Quad / Thruster ride report - fin advice needed

Tribal discussion for shortboarders

Moderators: Shari, collnarra, Butts, Forum Moderators

tonka79
regular
Posts: 192
Joined: Sun Dec 19, 2010 9:56 pm

Re: Quad / Thruster ride report - fin advice needed

Post by tonka79 » Tue Oct 08, 2013 7:09 pm

cool. so i'm not imagining things!

Natho
barnacle
Posts: 2347
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2006 11:21 am
Location: In the pit

Re: Quad / Thruster ride report - fin advice needed

Post by Natho » Mon Oct 28, 2013 6:13 pm

Was lucky enough to get to have a good look at one of Kelly's quads that he has been riding today . Back fins were set in closer to the stringer. I got the actual measurements but just don't have them in front of me now. The double through the fins was fairly pronounced for obvious reasons. The spine between the double had been rounded off. Bit of Vee off the rounded pin. 5'9 x 181/4 x 2 1/4. Epoxy/ EPS. Probably the lightest board I have ever picked up. It actually felt a bit too light.
Pretty refined compared to a similar Fred Rubble replica you would buy of the rack. In fact very different IMO.

Natho
barnacle
Posts: 2347
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2006 11:21 am
Location: In the pit

Re: Quad / Thruster ride report - fin advice needed

Post by Natho » Mon Oct 28, 2013 6:39 pm

Yeh pretty much similar McKee set up. A friend of mine got all the measurements: rocker, outline, fin placement , tail and nose. More out of interest rather than to copy it. Board was pretty refined through the nose, tail and rails with some volume hidden through the middle. Rails were pretty low all things relative.

It makes sense that the off rack boards are less refined though. As a former shaper for the Merrick brand told me yesterday in his own words ' 90% of the target market is kooks' (who benefit from more foam). I don't think it is much different for any of the big brand names. So I guess the rack boards are intended to serve a purpose.

User avatar
el rancho
Duke Status
Posts: 12544
Joined: Wed Aug 19, 2009 11:22 am
Location: taking a shit in the dunes

Re: Quad / Thruster ride report - fin advice needed

Post by el rancho » Tue Oct 29, 2013 11:22 am

Natho wrote:Was lucky enough to get to have a good look at one of Kelly's quads that he has been riding today . Back fins were set in closer to the stringer. I got the actual measurements but just don't have them in front of me now. The double through the fins was fairly pronounced for obvious reasons. The spine between the double had been rounded off. Bit of Vee off the rounded pin. 5'9 x 181/4 x 2 1/4. Epoxy/ EPS. Probably the lightest board I have ever picked up. It actually felt a bit too light.
Pretty refined compared to a similar Fred Rubble replica you would buy of the rack. In fact very different IMO.

funny you say that cos I've noticed slater come across as pretty nonchalant about what model he rides in comps. He pretends he doesn't know whether its a semi-pro or a fred rubble. it seems as if he's just saying it's a stock CI model, thereby inferring anyone can go out and buy exactly what he's riding.

and like I wondered why the 11 X world champ would be riding a stock model. didn't seem remotely right.

Natho
barnacle
Posts: 2347
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2006 11:21 am
Location: In the pit

Re: Quad / Thruster ride report - fin advice needed

Post by Natho » Tue Oct 29, 2013 6:47 pm

I've found he/ CI have been pretty open about what 'models' he has been supposedly riding during high profile comps. That's a very important part of the marketing machine. Models sell boards.
There were certainly some close similarities with the CI stock model, but enough subtle tweaks and changes to make it different enough. Mainly in how refined it was and the attention to fine detail.

User avatar
el rancho
Duke Status
Posts: 12544
Joined: Wed Aug 19, 2009 11:22 am
Location: taking a shit in the dunes

Re: Quad / Thruster ride report - fin advice needed

Post by el rancho » Wed Oct 30, 2013 2:34 pm

Natho wrote:I've found he/ CI have been pretty open about what 'models' he has been supposedly riding during high profile comps. That's a very important part of the marketing machine. Models sell boards.
There were certainly some close similarities with the CI stock model, but enough subtle tweaks and changes to make it different enough. Mainly in how refined it was and the attention to fine detail.

yeah slater is happy to drop the name of the model, like the coffin rubble, but it's clear he's just helping CI out by leaving out how his is waay more refined than the stocko model.

who else could ride such a tiny light board in those huge waves at cloudbreak??

tonka79
regular
Posts: 192
Joined: Sun Dec 19, 2010 9:56 pm

Re: Quad / Thruster ride report - fin advice needed

Post by tonka79 » Sat Nov 02, 2013 11:41 am

Natho wrote:Was lucky enough to get to have a good look at one of Kelly's quads that he has been riding today . Back fins were set in closer to the stringer. I got the actual measurements but just don't have them in front of me now. The double through the fins was fairly pronounced for obvious reasons. The spine between the double had been rounded off. Bit of Vee off the rounded pin. 5'9 x 181/4 x 2 1/4. Epoxy/ EPS. Probably the lightest board I have ever picked up. It actually felt a bit too light.
Pretty refined compared to a similar Fred Rubble replica you would buy of the rack. In fact very different IMO.
Are you sure it was an EPS? I heard a rumour, and it might just be that, the he was riding xtr (extruded polystyrene).

Natho
barnacle
Posts: 2347
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2006 11:21 am
Location: In the pit

Re: Quad / Thruster ride report - fin advice needed

Post by Natho » Sat Nov 02, 2013 4:46 pm

100% it was EPS straight from the horses mouth. About 60% of his boards give or take have been EPS of late. The jury has been out on XTR/ XPS due to gassing/ de lam issues.

tonka79
regular
Posts: 192
Joined: Sun Dec 19, 2010 9:56 pm

Re: Quad / Thruster ride report - fin advice needed

Post by tonka79 » Sun Nov 03, 2013 3:01 pm

righto. cheers natho

tonka79
regular
Posts: 192
Joined: Sun Dec 19, 2010 9:56 pm

Re: Quad / Thruster ride report - fin advice needed

Post by tonka79 » Sun Nov 03, 2013 3:04 pm

Natho wrote:...Bit of Vee off the rounded pin...
I've often thought a bit of vee in the tail helps overcome some of the shortcomings with quads. i think what you lose in drive, you gain with the extra side fin.

Natho
barnacle
Posts: 2347
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2006 11:21 am
Location: In the pit

Re: Quad / Thruster ride report - fin advice needed

Post by Natho » Sun Nov 03, 2013 7:17 pm

I've always thought that there is less need for Vee off the back when you have a rounded pin or round tail myself , however it just adds a bit more sensitivity rail to rail and water release off the tail. Bit of vee through the fins can help add a centre point to a quad but in this case it was off the back fins. The double through the fin cluster serves a similar purpose.
The vee off the back also raises the rail line adding a bit more rail line curve in the back. This seems to be what KS likes whether it's a quad or not.

tonka79
regular
Posts: 192
Joined: Sun Dec 19, 2010 9:56 pm

Re: Quad / Thruster ride report - fin advice needed

Post by tonka79 » Sun Nov 03, 2013 7:58 pm

Natho wrote:I've always thought that there is less need for Vee off the back when you have a rounded pin or round tail myself , however it just adds a bit more sensitivity rail to rail and water release off the tail. Bit of vee through the fins can help add a centre point to a quad but in this case it was off the back fins. The double through the fin cluster serves a similar purpose.
The vee off the back also raises the rail line adding a bit more rail line curve in the back. This seems to be what KS likes whether it's a quad or not.
Yeh agree but can you explain the effect of having more rail curve has? That's a new one to me.

Natho
barnacle
Posts: 2347
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2006 11:21 am
Location: In the pit

Re: Quad / Thruster ride report - fin advice needed

Post by Natho » Sun Nov 03, 2013 8:57 pm

Well I can only explain from my own point if view. Think of it as a mini see saw in the very back of the board. So as an example it allows you to leverage your board say into a more vertical attack a split fraction quicker, say when coming out of a bottom turn. At least that is my own experience.
So you are adding more curve in the rail line while keeping the centre rocker line the same.

tonka79
regular
Posts: 192
Joined: Sun Dec 19, 2010 9:56 pm

Re: Quad / Thruster ride report - fin advice needed

Post by tonka79 » Mon Nov 04, 2013 8:27 am

Natho wrote:Well I can only explain from my own point if view. Think of it as a mini see saw in the very back of the board. So as an example it allows you to leverage your board say into a more vertical attack a split fraction quicker, say when coming out of a bottom turn. At least that is my own experience.
So you are adding more curve in the rail line while keeping the centre rocker line the same.
I think I know what you're saying. So the double through the fins lends a 'centreline' feel to the quad and the vee off the tail allows for quicker rail transitions?

tonka79
regular
Posts: 192
Joined: Sun Dec 19, 2010 9:56 pm

Re: Quad / Thruster ride report - fin advice needed

Post by tonka79 » Mon Nov 04, 2013 9:46 am

wingnut2443 wrote: Explained my way ... The concave to vee creates a flatter (straighter) rocker line along the stringer, and as the vee comes in, the rails are in effected 'lifted up' creating more curve in that last section of the rail line ... it creates that extra little bit of 'kick' at the tail without affecting the rocker at the stringer ...
I'm no expert, so this might sound like a stupid question, but is vee in the tail usually achieved by 'adding' to the usual tail rocker (thereby making the tail rocker, along the stringer, straighter) or by leaving the rocker at the tail (along the stringer) alone and removing foam towards the rails? In the first scenario, I can see straight line speed being increased compared to normal, whereas in the second scenario, I can see how you'd be able to turn in shorter arcs compared to normal.

alakaboo
Duke Status
Posts: 15217
Joined: Mon Nov 09, 2009 3:33 pm

Re: Quad / Thruster ride report - fin advice needed

Post by alakaboo » Mon Nov 04, 2013 10:09 am

Think you mean subtracting from tail rocker, i.e. making the board flatter?

Normally you'd do the second.

But if you did flatten out the tail a bit, adding more V (by removing foam towards the rails) would allow you to keep it a bit more responsive.
The peacock slowly shakes himself out in an act that could be mistaken as effortless were it not for the thought of his withholding a quivering.

tonka79
regular
Posts: 192
Joined: Sun Dec 19, 2010 9:56 pm

Re: Quad / Thruster ride report - fin advice needed

Post by tonka79 » Mon Nov 04, 2013 12:25 pm

alakaboo wrote:Think you mean subtracting from tail rocker, i.e. making the board flatter?

Normally you'd do the second.

But if you did flatten out the tail a bit, adding more V (by removing foam towards the rails) would allow you to keep it a bit more responsive.
Yes, I meant subtracting from tail rocker. Sorry.

tonka79
regular
Posts: 192
Joined: Sun Dec 19, 2010 9:56 pm

Re: Quad / Thruster ride report - fin advice needed

Post by tonka79 » Thu Nov 07, 2013 6:00 pm

wingnut2443 wrote:
tonka79 wrote: ... but is vee in the tail usually achieved by 'adding' to the usual tail rocker (thereby making the tail rocker, along the stringer, straighter) or by leaving the rocker at the tail (along the stringer) alone and removing foam towards the rails?
Handshaping process? Not sure ... I'm not a hand shaper. But from what I've read, the bottom curve or rocker is shaped in first, flat, then rail bands, then the bottom contours (i.e. concave or vee) ... So, you start with the rocker in mind knowing vee is going in the tail, because once foam is gone, it's gone, no adding it back on ...

Computer design, vee is achieved by moving the point where the rail meets the bottom of the board, so in effect with this process, you have already put in the 'rocker' via nose and tail lift and the bottom curves, and then by moving the points in the rail / bottom join you effectively increase the rail line rocker. If you then look at the rail rocker, vee, etc and need to tweak any of it, you can, by going back and changing the rocker (tail lift) or bottom curve, or the rail / bottom points so you can get it how you want ...
Thanks and, yeh, appreciate you can't 'add' foam once it's gone. It was a little difficult for me to explain but I think you could see what I was getting at.

I have a feeling a lot of people write off quads because their board is shaped in a way that is more similar to a thruster. In other words, their boards aren't shaped in the way we've discussed above. To be honest, I find quads so much easier to surf and can get so much more vertical than with a thruster. Plus it feels planted when higher on the face, in the barrel and on rail. Maybe it's just my style?! Thoughts?

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests