I was reading the new transworld surf mag and firewire had a ad in there.It showed future fin system with these carbon tubes connecting all the fin boxes together and it was somehow connected to the rail wich was balsa wrapped with carbon fiber.I think it said that it helped to transger more energy to the fins.So craftee was right about the fins being the engine of the board.
hell surfercross
that sounds complicated
show an inherent weakness in the system if it needs all the extra stuff to make it work better
Yeah it does sound complicated.You can actually see the tubes in the board.In the ad they must of had a bright light shining behind the board.Instead of doing all that stuff they should have offered an all balsa model.
OK, so how does it fits there the theory of using FCS on Firewire surfboards because the FCS plugs doesn’t interfere with the tail flex they have?
So they found they don’t want tail flex anymore or did they find that the Futures boxes let their boards flex just the same as the FCS fin system?
Anyway i think that’s called “suspension system” and Futures have it on their site for a long time, but i always thought that would make the board much less flexible.
one of my early compsands had a sandthrough in the rail and futures boxes
the board wasnt that well built
but it tore through the rail between the fins on a bottom turn
this indicates(besides a crappy buildon my board) a possible exaggeration of the hinge effect
i reglassed and surfed again and it did it again
i asked around and found out it wasnt uncommon for pupe boards with futures boxes
i think the box is way overkill in strength and size and the flange contributes to this as well
anyway, sometime around this they introduced the suspension system
which appeared to me a way to prevent the tearing
by distributing load better and as you say to transfer the energy
but everything i just wrote could be way off the mark
but to me, they lock up the tail too much and dont seem to work as well as fcs.
i havent had a plug failure yet with fcs in 2 years and around 20 odd boards
so they are plenty strong enough
i prefer the smaller footprint plugs and boxes and im trialling probox as well
i see probox being good for quads and funshapes
adn there is another box on the market that fits speed fins and fcs that look interesting
also 4wfs looks good for flex and thin tails
btw
huies gunna walk me through my sanding and glassing scheduals over the next month or so
and hes confident i can get the cosmetics im after for “export qaulity”
so perhaps we can talk again then about a board for you
Howzit Karl,
I think the goal there is to eliminate flex in the fin/finbox/board interface. Flex there is energy transfer loss. A perfectly stiff fin system transfers energy really well, but too stiff a fin, like no flex, and you lose some ride quality. The idea then is to have a well anchored fin box that doesnt move around, and fin that is stiff at the base with some slight flex in the upper half. The fin should also springback with force, so glass fins help. Glass-ons with a stiff solid foundation is the benchmark. Coque had it right, its called “suspension” something…its been out a while but hasnt really caught on…proly cuz its too complex like Silly said.
I thought the suspension existed because the Futures fin box is too narrow side-to-side to get adequate stiffness with “pro” glass jobs. Instead of putting a cross-member in the Futures box to stiffen it, they added multiple cross-members IN THE BLANK.
My guess is Firewire/Futures is all about business, and nothing about “changes” in performance.
Call me biased, but certain feedback is just proof in the pudding. This thread seems to be about performance, flex patterns, and durability. Our goal has always been to least effect the natural flex of any particular stringer/glassing combination that the shaper or customer chooses. Not saying that performance can’t be pushed…and continue to be pushed…which is why we partnered up with Mr. Knox to help us learn what can and can’t be done with a fin system. No tricks up our sleeve, and let the glasser do what he does normally, and have the system survive without any extra installation add-ons. If it didn’t work we’d go back to the drawing board. I can’t think of too many people that could stress a board with more force than Taylor. He’s also one of the few people on earth that can give Kelly a run for his money when it comes to performance surfing.
10 WCT events and he has yet to break one fin or one box. The boards are PU/PE, all 4 ounce construction (actually only 1 and 1/2 layers on the deck), and ultralight foam. Boxes installed after the lamination with polyester lam resin and one 4 ounce patch over the boxes.
Photos courtesy of DJ Struntz
Firewire also said that the fin system was tied into the rail of the board as well.They said it took away some of the corkiness when the board is put on the rail.I think that the theory is valid and I would like to try one for sure.
Jeez ! Can’t he do a real turn !!! He He ,
Now thats how to stress test a fin system. Talk about giving it some !!
Mooneemick
I always enjoy Lokbox’s post. Thanks for that.
I was really hoping that Lokbox was the next step in fin systems for FW.
I think that FW might be trying to push the “most technical surfboard” angle. In this case, time will tell if “complicated” (e.g.- the complicated nature of the Futures suspension system) is synonomous with technical (IMO- if it is effective, then it is a technical advancement, if it is only equally, or less, effective, it does nothing more than make the construction of the boards complicated)
Perhaps FW is trying to better deal with the installation of a fin system in low density/soft foam. Maybe tying the fin cluster together, and to the rail, does indeed augment drive while keeping the rest of the board flexible. I look foreward to the results of any experiment.
Lokbox, while we have your attention, can you please lay out what you believe to be the advantages of Lokbox specifically over Futures, since among all the fin systems, I think they are the most similar (at least in quick-glance appearance; that is, they are both boxes holding longer-base fins vs. fins with tabs or some other form of attachment), especially as they might pertain to tail flex (since that is the subject at-hand). Thanks!
Lokbox is in Hawaii for the next couple weeks. I just got back Sunday night from a quick jaunt myself. The two primary differences between LokBox and Future are that LokBox like Red X has for and aft adjustment and they both have matching tapers between the tab of the fin and the cavity of the box. LokBox also has a more substantial wall thickness. Between that and the shorter cavity length the box has more structure to with stand tortional loads and prevent the fin getting loose in the box side to side. Finally, Lokbox is designed with ejecting fins on impact in mind. The stainless tab that levers the fin down into the box cavity can bend on longitudinal impact. Most often all you have to do is turn the plate over and put a new fin in if you hit a reef or something else head on.
right, the Futures suspension system. bridging all three boxes and minimizing the torsional twist. this is something David Vernor of Vernor surfboards in Santa Cruz has been doing for years. i’ve ridden a few and can definitely feel a difference. these boards go faster, rocket you through bottom turns and cutbacks and somehow feel more “alive”.
call him for more detailed info. on it – 831-722-7111
kirk
Hi Tom, good to read your post.
For once i agree with Lokbox and whilst being a competitor to lokbox i also agree with their validations.
I am not going to use this opportunity to punt 4 ways (for this is honestly for those that don’t know: 4 Way Fin system: www.4wfs.com) but to pledge my support for all adjustable systems out there.
Both 4 ways and lokbox have adjustability and innovative breakpoints unlike our larger competitors. It’s about time the industry and surfers out there realize each surfboards potential and that there is no much that still needs to be achieved w.r.t technology in surfboards.
I can’t wait for the day that FW moves away from it’s use of “static” fin system technology and moves onto the adjustable fin systems that can offer so much more in performance options to get every surfer frothing over a FW…it’s easy …for those surfers and shapers that have converted already, there’s no turning back, they have seen the light that adjustable fin systems have to offer!
To all others out there, we could debate the pro’s and con’s on every fin system, but the moment we look outside the “box” (so to speak) there’s technology and innovation out there that people have spent their lives developing, all we have to do is open our minds and try it!
Regards to Tom and Lobox, keep up the good work.
cheers
Dean
Craftee and kirk are right on the money when it comes to the suspension system.
It doesn’t have to do with weakness in the system when you want to continue to make the system better by introducing new ideas into it. FW has a right (some would say a responsability) to continue to evolve. I have all the respect in the world for Bert, but what your seeing now from FW is evolution beyond where it all started.
Hell, three of the principles of the company are former pro surfers. Surfboards are just a bit of a passion … just a bit! Making the stuff better is for us … not just for the consumer. We just want to pass along the best we can make. Give the public something they’ve never been able to buy elsewhere and lead the industry through example, past where we’ve been. If it has to be a bit more complicated then so be it, we’ll build that. Others won’t. A Ferrari just happens to be a bit more complicated than a Neon. For those who want the best they should be able to have that Ferrari shouldn’t they? The surfboard industry has spent too many years diving for the bottom striving for market share through low price alone. We can do better and that’s FW’s goal.
Nothing I’ve just stated is anything I haven’t written on here dozens of times through the last four years. Finding like minded partners was always something we were looking for. We found that.
Hi Greg, can you name the 3 former pros for us who who dont know?
Just want to know who is who ?
Regards, SF.
Quote:
I have all the respect in the world for Bert, but what your seeing now from FW is evolution beyond where it all started.
Hell, three of the principles of the company are former pro surfers.
Man, it seems like it’s raining fin systems sometimes. But that’s the first time I’ve seen a system that will let you adjust cant, toe in and move the fin back or forth.
Shareholders in Firewire include: former Billabong International CEO Matthew Perrin, former Billabong GM Dougall Walker, and former VP of Marketing at Reef, Mark Price who heads up U.S. operations. Lets not forget Nev Hyman, who started the whole company.
-Jon