Ride: Free Flight edge board
Early last year I wrote an article stating that I’d ridden every kind of surfboard design that had been named, and I thought I had. But recently, Andrew Kidman and Ellis Ericson have brought attention to edge boards, an obscure late-60s/early-70s design favoured by George Greenough. I’d never surfed an edge board. So, to keep my integrity intact, I had to go out and buy one.
You justify your board purchases however you want, and me, I’ll justify mine.
With a history of radical bottom curves - think channels, vents, and steps - it was no surprise that Phil Myers from Free Flight had also made a number of edge boards. Yet from what I’d seen, Phil’s edges were different to those Andrew and Ellis were making. Phil was dropping the edges into longboards, he was adapting them to wide-tailed grovellers, even into kneeboards. I asked him about dropping an edge into a high performance shortboard and he jumped at the prospect.
The shaped blank in Phil's shaping bay - note the edges aren't full length
The basic premise behind the edge design is to reduce the planing area on the bottom of a board. This is done by creating steps, or edges, in the bottom of the board that run approximately two inches in from each rail line. The step lowers the normal rail line from the planing area, so the width of the new planing area is four inches (i.e two inches x two) narrower than usual.
It does many other things too, but we’ll get to those shortly.
With no knowledge of how an edge board is supposed to ride I left the final dimensions in Phil’s hands. The board he delivered was 5’8” x 19 ½ x 2 ⅜. Yet despite the full planshape the nose was more pointed than round and the tail pulled in, equating to a lot of curve in the outline. Also, compared to classic edge boards, Phil used half-length edges that faded in two feet down from the nose and faded out before the fins.
First surf and it was immediately clear why Phil had gone short and wide. Here’s the thing: edge boards feel narrow. With a reduced planing area and, more importantly, volume taken out of the rail, the board was quick going rail to rail despite being almost 20 inches wide. It also felt, for want of a technical term, ‘tippy’, like an old style vee bottom. The very opposite of that low, locked in concave feeling.
Because edge boards feel narrower, Phil took the opportunity to go wide, hence the 19 ½ width, and because it was wider he also went shorter. In all, it was a cascade of dimensions brought on by the peculiar design. After twenty years of shortboard stasis, dropping an edge into the design requires a complete rethink. And ain’t that refreshing! The possibilities that open up...
For starters, Phil dropped a subtle forward vee into the planing area, which combined with the edge, made for the aforementioned heel to toe looseness. Moving down the board, the planing area spiralled into a modern double concave, while near the fins the edge faded out and Phil dropped in his vent channels, and a slight concave sat behind the rear fins. It’s not quite Erle Pederson territory, but there’s a bit going on under there.
In the book On The Edge Of A Dream, Kidman makes a bold prediction: “I believe that in the future every surfer on the planet will have some kind of Edge element at play in what they are riding.” Not a statement I subscribe too, but after my first few surfs I understood his enthusiasm. Two decades of concaves don’t prepare you for the liberation of having a centre line lower than the rail. I’ve never been a fan of hulls, but they provide the best comparison: a sense of being in the water rather than continually skipping over it.
The same feeling ultimately worked against me, but before I go there I’ll keep trimming on the good things.
The capacity to make a wide board still feel narrow is a clever deception. Like a gun that turns as a shortboard it provides the best of both worlds. In the edge you get foam under the chest for paddling, and also for planing across the small stuff, but without the rail to rail delay of a wide fish or groveller. It could also be unweighted for glide between turns without losing speed.
Similar thinking is being employed at the other end of the wave spectrum, where Northern Californian shaper Michael Wallace - who learnt his chops under edge pioneer Marc Andreini - is shaping edge guns for Grant Washburn and Hunter Manuel to ride at Mavericks. Closer to home, Dave Rastovich rode a Greenough-shaped edge gun at big Cloudbreak a few years ago.
8'9" gun shaped for Grant Washburn to ride at Mavericks
Kidman’s line about all boards having an edge may be overstated, but it’s not hard to imagine a future where edges are common in big wave boards. Because it’s there, in big wave board design, that the major innovations are happening with new materials, new processes, and new shapes. Anything that provides an advantage, that can safely get a paddle surfer down the face of a sixty foot wave, will become part of the armoury. And in that scenario the deception holds great promise. Think a board that paddles like an 11’0’ but turns on the face like an 8’0”. The future is unwritten.
But the future won’t be scribed by those who think they know it all. The most common comment about the edge design is that the edges provide another surface for water to catch on. I thought the same too - until I rode one. It didn’t happen and so, once again, I understood how little I know. That discovery also reminded me how to approach design problems.
In sucky waves I had trouble reaching a few angles on the board and immediately attributed it to the edges. Fortunately Phil wasn’t so hasty in jumping to conclusions. “The boards ride better under-finned,” said Phil. “Give that a go.”
In On The Edge Of A Dream Andrew and Ellis come to a similar conclusion, and after experimenting with multi fin set ups, they settle on singles with a Greenough-designed ‘blade fin’ in the box. I stuck with a quad but put two customised half-sized fins in the rear slots, or small size C-Drives all around for anything over a few feet. Surprise. No more stickiness between the X and Y axis. It wasn’t the edges at all.
Because edge boards easily roll onto their rails, the relationship between fin and edge is crucial. But what exactly constitutes the best relationship is not yet known. The old rules don’t apply, the new ones aren’t set in stone.
After each session the texts bounced back and forth between Phil and I. “Give yourself some time to get used to the forward vee,” wrote Phil. And so I did. In small sucky waves the board was fantastic, it was fast, responsive, and loose, especially once the fins were dialled in, however the conditions this past summer were more often weak, flat-faced windswell, and first pump speed was an issue. On those occasions I missed having a deep single under the front foot for lift.
“If I knew the waves would be so bad I'd have put a concave under the front foot,” wrote Phil. “Next time, hey.” Indeed. There are more faces and angles on an edge board and it feels like that planing area is one of the key areas - maybe forward vee for big waves, and concave for small. With this board we were hiking into virgin territory, scouting fresh tracks, there was no pathway for a shaper to follow, so Phil, like Andrew and Ellis, was guided by his own intuition and sense of adventure. Nothing ventured, nothing gained has never had greater significance.
I’ve talked a lot about concaves in this review and I’d like to raise the topic one more time. This time as a historical lesson. You see, surfers experimented with concave for 80 years before the code was cracked. The Duke dropped concave into his 1915 Freshwater board, Brewer too in 1968, Fitzgerald and Mitchell Rae in the 70s, and Al Merrick had concave in his Tri Plane Hull in the 80s, but it wasn’t until Greg Webber unsheathed his early 90s Insights that concave fully worked, and it did so because Webber balanced it with other features, namely rocker lines, plus foil and volume.
The point being, a lot of ideas have to get thrown against the wall, sometimes decades worth, before the believers get the ratios right. Edge boards work, but they won’t gain mainstream appeal until the pioneers find the balance between the edges and the surfboards other elements. Till then, the pioneering work continues and new feelings await anyone with an open mind.
Visit Free Flight Surfboards
'On The Edge Of A Dream' is touring this week, buy tickets here
Comments
Hi Stu - its been while since I've acknowledged it; that is, you're a great writer, apart from your prose, you're doing the history of surfboard design a favour, contextualising and referencing the arc and on-going experimentation with personal observation. In so doing, it helps me to understand my lower case struggle with modern concave's vs. vee too. Many thanks. RR
Wow, you're description of the contours from nose to tail was like a chapter out of Alice in Wonderland! I had to keep scrolling back and forth between the words and the images of the board on the shaping stands to try to wrap my head around it
Then I found myself zoning out while I tried to imagine what the water would be doing as it flowed across the contours on different parts of the wave. Talk about stretching the old grey matter's computational capacity!
Would love to give one a try one day, to see if my imagination is anywhere near reality.
On a similar, but almost reverse concave subject - have you ever checked out one of Murray Bourton's chine-railed boards? A mate of mine has a couple of them and they're worth a good look with a straight edge.
It's like an edge board reversed - whereas with the Greenough design the rails are lower than the central planing surface, Bourton's rails are actually flat for about four inches into the board, then the centre goes into a reasonably deep concave for nearly the full length of the board. I've ridden my mate's step-up version (6'6" I think) and it was pretty nimble under my feet.
It might be worth a chat with Muzza, if you can pin him down Stu.
Really interesting design concept, particularly with the edge channel dropping off around the back foot area... I'd imagine that at the right trim angle/angle of attack you'd get a little squirt of lift/speed as the planing width changes from the width between the edge channels to the width of the full board where they drop off?
Hmm.. concaves.. has anyone chatted to Tom Hoye in full about his 5 stage bottom in combination with five fins? Stu, have you met Tom? Could very well be the most understated influence on modern surfing - 30-50 years ahead, and still living. In Tom's words "it's all about the transitions". Fourier series breakdown of curves gives some insight as to why things "catch" - non-linear. The worlds former fastest windsurfer is hanging in his shop. It has cascading step-downs with golf-ball-like dimples running through some sections. SPEEEEED!!!!
Ape - I'd second that! Stu- if you haven't met Tom it is well worth the trip. Not only are there so many stories, but his design elements are based on 50 odd years of shaping. It could be said that what is new now, he did 20 years ago. His 5 stage bottom (vortex transfer vehicle) is on point and the five fins are the bomb. I waited nearly 2 years for a board, and the process was educational to say the least and I ended up with the best board that I have ever had- different rails from convention, 5 fins, wings, 5 stage bottom and the thing is a rocket! Turns on a dime, holds tight, loose, and flys! Stu it would be worth the effort!
All I know about Tom is that in 1969 he had one the first twin fins in Australia, and in 1981, when Simon put three fins on a board, Tom put five on.
Fella has some good form. I'll track him down.
That is apart of the story- he did bring in the first twin fin, but didn't rate them (not enough drive), so he put a keel fin on (bit like the present day knubster) and this changed the torque and holds in turns. He was trying to get guys to get a keel fin on the twinny's but there wasn't much take up, as Twinny's were the rage at the time. He didn't think at the time of making all fins the same size, but yeh the guy had three fins on a surfboard in '69. You need to get him to outline his development on the 5 fin set up. At 73 he still a frother!
Cheers Shanga.
What were you riding it in Stu ?
Beachies , point ?
Another great article. You’re filling a big void in Aussie surf scene right now.
I told Phil to make the board for pushy head high plus point waves, but owing to the skinny summer swell I had to ride it in small beachies.
I could've held off and waited till I gave it a proper thrash in better waves but it's already been months since I received it. In all that time I had just one session at the point in 3'-4' waves and I got a glimpse of something else. I'll post up in the comments after I've had a few sessions on it on those kind of waves.
Phil said if he knew I'd be riding it in such slop he would've gone to 21 inches, wider nose and tail, with a concave under the front foot.
Really enjoyed the piece Stu but I do question your understanding of the basic premise: "basic premise behind the edge design is to reduce the planing area on the bottom of a board".
You've stopped a crucial step short there.
Why reduce planing area?
According to George you reduce the planing area in the centre plane to, direct quote: "substantially reduce the wetted surface"
Why?
Reduce the wetted surface and you reduce the drag.
According to George: "It's common sense. Reduce the wetted surface and you increase the top end speed".
You can clearly see the rational behind that in big wave board where drag from wetted surface area is significant.
How that might apply to a small wave board in sub-standard conditions is a whole 'other question.
I wonder if you've had your Edge board out in better waves where substantially higher speeds can be obtained and how it handled then?
Also Greenough makes the point about high speed handling> when the board is put on rail at high speed the edge effectively makes a sharp Vee that can penetrate the water surface.
Did you notice that?
Personal disclosure: I tested Greenough's 7'8" Edge gun in 4-6ft onshore Point surf here just as Oma was kicking off.
set-up as a single fin with a power blade fin.
"Reduce the wetted surface and you reduce the drag"
I assume Greenough means skin friction drag - but in doing that you also reduce the lift (or require a higher angle of attack for the same lift), increasing other forms of drag (eg form drag, wave-making drag).
Don't leave us hanging here Steve...How'd the edge gun go?
exactly.
It's always a trade-off in a hydrodynamic planing hull ( a surfboard on a wave) between lift and drag.
freeride76.
Not meaning to not pick here,
Just that one of the shapers that taught me a lot about shaping explained that "a surfboard is a very unique hull one that has two purposes.
Planing hull / turning hull."
Usually my favorite boards have a nice balance of both.
As mentioned in the article, this board was made for a little better than average waves, which I haven't yet had it in.
As a comparison, this is a board Phil made for his son Jamie to ride in smaller summertime slop. It's still got the mid-length edge but has a concave, plus wider nose and tail.
That looks crazy. Never ridden anything remotely resembling that planshape.
Very interesting.
Just had a squizz on Free flight's Facebook page and see Phil also made one for himself in more generous dimensions compared to the 5'8" pictured above.
6'4" X 22" X 3". That'd be fun for, ahem...mature surfers.
that looks tits.
Doesn't it? Reckon the idea of a wide board feeling narrower is a good starting point for exploring small wave design.
Whoops, just had another boardgasm!
Boardgasm !
Paging VelocityJohnno, please report to this thread.
Design question, if the current theory on small wave boards is to increase planing area, wouldn’t an edge board go against this theory?
You mention he would put more concave to address this but it seems a little counterproductive?
The concept in relation to guns and big wave boards makes total sense, I just can’t wrap my head around this for small waves.
Well planing area is wanted to get a board up and going, and the sheer width and volume of the edge helps, but after that a good board ridden by a good surfer should be on rail. The edge encourages that 'cos there's less volume in the rails, hence easier to engage, but during the transitions, where planing is inconsequential because you already have speed, then the edge has less planing area - or less wetted surface as Steve explained above.
Reporting in.
OK Channels, the board you surfed of mine on our recent trip to Blue-Haired-Naked-Chick island featured the reduced tail area mentioned above. The tail is thus almost as narrow as a 90's potato chip, but unlike those boards it has a lot of beef up front, generous foam and a very long length of comparatively straight rail to do those big fast down the line projections. The trade off is a larger turning arc, but at 6ft there's space! I asked one of my mentors about this once ("Why is this design so fast?") and he replied the same, less wetted surface area.
For your question on small wave boards going to increased planing area, I wonder if they are going to "sufficient" from "insufficient" and this explains that trend? And volume, ditto. There were some submarines surfed in the past! Also, we've probably reached the apex of short/wide/thick planing tail/Simmons boards with those sweet Potato types, and are on the way back a little longer?
Stu, what a great article. You are the curator of intelligent board discussion in Australia. And I particularly liked the reference to the BWWT quads being where design is happening now, and the inference that contemporary hi-po boards have been in stasis for 20 years, comments I've echoed over the last few months. Time to mix it up! For my 2c Fitz nailed the concaves in the 70s :)
Thanks Stu. What an interesting and thought provoking article. I recall picking up a single fin step edge style surfboard many many years ago (mid to late 70’s or whenever?) and thinking, hmm this is weird. It would have been in the 6’4” to 6’10” range (simply because that’s what I rode and looked at back then) and it had the stepped edges running parallel to the rail outline and full length from nose to tail, I’m guessing about 5 cm wide and 4mm deep. It was shaped by someone around the Newcastle area but I can’t recall who.
Stu, how much did he toe in the front and rear fins?
Much nose/ tail rocker?
Great looking board/ plan shape.
Felt he could have went a little longer for paddling (planing) reasons.
Hey LD,
It has a pretty straight rail rocker because the edge flattens it out, with more rocker through the stringer line. Little bit of entry, not much tail lift.
Not sure about fin toe. Can check later.
It's a fantastic planshape. I really dont like wide tailed boards, can't control them, so Phil's brought this one in from 19 1/2 really well.
I like shortboards so 5'8" is spot on. Haven't had it at six foot point yet so that test is yet to come.
Steve Hann at etc is putting chine rails, similar to the Wallace Mavs gun, on his small wave boards, the dunny door & fish. They go great and get on rail really easily for a short and wide (22") board.
19 1/2 isn't wide at all these days, Stu.
It is for me!
Talking to Phil, if he was gonna make a groveller, as opposed to a hi per made for good waves, he would've gone up to 20 1/2 or 21. Until I realised how the edges ride I would've scoffed at those numbers.
I was on the standard 6'2 18 1/2 2 1/4's like everyone else.
Current hi per allrounder is 19 1/8 and it doesn't feel at all wide to me.
Well put it this way, the edge is as quick rail to rail as my 18 1/2 shorty, and noticeably quicker than my 19 1/2 fish.
it's rad how that edge on the centre plane tips rail to rail hey.
really different feeling.
i'm riding a 6' x 24", it's so wide i can hardly get my arm around it. but it turns so well, so easy to go from rail to rail. first wave on it, i did the most satisfying round house cuttie.
Surfed with Chris Brock who was ridding chine bottom boards @ Lennox point in good point waves they delivered speed down the line & turned seamlessly. Single fins & I think twinnies on smaller days.
Watched Edge of a dream. Highly recommended for a mind twist. Pretty interesting stuff.
Chris Brock has some waves in the movie at Burleigh. The footage was from 2017, the lord was getting stand up tubes...how old is he?? Bloody legend.
Not Burleigh, Lennox Point.
Not 2017, few years earlier from Mick Waters film.
Brocky still getting out there though, ran into him surfing yesterday.
Good to hear Brockies still haven a go.......is he still making boards do you know FR and what length was he on ...last time i ran into him he was on a mal.
It's good, eh? Still so many aspects of design that haven't been fully explored.
Now you can watch the rest of the footy season...
Great article, Stu. In fact, the quality of your contributions has finally pushed me over the line for a subscription (despite my continuing horror at the impact of long-range hype about good swells and the impact it has on crowds, but I digress...)
For those interested, I'm pretty sure there was a good article on edge boards in White Horses an issue or three back, including words with both GG and Rasta.
Where's the footage of the edge boards at mavericks ?!
Hey Stu, any chance you can put a straight edge across the board and take a few pics n post them up on here? Or share via email?
If a surfboard sat flat on the water, I'd agree with a lot of the 'wetted surface area' impacts. But, since it's usually at some angle to the water, rail in deeper, I'd suggest the edge impact is more to do with rail profile changes.
On that note, Stu, tell ya boss to hurry the fuck up and get this FUP off me to try. He can then send it down to you to try!
Can't remember who it was, but someone on Swellnet asked me about this board the other day and it made me remember that I'd written this review. A bit has happened since I wrote it, and reading it back again the conclusions feel hurried, incomplete, a disservice to the board and the edge design.
After persisting with it for a month or so after the publication of this review I put the board on ice. Everyone kept saying edge boards need to be underfinned, Kidman and Ellis dropped down to singles in 'On the Edge of a Dream', Phil reported that George said the same - the edge needs less fin area - so that's what I did. I used a set of handmade AB fins meant for channel bottoms, small size C-drives, and I even ordered a set of upright-style fins from a boutique fin maker. None worked.
As mentioned in the review, the board couldn't get to a few angles, I figured it lacked some drive, maybe from the edge itself (i.e the face of the edge pushing water), or maybe due to the reduced rail volume. I gave up on it. Didn't even think about the fins.
Couple of months back I was scrolling through Instagram and I saw Phil dropping edges into a fish planshape. I hurriedly double-tapped the screen and though a love heart appeared it was a lightbulb that went off.
If edges make wide boards feel narrower, then it would only make sense to drop them into a wide board. My little 5'8 was 19 1/2 wide, which as some commenters said, isn't that wide, but what about if you could get all the good qualities of a wide fish - lateral speed, planing ability - but have it go rail to rail far quicker?
I started talking to Phil about it, placed an order for an edge fish, and am currently waiting for it.
But more importantly, those conversations reinvigorated my curiousity with the 5'8" edge and I went out to the shed, ignored what I'd been told, and dropped a set of large C-Drives into the slots. The board went terrific and I rode it through the three south swells that jolted the NSW winter to life.
It sounds kinda obvious now, but the lack of drive wasn't the thinner rails but the lack of fin area. It's a short board, just 5'8", so drive was always going to come from the fins not the rail.
With an unknown design, however, I was fishing around for explanations, listening to other people, and getting confused. Easiest thing was just to say the board didn't work. It took some time away from the board, a few bouts of uncompelled, discretional thinking, for a solution to present itself.
For me, it was further proof that surfboards, despite being mysterious and wonderful, still abide by one unflinching law, one certainty that is absolute regardless of circumstances.
The very best boards creep up on you.
Don't write them off if they don't immediately work.
Spot on.
I made a garage hack job chined rail or edge board from a snapped Webber 6'10 Double diamond.
The edge was sanded into the existing rail, about 60 mm wide at the nose and blending into the rail just before the fins. Approx 10mm deep or up into the nose and blending to the existing rail in the tail.
You mentioned that the drive comes from the fins, this is correct and having a strong or larger fwd fin with a reduced trailer is the best mix. I set mine up as a quad and use Machado quads from the Seaside.
The rails job is bite that gives you security in the turn. And to shed fluid quickly and efficiently for reduced drag.
One thing that I considered when reshaping the bottom of the Diamond was what different elements of it do.
We all know a flatter rocker for paddle, more rocker for turning.. Concaves for lift and speed, early planing, Straight rail for speed, curved outline and pulled tail to maneuver etc.
What if all of that could be built into one design?
This is what I tried with my edge, the centre rocker is flat, not completely flat but enough to give great paddle speed. The putter rail when viewed side on is highly rocketed. So once you transition from early planing paddle in onto the rail which has a full length hard upper edge you are engaging what is essentially a shorter board rocker.
When a board planes it does not care a sixpence about what surface area it uses, bottom, rail, combination etc. And yes all boards are planing hulls, they transition from displacement to planing as energy and velocity are applied. What is paramount is what part of that hull is engaging the water, and how efficiently it can shed drag as well as respond to input or dynamic changes.
A hard edge allows the most efficient release of fluid contact.
But what about rail bite?
The fwd rails on my board have a radius of about 6mm, that is a very small diameter rounded rail in the nose that transitions to a hard edge just behind the widest point of the board. And never once have I caught a rail on a turn.
The edge design works especially well on midlength and longer boards as it allows a shaper to present two differing foils to the fluid. A longer flatter centre foil for early planing, and a tighter arc rail foil for easier turning.
I’ve just finished listening to Andrew and Ellis on the surf splendour podcast. Far out it took about 5 seperate goes to get through it. Tough listening. Anyone else heard it?
Haven't heard it. What was hard about it?
Mainly Andrew just sounding as if he didn’t want to be there.
Short, sharp answers to David’s questions. Mumbling, incoherent sometimes.
It sounded like there were a couple of awkward moments between them and yeah just the whole vibe of it was a bit off.
They’re normally really good podcasts so I was just surprised that’s all
I listened to it a few days ago and got the same vibe. Feels like they're trying to protect the...I guess you'd call it 'secrets' of the movie and book (and the design itself). They're limited edition and I suppose it makes sense that they want to keep something for the people that pay for it. David tends to probe into the inner-workings of businesses in many of his podcasts - he was asking how they fund their projects and what they expect to get back from them. Kidman seemed a little pissed at some of the questions.....near the end of it though he admits to enjoying David's podcasts, so I guess he knew what he was getting into. I particularly enjoyed hearing about Greenough and his involvement. It's worth the listen for some good little nuggets when they occasionally seem to click and offer some interesting insights.
I think paul gravelle played around with edge boards ,may be late 80s only down the rails not sure
Helluva Edge Beast
https://www.gumtree.com.au/s-ad/lennox-head/surfing/surfboard-8-foot-ret...
Stu whens your review of the edge boards coming......or have you given up on them?
Here it is, a review of sorts:
https://www.swellnet.com/news/design-outline/2019/11/26/the-edge-fish-and-other-throw-forwards
Haven't ridden one for a few months, but then I've barely been surfing in that time either. Chatted to Phil last week and we're keen to kick over the next design: edge, vent, quad in a George G planshape.