FCS Quads - What are you using ?

[JET01]

Took my 6'2 Firewire Dominator out this morning with MR-TX fronts and the S2 rears that i got off Pridmore the other day...

I haven't been to keen on this board since I bought it a few months ago, but today it all went really well. It never felt like it was going to slide out like it did with SF4's, felt like it had plenty of drive through turns on the open face, and after turns i didn't really even have to pump to regenerate speed.

Just ordered a few sets of fins from the shapers website... they're having a clearance sale on 7's 5's and 3's with the semi-nude chicks on the side... from what i can tell, they are of similar construction to FCS PC fins. Hope i haven't got my wire crossed... I just ordered 4 sets (3's 5's and 2x7's) :? . But at $35 a set they were a bit of a bargain.

Looking forward to trying out the different setups you guys have been talking about. Next cab off the rank is the 7's and 3's if this swell sticks around.


Has anyone had any experience with these shapers core-lite nude fins... I reckon the tits on them would have to make them go better for sure

[Cpt.Caveman]

On a side note, has anyone tried these fins? Or something similar?

http://www.shapers.com.au/prod586.htm

Yes, stuck 'em in a very nice 5'10" quad with a pulled in swallowtail on that same test and they worked really well, enhanced the board's short-to-longer arc capabilities, hung in there, not too much fin area in the set either so not much of that take-off "clutter".

That sounds great Nick. How would you compare them to a more common fin combination like M3/G1000?

The SV1 look pretty radical and sound good in theory for what I want out of my board, but I'm very tentative to buy them. Shapers.com.au don't allow you to return it if the fins suck.

[OddaP]

Funny that the Caveman mentions the original K-fin...testing boards a couple of weeks back and FCS gave us a new version of the K2.1 in the lightweight hex-glass material.

This fin template (the front set -- the back is just a re-branded G3 template) is the comeback fin of the year I suspect, it really fits the trend toward shorter and slightly wider hi per boards and as Cavey mentions, it's an excellent front set on many quads. And it is a much better fin in the sharper materials.

It what way do you mean its a superior fin Nick? And following on why/how does it fit the trend for wider/shorter hi perf boards?

[Nick Carroll]

That sounds great Nick. How would you compare them to a more common fin combination like M3/G1000?

The SV1 look pretty radical and sound good in theory for what I want out of my board, but I'm very tentative to buy them. Shapers.com.au don't allow you to return it if the fins suck.

Hmm probably planier, allow for shorter turns without impeding runs too much

If you're on a good thing already I wouldn't jump off it in a hurry.

[Nick Carroll]

Funny that the Caveman mentions the original K-fin...testing boards a couple of weeks back and FCS gave us a new version of the K2.1 in the lightweight hex-glass material.

This fin template (the front set -- the back is just a re-branded G3 template) is the comeback fin of the year I suspect, it really fits the trend toward shorter and slightly wider hi per boards and as Cavey mentions, it's an excellent front set on many quads. And it is a much better fin in the sharper materials.

It what way do you mean its a superior fin Nick? And following on why/how does it fit the trend for wider/shorter hi perf boards?

'Cause the sharper response from that PC-type material is better than the dead flex response of the old composite stuff.

I know some guys think the old stuff's gooey-ness makes everything feel nice and soft and comfy, but they usually change their tune once given a high quality, snap-flexy version of the same template.

And re fitting the trend: that K2.1 setup was always designed for shorter arc turns and quick moves to vertical etc. It's also got a nice long base for helping control a bit more area in the tail. As boards come down again, it's just sitting there waiting.

[OddaP]

I know some guys think the old stuff's gooey-ness makes everything feel nice and soft and comfy, but they usually change their tune once given a high quality, snap-flexy version of the same template.

And re fitting the trend: that K2.1 setup was always designed for shorter arc turns and quick moves to vertical etc. It's also got a nice long base for helping control a bit more area in the tail. As boards come down again, it's just sitting there waiting.

Gooey-ness-thats an apt description I think, they certainly feel that way. Its the set up I currently use on my 6'2 and I like the freedom they provide, makes me think I should whack in a pair of the new one's and try the difference.

Re the whole board coming down in size trend (and its a tad off topic as i am referring to thrusters) therefore the width increases (proportionally)? I know my thoughts are to knock an inch off my next board (at least) and go a minimum of 1/2 an inch wider for my next shortboard I order.

[Cpt.Caveman]

That sounds great Nick. How would you compare them to a more common fin combination like M3/G1000?

The SV1 look pretty radical and sound good in theory for what I want out of my board, but I'm very tentative to buy them. Shapers.com.au don't allow you to return it if the fins suck.

Hmm probably planier, allow for shorter turns without impeding runs too much

If you're on a good thing already I wouldn't jump off it in a hurry.

Thanks for the advice Nick!

Interestingly, yesterday I tried the KFin in front, and the SF4 rear fin (base 98mm, depth 96mm, angle 30.7, area 7238mm). Its early days but I have to say that this is an improvement in pivot on G1000, and didn't appear to get out of control at all on 4-5ft waves.

[Cpt.Caveman]

^^^ It sparked a thought in me, in the quest of how to find a pivot closer to a thruster. The KFin fins that I'm using came from my thruster of very similar design to my quad, and the more I tinker with the rear fins the closer its starting to feel like the thruster (in the area of pivot).

I thought - If it were a thruster the fin area in the tail/rear-fin would have been somewhere around 9000-9500mm. Changing this into a McKee quad set-up, if I put in G1000 fins the total fin area in the tail is now 16'300mm. Quite a frikkin jump if you ask me? Maybe the source of the resistance to pivot?

Then, changing the rear fins to SF4 rear fins I now have a total fin area in the tail of 14'500, a bit less but still huge compared to 9500mm. Therefore, maybe I can afford to drop the depth and rake in the rear fins even more so, as I've still got much more area to play with. The SF4's depth is 96mm (tiny considering the GX is 100mm), and the sweep is only 30.7 (very little rake compared to 33.2 in the GX).

In addition to this, the front fins can afford to be more upright and with less rake because the big jump in fin area in the tail can accommodate the increased pivot easily.

The resulting effect in my last surf was great, it still had the speed and glide of the quad, but felt like I could pivot a lot more through turns.

Maybe we're going to need to see some new quad dedicated fins? Not just thruster fins in different size ratios front to back, but different styles of fin altogether?

[Cpt.Caveman]

Come on, someone has to have an opinion/reply to my tail fin total area thoughts?

I'd be interested to hear what you shapers and board gurus out there think?

[BDL77]

Interesting thought Captin. I was reading an article in the latest Surfing World about Mc Tavish's Fin / Foot Principle which basically states that the size of the surfer's foot should determine the width of the tail area and the fin placement. He was working with Kelly on this and apparently KS has been using this principle on his boards.

Very insteresting and by having either your heel or the ball of your foot over the fins, depending if you're going right of left will determine how much control and pivot you can create.

[Cpt.Caveman]

I read that article too. Interesting stuff! Maybe it becomes very important because you need a lot of leverage to overcome the large increase in fin area in the tail?

[JET01]

Went for a surf yetesterday arvo at Wanda was about shoulder to head high on the sets. Set the Dominator up with S-7's/S-3's. I only had a couple of surfs with the MR/S2 combo, but it feels easier to turn with the smaller fins... Looking forward to trying it out with 5/3's. Going to give it a go as a thruster after i've had a few surfs on it with the 7/3's as i haven't surfed a straight thruster June. Then will give it a go as a 5 finner too.
I have some wooden FCS keels on the way for my fishes... can't wait to try them out.

This whole fin changing thing is getting a little addictive... not to mention costly.
Is there a support group out there for this kind of thing?

[pridmore]

NO....

I think alot of people have too much fin especially for small conditions...

[pridmore]

depends on board design and fn set-up as well as a few other things obviously but I would leave the tail fins at that size and go down a touch in the front fins, maybe G1000s or similar...try em in some small waves to feel em out ....I actually just came up with a good idea, thanks...

[pridmore]

[pridmore]

put it this way, I have 23 sets of diff fins and these are my fav.... these are hand foiled, not my design but my size and placement, best fins ever used IMHO...

[JET01]

I've only been paying attention to board designs for about two years so hope this isn't too silly a question, but is the single channel through the fins on Quads something you came up with yourself or has it been done before?
I've obviously seen other channel bottom boards but never the single channels through the fins.

Are you using those fins in all conditions or just good waves?

[Cpt.Caveman]

Are they the smaller size butterly fins you were talking about MP?

How would you compare them to M3/G1000 in terms of drive, pivot, maneuverability, etc.?