Paul Gross, Thanks for share the photos of the Greenough Stage III & IV. In looking at the Stage IV and the Liddle flex templates the only difference I see a little flair at the base of the Stage IV the verticle aspect looks very close and beyond that it’s very difficult to find much difference. Can you share what what you compare the flex characteristics of the Stage IV are to the Liddle flex and any other significant differences between the two fins? Mahalo, Rich
Paul, where did you get this photo? If you scanned it yourself, would it be too much to ask you to scan it larger and email it to me . Thanks!>>> Paul Gross,>>> Thanks for share the photos of the Greenough Stage III & IV.>>> In looking at the Stage IV and the Liddle flex templates the only > difference I see a little flair at the base of the Stage IV the verticle > aspect looks very close and beyond that it’s very difficult to find much > difference. Can you share what what you compare the flex characteristics > of the Stage IV are to the Liddle flex and any other significant > differences between the two fins?>>> Mahalo, Rich
Paul, where did you get this photo? If you scanned it yourself, would it > be too much to ask you to scan it larger and email it to me > .>>> Thanks! Hi Rich, I took the original photo, although I think it was credited to G. Greenough in Surfer’s Journal when it appeared. The original slides are long gone somewhere. I pulled the scan from the Surfer’s Jounral website article summary on Greenough. http://www.surfersjournal.com/html/greenough_vol7no4.htm I plan to take some better photos of the Stage 4 fin, along with photos of a Stage 4 I made recently, and post them in the place of the small shot that appears in the resource section.
Hi Rich,>>> I took the original photo, although I think it was credited to G. > Greenough in Surfer’s Journal when it appeared. The original slides are > long gone somewhere. I pulled the scan from the Surfer’s Jounral website > article summary on Greenough.>>> http://www.surfersjournal.com/html/greenough_vol7no4.htm>>> I plan to take some better photos of the Stage 4 fin, along with photos of > a Stage 4 I made recently, and post them in the place of the small shot > that appears in the resource section. Sorry Gregg, I meant, “Hi Gregg.” This new set-up has me a bit confused for the moment…
Paul Gross,>>> Thanks for share the photos of the Greenough Stage III & IV.>>> In looking at the Stage IV and the Liddle flex templates the only > difference I see a little flair at the base of the Stage IV the verticle > aspect looks very close and beyond that it’s very difficult to find much > difference. Can you share what what you compare the flex characteristics > of the Stage IV are to the Liddle flex and any other significant > differences between the two fins?>>> Mahalo, Rich they are very, very close.the l-flex by Ames is based around the stage 4.it does, however, have more base, as you noted, and the front has more curve than the stage( it’s an older Liddle template) 4.Now, if you were to get a fin from Liddle himself, it is indeed a stage( with a bit more tip area) 4.( he labels them as G-4’s).He started using this narrower fin when he started making boards with the 2+1 setup, and has stuck with it ever since-it is now his standard fin wether you get a single or 2+1.About the only real difference between the stage 4 and real Liddle flex fin that is available from him now, is the foil.
Paul Gross,>>> Thanks for share the photos of the Greenough Stage III & IV.>>> In looking at the Stage IV and the Liddle flex templates the only > difference I see a little flair at the base of the Stage IV the verticle > aspect looks very close and beyond that it’s very difficult to find much > difference. Can you share what what you compare the flex characteristics > of the Stage IV are to the Liddle flex and any other significant > differences between the two fins?>>> Mahalo, Rich OK, comparing the Stage 4 to Greg Liddle’s 9" flex fin gets a little complicated, because they are close cousins, rather than identical twins. Greg’s 9" flex fin was derived from the Stage 4 outline, but Greg’s needs were somewhat different than what the Stage 4 was intended for. The board that Greg was riding throughtout most of the 70’s was a 7’0" deep displacment hull with the wide point 10" up and a bin nose and small, pulled in round tail. The board wanted to go up on it’s rail and drive the belly/nose in the water. The nose was supposed to catch. It’s what held the board in, and what gave it it’s drive. It was intended for frontside pointsurf from 2’- 8’, and meant to be ridden in the middle/forward at all times. It timmed fast and carved over onto it’s rail easily. What Greg needed was a fin that would guide the board as it paddled, caught waves, and trimmed, but would bend out of the way when he turned so the nose could “catch” and do it’s job. He ended up using a fin which was very close to the Stage 4 outline, but MUCH thinner and more flexible. His personal fins were almost non-existant in terms of feeling it. George’s intent with the oroginal Stage 4 was a high aspect ration fin that had a somewhat thick leading edge and was moderately stiff. It was a super-effecient power fin. The stock Stage 4 wasn’t that great on Greg’s board, and Greg’s fin wasn’t good on most other designs. Today, when people use the L-flex fin from Ames, it isn’t for the same purpose Greg’ intended it for…which is why, as a single fin, it rarely works well. As a part of a 1 plus 2 set-up, it is much more successful
OK, comparing the Stage 4 to Greg Liddle’s 9" flex fin gets a little > complicated, because they are close cousins, rather than identical twins.>>> Greg’s 9" flex fin was derived from the Stage 4 outline, but Greg’s > needs were somewhat different than what the Stage 4 was intended for.>>> The board that Greg was riding throughtout most of the 70’s was a > 7’0" deep displacment hull with the wide point 10" up and a bin > nose and small, pulled in round tail. The board wanted to go up on it’s > rail and drive the belly/nose in the water. The nose was supposed to > catch. It’s what held the board in, and what gave it it’s drive. It was > intended for frontside pointsurf from 2’- 8’, and meant to be ridden in > the middle/forward at all times. It timmed fast and carved over onto it’s > rail easily. What Greg needed was a fin that would guide the board as it > paddled, caught waves, and trimmed, but would bend out of the way when he > turned so the nose could “catch” and do it’s job. He ended up > using a fin which was very close to the Stage 4 outline, but MUCH thinner > and more flexible. His personal fins were almost non-existant in terms of > feeling it.>>> George’s intent with the oroginal Stage 4 was a high aspect ration fin > that had a somewhat thick leading edge and was moderately stiff. It was a > super-effecient power fin. The stock Stage 4 wasn’t that great on Greg’s > board, and Greg’s fin wasn’t good on most other designs.>>> Today, when people use the L-flex fin from Ames, it isn’t for the same > purpose Greg’ intended it for…which is why, as a single fin, it rarely > works well. As a part of a 1 plus 2 set-up, it is much more successful That should read “with a wide nose”…
That’s funny, I called Rich “Paul” once. Paul, may I have your email? or drop me a line at Thanks, Gregg>>> Paul Gross,>>> Thanks for share the photos of the Greenough Stage III & IV.>>> In looking at the Stage IV and the Liddle flex templates the only > difference I see a little flair at the base of the Stage IV the verticle > aspect looks very close and beyond that it’s very difficult to find much > difference. Can you share what what you compare the flex characteristics > of the Stage IV are to the Liddle flex and any other significant > differences between the two fins?>>> Mahalo, Rich