So we all are constantly trying to get this right, plugs or glassons, futures or fcs and on and on. So heres my dilemma. Manufacturers are all pushing a system, usually different ones, although they’ll do anything you ask. Alot of guys are going back to glass-ons and that seems to be the word of mouth thing that plastic can’t work as good as fiberglass for real flex. I’m sure there have been some raging debates here in the past.
My question is what’s the word now?
I have redx on my current stick. I’ve only used fcs besides and I think redx is a great system in comparison. They are super strong and feel like you would have to tear out your whole rail for the things to come off. Unfortunately I’ve recently seen that once your deck gets pressure dents around the box you can get some serious problems. Basically if the strength of the deck goes your boxes integrity is comprimised and the box begins twisting end to end under serious pressure(frontside bottomturns). On my board 8"+ cracks originating at the points of the fins started to get serious on me. The crack to the rear actually caused a crack all the way through the board foam and all, and my fin came extremely close to ripping off a chunk of the rail on a head high day a couple weeks back. Obviously the use of a deck patch would solve that issue real quick. But it’s got me thinking.
Any thoughts on removable systems, how the fiberglass fins work in them and which systems to avoid and why?
We manufacture the Red X system. The weakest link in any fin attachment method is the foam blank and schedule of laminate that the fins or boxes are attached with. There are two fundamental means of distributing the tortional loads that fins experience. One is with a fairly large foot print and rely upon the greater surface area to distribute the loads. Glass on fins are done this way. So, are Futures, LokBox, & O'Fish'l. The limits of greater surface area installations is getting that foot print not to conflict with bottom contours while still getting position cant and toe correct. The second is to rely upon a smaller foot print and tie into the deck to distribute the load. FCS and Red X go about this in two seperate but similar methods. FCS relies upon a resin column to bond to the underside of the deck and Red X utilizes it's box structure a scarfed out perimeter flange to tie the deck into the the mount. If the glass schedule is too light or the deck area experiences excessive abuse. The glass around the box will fail. Properly installed this should not be a problem.
The stock composite fins that FCS, Futures, Lokbox and Red X offer are all various formulations of fiberglass filled Nylon 6. Laminated fins that typically utilize polyester resin or epoxy resin are more resilient than Nylon fins. But, we are working with new resins for injection molded fins that are also more resilient and exhibit recoil closer to fiberglass. But, again they put more load on the attachment method. The upside of injection molding is that now we can cut a mold that will consistantly produce foil shapes that are as close to theoretically perfect as anything done to date. Which means fewer irregular contour which create drag. It also means there is less labor involved. So, we can continue to be competitive while producing domestically. And, it finally means less waiste that is harmful to the environment. Yes, I am also working with a couple of systems that are bottom skin reliant. But, I'll always believe that for the best transfer of torque, Red X is the way to go.
Howzit tom, I've started putting glass patches on the deck over the area where the FCS attaches to the deck for extra strength to keep the deck from sinking and thus cracking the deck. Wouldn't the same thing work for Redex to strengthen the area where your system comes through the deck. Aloha,Kokua
The installation instructions require a minimum of 12 ounces of glass schedule in the area immediately adjacent the necks on the deck side. It’s just a matter of people actually doing it. But, thanks for the suggestion kokua.
