivals of the multi-fin..the length after the backstrap has been reduce since the rail (like a rudder) it's not needed.
I have a Nano 83 2019 that I really love! That was my first reaction when I attached the strap back, gee it's really far back. The nano2020 looks even more back. Now what is the purpose to have that much back compare to the mako(or other brand not just severn) or maybe it's just an illusion? It seems to be an overall standard, "DTL board" seems to have their strap a notch more fwd.
Lucky you. Just ride it and don't fuss over the , 2cm planing flat distance. The 30cm, nose tail widths, the widest part , the rails, bla bla
lucky you.
Oh another is the bottom shape, double this to flat Vee,single concave , it could just be flat, with a little tail rocker.
Select to expand quoteLeeD said..
If your head hurts, STOP doing what makes it hurt.
OTOH, if you can't see that every company makes a WidePt. forward narrow hip wave board for real wave sailing, you're excused.
And phasing out those wide hip snappy tuning boards.
Look away NOW Stehsegler !
Agreed ... best for real wavesailing .... duh
And rearward widepoint - more hipped -best for REAL WORLD wavesailing ...
You SOLE argument was Evo was a big mis-step and DNA had vanished / banned from windsurf design (pushing a bad product blah blah ) ... and doesnt affect anything these days ... then you concede wider tailed boards actually good for PSC !!! what !!! , and now your saying - oh , now Im talking solid wavesailing boards , ... - you talk a load of S%$t ... Here's another example of wide point back (evo DNA inspired) , hipped design (evo dna outlines ) for REAL WORLD WAVESAILING - windsurf mag test and say 'thoroughbred' wave board ... the tabou team make it look pretty good even at hookipa ... but a fkn idiot would know dacurve goes better there .... (pat yourself on the back LeeD ... )
Select to expand quoteNordRoi said..
however, for those like me who don't know much about shape and how water flow on a board this thread is amazing!!
My apologies, I'm to lazy to go back and nailed who said this, but someone said with the arrivals of the multi-fin..the length after the backstrap has been reduce since the rail (like a rudder) it's not needed.
I have a Nano 83 2019 that I really love! That was my first reaction when I attached the strap back, gee it's really far back. The nano2020 looks even more back. Now what is the purpose to have that much back compare to the mako(or other brand not just severn) or maybe it's just an illusion? It seems to be an overall standard, "DTL board" seems to have their strap a notch more fwd.
Correct ....
I wouldn't look at it as "back strap really far back " , think more in terms of ' strap where it always was - some tail has been removed/chopped off ' way of thinking - .... I think is more useful ... and DTL has some tail left ON ... If you see it as straps moving BACK - then that means that extra length has been left out the nose of board (which isnt usually the case)
Chopped off tails have made it possible to have faster rockers and STILL have same turning capability ...
BUT - CHOPPED TAILS - doesn't mean its the answer to everything ... I still use boards in my quiver with unfashionably long pintail - ie maybe 24cm from back plug to pintail end ... and they absolutely RIP in solid conditions , and Im grateful for that extra stability - especially in hard laydown bottom turns - tail length / pintail seems to stabilise ... If you look at Levi's custom Cubes he uses for hookipa - there is always a good length of tail left (ie way more than prod cube) ... Extra tail length adds stability in bigger waves , and adds some grunt off the top which alot of power orientated sailors (Levi etc) like ... Someone like Marcilio Browne, seems to always have an 8" or 8'5" standard of backplug to tail he likes / bases alot off for hookipa say ...
And Im sure maybe Hoop now if asked ? , (And I know if I was a shaper) - I would not work my numbers from the tail anymore (unless scaling say Nano to larger Nano ) ... I would have mastfoot , or front straps plugs or back strap plugs as ground 0 , and work everything back to tail as minus , and everything fwd as plus ... Ive been measuring my boards up in details for many years (its the only way you learn) ... and when tails started getting CHOPPED it screwed up ALL comparative measurements .... (imagine cutting off 3cm of pintail - then remeasure 30 / 45 / 60 etc - it blows out these measurements ) . I now measure comparison at strap plugs and find a mastfoot ground zero , and work backwards / forwards from there to compare boards now ..
Select to expand quoteLeeD said..
So "real world waves" means mushy slow Aussie waves. And PSC, and SPID.
Real world waves = anywhere side on (most of europe) , waddell , etc .... and slower sideshore spots ie PSC - , kanaha . Leo carillo from memory etc ) .... though for many a dream bucket list spots spot with nice 'rare for them' DTL ... but Im lumping it same category as to accomodate wider outlines ...
If real world spots get windy enough - then drawn outlines come back into play - ie Pozo ...
Pro world - Hookipa , gnarloo , margs , cabo verde , one eye , Reunion , New cal , Platboom , elands , Majanicho , Calete etc - and some spots that are say lower period most of the time but hit shallow reef ledge and sucky on certain tides - somewhere like Glass (fuerte) , maybe beach breaks like Arroya Laguna ? from memory etc ...= Drawn outline beneficial
Clear enough ? ...
