RNF 96

The RNF-‘96… Having shaped multiple variations of “fish” from Fall 1994-1995, we built up quite a bit of momentum with the designs. In the lead up to the Winter of ‘95/’96, we honed in on a basic design that we were able to fine tune, replicate and re-size the original RNF (by hand) with some consistency. We went on to build small quivers for both Chris Ward and Cory Lopez and sent them off all over, with Cory taking various versions to every stop of the WQS tour.

These 1996 fish were all hand shaped and not the most consistent creations, but they became the basis and building blocks for offering the design to people outside our inner circle of friends. They were the boards that teenaged Chris n Cory took to the North Shore and essentially made their indelible mark on the surfing universe.

The RNF-‘96 is based reverently, but not 100% conforming, to the original “fish” we developed for Chris and Cory in the year leading up to the seminal 1997 5’5” x 19 1/4” surf film. While very few examples of this era still exist (at least in our possession) and most are very thin, flawed relics of Cory’s boards (we can’t find any of Chris’s from the era, at all) some of the re-creation and execution comes down to making what feels and looks right… and what will actually work best.

I still have the remnants of a personal 5’10 x 20” x 2-5/8” craft. A board I took to Durban SA, in July of ‘96. This was a liberating, small wave board that changed my life, not only as a designer, but as a surfer who struggled with the status quo boards of the mid-90s. This board allowed me to surf very small, removable waves in and around the Durban Piers for a couple weeks that year. I had never had so many people (including other shapers) ask me “what are you riding?” and we knew then we were onto something more than a frivolous good time with fish. These designs were something the entire surfing world could grab onto and enjoy.
I’ve always felt the key difference between our RNF and most others, from the 90’s and on, is the fact that our outline was always more based on high-performance, twin fins inspired by MR, with a competitive late 70’s/early 80’s mindset. Relatively pulled in in the tail, developed through trial and error, for maximum performance and control… not only in small waves, but all wave sizes and shapes.

Simply put, most fish from then on, were predominantly knee board influenced. Early 70’s style inspired, Lis inspired, wide tailed, parallel outlined kneeboards, that did well surfing small waves, but have fought to come close to the top performance of modern shortboards since. Our fish has always been about performance, not just a crutch to go fast on in small waves.

For the sake of better surfboards, we took a touch of liberties. Based on the last 25 years of building boards, we set out to create a consistent (and dare I say better) surfboard, faithfully, but not necessarily exactingly, based on the varied RNF of 1996. With diligent testing done by many of our top team, including Kolohe, Coco, Ian Crane, Crosby Cola, and other “guests” (and even pedestrian testing by myself) through the late months of 2020, we are very confident the RNF-‘96 will perform up to and above expectations, as an all-around, rippable fun machine, for a wide range of surfers.

FEATURES

• Rocker curves: Stay true to the original proven curves.
• Outline curves: Both the nose and tail were usually the same width at 12” back and remain true, but with increased precision, including added curve and width approx. 6” up from the tail. A “secret” to the success of the original was that, unlike most other “fish”, the tail width on ours was closer to that of a typical HP Shortboard. This allows for much more control off the tail than typical fish designs.
• Bottom contours: The classic single concave to double concave, accelerating to V combination defines the design elements and holds true to form.
• The Thickness Flow, Deckline, Rails and Tail Foil: were all over the map in those rudimentary hand-shape days. Each board was different, with most of them having noticeably different curves and thickness from rail to rail.
• In recreating these boards, which one is correct? Ultimately, I went with instinct on what would work best.