You be the judge.
i it just me or is there no audio?
its not just you?
Hmmm. Just glanced at the “technical” page on their website.
Diagram and explanation defies my understanding of fluid dynamics and universally accepted laws of physics, but hey I’m not an engineer.
$230 AUD ($178 US) for a set of magical molded plastic fins (thruster set). Ahh, I think I’d rather spend less for a set of Griffins in G10. But maybe that’s just me.
From their webpage:
“As a result ‘low pressure in front of the fin’ draws the surfboard strongly forward, effectively increasing speed.”
You do not have to be an engineer to know the leading edge of any surface moving through a fluid creates pressure.
I recall Surffoils posted some information from an old thread by some of the technical fin masters. They said approximately the first 20 mm of water flow at the bottom of the board, around the base of the fin, is turbulent. Turbulent flow over the bottom of the board increases as speed increases. It seems the special base of the Quobba fin would be surrounded by turbulent water flow. Just sayin’…
BTW they allude to the “fastest fish in the ocean.” That would be the sailfish @ 68 mph. I am not seeing the similarity.
That image hurts my eyes.
seems like they invented a fin that renders paddling obsolete.
I read the article and watched the video (no sound here either)… I was surprised at how much they claim to have spent for each prototype. I’ve seen a lot of ‘revolutionary’ ideas come and go. Don’t really know enough about theory to say if it works or not but the explanation given didn’t ‘sink in’ for me. I suppose we’ll find out in 5-10 years if it panned out for them.
So somehow the fins manipulate the upstream water that they haven’t yet interacted with, creating an area of low pressure that practically pulls the board through it. That’s amazing stuff.
Oh how I would love for it to be true . . .
Interesting.
Several years ago FCS sold H2 fins. They were designed by a naval architect and tested in a cavitation tunnel. I bought a couple of thruster sets years ago, but I could never get my head to accept the 14 degree cant. I didn’t have a board with an FCS rear center box, and I didn’t want to take a chance of losing the rear fins using the fcs adapter, so I built a board for the fins. I ended up putting a set of Probox zero cant inserts in the side boxes and I was amazed at the performance of these fins. I’ve made 3 boards just for these fins and they all have been amazing, so I think the fins are the magic ingredient.
What I find strange is that these fins is that FCS doesn’t sell them now, and even thought Kelly Slater was involved, I don’t see him riding these.
http://www.curvelive.com/Magazine/Archives/twelve/The-Australian-Design-Awards
At first look it seems to be more of the same old technological BS that the surfing industry is so full of these days , but does it work , does it make a noticeable positive difference , those are what need to be judged not the BS , and the only way to find that out is to try them but at $230 aussie dollars that is a big ask . If as they claim to have spent 2.5 million aussie dollars to develop these fins I would guess they probably need to sell about 15000 sets of fins to break even , I don’t know if that is a realistic number for a start up fin co , but good luck to them anyway we certainly need something new . In my opinion the whole surfing industry has stagnated , the biggest innovation of the last 50 years is the shaping machine ( notice I did not say positive innovation ) we are still using a foam core with a glass and resin skin .
It does indeed seem that their “technical” explanation is at odds with the laws of physics as they are currently understood.
Maybe the fins fuller foils at the base in conjunction with the “efficiency” strakes result in delaying the stall point and allow the fin to be pushed harder and generate more speed as a result.
Companies promoting new technology do themselves a bit of a disservice when they fail to explain properly how it works - if indeed it does, and they actually understand how it does.
Never seems to be a shortage of people prepared to throw their time and money into such ventures though it would seem.
I thought part of what they are saying is that the design gives lift, like a foil.
Perhaps that’s where any advantage comes from?
I have nothing against an organic progress and innovation that grows from the stoke of surfers trying something different, and like RDM, I would say try the fins first before you disparage them, but your comment begs the question, why do you say we “need” something new?
Surfing is fun, and has always been fun. Guys riding hundreds of years old designs (alaias) are having fun. Guys riding longboards and midlengths with single fins are having fun. I think its safe to say even the guys riding rafts and body surfing are having fun.
The “need” for progress, is a myth, IMO, a self serving myth perpetuated by corporate interests with a financial interest in controlling the buying patterns of the masses. To my thinking, the surfing world is filled with innovation and experimentation, but it seems to me that if it can’t be licensed patented mass-produced and mass-marketed by the corporate interests, it is overlooked as insignificant, ignored, or outright mocked.
Rant over, lol.
I do not think the disparagement is about a new fin concept.
IMO it is about credibility of technical “hype” and “claims.”
Ride what works…
Hans, you are so right. This is just science gobly gook.
Huck , first of all I agree with you that surfing is ALL about fun , but surfboard manufacturing is not about fun , just about all the parts and processes of manufacturing surfboards ( the exception being wood boards that are not glassed ) involve toxic chemicals , so yes we do "need " to progress move forward and come up with other none toxic alternatives , are their none toxic foams that can be used as blanks , probably , but if they are just 25% more expensive they would be discarded because it would eat into profits and after all we can continue to spew toxic wast into the environment and leave the results to our grandchildren to clean up , the " need " for progress is not just about money it can be about responsibility it can be about knowledge . I am not a tree hugger I’m not even much of a recycler but most surfers care about the environment because thats where they have FUN , surfboards are cheep , how much did a new board cost in the sixties opposed to your income , now compare that to the cost of a new board today its peanuts and it’s not because of innovation its because of shaping machines and shifting our environmental responsibilities overseas . Progress in surfboard manufacturing would be a totally none toxic surfboard made of biodegradable materials that performs in every way better than what we have now , and in my opinion we " need " exactly that , would a surfboard like
that eliminate the fun factor , I don,t think so . Sorry I know this went off the original topic of a new fin but if the new fins added to the fun factor that would be good and if they were biodegradable that would be better : )
…hello Gbzausa; there s nothing in modern materials that not contaminate something. All are chemicals or have chemicals involved there s no any thing green. How do or any could produce a new non toxic material? Is not possible.
We do not need anything; like Huck is saying. They try and try to make more money out of marketing; all these people are not talented and are helped by the machines.
If you go to a real shaper and boarbuilder you can still obtain such a good board.
Regarding this fin design: no matter if it works or does not, you only need to put some names and big bucks and you are IN. Plus if you have a heavy weight name like K Slater, you can sell whatever thing you want to the masses. If Slater did not purchased Firewire; those boards just fade out in few years more, but now are the latest fad in many places.
Been there done that…
So have a few others, namely windsurfers.
Nasty fiberglass and poly :-{)=
https://swaylocks7stage.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/s3fs-public/MA%20#9.jpg
https://swaylocks7stage.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/s3fs-public/6%20MA%20#5.jpg
https://swaylocks7stage.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/s3fs-public/MA%20%20#4.jpg
Reverb , are you saying that it is NOT possible to make non toxic products ? Or are you saying it’s not possible to make products without involving some kind of toxic manufacturing process ? Or something else ?
So this comment
is all about the environmental impact of these new fins, and you wish them “good luck” because maybe these new polymer fins are going to be the non toxic environmentally friendly products we “need”?? I’m confused.
I think the general consensus among the more analytical thinkers here is the advertsing hype regarding these fins is just that, hype. Nobody here really knows about the fins’ performance, until they’ve tried it. But based on the hype, and the cost, nobody here seems to be quick to sign up for an order.
I see nothing in the advertising, hype or otherwise, about environmental friendliness, non-toxicity, etc. Don’t really see how that figures into this conversation. ???
You could start another thread on the topic, I’d comment further but I don’t really want to derail this thread concerning the new fin design.