I’ve read a bit about this in the archives, but the older posts didn’t seem to really answer my question. I’m wondering what sort of experiences people have had with these fin configs and whether anyone has had a good opportunity for comparison.
I’ve ridden a twinzer fish for about 3 years and it seems to work well in the head high and under beachbreak we have here in southern NC. I’ve not yet ridden a canard quad but am contemplating investing in a Toby or attempting to replicate the set up on my current project.
My reading on the canard quad set up (archives and the recent Toby Pavel interview from Surfer) has given me some insight on why that set up is desireable-the whole low aspect to two high aspect ratio fin bit. What are the rationales for the twinzer set up? I remember a comment from Greg Loehr on here describing Mr. Jobson’s innovation as demonstrating a real understanding of hydrodynamics–I’d like to here more about why…
the twinzer bottom [compared to… what bottom do they put on canard quards ?] may also play a big part in the boards performance …
here’s that “different” thread’s photo (… again ?!)
I hope this helps !!
ben
as I am an Australian who has not been fortunate enough to have seen either design here , I look forward to hearing from prople who have ridden BOTH designs , and therefore can compare the riding characteristics of each.
So, then, does “twinzer” describe not just a fin config. but rather a fin config. in conjunction with what appears to be a pretty agressive channel in the tail? The board which I had and categorized as a twinzer had the same fin set up as the Jobson photo. It also had a channel bottom, but not all the way through the tail. It was shaped by John Mel at Freeline (santa cruz)–I believe he called it a ‘pig fish.’ I would see guys flying on similar boards at the hook.
The way I get it the basic difference is that a twinzer has two sets of rail fins regardless of the size. It is more free rail to rail than a quad and will surf vertically quite well along with trimming well if the rocker isn’t too steep. The main driving rail fins are usually set back a couple of inches aft from truster rail fin placement and the tail rocker on twinzers is more relaxed as well. The lead fin on a twinzer is smaller than than the trailer and acts very much like a canard cleaning up and channelling the water flow for the trailer so it won’t ventilate as much, thus making fin drive more positive.
On quads the rail fins are set much the same way as on a thruster and there are trailing fins that are about 6 inches or so off the tail of the board. They are inboard of the rail fins. The trailers may be toed in the same as the rail fins or slightly less depending on how the board is configured and how the shaper intends it to perform. The rail fins can be the same size as the trailers in larger waves. Set-ups surfed in smaller waves have rail fins that are larger than the trailers.
I believe this discription for quads approaches Canard Quads fairly well but I’m sure there are subtle differences.
There are four fin combinations out there that may not fit into this scope, but when you boil it all down they are actually all Quads. Much of the terminology use to discribe things is hard to pin down because it’s part of the performance evolution. We have to put an handle on things so we know what we’re talking about but the picture keeps change and so does the terminology.
Hope I get to meet Wil soon. He’s the man when it comes to these set-ups.
In the olden daze when both were state of the art, we’d consider Twinzers as a quick pivoting semi twin fin with great hold, whereas a quad to be a trin fin feel with looser turning.
Both being considered more for smaller waves, rather than JClark’s quads that are made for gunboards.
I prefer twinsers for your area over quads. Twinsers a bit looser, generally. The picture of Mr. Jobson above has a vee off the tail which I also like. Scott Busbey at Natural Art in Hatteras shapes and rides very nice twinsers. You might have a look at one of his.
Scott has made two boards for me (“glass slipper” type short boards) in the past and both are outstanding–one is, dare I say, ‘magic’. Maybe I should give him a buzz on a new twinzer. He’s a super nice guy and a great shaper in my opinion.
If you have time would you mind elaborating on the “great understanding of hydrodynamics” (paraphrase–not to put words in your mouth) associated with the twinzer design alluded to in some of your posts on other threads.
The lead fin cleans up flow around the fin base for the inner rail fin…
For the outer rail fin the lead fin aerates the flow before it hits the main fin, acting as a turbulator and easing the transition into positive fin engagement when surfed rail to rail.
The Twinzer bottom is a pretty aggressive single to double in which there is a little Vee in the region with the double.
I suspect you will see new Twinzer fins soon (mainly the main fin). Also, in a Twinzer the rear fin is set in from the rail about two inches, which is a bit more than standard.
Twinzer has a good bit less total fin area than a quad, and will not bottom turn like a quad, but it will run up speed very well and surf rail to rail with ease.
