The Allure of Hulls?

[SD_PB]

When you're trimming in hi gear or doing swoops up and down the line there's a feeling like you're getting away with something you shouldn't be given the knifey rails, flat rocker and outline. Cliche, but it really does boil down to a feeling.

Thanks, that makes sense. I have watched a lot of videos of people surfing hulls and always hear that sentiment - 'it does not look as good as it feels'

 

[Bummer Dude]

The first boards we made using the extreme Greenough concept as our model were difficult to ride and needed the right kind of power to make them "go" aka "plane". We did not always have the ideal waves, particularly during the Southern California summers.
To accommodate the conditions, the boards increased in length and width (planing area), the rocker was modified, and the "hull" was softened, particularly in the front entry portion of the board. This enabled us to trim more forward and plane out in waves with very little power, particularly the small "cobblestone" point surf available.
There were certainly days when the full on forward hull designs would work to their potential and some of those days have been documented, but the huge percentage of waves available were not ideal for the very forward convex hull designs.
I in particular only surfed Malibu, Little Dume ( with rare success), California Street, Pitas Point, Rincon and Cojo on the Hollister Ranch. These are rare group of not perfect but very good lined up right point break or point breaks like waves. Waves that have a continuity in shape, tension, where the power exists and the average size.
The boards that I like to call "modified transitional volume planing hulls" evolved to ride these waves. I understand that there are surf spots throughout the planet that have elements of these waves and these designs will certainly work at some level at many of these breaks.
...
I am now seeing feedback, particularly on the Swaylocks forum website (http://swaylocks.com) of disgruntled surfers who have tried some versions of these designs and do not like the ride.
This was very true during their development in the early 1970"s. Individuals often tried the wrong outline at the wrong spot with the wrong expectations and gave up on the design, going back to the flat bottom, low railed, tail fin anchored "thrusters" etc that could be pivoted off the tail and maneuvered at will.
To each his own of course but my complaint is that they do not understand that these boards are not for the onlooker. It is not meant to be a visual experience. It is for the "feel" of these board. Not that visual observation of the ride cannot be enjoyed. To me it is quite beautiful the way they "fit" to the wave and become part of it.

 

[DJR]

The first boards we made using the extreme Greenough concept as our model were difficult to ride and needed the right kind of power to make them "go" aka "plane". We did not always have the ideal waves, particularly during the Southern California summers.
To accommodate the conditions, the boards increased in length and width (planing area), the rocker was modified, and the "hull" was softened, particularly in the front entry portion of the board. This enabled us to trim more forward and plane out in waves with very little power, particularly the small "cobblestone" point surf available.
There were certainly days when the full on forward hull designs would work to their potential and some of those days have been documented, but the huge percentage of waves available were not ideal for the very forward convex hull designs.
I in particular only surfed Malibu, Little Dume ( with rare success), California Street, Pitas Point, Rincon and Cojo on the Hollister Ranch. These are rare group of not perfect but very good lined up right point break or point breaks like waves. Waves that have a continuity in shape, tension, where the power exists and the average size.
The boards that I like to call "modified transitional volume planing hulls" evolved to ride these waves. I understand that there are surf spots throughout the planet that have elements of these waves and these designs will certainly work at some level at many of these breaks.
...
I am now seeing feedback, particularly on the Swaylocks forum website (http://swaylocks.com) of disgruntled surfers who have tried some versions of these designs and do not like the ride.
This was very true during their development in the early 1970"s. Individuals often tried the wrong outline at the wrong spot with the wrong expectations and gave up on the design, going back to the flat bottom, low railed, tail fin anchored "thrusters" etc that could be pivoted off the tail and maneuvered at will.
To each his own of course but my complaint is that they do not understand that these boards are not for the onlooker. It is not meant to be a visual experience. It is for the "feel" of these board. Not that visual observation of the ride cannot be enjoyed. To me it is quite beautiful the way they "fit" to the wave and become part of it.

This is the best summation of it I believe I’ve ever read
And I believe surfing a hull does help one return to center so to speak when it clicks All of a sudden you really are surfing for surfings sake like it or not. Also like I pointed earlier there’s lots of space magic involved

And in closing there’s nothing sexier than a beautifully shaped hull or a deep channel bottom
Mmmmmmmmhmmmmmmmmm

 

[Yosh]

it's convex so how it planes on the water is different (pure joy) - you can go 3rd gear from takeoff - bladed rails will bite in water like butter so you feel like you're surfing parallel to the wave/beach, controlling the board with ankle or even toe fingers center stance - then board will swoop you up on high line, go front 1/3 of board and boooooom! 4th -> 5th gear -> cut through sections one after another

 

[kv63]

For me, its all about the buttery feeling of the ride. Its magical. You are either going to love it or hate it. Come join us, its a deep rabbit hole.

 

[Sbbcc]

Speed and lift.

 

[Sky]

This thread makes me miss my old speed hull, such a special feeling on those perfect days.

 

[DJR]

The first boards we made using the extreme Greenough concept as our model were difficult to ride and needed the right kind of power to make them "go" aka "plane". We did not always have the ideal waves, particularly during the Southern California summers.
To accommodate the conditions, the boards increased in length and width (planing area), the rocker was modified, and the "hull" was softened, particularly in the front entry portion of the board. This enabled us to trim more forward and plane out in waves with very little power, particularly the small "cobblestone" point surf available.
There were certainly days when the full on forward hull designs would work to their potential and some of those days have been documented, but the huge percentage of waves available were not ideal for the very forward convex hull designs.
I in particular only surfed Malibu, Little Dume ( with rare success), California Street, Pitas Point, Rincon and Cojo on the Hollister Ranch. These are rare group of not perfect but very good lined up right point break or point breaks like waves. Waves that have a continuity in shape, tension, where the power exists and the average size.
The boards that I like to call "modified transitional volume planing hulls" evolved to ride these waves. I understand that there are surf spots throughout the planet that have elements of these waves and these designs will certainly work at some level at many of these breaks.
...
I am now seeing feedback, particularly on the Swaylocks forum website (http://swaylocks.com) of disgruntled surfers who have tried some versions of these designs and do not like the ride.
This was very true during their development in the early 1970"s. Individuals often tried the wrong outline at the wrong spot with the wrong expectations and gave up on the design, going back to the flat bottom, low railed, tail fin anchored "thrusters" etc that could be pivoted off the tail and maneuvered at will.
To each his own of course but my complaint is that they do not understand that these boards are not for the onlooker. It is not meant to be a visual experience. It is for the "feel" of these board. Not that visual observation of the ride cannot be enjoyed. To me it is quite beautiful the way they "fit" to the wave and become part of it.

Does make me wish he would speak more often. Andreini is another that explains the mechanics so well

 

[SD_PB]

Thanks for all the responses from everyone. I’m definitely going to be seeking out a hull soon to give it a shot

 

[SD_PB]

The first boards we made using the extreme Greenough concept as our model were difficult to ride and needed the right kind of power to make them "go" aka "plane". We did not always have the ideal waves, particularly during the Southern California summers.
To accommodate the conditions, the boards increased in length and width (planing area), the rocker was modified, and the "hull" was softened, particularly in the front entry portion of the board. This enabled us to trim more forward and plane out in waves with very little power, particularly the small "cobblestone" point surf available.
There were certainly days when the full on forward hull designs would work to their potential and some of those days have been documented, but the huge percentage of waves available were not ideal for the very forward convex hull designs.
I in particular only surfed Malibu, Little Dume ( with rare success), California Street, Pitas Point, Rincon and Cojo on the Hollister Ranch. These are rare group of not perfect but very good lined up right point break or point breaks like waves. Waves that have a continuity in shape, tension, where the power exists and the average size.
The boards that I like to call "modified transitional volume planing hulls" evolved to ride these waves. I understand that there are surf spots throughout the planet that have elements of these waves and these designs will certainly work at some level at many of these breaks.
...
I am now seeing feedback, particularly on the Swaylocks forum website (http://swaylocks.com) of disgruntled surfers who have tried some versions of these designs and do not like the ride.
This was very true during their development in the early 1970"s. Individuals often tried the wrong outline at the wrong spot with the wrong expectations and gave up on the design, going back to the flat bottom, low railed, tail fin anchored "thrusters" etc that could be pivoted off the tail and maneuvered at will.
To each his own of course but my complaint is that they do not understand that these boards are not for the onlooker. It is not meant to be a visual experience. It is for the "feel" of these board. Not that visual observation of the ride cannot be enjoyed. To me it is quite beautiful the way they "fit" to the wave and become part of it.

Also this writeup was great, so thank you for that!