Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 2007, 3(4), 371-382 Trends and Challenges in Sport Science and Engineering Related Technology Education at Surf Science and Technology: Researching Surfboard Making Activity Jaromir Audy Edith Cowan University, AUSTRALIA Received 10 June 2007; accepted 27 July 2007 The paper presents the results obtained from teaching, learning and research associated with Surf Science and Technology (SST) course taught at the South West Campus of Edith Cowan University. The main topic discussed is Teaching and Learning with the Surfboard Making. It looks at a group of recent second year SST students who, after acquiring the necessary scientific and technological skills related to the production and performance of surfboards, were asked to design and produce their own surfboard during the Surf Equipment, Design, Materials and Construction Course. The first part of this paper describes briefly the most important steps in the surfboard making procedure. It is then followed by a series of photographs showing the SST students in various surfboard shaping and laminating activities. The next section provides some examples from teacher- student interactions in terms of individual approach and the group as a whole. It was realized that each student aimed to create a surfboard that would best suit his or her surfing skill. This resulted in the production of various surfboards that differed in the length, shape, weight, appearance, the number of fins, fin design and the surfboard/fin material. The results were analysed using a comparative statistical method that allowed determining the relative importance of each qualitative criterion with respect to other criteria associated with surfboard design features and performance. Following the discussion of the results, there are main conclusions highlighting the outcomes interesting from both pedagogical and professional practice perspectives. Keywords: Technology education, surf science, surfboard design, performance, students’ work INTRODUCTION and enhance their surfing performance. Generally, the performance is dictated by the surfboard’s geometrical There is a strong bond between surfers and their features and materials and the ability of an individual to surfboards. Traditionally, the surfers are looking for any surf. improvements in surfboards that would suit their style Surfboard’s Geometry and Materials: A brief Correspondence to: Jaromir Audy, Edith Cowan history University, Faculty of Regional Professional Studies, South West Campus Bunbury, Robertson Drive, Bunbury, Surfboards have been made for several hundred Western Australia, 6230, Australia years. Some few rare 200-year old wooden surfboards E-mail: [email protected] are held at Honolulu’s Bishop Museum (Kampion and Brown, 1997, p. 30). These earliest surfboards were, Copyright © 2007 by Moment E-ISSN: 1305-8223 J. Audy doubtless, of poor quality. History has indicated that that the above boards vary in design, geometrical the key technological improvements in surfboard features and number of fins. Consequently each constructions went through numerous trial-error- surfboard is a unique output of designers and shapers. success experiments. According to source (Young and Currently the South West Campus Bunbury at the McGregor, 1983) some early Hawaiian long-boards Edith Cowan University (ECU) has a number of young produced around 1830’s were made from ‘hard’ wood, people studying, exploring and researching the scientific were around 4.5m long and about 0.5m wide, and and technological aspects associated with the weighed approximately 50kg. Consequently, they production and performance of surfboards. Over the provided good buoyancy but very low manoeuvrability. course of several units the students are taught to By the 1920’s, Duke Kahanamoku had introduced long- understand materials, design features, quality board surfing to Australia and California (Young and management, standards and safety engineering. After McGregor, 1983; and That’s Surfing, a History of acquiring the necessary skills, they are encouraged to Australian Surfing, 1999). The boards used at that time design their own surfboard, shape it, manufacture it and were made from soft-light balsa and were about 3 test it. In an open learning environment they feel free metres long. Their stability and turns were controlled to combine research science with hands-on skill and use by rails and foot drags, respectively. The rails were their ideas. This approach produced a variety of rounded and this geometrical feature was responsible different surfboards, examples of which are shown in for creating the sideway forces that were sufficient to the following section of this paper. keep the board on the wave (Hornung and Killen, 1976). According to another source (Australia’s Surfing Surfboard Making Activity at ECU Life, 2005, p. 68), around 1930’s an amateur surf equipment inventor Tom Blacke connected a boat keel Appendix 1 and 2 are sets of photographs showing to his surfboard and realised that by doing so he various examples of students’ work involved in improved the stability. The keel acted as a fin and surfboard making activity. These photographs are helped to hold the board in the water. Experiments presented in a sequence that shows individual stages in a with fins and surfboards continued. It was found that production flow charge. The photographs in Appendix with a fin attached to the surfboard the rails can be 1 relate to the shaping process and they show the square and sharp. In 1950’s fibreglass and polyester individual sub-operations and their role and tools used resins forced their way into surfing industry. In 1960’s in producing the main surfboard design features. The the surfboards became to be produced from photographs in Appendix 2 relate to the laminating polyurethane foam blanks shaped and covered with process and they show a typical sequence of operations water resistant fibreglass resin coat. Until mid 70’s the used in hand laminating of surfboards. The trend was to have the sharp and ‘hard’ resin edges along photographs were taken during the practical work in the rails (Hornung and Killen, 1976). According to the surf science shed in the second semester of 2004. same source (Hornung and Killen, 1976) those types of Each surfboard was designed in that way that it rails did not cope well with incident cross flow. A should provide a certain level of buoyancy for the compromise was found by making the square ‘hard’ rails surfer. Consequently, the board volume was closely near the tail of the board to decrease the drag forces, related to the weight of a surfer. Moreover the surfing and having more or less rounded rails further forward to the surfboard’ nose to cope better with incident cross flow. Evolution continued with introduction of twin fin design at the end of 1970’s and the three fin design (thruster) at the beginning of 1980’s. The thruster became a very popular design and it is believed that about 90% (Australia’s Surfing Life, 2005) of the world’s boards are equipped with three fins. There is a continuous evolution in surf science with respect to surfboards. Nowadays there are 5 main types of commercially made surfboard designs suited for different types of wave riding, namely Type “Fish” surfboards for small waves; Type “Short” – high performance- surfboards for bigger waves; Type “Mini- mal or Fun” surfboards for beginners; Type “Mal or Long” (Malibu) surf boards for small waves and easily paddling, and finally Type “Gun” for big wave riding. Figure 1. Surfboards were born – we did it! Photo Source (Haines, Audy and Killen, 2004, p.37) suggested courtesy: Audy J., lecturer 372 © 2007 Moment, Eurasia J. Math. Sci. & Tech. Ed., 3(4), 371-382 Sport Science and Engineering Related Technology Education style, height of a surfer and his or her preferences for a and a Type “Fish”, 4’0’’ to 6’3’’, surfboards. One certain type of waves were other factors considered in student designed a Type “Mini Gun” surfboard with the surfboard making activity. Students selected the length of 6’6’’. Majority of students(~75%) got the moulded blanks that had their design features similar to templates from friends or shapers, other students that of the final surfboards. The length, width and (~10%) made templates for their surfboards by thickness of the moulded blank were chosen according magnifying design features from ‘as published’ to the height and weight of the surfer. Further design surfboard designs in various magazines, some students features, namely, the rocker, rails, bottom contours, (~10%) copied the surfboard from an existing nose shape, tails, and fins were chosen according to surfboard, and few students (~5%) calculated their riding style and wave preferences of the surfer. surfboards for buoyancy. Students experimented with Students learned to design and make their surfboards complex rail designs. Combinations varied from hard from the scratch. The cost of an individual board rails on tail for faster and less surface tension and soft produced at ECU was around $200 compared to the rails from middle to nose for better manoeuvrability to average of about $600 for commercial boards. Students high rails at nose, mid rails along middle and low rails clearly enjoyed the activities involved in surf-production along tail. The preferred tail shapes produced were and were happy with the results, see Figure 1. swallowtail, pintail, round tail and squash tail. Moreover, the students showed a high level of art skill RESULTS which is evident from the appearance of their surfboards. Therefore aesthetically nice looking Figure 2 depicts some of the SST students with their surfboards seem to be of some interest. Finally, surfboards designed and produced in the second production took place between weeks 4 and 13 with semester of 2005. most starting in weeks 5 or 6 thus the longest time taken From Figure 2 it is evident that a number of for construction was about 9 weeks different surfboards were produced by the ECU In order to find out which criteria were important students.