Really? People are suing because the fins are too sharp?? Man, what’s next? Someone gonna sue lost because the boards are too pointy?
no one actually gets sued for that sort of shit in aussie or NZ . that is a US thing
Poor FCS! They still need to copy other people’s innovation to fake they innovate in the surfing market.
This new product is a bad mix of the Fin S and the system I designed more than seven year ago, that was the first to introduce a real screwless fin system, the fin being maintain by rubber friction.
http://www.google.com/patents/US20080268730
Now because they struggle to innovate, they go around/bypass patents by mixing them.
Big shame for the fin market leader, haha!
This video has been up for a while. Its from the first day at the Surf Expo. So stoked that they are letting the public in now, cant wait to get a look at all that new stuff!
interesting, video makes it look cool, not sure about the anchor being in the front though… I’d much rather have my fin pop out than have the box driven into the deck of the board on impact with reef or rock
Here is a new video that puts all doubts of the FCS II Fin System to rest!! In my eyes anyway. Defintiely going on my Balsa Board.
You know, I wouldn’t exactly call what they did “copying” anything anyone else did. That’s like saying Futures copied FCS by making a fin system that uses a grub screw. Innovation is exactly what FCS has done here, you’re just confusing the word “innovation” with the word “invention” - and Invention is a new, completely original idea… while an innovation is an improvement on a pre-existing idea. Kinda like how Eddison invented electricity and Tessla innovated it
Either way, it’s nice to see some innovation coming out. The FCS 2 system seems to be the way to go for sure. Even if the did “copy” they improved apon the previous design. Just like music, each generation improves on the next…or at least we hope they do.
Thank you for a positive statement among a bunch of whiners and at least one chest beater.
It’s easy to coach from the couch.
Fusion is a good system. The FCS 2 builds on that and offers the option of using your previous side screw FCS fins or the new front tab screwless. The two part piece making the peanut looks potentially better than the original one. The front tab can be engineered on your own to have a shear point like we did with front tab box fins on windsurfing boards. All you need is a hacksaw and a few minutes to create the shear point.
I do appreciate the less is more approach, hopefully the roller and bar idea doesn’t present more problems than the convenience it is trying to offer. The video showed the mechanism being tested for 4,000 applications.
The other box, 'Origin" is for the die hard glass on fin guys but offers the option of taking the fins out. The roving or carbon roving base is intended to mimic the rope based glass on method that was so common in yesteryear’s glass on approach. It is more similar to other previous products, but that being said, I doubt that ANY of the products developed with this approach, regardless of who makes it, will be as widespread use as Futures, Fusion, 4WS, or even X2’s for that matter.
The big factor on acceptability is price and distribution. If a product isn’t readily available in a certain region, it won;t come to the forefront regardless of how good it is.
I think both of these improvements will be accepted by professional manufacturers that know what they are talking about and building surfboards on a daily basis. The damage caused by the FCS X2’s compared to these new options should render them extinct. I’ve refused to use X2’s for over five years and for good reason that I have stated on other threads and won’t repeat that here.
I wonder if some of the guys posting negative sh-t about these innovations have any light bulbs in their homes.
I used to not bother with fin systems preferring glass ons. It always bugged me how FCS would often end up gappy at the front of the fin, in the middle, and at the back. Does it make much difference to performance? probably ‘SFA’ in it, but just looking at it was enough to annoy me. That’s why I choose to run futures as the fin is buried tight inside the deck along the entire base = no gaps. It’s good to see after all these years of FCS have finally adressed this, albeit with that over saturation of fuex science that they love, but never the lees a pretty cool looking concept. I bet when the FCS guys first saw the futures system they were like “Dang!, that’s so simple and effective”. I can wait for the futures screwless to follow.
Just seems like another installation jig to buy. Quite happy with the fin systems I already use and have installation jigs for.
Question for everyone out there: In reality, how often do you remove your fins or change fins? I almost never do. Might as well be glassed in.
@mako I don’t change them often, but mostly because I don’t wanna fumble around with grub screws in the water - while you most likely wouldn’t carry fins around in your pocket, this does make it easier to play with things like swapping a quad setup so the smaller fin is the leading fin or vice-versa. That I’ve always wanted to play around with, but I’m not about to waste waves by paddling in to swap them around, and god forbid you lose a grub screw in the water by accidentally backing it out too much
I think it depends upon what you ride. Guys with quads can change the ride they want significantly by changing the fins, esp. the rear trailing set. If you use a 50/50 foil the board loosens up considerably, if you want the most drive you up the leverage between front & back fins by using an inside flat foil. If you want varying degrees in between the aforementioned, you opt for 80/20, 70/30, 60/40 or other foils like FCS “IFT” (Inside Foil Technology) or a Futures “V” or “V2” foil… or many other options that are available in foil, planshape, and cant. ALL make for different riding experiences. And that’s not even talking about the front pair and rear center fin.
So, yeah, I have always used and changed fins for different situations, sometime having an assymetrical foil on my cutback side and a flat foil on my down the line side. And as long as I’m at it, we may as well realize that symmetry in the board’s shape has very little, if anything to do with how well a surfboard performs.
How did we get anywhere without experimenting?
The plagiarism by FCS and these systems is UNBELIEVABLE!!
“Palgiariasm” is a misuse but I get your point.
OTOH, there are plenty of people that ‘have ideas’ then do nothing with them. Ideas are kinda like… free and at large until someone legitimizes them. So what does that mean?
“I had this idea years ago and told my friends about it, and now I’m getting ripped off!”
…oh, pleeeeeze, how friggin naive are you?
It’s a different story if someone goes out and spends the effort and money to secure a utility patent or other similar avenues with the intent of producing or selling the patented design idea for personal gain.
In the surfboard industry, we’ve been around this flagpole more than once with guys claiming “intellectual property” on a certain surfboard bottom, rail, outline, fin configuration, yadda yadda yadda… at the end of the day, you have VERY FEW cases of ANY surfboard design elements ever being regarded as “I.P.” .
Ask Bill Bahne of Fins Unlimited… his pin, plate and set screw binding system still remains the most widely used adjustable, center fin box on surfboards worldwide. Bill has an engineer’s background… degree I seem to recall. Did that patented design guarantee him exclusivity and endless royalties flowing in because it virtually became utility?
Not.
In the real world, IF you do the work of R&D and securing a patent or patents, unless you have already made a huge wad of money, you will be hell bent trying to stop widespread use of a popular design unless you happen to be a patent attorney or have a partner or friend that will pursue enforcement for a reasonable sum.
It’s usually a futile effort too, just ask the people that have tried waging any type of legal battle across state lines. They know what I’m talking about, now apply that challenge globally with each country having their own laws regarding patent and design infringement.
In my book, and it’s just an opinion like an asshole that everyone has, if you have an idea and want to make something of it then, as the ad says, JUST DO IT, or put up and shut up or go cry in your beer to some tolerant and willing ear.
Thanks Deadshaper, boy is my face red, ha!!
I should have been crying into the beer, instead of drinking the beer and posting on sways…continue on…
Spot on with the changing of fins comment…Lots of chopping and changing on 5 fin FCS 2 plugs. If you can think it, you can do it!!! Also we are putting a lot in and they are good. We found that Futures were just to much plastic when you consider the combo of concave and tail kick in a lot of boards. The flat plug simply doesn’t fit those curves. We found that the top outside corner would be close to the surface while the opposing corner would be deeper, making the resin pool at that end. As we all know… Pool = crack… Consider too that when you rout these in, you remove a lot of foam, FCS 2 replaces this foam with a foam/plastic combo with minimal resin. Futures on the otherhand is plastic and resin, a lot more resin. Remember too that no matter what you do, polyester resin never sticks to plastics, it real only ever encases them. So, after a bit of use, the box will roll in this mold that has been created as opposed to a bond which the FCS 2 offers. After saying these things, yes we ride them, we test them. We found that the young guys that were doing a lot of airs would rock the fins side to side when landing. This would cause the original FCS 1 and Fusion systems to loosen at the tab right where the grommet screws in. This is also a problem with Futures in that it would make the box roll, cracking the rail. We get these through our factory constantly. FCS 2 works when put in right and are consistant with the make up and flex properties in the tail of the boards. When fitting anything to a board, the closer it is to the original material make up of the board and the more simple, the better. Cheers guys.