I recently recovered a board my father bought for me when I was younger, a wooden 6'9"x19"x~2 5/8" (I don't have calipers so guessing) thruster with heavy nose and tail rocker shaped by Ben Rasmussen of LBI, probably around 1999. Leaving aside for a second the unsuitability of a step-up thruster for the conditions and my skills then (& now, haha), I'm curious whether anyone knew Ben and has tales of his surfcraft to share.
Also wondering whether I could replace the thruster fins with twins (not keels) and a trailer, for more speed & glide-y flow. Or whether that would work against the board's strengths & I should just keep it as it is, for times when there's bigger swell if & when I become a thruster guy.
Thanks!
Do you have any more pics of the board? Also, what's the weight?
Don't ruin what is already a nice looking board that is obviously set up and designed for its intended purpose. Buy a blank and shape what you think you want. Leave on the wall until you can (ability) ride it in the waves it was made for. Don't know anything about the shaper, but I bet he would be pretty damned disappointed if you hacked up that board. Sell it and buy something you can ride. Don't destroy it. PS. The fin set up you are talking about wouldn't do anything to improve speed or glide on that board. It's a speed shape and it's wood. Done
That which can be assorted without evidence was read in an illegal magazine.
Absolutely-- wouldn't dream of hacking it up, just inquiring into switching out the existent fins (not the boxes). I'm attached to it as it's a gift from my dad, plus I believe Ben passed in 2010-- so I'll definitely hold onto it til the time comes to take it out in the waves it was made for.
I don't have more pics at the moment nor have i weighed it, but I will say it's remarkably light for a wood board. I shaped an 8' board through Grain that's like 24 # and this... is far less.
What I would be concerned about is the plug install. Twins have a LOT more surface area and are taller so they transmit a lot more lateral force to the plug install when the fin is loaded up. It's fairly common for side fins to rip a plug out in even the lightweight foam-core boards if the install is at all weak.
You might be okay in this situation if the plug cavity was made directly into a solid section of wood or high density foam plug.
Based on the one pic the bottom of that board looks quite a bit like a bookmatched wood panel or possibly even a veneer. Those panels are ~4" wide whereas an actual wood board shaped from anything other than balsa would normally be using planks that are maybe 2" wide and then chambered to reduce weight. If those are 1"8th or 1/16" thicnk planks por veneers then they're probably laid over a foam core. What we here on Sways would be referring to as a "compsand", short for composite sandwich. That's why I was asking about the weight. If the weight is under 10# then its probably not a wood or a hollow core. If the board is reasonbly light and the plug install is also strong then you might not have a problem using twins. Other than twins at 11" or more from the tail would normally be too far forward.
As others already said, I think your best alternative is to work on your technique until you can surf the board in the manner and in the conditions for which it was designed.
Gotcha-- thank you for taking the time to explain that so thoroughly. I appreciate it!
Also, I was able to read a few pages in Surfing Long Beach Island that describe Rasmussen's buidling process-- sounds like he would use multiple stringers, 3/16" thick bottom planks, and cross pieces between the stringers to build the board. Pretty cool to have some of that oral history written down.
Okay, so that description fits a fishbone-stye hollow wood board, not a composite sandwhich like I had guessed.
The board is a pocket rocket and fin changes won't change that. Keep that sweet looking stick hanging...one day your Dad will be gone and that board will mean a lot more than you think.
Amen! My sentiment as well. That's a sweet stick.
That which can be assorted without evidence was read in an illegal magazine.
Ben was a friend of mine.
He was a good, kind and generous soul.
Rest in Piece my friend.
Previous to meeting Ben in 2001, I had gained some experience shaping glassing and sanding PU/PE boards, but little wordworking skills, much less how to build a hollow wood board. I showed him what I knew, he recripocated sharing his experience, knowledge, tools, materials, and workspace.
Your board is post 2002, no earlier than early 2003, Some time after that though. I cannot say exactly when, as I had left NJ 12/2002, and we did not stay in super close touch thereafter. I will guess it is in the 2006/ 2007 time Range, but could be anywhere from mid 2003 up until his passing.
The full western red cedar construction was not implemented until mid 2002.
I am not sure if he changed his process for that board. I helped him build a 9'6" longboard, then I built my first HWS board in his workshop in late fall 2002, using his method, but with my own OCD twist on it.
I glassed his 9'6 and my 6'8" and another friend's 6'9" at the same time in his dad's Garage in Loveladies in December with dropcloth walls, and space heaters, using System 3 Clear Coat epoxy. My first time laminating with epoxy. 3.7 oz e cloth, one layer each side.
The method then, was 5 parallel stringers, 3.5 inches apart. Tuckerton lumber had quite the selection of beautiful lightweight western red cedar to choose from. I did not realize how good the selection was, until trying to find clear or better elsewhere.
I later tried 3 stringers further apart with the interior panels glassed and shared this with him, but I don't know if he also tried the same for your board.
On the deck you will see 5 parallel glue lines, 3.5 inches apart. These glue lines are epoxy thickened with wood flour, they are not wood glue. The edge of each deck plank rested atop 1/2 of the 3/16" wide stringer, bridging two stringers. If he used my 3 stringer/ interior glassing method the glue lines on the deck will be much thinner and only the center glue line will be atop the center stringer.
The rails are cut from a 1x10 then hand planed, tapered then stacked square. The rail stack is anywhere from 1/2 to 1.5 inch wide.
The cross pieces also 3/16" thick, joining the stringers at mostly right angles, The cross pieces are more numerous and closer together in the foot stop areas, about 3 to 4 inches apart, and wider apart elsewhere. A stud finder works to find stringers and cross piece locations. Interior symmetry of cross pieces was not paramount. Fairly Close, but not mirror imaged.
Where the fin plugs were to go, solid blocks of cedar were placed, that reached to the tops of the stringers. The deck panel would rest right on these solid blocks of cedar. The blocks of cedar would sandwich the center stringer, for the center fin, of the stringer and also touching the rail stack on the rail fins.
The cedar blocks for receiving the fins, were often way larger than needed.
If, after glassing when drilling for the fcs plugs, if air space was hit, then it would be difficult to set the the plug properly, and it would be weak. Often the fin placement was not precisely decided upon after it was all shaped, so larger than needed, stronger than needed, heavier than needed, interior finblock structure was employed, as it was simpler and faster too.
I do not think there is enough wood on the interior to drill two new plugs for properly located twin fins though, farther back and farther from the rail. If you really want to do that, a stud finder should show you where the cedar fin blocks inside end, but I'd not get closer than 1/4 inch to the edge of the interior cedar block
The original FCS 1 plugs, recessed into cedar, will have zero issues handling the stress of a twin fin. I've used giant twins in my plugs and I weigh 220Lbs, and push hard, often. The only issue I have had with fcs plugs in Cedar is not the plugs themselves, but where the rear of the fin would puncture the glass if I did not remove it skillfully. The cedar turns grey then black when it gets wet. You can shine a light into the clear epoxy adjacent to the plugs and see inside the blocks of cedar, but there might be tons of microbubbles if the plugs were not sealed after drilling/before filling.
I do not recall if he decided to do the glassing and plugging himself after I left, or if he hired it out, I'd guess the latter, and I do not think his glasser would try to use black/ brown pigment in the epoxy.
If you decide to ride this HWS often, the weak spots will be where the deck panel meets the rail on the deck, anywhere from in front of the fins to where one grabs the rails duckdiving are the main problem areas.
I'd recommend stripping the wax often and looking for splits along the grain of the cedar. The fiberglass will look a bit white and one can press their fingers and see soft spots developing.
If caught in time, one can get away with pulling another layer or 2 of cloth tightly across the soft spot, bridge rail to stringer and cross pieces, before and aft of the soft spot. But bigger punctures require the wood be cut out, the structure inside dried reinforced and curshed/split cedar replaced.
A well placed heel or Knee can also split the cedar inbetween interior supports. My main issues are my knee smashing the deck on my pop up or awkwardly kicking out. My feet rarely have caused issues on the deck.
Do be vigilant to prevent water entry or catch it soon after it occurs, and Always loosen the plug immediately on exiting the water, especialy in warmer weather.
While the interior cedar is not devoid of protection from moisture ingress, Ben did not like to add any additional weight, use more epoxy and time, by insuring that the wood was well sealed on the interior, before adding the deck planks. A quick wipe with an epoxy soaked sponge was all they got whan adding the hull planks, and many spots were not completely saturated as one is racing the clock in this stage of the build, and some parts of cross pieces or stringer or deck or hull plank could easily remain dry and are then hidden, and forgotten.
We often disagreed on the necessity of sealing the interior. I wanted a board to live forever, Ounce of prevention bla bla bla, He was more concerned with reducing the already considerable time required to build a single board, and said if it got too wet/heavy/soft he'd just build another.
My first 6'8" HWS, that I built in his workshop, actually the second bedroom in the apartment he was renting from another friend, has seen TONS of use in the subsequent 18 years, but also has a lot of rather involved repairs.
The latest HWS that I finished a few years back, has all sorts of improvements in the accuracy, precision and strength departments. The original 5 stringer method/process highly modified from the Ben's original method, but I never got the weight down where the average joe would not complain. But I build them for myself, and can't be bothered by Joe's opinions anyway.
Ben taught a lot of others, besides myself, his method. Skilled craftsmen who all added an improvement to the process.
Many beautiful and well perfoming boards built with Ben's method, spent a lot of time in the barrel on LBI, and elsewhere, and likely still do.
They feel heavier underarm, than underfoot. That highly rockered 6'9" round pintail needs no less than a chest high juicy Jersey wave, so while you can play with the fins, and take it out in lesser conditions, it will not come alive until it is headhigh+ and hollow. They work great in the hard offshores.
Ben would be stoked if you rode it, often, onthose juicy good days, as opposed to saving it for wallhanger duty.
It was designed, and built, to be ridden, the beauty is secondary.
But,
It can do both.
20190504_161959_LLS.jpg
Pages