WILL FIVE FINS REPLACE QUADS?

[surfhorn]

Last time I surfed Big Rock and Windansea was in 1972! I was riding my little pocket rockets: 5'2" x 19 1/2" swallow tail tri fin (12" flex main fin and 2 1/2" side fins. No leash, just hard fiberglass handles on the rails.

Darcy - my 5 fin is available when you come up to Santa Cruz in November. You can ride it as much as you would like.

-Dan

[Jack Beresford]

Yes, our boards do that. Chris Beresford on a 6'0 rounded pin 4-fin with a fins-forward design (at the 12/03 Blacks Gathering):

http://64.119.173.44/cgi-bin/ImageFolio ... g&img=&tt=

[john -]

the Monkees sing Neil Diamond

lower case names


5 fin boards

this has got to be the philosophical cutting edge of the known universe


The next great prophet will surely be a kneelo - keep an eye out for someone kneeboarding on nothing - toes as fins



What provides better hold in steepness - bigger fins ore more fins - thinking that the tail is the same for the above boards


dorje

[Jon Manss]

dorje asks. What holds steeper waves and then directs this question to fins. I think rail profile has much more effect than fins. Of course you can take the extreme on the fins, but if we are talking basic design, a lower profile, narrower or eliptical in shape, rail will hold better than a fuller, boxier, rail. The rail is what is in the face and boxier rails want to pop out, which is not a bad thing especialy in weaker surf. Any way thats my 2 cents worth. What say Bruce.

[john -]

Jon

if you had the rail profile you wanted for steepness would you then add hold by bigger fins or more fins?

dorje


or not worry about fins and expect rails to be the defining aspect?

[DrStrange]

if you had the rail profile you wanted for steepness would you then add hold by bigger fins or more fins?

Also where fins? My experiments with singles say fin more forward tends to leverage front edge of board more into the wave and the tail out. Fin rearward holds tail in wave more. Both can hold in but need to be ridden differently. I'm talking same board, same fin, dif fin placement. But in more hollowness, the fin back definitely held in better.

[dogtown]

Jon,totaly agree with your thoughts on rail being more critical on hold verses fins. dorje,when I got my last board off Neil he had fitted xt-1 red-x side fins which he uses himself, but for me first bottom turn I went right,my board went straight,fitted smaller x-3's fins(Al Merrick}problem solved.So from my personal experience size and placement not number is maybe the answer to your question. ........ p.s Bruce while on fins, on your five fin design ,whats the idea behind the mini flex tail fin?and does the lack of face on this fin compromise typical thruster handling,could a normal trailer fin be used? p.p.s.what are the dimensions on the half-moon drifters? your humble student ,dogtown

[hart]

Hey Jon..too true mate.

We should rely more on our shapes than our fins for a start..at the very least, fins can be changed.

I wouldn't say though..that I would necessarily alter my rail shape to suit steepness (cause its so low thru the tail anyway)..but I would consider my planshape..particularly tail area.

And being a bloody Aussie..it would be a pin.

dogtown..the cut out in the rear fin was out of boredom..and the fact that with all those fins it looked like there was TOO much fin area..so I lost a bit.

The board is a Summer shorty..so I had another fin (GX) for when it got 3 foot and over.

How good are those pics of Karl Ward and Chris Beresford?..I'm sure its my imagination but..I swear you can tell that the boards have different turning principles..I reckon you can pick the thruster..and pick the quad.

Remember what red once said about contests?.."Watch the board..not the surfer"

And both surfers here, are hot.



hart

[surfhorn]

No matter what fin set up, I've always relied on a good rail shape- nice and thin and not boxy.

[john -]

which makes reading Bud's design page intersting because he suggests that a quad offers more hold in critical situations due to fins constantly in the water

which seemed similar to hart when he states re 5 fin "plenty to hang the hat on"

i agree with the tail theory being important - my current and last board had different, but thinned out tail areas however, my tri had thinner/harder rails than my quad but the quad has better hold

i dunno

Dave Parkes also talks about thin tail and four fins for "hanging in there"

[Bryan Jackson]

Jack, is that a fish you're on there? I think that was the question; can a fish do that full roundhouse cutback?

And the answer is (from my experience anyways) a qualified yes!

Yes, because they can do a full on 180 degrees cutback. But (and this is a big but), you cannot do it without grabbing the rail. IF YOU DON"T, THEN THE BOARD IS GOING TO GO ONE WAY (the direction it was already headed in) AND YOU THE OTHER!

However, once the board is re-directed it will run like crazy.

Interesting discussion on Swaylocks regarding fin design. Faster waves require smaller fins because at higher speeds the fin becomes more efficient. I'm not sure as to just how this applies to holding ability in steeper waves, though.

[red]

Bruce - have you looked at the canard jet design?
One of the stated difficulties of the "small wings forward" design has been predictability at speed. Since your pent is made for smaller waves this may not be an issue.
I'd like to give it a run. Cronulla?

[hart]

Red,

It's in Fiji with the scoop.

He borrowed it once and never gave it back..he had to part with a few grey nurses but

Got an sms today. He rode 12' yesterday and got smashed. Half that size now and it went off.

dorje..I was hanging my hat on a benefit remember? something that contributes to something else. Know what I mean?

I don't want it to sound as a reactionary device to something else.

Interesting that some of the above posts clearly define that a smaller fin, at speed, is more efficient. Another has talked of predictability and placement.

The fins on this 5 fin felt neutral, yet of benefit.

I reckon that fins (however many) should be as 'small' and effortless as possible (both in size and location)..whilst at the same time providing hold and direction.

But if you can rely on your shape to provide these characteristics in an initial sense, then you are economising the overall design as a result..and becoming more efficient.

You are in fact, de-emphasising the importance of the size of the fin.

Less isn't always more..but too much bulk is always a drag

hart

[Jon Manss]

dorge
I have shaped boards for single fins. twin fins, tri fins and am now playing with a quad. Most of my boards have been tri fins glassed in place. I don't think I have compromised the design by sticking to one size fin, but rather tuned the fins to the board. If I have to follow your logic, (ei.bigger fins for better hold) then I would say the back fin would be the key factor to holding ability. Having said that there are so many variables to consider this whole aspect is to simplified. That's what is so fun about shaping and designing no matter how tuned in you are to your shapes there is some one down the road doing it right with a whole different set of plans.

[john -]

Jon

cant say bigger fin theory is my logic more an inquiery - most of my info comes from reading Bud's and DP sites and all who bounce of hart and himself - the old tri fin also had bigger fins than my quad - but again ...less hold

given ive only had four boards and no design knowledge untill recently i keep picturing my dream board in my head only to have its measurements compromised by some other design that apparently does what i want better than my dream - as you say ...that someone down the road

im starting to think go with a good shaper and get a board that looks the best - faith in the shaper and an eye for art

dorje