RealSurf Surfers' Forum

I ordered some indo fins online about a week ago. They just arrived !. They look pretty good I must say, maybe not finished off perfectly, but the foil and symmetry look very good. I got the controller set for a little, as nick would say "fat tailed piece of shit".

The front set has extra cant in the tabs. The rears are very upright, and the main reason I got them. Very hard to find rear fins with so little rake.

Haven't got the board yet but will update when I do.

So all else equal, it seems more useful to think about acceleration (and deceleration) than top speed. And how you generate that acceleration

A quad accelerates with little work and maintains top speed as it has: less drag + more high line hold.
A thruster has more drive and acceleration from pumping, but needs that work put in.

Thoughts?

yes and no. Rocker as an example has more to do with speed than fins.

Natho's simple terms.
- Quad better in straight line
- Thruster better in turns

there

One description I heard a well known local shaper use was accuracy.

He said thrusters were more accurate, and I guess with that back fin anchoring the centre line of the tail block that is true.

there is always that little information gap rail to rail from no centre fin on the quad that can make entry and exit into some turns a little haywire.

steve shearer wrote:One description I heard a well known local shaper use was accuracy.

He said thrusters were more accurate, and I guess with that back fin anchoring the centre line of the tail block that is true.

there is always that little information gap rail to rail from no centre fin on the quad that can make entry and exit into some turns a little haywire.

Quads have more yaw in turns.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yaw_(rotation)

pinhead wrote:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yaw_(rotation)

We've all seen The Philadelphia Story (havent we...?)

or

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Yaw

I've been thinking too, I think one consideration is about fin area too. Its obvious how much more drive and projection you get out of bigger fins. Its easy to notice this when changing fin sizes.

A quad will generally have about 30% more fin area than a thruster, which will reduce when the board is on tilt through a turn, but still be more than a thruster. This will give more projected drive through the pressure on the fins.

Then, you just have to factor in the slight moving forward and towards the rail of the pivot point in a quad, meaning very tight on-the-point pivot is harder than a thruster that has a very obvious pivot point back and in the middle.

My next newy is going to be a twinzer + small middle fin nubbin. I'll be really interested to see how this goes, because it'll mean I can increase the size of the side fins more than usual. This will bring in some great drive that would be harder to manage without the twinzer effect. Add in a little nubbin middle fin to create a sensation of the midline in turns. Could be better than a quad? Who knows...

put some smaller, plastic fins in the front. Muuuuuuch better. I'd even say yaw right Pinhead.

EDIT: Trackiness seems to be much more highly dependant on foot position than on a thruster... went back to not gouging turns when I wasn't making the effort to get the foot back on the pad after weight forward and high line early take offs.

Ok quad riders, need some advice. Gonna ride my wife's Simon Face Dancer as a quad for a bit of variety. I have some M5's and G3's. Would this set up work?

BA been riding a Facedancer with AM2 fronts and G-XQ rears and really liking it. Prefer it as quad to thruster. First time on a rounded pin quad. Mucho fun from chest to overhead.

I really like the GX Q's, feels like the back of the board is really cutting and flowing..well that what i think anyway.

Same same feeling Davros, and yeah sorry G-XQs not G-QXs. Altered original post.

BA wrote:Ok quad riders, need some advice. Gonna ride my wife's Simon Face Dancer as a quad for a bit of variety. I have some M5's and G3's. Would this set up work?

I wouldn't think it would be much good. Unless you are less than 60kg plastic fins are shite (no drive) but even if they were foam core glass in the same size the 3 is usually going to be too big for a quad rear fin. That said, you never know until you try it. Some boards need more fin others don't.

I got a set of surfinz quad fins. They're cheap plastic, though they have carbon in them, which makes them stiffer than the usually plastic fins, but with a bit of flex.

I thought they'd be a bit average but I've had them a while and they are a great set of fins. 4.5 front and 4.2 rear, standard template. Used them in my 5'4" quad and now my 7' rehab board and they are surprisingly good fins. Plenty of drive and speed and no weirdness.

I plan on getting some decent construction fins but will be keeping these as a back up for sure.

I was given a set of Nat Young Creatures medium sized Tri fins, for me in a thruster a bit small but so skatey, I reckon if you have a quad that needs a bit of kick in the arse demo a pair of you can (front fins of course) I usually use FCS PC5 and they seem doughy in comparison.

Beerfan, are you quoting the Kaiser Cheifs?

Davros wrote:I was given a set of Nat Young Creatures medium sized Tri fins, for me in a thruster a bit small but so skatey, I reckon if you have a quad that needs a bit of kick in the arse demo a pair of you can (front fins of course) I usually use FCS PC5 and they seem doughy in comparison.

Beerfan, are you quoting the Kaiser Cheifs?

Yeah mate,kaiser chiefs. Don't mind them.





ill be looking for a set of quad fins myself soon, and was going to get the standard fcs pc5 quad set. Doughy doesn't sound good, I'm looking for a bit more stiffness than doughy. Might look at shapers. Their fins are usually pretty good.

Anyone tried kinetic fins??

Jesus h Christ I just looked at the moonraker fins, $185 for a quad set. Faaaaark me