round tail twin finner?

General Discussion
1

Hello all,

just created an account, and I’d like to thank many of you for sharing your insight. I tend to want to try new things, and I ask my local shaper make stuff that he’s never made - quads and bonzers and such. I usually bring him a bunch of papers with printed research - much of which comes from this sight.

Anywho:

I’m looking to get a new shape. I live in South Florida which means I ride a lot of waste high lefts, sometimes clean - mostly choppy.

I typically ride a 5’9" double bump swallow tailed quad or a 6’ fish-like board very similar to the CI twin-finner. The latter of which is without a doubt my favorite board of all time; I ride it in everything; it’s great off the top (phenomenal in longer point break type waves - Reef Road or the Caribbean). However, I find that I can’t do a quick or tight enough backside bottum turn in average Florida surf.

I read on one of these posts that guys like Kechele and Slater used to ride round tailed twinnies back in the 80s and that they worked really well backside.

So, I’m thinking of getting a curvier-outlined board with a round tail and a twin-finner set up (two twin fin sized fins and a small trailer).

Has anyone ridden anything like this or have any info on round tail twins or twin-finners?

2

I am new here also and just starting my first fish type board. But It seems to my understanding that a round tail will actually go in the other direction. Seems the round tail would give you good plane area but will smooth and draw out your bottom turns and cut backs. I did have a Barker Pocket Fish with wings and a round tail . Fast as all get out but lacked drive.

3
Quote:

Fast as all get out but lacked drive.

I found that on a 5’4" 70s twinfin with winged pintail…

4

thanks for the feedback. I took a look at the Barker board; the shape is similar to what I had in mind, but I’m thinking a bit wider with perhaps an even curvier outline, like an 80s sort of template. I wonder if the lack of drive issue on the Barker could be remedied by playing around with the fins set up a bit. The website doesn’t provide a shot of the fin configuration, but it does say that the “concaves exit the board just behind the wings”; I’m no expert, but that makes it sound like the water flowing beneath the board would release from the bottum before it had a chance to interact with the tail. (Just trying to imagine the physics of it).

How does the board compare to other similar shaped boards with different tail shapes on smaller waves (ideally on your backhand)?

I have a tendency to get board designs that are best suited for trips rather than a board that will work best in the most commonly experienced conditions at home. I was also considering putting in lokbox for the side fins and a single fin box in the back to play around with the fins a bit, that way, if I find that the board lacks drive, I can potentially fix the problem by playing around with the fins.

5

Not sure where you are in south Florida, but I’m up in Rockledge and have a late 70s early 80s G&S similar to what you’re describing and what Kech and Slater used to ride in their younger days. The board looks pretty similar to a classic fish outline with the wide point forward of center, thick full rails with little rocker, and a pulled in rounded tail. Came with the Star system fins which I have.

I’ve ridden it a couple of times and had mediocre results…but I attribute it to it being a rescued board which sadly had incurred much water damage and was quite heavy. If you’d like I can email you some pictures and take some measurements for you…

JR

6

that would be great. thanks a lot. Should I just send you an e-mail using the address that appears when I click on your name?

I’m in the palm beach area.

7

that would be fine…I would post them on here but I am not a regular poster and don’t really know any of the basics. Once you receive them you’re welome to post them for others or do with them as you wish.

jrodger1@bellsouth.net

It’ll take me a couple of days to get over to it and take pictures/measurements, but I’ll get them to you.

JR

8

I’m Kind of confused you said Kechele and Slater used to ride round tailed twinnies back in the 80s and that they worked really well backside.

And then “different tail shapes on smaller waves (ideally on your backhand)”.

As far as my limited knowledge can figure maybe they used the round tail area for a bit more lift to get them in a bit earlier if they were a bit slower backside. I personally know of no board made for the backhand . I learned to surf at Malibu and only surfed the cove rights for the first year. It was a big E.T. twinnie I learned on. When I started surfing beach breaks and going down to Ventura ,Oxnard ect I had a hard time on the lefts ,My forehand believe it or not. I had to put a bunch of time in on it before It felt as good as backside. Now I prefer it 20 years latter. May be you just need a bit more time on it?

9

Well, I’ve been surfing for 12 years (mostly in Florida which some may view as a handicap), and my problem isn’t necessarily my backhand. Like you were, I’m probably better on my backhand since the best waves in South FL tend to be lefts (natural foot). The problem is that the boards that I surf the most work really well in almost all conditions aside from what I perceive to be the most common conditions - wast high lefts.

I’m actually not sure what those guys used to ride in the 80s; I read that on a forum somewhere (can’t seem to find it now). Of course, the person who said it may have been full of it.

But I figured I’d try to find out if anyone had any feedback on that sort of shape. Typically, twins have a swallow tail because without the release of water they allow, the boards would be unturnable given their straight outlines; I wonder if the round tails allowed the board to be shaped with a curvier outline without sliding out too much; I can see how your “getting in earlier” thing might also be true, but most twins seem to get in early enough since they usually have a wide nose. So?

You were confused about my question: that’s probably because I used a grammatically ambiguous sentence structure. I’ll try again:

You and Josh both described your experience on round tail twins as fast but w/o drive. So I was wondering A). How did the board go in smaller backside conditions? (In these conditions, I’m not sure how important drive really is). B). Have you tried other sorts of twins (or similarly outlined boards) in smallish backhand waves? and C). How do the two shapes compare?

I was taking a look at some boards on the Channel Islands sight today, and I was intrigued by the Biscuit. It’s essentially a wide, curvy outlined, wide point forward, thruster with a round tail.

The shaping bay video shows Rob Machado surfing well on it on his backhand - of course, it’s Machado, and the waves (though smallish) seem to be better than the average conditions in South Florida.

I’m thinking maybe something like that (perhaps with the wide point pulled back towards center only with a twin finner set up) might do the trick.

I’m not completely set on the round tail, just throwing out ideas.

Perhaps completely unrelated, I did have a round tailed 6’ single fin that was horrible frontside (probably user error) but really nice off the bottum backhand - of course, that board needed good, solid conditions to work well.

10

I have had the same problem many times but switching to a twinzer was a huge improvement on backside bottom turns. Haven’t tried any variations of round tail four fins yet but need to. The CI Biscuit looks very interesting.

11

Hey Josh, I ran across a thread where you were saying that your MR twin finner went really well backside when surfed as a twin.

What about in smaller surf?

That’s actually pretty similar to my all-around board, but it looks like the twins are a bit farther back on the board and maybe slightly larger than the fins on my board.

12

curious about your twinzer. What are the dimensions?

Like I said, I use a quad sometimes. It seems to like to do really drawn out bottum turns going backside; this is great when on a bigger wave for projecting down the line and such, but it’s actually too fast in waste high waves. I love it in knee to thigh high slop and shoulder to head high good surf (rights or lefts), but I don’t really like it in waste to chest high lefts.

13

Fredman,

The dimensions are 6’0", 16 x 21 x 16, 2.75 thick. Do you want fin measurements and placement? Also watched Machado on the biscuit on the Channel Islands site he is ripping. That board really fits him!

14

that’s alright about the fin placement - I can do the research on that if I decide to go twinzer. I was more curious about the outline–sounds pretty similar to my quad except for the length of course; I wonder what would happen if I tried my quad as a twinzer.

I’m fairly set on what I want to do for the fin setup – twin finner but with a bahne box in the center so I can try out some different stuff. As such, I’m planning on getting a set of M.R. like twin fins, a set of small longboard side bites, a small trailer fin (3 - 3.5"), and a horan star fin if I can find one (already have an assortment of singe fins to try out). Idea being that I can have a board that works really well in some specific conditions but with some extra flexibility to try some stuff out.

So, if I have the twins and sidebites, I might just slide them into my quad as a twinzer set up to see what happens.

15

Regarding your original question about round tail twin fins, I have been using my 5’3" diamond tail fish and have experimented a lot with fins.Tried Trifin, Quad,Twinzer ,Keel fin, turbo and now Bonzer. Although not a round tail it may be of use in that it doesn’t have the two pin tails of a usual fish outline and I have found it needs a different fin set up. It is very good back hand. I can post up some pictures with fins later if you are interested. Also I posted pictures of its original incarnation so you can have a preview if you look on my previous posts.

Mark

16

Funny you should mention the Biscuit. I have a friend who picked one up about three wks ago and totally loves it. Says it’s the best small wave board hes ever had. Its way to small for me I just sunk it . I really wanted to try it. I meant no bad earlier brother .I didn’t know your experience so was just making a general statement.

17

Yeah, I’d like to see what fin configurations worked best, predominantly on smaller backside waves. If pictures and such is way too much, then maybe you can just describe them – and what’s the name of your earlier thread? I’ll look it up.

Thanks a lot to all so far. I’m quickly becoming addicted to the swaylock’s.

18

no worries Goofyfoot.

Just watched that shaping bay video again, that Biscuit just keeps looking better. Of course, I’m in no place to drop $700 on a board.

Could you ask your friend how the thing goes on his backhand?

There’s something about that widepoint being so far forward that makes me think it would sometimes be a slight hindrance when attempting to project the board straight toward the lip right off a short drop; however, looks like it would help you to gain a lot of quick speed in trim.

19

This was the initial idea. This was in the a different "buttcrack " question post by chip

http://www.swaylocks.com/forum/gforum.cgi?do=post_view_flat;post=271867;page=1;sb=post_latest_reply;so=ASC;mh=25;

This was the result.

I cant remember if photos got posted of the finished board in another post so here they are again. 5’3" by 20 3/4" by 2 1/2" at centre. Narrow rails. 2 3/4" nose and 1" tail rocker.Concave deck.Normal blank and Resin.



20

First off I tried it as a quad with standard fins front slightly bigger than rear.

results pretty disappointing. It didn’t feel like it had speed. Kind of sticky too. I got so desperate getting stuck behind the sections that I tried for the first time (after I had seen it on an ASP webcast) throwing the board up onto the whitewater and using the energy to gain speed and make the sections.Works amazingly well and strange that I hadn’t seen it being done here in waves that often close out. Something to be said for watching much better surfers than myself.

It worked better as a thruster setup but I wasn’t happy as it just felt average, no defining features or quirks.