Quote:
Blakestah, maybe you don't surf over shallow rocks as much as I do ;) As I said above, both failures are very common so there's a reason for both types of reinforcement...
Of course, I’m also talking single fin longboards where the fin & its impact are large. Small boxes require a lot less reinforcement because the damage caused by impact on a small fin is generally less severe…
This is worth a little digression into the forces on the fin and finbox, and how the installation deals with them.
In normal usage, the main force on the fin is perpendicular to the fin, and near the leading edge. This force is transferred to the glass near the fin leading edge, and is distributed forward and rearward on the box. It also transfers to the stringer as the box is mounted on the stringer. If the box is not capped, the force will hit the glass from the side. Typically, since the box is installed with resin, there is enough contact between the resin and glass to transfer the force. The force transfer depends entirely on the surface area of contact, and this is poorly controlled. The FCS repair manual even recommends removing foam at the glass margin to ensure good contact. But this is still quite weak. And prone to water leaks. (FCS is not weak, but the bond from finbox to hull glass IS weak without a patch).
So, cap the box. Grind the lip on the box down an appropriate amount (1/4 mm or so), lay glass patches, feather into the existing glass, and then hotcoat. Then the force has a large area in which to transfer the load to the surrounding glass, and you’ve dealt with the leaky problem.
BTW, boxes that are wider get much much stronger, because the width of the box acts as to give leverage to the glass. This is the main strength difference in various boxes that all install in the hull glass only (Futures, Lokbox, FCS if not drilled through) - the width of the box near the leading edge of the fin.
OK, another prominent failure mode is “I ran into a rock”. This pushes the box rearward and towards the deck. The box SHOULD be mounted on the stringer, and with or without glass in the hole SHOULD adhere to the stringer well, and transfer this force to the stringer. There is no where else for this force to go. If you sink the box with glass, the glass will transfer the load to the hull glass (barely), to the foam (which will yield readily), and to the stringer. In other words, the force is going to the same place anyway, with no net gain in strength. Glass weighs more than Q-cell, so you’ve added a significant weight to the installation, with no gain in strength.
Of course the hole should have been routed cleanly and tightly so there is a large good area of contact with the stringer to begin with.
I’ve installed with no glass in the hole and no glass patches and had problems. I’ve installed the same with glass patches, no problem. I see no benefit from using glass in the hole AND using glass patches. Just using glass in the hole, without patches, is barely better than not using the glass at all, and is still prone to leakage. Installing in a tightly routed hole with Q-cell, then capping, is by far the best combination of weight and strength.
Some fin companies drill through to the deck. This is stronger. But a digression from the topic at hand.
To keep resin out of the box mask it off. Or, as a few drops of resin will barely stick, you can get them off later, but an ounce of prevention…worth at least 50 grams of cure.
As to having a hump there, it is not a problem. Simply grind the 1/4-1/2 mm off the box before you start. Drop the glass patch, cover with wax paper, and finish it well. A good glasser or ding repair guy can make this patch completely invisible.
hth