my shaper says that with a deeper concave the futures box sits in its hole with a high side (center - sand down) and a low side (rail -fill with resin). he says if the concave is slight or the cant is less its o.k. but the change in cant is not really viable b’cuz of the performance results (don’t fix what works for wave riding for structural reasons) whereas the concave depth is more a matter of taste. he also says that futures are working on a way to address this but its not in production.
o.k. heres a new question:
who is making boards (7’0" x 18 3/8" x 2 7/8" roundpin with a 3/16’ - 1/4" concave throughout and futures fins)?
surely this is not super weird - I know I could order an almerrick like this any day of the week - are peole making these boards with structural confidence or a ‘failure is inevitable in all surfboards (fin systems)’ attitude…?
I do not want to be at g-land ever agin with some crap broken fcs garbage keeping me out of the water - break the plug, ding the bottom of your board and lose the fin in a minor impact? LAME.
I have broken so much fcs stuff - i have never broken futures and really like their range of templates and materials.
anyone out there who hates that ‘suspension system’? why?
b.t.w. my shaper is very respected and experienced, makes loads of boards ridden by known guys and his advice is always very thoughtful and good - he wouldn’t balk at this configuration if he didn’t have real concerns.
IMHO If you have and are ok with using a router and have/can make the jigs(or don’t mind freehand routing) then all of the boxes are easy to install. FCS are the easiest and require the least tools, most people have a drill not quite as many have a router. I’ve NEVER broken any of the FCS plugs I’ve installed myself after I started to use a small sanding bit in my drill to take away all the foam about 1/8" under the glass around the holes. The resin need to bond to more area than just the edge of the glass IMHO. Or maybe I’ve just been lucky…
FCS are easy to come by, but the fins for most of the other systems(if you don’t need carbon fins or some other exotic material) are usually alot cheaper.
my shaper says that with a deeper concave the futures box sits in its hole with a high side (center - sand down) and a low side (rail -fill with resin). he says if the concave is slight or the cant is less its o.k. but the change in cant is not really viable b’cuz of the performance results (don’t fix what works for wave riding for structural reasons) whereas the concave depth is more a matter of taste. he also says that futures are working on a way to address this but its not in production.
Mebbe you trust your shaper on this, but you could also talk to the Futures rep. My impression is that they put cant in their side fins anyway, and that adding a few degrees would not be a big deal to them, and would allow their boxes to be mounted flush to the surface (as they were designed to be mounted).
Quote:
anyone out there who hates that 'suspension system'? why?
Their side boxes flex during hard turns. The suspension system minimizes this flex. The ways other fin systems solve this problem are
create a top-to-bottom column of glass
increase surface area of contact with the bottom layer
The suspension system adds a lot of framework to the bottom of a surfboard, and more install time, whereas simpler solutions exist and could be used instead. I don’t know that I hate the system, but I view it as a poorly engineered solution, and likely one that will be dropped like a hot potato within a year or two.
Hmm, you guys have a different approach than myself. I constantly deal w/ team guys busting off their fins. Glass-ons, futures, FCS, boxes, you name it. It happens so much that sometimes I think they do it just to bug me (especially the kids.) I think of it this way: fins break off, there is no stopping that. Actually sometimes you want them to break off. About 6 months ago my brother took a fin to the the perrinum. Those you who know where that is on the body are thinking ouch right now huh? He fell, and landed sitting on top of his fin cluster, then went over the falls like that. He got cut up pretty bad (the stuff you go to hospitals for) but he was SOOOO lucky that the fins (2) broke off when they did. He also snapped off the last 12" of the tail while he was at it, so can see the forces his ass was dealing with. My point is: why worry about how well those 1-3 (5 in some cases) little knives on the bottom of your board are attached? Me, I want them coming off when they ram into something… cause next time it might be my head. SO (sorry I thought this would be a quick post) I use the system that breaks off the easiest and is the fastest and simplest to repair: FCS. Systems that are mounted under fiberglass are a frigging nightmare to repair compared to FCS. -Carl
thanks everyone - i really didn’t mean this to be a
referendum on f.c.s… just stating my personal preferences and experience relative to how and why i face this futures cant vs concaves problem. it seems clear that many people believe that the quality of the installation is paramount. so heres a new question: how does one get a good installation? there is clearly a political component in insinuating my shapers shop is not doing the best work…it doesn’t seem very practical to haul a shaped blank around to my chosen fin guy then glasser then sander etc…
for the record: i have had boards from merrick, bushman, haut, yater, pearson, rawson, etc etc. and have always had problems with the fcs but not the futures - maybe there is an aspect to the futures install which makes people do better work (could easier installation be counter to the goal of quality?) I can’t say that I have ever had a less severe injury as a result of the fcs breaking (thus losing the fin and the plug) vs a futures or glass-on getting loosened from the impact - at least i can still surf when i’m somewhere remote AND i can repair it myself without having to source a fin and plug.
So now I’ve spoken with a number of people from various fin companies - they all say that ‘ours is best’ & ‘ours does this AND that’ etc etc.
I’ve spoken with shapers and fin guys, I have seriously considered fcs glass-on fcs red-x etc etc…
Based on all this research I believe the following to be true:
futures boxes are weak if not installed flat.
they will make you a custom canted fin-set to compensate.
said fins are then ‘custom’ to that board.
futures need to improve their system to account for deep concaves with variable cant.
few people want to hassle with that ‘suspension system’
and they often question its value
for me it comes down to fcs or glass-on - half the value of a fin system to me is templates/materials and redX & lokbox do not satisfy (me) in this department.
I have caved in to fcs since I don’t have to buy any fins but I know i’ll be sorry later - hopefully by the futures will make a box that doesn’t limit cant options.
Now this just begs the question, what is it that we’re not offering you? We’ve got 8 different thruster sets in composite, 80/20 laminated fiberglass, Air Cells, G-10 tow fins and I’ve just got a report back from Greg Long that the new Next Generation test fins I gave him to test last week worked awesome.
The side fins have 4 degrees of cant preset in the fins. So, all you have to do is set the boxes at 2 degrees off vertical. All that takes is routing your holes vertically and using the correct angle legs for setting the boxes. We make angle legs up to 5 degrees. So, you should not have any problem getting the right cant.
When we initially designed Red X we went for performance comparable or better than glass ons. So, our fins fit very securely in our boxes. When you design for adjustable cant and toe, you need to add components. Each component interface has a tolerance. So, you’re stacking tolerances with each component. Ultimately, that means a less secure fit. So, no we do not plan to offer adjustable toe and cant in the future. Although I do have some thing else up my sleeve.
the lokbox site ought to mention & include a link to the rainbow page with all the templates and materials they have available for the lokbox system - it seems like you are the same company and also not…
the impression from the lokbox page is that you offer 6 templates only and no mention of glass carbon etc etc…yet the rainbow page proves this is not so.
clear glass rainbow fins are THE sexiest thing ever (look at em in the sun) trippy beautiful
keep the pressure on the ‘big guys’ - more competition = better fin systems for us all
The gripit adapter works only with FCS fins. Red-x are not adaptable to lokbox. Yes, you lose the adjustment, but the FCS fin will land right on your shapers mark.
Shreddoggie, if you click the Rainbow logo on the left side of our homepage, it takes you directly to rainbows site. We are currently assembling images to update both our sites. Should have ours up by next weekend! There will be photos of keel fins, quads, bonzers, turbo fins, RTM carbon fins, twinzer fins and a few more interesting items. Lots of cool stuff coming from us by the beginning of next year. When it’s ready, i’ll post up a link!
it does not look like proteck safety fins sell a lokbox model. http://www.surfcohawaii.com/fins.htm is the only olption then FCS model with the atachment and loose the adjustability?
or go w/ red-x boxes and get smaller vange of adjustment, is this true?
(putting on my sons’ board (2 & 4.5 yrs old) xmas present)
Yes you have to use the adapter. Been unable to convince surfco that they should make a base for our fins. They say we don’t sell enough, but that’s partly because you need the adapter. Maybe you should call them. And Red-x fins have 3/4 inch adjustment as opposed to our 1/2 inch.