One would think that that wide, flat rockered nose on the scorpion would become problematic on steep takeoffs but I've had it out in beachbreaks (3-4') where its pull into the tube during the bottom turn on take off and its no drama.
Reckon the concave under the nose helps there sans rocker and the pintail displacing less water than a wide tail also aiding in control in the steeper drops imo.

McHenry said...
Want a Tak Scorpion sooo bad.

One of the guys had one in The Maldives... The board didn't go well there, and he wasn't liking it back in Sydney either... I think The Sumo would be more versatile.

I've played around a lot with fin combinations.
Ridden it with the single fin that came with it.
As a thruster using an M5 centre.
As a twin plus trailer.
As a bonzer 5.
With many quad fins and combinations of front and rear quads.
It works best for me with large H2 fronts and Scarfini med/large rears for everyday use.
Put in other fins and its good.
With the above quad set up it takes it to another level of drive, hold and control compared to the other fins.
Helps to have a diverse fin quiver too.
Here's a recent quote from Roy which sums up well what is going on with the scorpion planshape.

"If one has two short single fins of standard width and the same length, and pull the tail in radically on one, it will suffer a lack of planing area. That's why such boards have performed poorly in anything but bigger more powerful waves.

If the width on the pintail at the wide point is increased substantially by several inches, and the length as well ( say an extra 6 inches to a foot) then they are very nice in smaller conditions as well as the planing area is increased.

Of course the planing area is further forward which requires a different approach. The advantage is excellent control and accuracy in turns, ease of turning, and greater versatility as the board naturally adjusts to variations in speed, thus it can be ridden in a wide variety of wave sizes and conditions without the rider having to change the amount of force used as much as on a wider tailed board.

Having said that I agree that longer lengths are ideal for the type.

Regarding leverage, what you are actually saying is not that the narrow tail has more leverage, rather that the rider has more leverage over the narrow tail. In fact the narrow tail has less leverage. If the narrow tailed board is made wider at the wide point as suggested, the rider has more leverage over the tail, but has less leverage over the wider part of the board. It changes the lift distribution and thus what one could call the leverage distribution.

An advantage of moving the distribution forward via wider WP and narrow tail is that the high planing area part of the board can be used when required at lower speeds, but when going faster the higher lift shifts the leading edge of the wetted surface area aft, reducing the effective width, increasing rider leverage and reducing planing area. The net result is that the board is very easy to ride, some might say too easy to ride.

A downside for some is that the type is not ideal for tight hacks ( they can turn tightly but great rider force and the associated drama and spray is absent)... but these become unnecessary anyway, and turning ability is improved by the greater planshape curve which the wider board with narrower tail has. This planshape curve allows the board to start turning 'flatter' at lower angles of roll, which in spite of what GG says has advantages i.e. a more immediate turning response.

Of course all this makes the rider look like he's not doing much... this indicates efficiency in the design but is not ideal for those who like to look like they are doing a lot."

I believe the technical reasoning behind liking this board is that it looks badass.

It was part of the furniture for a long time Billy hates doing those free lap tints,said there's little skill in them a bit like Wiz will rarely make a solid black fin because the cheap imported fins are this colour,I've been lucky to score 2 solid black fins Wiz made recently.