I am trying to wrap my head around these things, they look odd to me and I can't see how they could work well in good surf. They are sooooooo thick it looks like you would be constantly propelled off the wave and into the shore. Can these things set a rail on a steeper face? We all know that a surfboard with those proportions would behave funny. 

Ask yourself how does a surf skier or surf kayaker who rips do those rail turns and slides and airs? Those tgings are way thicker and they are tied to one spot and cannot move their weight like a surfer.

Because of the planning widths of SUPs the builder is able to do things to the bottom design to make it as squirrelly and more effecient than a prone board. It took me a while to adopt the design of the surf kayak and wave ski and incorporate that into my SUP design. Totally changed the way I thought about surf design after I got it figured out. Interestingly enough I had teh same thoughts as you initially that the rails are to thick and would not set on a solid face would just cork out. But this is not the case the use of edges and even though the rails are thick they have a offset proportion at the lower side which holds as good as any prone rail I ever surfed.

 My everyday SUP surfboard is a 8'0 but have and ride them down to 5'10" believe it or not and they are really fun just a Biatch to stand on and paddle but ride impressively well. My 8'0" in prone terms feels like a 5'10 prone fish due to the stuff I do to the bottom works on a SUP because of its width and would make a prone board a dog.

I have been building quite a few extra wide prone surf boards that everyone is liking derived from my SUP designs and they cannot believe how well they work in our waves.

This has made me question who decided a wide prone shortboard is 19"? and who decided a wide prone longboard is 23"? I think that answer would have been Clark foam.

I have plenty of crazy short SUPs and wide prone boards to try out if you make it to NSB and you can see for yourself what exactly is possible and your mind will be changed from the current stagnation of board design which is a continuing refinment since I started shaping 25 years ago. Ofcourse things are changing and more and more people are trying different things with their surfboards which is awesome.

Peace,

Ron

Absolutetrip.com

Very well put Ron.  Making them work is also about the rider size too.

MdSurf,

The rider size would hold true for production boards. But for custom built boards the volume can be adjusted to fit the rider no matter what size board they want. Rail volume for said person plays a important role in stability also specially when you drop board size. Usually the guy who wants a short SUP does not buy one off the shelf he has it made.

Where a giant production SUP is a one size fits all a short SUP is a one size fits a certain weight or less person.  

In general I have found I ride thicker boards both volume and rail thickness in our conditions than do my friends in California in their conditions. Like my wife says our waves SUCK. Due to the fact of the chop factor and multiple swell directions and in my case the DAMN refract of the NSB jetty. That will throw you in the water when you least expect it.

Small SUPs have their own set of challenges the pitch and yaw effect is increased dramitically, they are very unstable compared to larger boards. Prone guys think its to easy when I am out on my short SUP but its really not that easy. A small SUP will wear you out unlike any prone board will.

Well I have to say that Grubby had little to nothing to do with the widths, I would have to say surfers like Simmons and others from that era figured it out thru trial and error and Lindsay's book. Aspect ratio is the defining factor.

You cant compare them to a surf kayak they don't surf on their rail anything like a prone board. 

Are they just a product of enviroment?

 Wood was cut in 2" increment widths  wood like balsa, redwood, ect. Strange how boards made way before Bob S were around 23" wide and seem to coincide with wood board widths. Strange how that did not change through the years. Strange how Clarks molds based off the same wood board sizes and restricted shapers to a certain dimention for the blanks Clark had available. Basically boards were a product of what material and size material that was available.

Aspect Ratio.My NASA rocket scientist and aerodynamic friends use this term and formula. This term is used alot now in surfdesign and it is just a term developed to measure the length to width verses lift and efficentcy. It does not determine the best outcome it measures it even though we as builders hold to a certain ratio of width to length varying by small incriments the actual ratio stays pretty steady even when board widths are increased considerably. The ratio stays in the 4:1 range. From my knowledge of AR looking at low, medium, and high AR it determines more what the foil is for than a set of parameters or rules to hold to, within reason. Look at the AR on a longboard vrs a shortboard. Many aero guys say 4.1:1 is perfect AR, well in comparison a 9' longboard at 23" width is 4.7:1 AR and a 6' shortboard at 19" width are different but the LB is within the range of the so called perfect 4.1:1 AR and the shortboard is 3.78:1 which is considered still within relative perfect parameters. So to me how much considerstion should I put on AR as it gets adjusted so much for so many different styles of boards? Nice to know but not a set in stone rule for surfboard design as far as I am concerned. Airplanes/boats yeah its important to retain efficentcy because of the propulsion factor or gliders and parachutes oh yeah very set in stone parameters there. A whole lot more to this but I am not writing a book.

If surf kayaks did not set a edge or rail they would not have defined directional movement down a wave. Come to NSB and watch one of the worlds top surf kayakers surf Tommy May you will be amazed on his hard rail surfing and crazy slides and edge control. Paying attention to these kayaks and wave skis took my SUPs from large surfboards to a totally different level. 

so then you dont they just put more foam in all prone boards and say dam the foiled rails? They would paddle easier and catch the wave sooner wouldn't they? Why haven't boards over 24" wide caught on? By that I am talking like 26"+

early hawaiian boards where right around that number, what about early kook boxes? 

hydrodyanmics and areodynmanics are mutually exclusive in board design, similar but not the same. Water releases totally differently than air for one thing. 

I just want to know how these things would work on a overhead plus wave? 

 so then you dont they just put more foam in all prone boards and say dam the foiled rails?

They very well can but you see surfing is and always has been a hype driven sport. Everyone seems to want what a pro is on.  There is also one thing that aids in the surfing of thick SUPs and kayaks that is the power of the paddle. It basically deducts 2 ft off board length and allow for more pressure to be put on control edges.

They would paddle easier and catch the wave sooner wouldn't they? Why haven't boards over 24" wide caught on? By that I am talking like 26"+

Yes they do catch and paddle easier and one main reason is materials available for manufacture of surfboards is set up around a certain set of demensions. Case in point fiberglas cloth until recently it was only available in 27-30" widths in a ultra clear non volan finish. Now I can get 38-44" widths in a silane finish where as previously none was to be had. You make a wide board you had to use the green color volan.

I actually have 2 26" wide x 4" thick prone boards on the racks right now for big guys 270lbs+. The only real problem is getting your arm around wider boards to carry them.

early hawaiian boards where right around that number, what about early kook boxes? 

I would say yes but with the early hawaian boards much like us the tree detremined the outcome of the boards size. From my study of those anchient boards they were actually narrower than what we use today I suspect because of no fins the narrower board would have more control. But being solid wood vrs foam it hardly a fair comparison.

hydrodyanmics and areodynmanics are mutually exclusive in board design, similar but not the same. Water releases totally differently than air for one thing. 

Actually water and air have the same viscosity. The difference is only half of a surfboard or boat is in the water where we are trying to achieve lift and plane, and a airplane is completely incased in air. So a only a surfboards bottom is the lifting control surface and airplanes entire surface is the control and lifting surface.

I just want to know how these things would work on a overhead plus wave? 

They work well they hold the wave as good as any prone board and are a bit faster. The only problem I have is fitting the board and paddle in a barrel sometimes but riding, trimming and maneuvers are the same a prone board. People are amazed of how well they do work on a good wave and how they go against everything everyone thought they knew about prone surfboard design. Thicker, wider, ugly, stupid, but they fully work just as well as any surfboard.

Peace,

Ron Neff

I supose I will have to come up and see.

How in the world can they have the same viscosity? 

If I fire a gun in the air the bullet is only minimally by drag ( compaired to water)but if I fire a gun in water the effect is massive, water "pushes back " so to speak. I was going to have a custom race board made with the outline and bottom shape copying a ultra high B.C. 6.5 mill VLD bullet and 2 different shapers I spoke to said it may not translate since the effects of water are different than air. If their viscosity was the same why do boats travel faster with less power when up on plane?

I hope you don't think I am being a ass I just like to talk about design

Here is a pic of a Starboard prototype prone board the silly thing was 26+" wide. I watched the guy try and surf it but it looked like it kept getting hung up, and when he did get into one the thing seemed to plow like a trash can lid. He asked my girl to try it and she told him rather nicely that starboard is a shit company( that is her coming out of the water ). O yeah they are trying to get into the prone board biz. 

Not defending starboard nor bashing them?

A friend of mine was testing one of these out last January and he really liked it.  The day I saw him and a pro sup rider trying them out it was shoulder high and they ripped on these boards.  I gave it a whirl and thought they were pretty fun boards.  Not in the least like a trash can lid or so imagined (not ridden one yet).  Don't remeber exactly the price he said they were, but he did not mention they were $2000 or even $1000.

Disclaimer, I am not a shop owner nor a Starboard or Quick Blade team rider, but I have used this equipment.

was it the same board? this one was without a doubt a surfboard not a sup. I saw it in june up north

Oh no problem on the design thing. My best advice is open your mind beyond what the seemingly hype controled surf populous thinks and its is mind blowing what is possible in surf design. I have been working on a rigid wearable body surfing chest plate for a guy for years. Crazy to me but to a body surfer it could be the next level for them.

The professors say the fluid viscosity of water and air are the same the density is different. So these fluids will react to control surfaces and flow in the same manner. Of course there are differences but not enough where the math and theory is not interchangable. My NASA rocket scientist friend of mine said water and air react the same fluid wise you just need some speed to increase the density of the air. Jump out of a jet plane at 500mph in sea level air and its like hitting a brick wall.

 Joe Blair and Ron House has been building wide prone boards like the starboard for many years without the S rail. I saw a JIm Phillips punched out to 25" wide or so.

I am going to come up when I get back in town and check out your boards, I always like you see new things being tried. I am not a huge fan of todays short boards they just aren't my thing I love retro and fring shapes as long as they work the way the shaper intended.  

They were 6 foot and 7 foot surfboards by starboard.  Wider than you normal boards, brushed carbon fiber very lightweight.  Not the same tail as on that board , they were rounded pin tails.  They were testing them for starboard.  One of the guys was a starboard rider.