high performance quad?

General Discussion
41

Hi Oahu surfer! Yeah the fins pretty much orientate off the wings. I never liked super wide tails so the double winger is a must for me. Narrower tail gives me control on a board that is just rediculously fast. The bottom starts as slight roll or vee back into a mild double(still with vee) just into the fins then a single concave through the fins and off the tail. Pinched rails almost like down rails but soft on the edges until you get to the fins then it gets harder and sharp around the swallows. Very important: Don’t use to thick of a stringer or too strong of a glassjob. This will take all the flex out of the board and turn it off. Mine has a stringer that tapers from 1/4 from the nose to 1/16th off the tail. Custom glue up. Very crucial. If you can’t get the tapered stringer then just use a skinny one. Concave the deck under your front foot to give some mid board flex as well. Hope that helps! 6’0" x 21 x 2 and 3/8ths

42

nice !

thanks for the info and the photo jimmy !

what are the nose and tail widths then please ?

21" sounds WIDE to me ! …what do you weigh , and how tall are you , if you don’t mind me asking ?

cheers !

ben

43

Not sure I think around 15 1/2 on the tail. I’m 6’0" @ 190lbs. It was a bit narrower before glassing. Sounds kinda wide to me too but it works unreal!!

44
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:

Rumor has it more than 50 per cent of shortboards in the water in santa cruz are now quads.

Someone has been lying to you.

Maybe, but there’s tons of 'em in the water both there as well as here. Whoever told you that quads don’t go rail to rail or “vert” was lying to you. Not trying to start a scap here but your comment was misleading. I just had an hour long talk with stretch at the ASR show here in SD where he told me that many of his team guys have switched to quads. If the boards didn’t allow them to surf the way they want i’d have a hard time believing that they would order them. hmmm

I find them more difficult to go hard rail to rail, and to take vert. I pivot off the rear fin hard when I hit the lip vert, and there is no rear fin there on a quad. The first few times I did it I slid on my butt because I had no fins engaged in transition. The guys who’ve ridden the quad more admit it is tougher, but they get used to going soft when the nose goes vert and not pushing the snap until the other rail gets hooked in. But it is not the same.

Same with going rail to rail, they aren’t as smooth. there is kind of a catch-release phenomena when you transition that isn’t there on a thruster.

Now, there are guys who ride quads rail to rail and vert, but the ones I know admit thrusters do both better, mainly for the reasons I outline above.

I haven’t been in the water in Santa Cruz since mid November (made 10-20 trips a year in the last decade) but there were hardly any quads there then, certainly less than 10% of all surfboards. Whereas I am sure it is growing quickly, the 50% mark is still a long long way off.

I like quads, a few of my friends are real good surfers and real dedicated quad riders. Most of my quad riding has been on their boards. But all of us freely admit that quads surf differently from thrusters, and we do our best when we choose slightly different lines on thrusters than on quads. Quads do some things better, thrusters do other things better.

And I still think anyone looking for a “quad like a standard thruster” is misguided. Just as misguided as someone looking for a “thruster like a standard quad”.

Uhh, whoa, hold on a second here.I hate to jump into this little discussion late, but I just wanted to clear up a few things. First of all, I’m in the water on the east side of Santa Cruz pretty much every day. As for seeing quads in the water- I’ve seen about three to five. Yeah that’s three to five total since the whole Stretch in surfermag thing happened. I can even tell you the names of the people that had them. I would have to say that they are definitely rare. Maybe they are a huge phenomenon on the West side… I dunno. Am I missing out? As for wanting a quad that surfs like a thruster- I am printing that one out and pinning it under the comment that once read “I want my board thinner, and I want it to float better.” Or- perhaps the one that went “Can you glass my board lighter and stronger this time?” -Carl

45

Thats it, only 3 or 4 quads…they are more prominent on the westside. I was surfing natural bridges the morning of the mavs contest. There were four of us in the water. I was on a 6’9 haut quad. Another guy was on a shorter stretch quad. One was on a wc thruster and the last on a goin twinzer. Pretty cool i though, two quads, one twinzer, and one thruster, interesting combo. The surf was a little inconsistent but some bombs were coming through. On a wave like NB, quads work well for holding that high line while pumping. Mine’s a little more sketchy on the take off, a little loose maybe.

46

I mostly surf north coast spots in SC, and I can report about the same, between 0 and 3 quads out any given session. I think I still see more twinzers around than quads. I’ve only seen one Stretch quad outside a shop…

As for making a quad that surfs like a thruster, I still say it can be done, I’m just not sure why you would want to.

Making a board that surfs like a quad (edge hold, accelleration, loose) AND a thruster (stability, smooth rail to rail, pocket turning), now that is a worthy goal. Not that I know how to get there…

-dooner

47

Here’s one we made: 6’3" x 19-1/2 wide, wide point 3" back. A little fuller outline than a thruster with slight tail vee, abbreviated bat tail. The goal was drive like a bonzer but better performance in smaller waves, and it does just that. If you ride it from the front foot, it is stiffer. Back footed it is looser. The fin setup in the pix (larger in back) works the best with this shape. This is what you get using O’fish’l boxes, but really tuned quads use much different angles, toe-in, and spacing between the leading and trailing fins.

246×600 24 KB


48

What about plugs/box for a back fin so you could choose tri or quad to suit the waves? What would you need to think about for front fin position and template, thickness in tail etc??

49

Hey Lokbox,

When comparing designs like its being done here, dont all design variables come into play? much of the discussion here seems centered around speed, but isnt that primarily a function of wider, lower rockered, i.e. more efficient planing designs?

Seems like two rail fins would work better on wide tailed boards and maybe thats what all the interest is about.

Now I dont have anything against four finners (if i knew how to make one i would…thanks for your design tips earlier) but I have a wide thruster (6’4 x 19.8 x 14.8T) with medium/low rocker that just flies like greased lightning - its got lots of great features like good flex and others - my first truly majic board. Im a big believer in proper fin setup but with three fins this particular board design just smokes.

So long story short, yeah its a quad, its got special four fin setup, but it also has a special board design, like youve described.

Does the speed come from the fin setup or the board design, or both. Perhaps the latter?

Cheers

50

hey, not directly directed at you meecrafty, but maybe you are on to something…

looking at the whole picture is very important. speed is also available on a twin fin, probably even more than a quad. but we have to take the entire design into consideration.

modern quads are wider tailed, psuedo fishy, style boards(wide nose/tail and kinda straightish through the center.) the rockers are more natural, and relaxed. plus, they are generally shorter than normal. sounds like a fish to me…

now, before everyone jumps at me, i am a quad lover. after seeing a few of pavels go through the channin shop, and then viewing a few of mckee’s m5 boards(which allow you to use as twin/quad/thruster on the same board,) i got the bug, and have been hooked ever since. i don’t think a quad is for everyone.

some of their good qualities are as follows(just talking about fin set up here)

  1. more hold off the bottom, and top.

  2. more drive out of turns

  3. hold a higher line on the face

  4. when hard on a rail, you disengage the outside fins, and maintain your speed longer.

i think that with the wide variety of fin systems available today, quad will see a second look by most shapers - back yard and pro. they certainly are a valid/better fin system for the fish platform - and any design based on that concept.

trying to make a quad more like a thruster, is pointless. three fins work just fine. if you want a board like that, get one. its two different concepts, both with pros and cons. although other than having to buy more fins, i can’t think of many down sides to the quads i have ridden.

51

Well, I’m jumping in late here as I haven’t browsed the forum for a few days…anyhow, I picked up this quad in December in Honolulu. 6’-8" x 21" x 2-3/4". Pat Rawson double wingtail swallow - fast, loose enough, and damn fun. Honesty, my abilities don’t do the board justice - but I’m starting to get tastes of it’s potential and I’m hooked.

As far as quads in Santa Cruz go, I was just out at the Lane on Tuesday on my quad, but didn’t see anyone else on one…but I also stopped by Stretch’s shop and they were plenty busy…

52

Whoops…here’s some pics…

53

so you can try both [three and four fin setups] on the same board / outline , why not put in a back fin box ??

[That way , you can also use it as a 5 fin…

just my aussie .05 [no 2 cent pieces available here]

ben

[disclaimer…this is NOT a “high performance quad” , but it is posted just to give an idea of fin setup options for one]



54

those back plugs look real far back chip…

and why only 5 per side??

when’s the 100 plug, 50 fin flonzer comming out?

55

hiya “Deathfrog” !

(it’s good to hear from you mate …you’ve been quiet lately …have you been making any more SKIMboards lately ?)

…Well, the back plugs are at 6 1/4" up from the tail , so I can use this board as a quad fin , and as a twin keel fish [my intention].

The front side fin plugs are at 11 1/2" up , so I can use this board as a thruster .

The ‘butt crack’ on the fishtail is 3 1/4" deep, so with the [EXISTING]back finbox ending 6 1/4" up from the tail tips [!], the back fin needs to either have an overhang of a couple of inches [?!] off the back of the finbox , or be fairly raky / tall, for it to be thruster fin spacing dimensions. Or, I could go the “widowmaker” [fins closer together] setup , I suppose …

Also, I could put a one-tab f.c.s. fin in the front side plug , and have the fin box fin in the back of the box.

…OPTIONS !! …(what it is all about … well, for me at least !)

Weight ?

… with ten plugs , plus a fin box , plus a re-done epoxy glassed tint job deck , this board is fairly heavy … but [hopefully] also strong !

One day , I hope to make a board with only FOUR plugs , and perhaps a small back fin box [like 6" small]. Or else , three glass on fins , using a thin blank , and do a sprayed foam job. Something lighter , and simpler [sorta like me , really, I guess]

 cheers !



   ben
56

wait you mean…

a normal board?!?!?

57

I’m jumping in here as well. I posted a thread today but you may well have the answer, Jim, on this thread. It seems to me that the Speed dialer’s widepoint is about the middle of the board and not forward of centre as most fishes are. Is this something new that Pavel is doing cos other photos that I thought I could remember seeing were fairly traditional fish outline? I’m just trying to figure it out - I’m thinking still retains volume in the rear of the board and allows more curve btn the feet, which I assume aids rail to rail.

58

OahuSurfer,

I really like your diamond tail quad. High performance quad is what I’m looking at for my next board. If you don’t mind, what are the dims? Fin placement? How do you like the diamond tail in retrospect to the batwing or swallowtail? Again, great looking board!

Thanks,

Ryan

59

OahuSurfer,

I really like your diamond tail quad. High performance quad is what I’m looking at for my next board. If you don’t mind, what are the dims? Fin placement? How do you like the diamond tail in retrospect to the batwing or swallowtail? Again, great looking board!

Thanks,

Ryan

60

I do think the boards design has plenty to do with the speed. The board and fin combo work together. Rich Pavel and myself have worked very hard on this for years. We keep coming back to that flex thing. A short,semi wide board with flatter rocker and wide point forward is just gonna be fast down the line. The problem is getting it to hold in. When we began to move Rich away from the wood glass-ons (no flex) to fins that actually flex, it coincided with him transversing into boards with more flex ie… tapered stringers and lighter glass-jobs. The two go good together. In my opinion, alot of different fin set-ups will work with this design. The degree of their function is at the forefront of our concern. Testing continues…