In response to the LIL' BIT SCHIZOID (Camel Toe Behavioral Feedback) post about the Parallel-O-Tail version #1 experiment, Dr. Robert asked the question:
"just curious as to the first blush reality of what you rode... as to what you expected, or hoped for?"
A simple question that required some time for me to put my expectations of the tail idea into solid words, since until asked, those expectations only existed in the ethereal, fluctuating realm of my imagination. The question also lead me to write more detailed notes concerning the performance of the board than had been originally posted. For those interested, I figured I'd post the notes that were motivated by Dr. Robert's question.
The notes/answer:
"what i hoped for was... that by the removal of the stringer via an actual slot through the tail section of the board, there would be pronounced flex in the tail (even more than a standard stringerless unified foam tail) that would load up in the beginning of turns and unload to create increased acceleration coming out of turns.
when surfing it seems most of my weight in the back foot is focussed through the ball of the foot when turning backside, and through the heel when frontside. thinking about that it seemed that a way to get a more sensitive flex load under the ball when backside and heel when frontside was to create two sides of the tail. for instance, the heel side's flex when under heel weight would not be retarded by being longitudinally attached to the opposite side of the tail that is not under the same concentration of weight. same goes for the ball side of the tail. my desire for both of these independent sides being divided by a slot narrow enough to be spanned by the arch of the foot is what led to the parallel-o-tail/c.toe design.
unfortunately, the way i foiled the rails up in the front 1/3 of the board causes it to dig rail upon turn initiation. to compensate for that, most of the time, i'm forced to stand so far back on the tail that there's not enough tail length behind my rear foot for my weight to load the tail with the amount of flex that the tail has the potential to offer.
there have been a few lucky cutbacks where i've managed not to dig rail with my rear foot in the optimal load position and i can feel the flex working.
but there have also been a few times when initiating a backside bottom turn, where the flex coming from the heel side alone has felt too damp— felt like too much flex concentrated in one area.
also, the few times that i was able to keep the nose from digging rail when squaring off at the bottom to go straight up into the lip, the tail half under the most load during the bottom turn seems to snap back so much when it unloads that the bottom of my foot would loose contact with it— as if it would pull away from my foot. on such a bottom turn the ball side of my foot was on one side of the split and the heel on the other, and by the time i was hitting the lip it would feel like one half of the bottom of my foot was in contact with the deck and the other half had lost contact.
when hitting the lip of an on coming section from more of a 45-60 degree angle, rather than straight up, i did not experience any side of the tail pulling away from my foot.
the damp backside bottom turn, plus the few times that a tail side did pull away from my foot when doing a 90 degree lip hit, goes to show there is much to be said for a unified tail structure. a unified structure that is able to flex under a focussed load point, and diffuse that load throughout the tail in a manner that results in accelerating unload spring without disrupting one's foot connection to the board.
the next parallel-o-tail will have a shorter split length to try and strike a balance between the advantages of unified structure and the characteristics i did have a chance to appreciate in the first split version. and the rails and bottom surface of the nose area of the board will be foiled as a standard planing hull, rather than displacement, so that i can concentrate unhindered on what is or isn't working with the tail flex.
In pics below, Parallel-O-Tail version #1, on the board I call the Wishbone... As in, I wish it worked better!
2lb EPS, 5'0" • 17" • 21 3/4" • 19" • 2 5/16"
.
.A narrow strip of track pad covering deck side of slot to prevent toe insertion and injury.
.
.The nose rail portion of the board that has a tendency to dig rail. high knifey rails that drop/blend into soft tucked rails. A bottom foil of belly where the rails are knifey & high that blends to flat where the rails transition to soft & tucked, which then foils into single concave in the mid section, to double concave within a bit of V through the tail section.
.
.Fins: 8 1/2" base • 5" tall... Lookin' a little big, to me in this photo, in proportion to the short 5'0" length of the board.
.
.Also, a few pics, as requested by Lawless, while Copper Dove glassed the "Plumbers Crack". It was decided that the most managable glassing solution was to lap the crack separately from the rest of the board.
.
.Dove, concentration in the crack.
.
..
