Little by little we are inching closer to a final design and release for all those who are still interested.
I would like peoples opinions on one of the final design decisions which needs to be made.
Currently I have the centre box being 2.5mm shallower in dimension than the side boxes. The reason for this is that the centre box depth is determind by the FCS fin tabs whilst the side box depth is determined by the side Futures fin base.
This would mean that the routed cavity depths would have to differ by 2.5mm which could be achieved by having an additional thicker centre routing template or adjusting the router depth.
Alternatively I could make the centre box the same depth as the side box (21mm) which would mean a cavity depth of 20 - 20.5mm would be required instead of the current 17.5 - 18mm, so you wouldn’t need to swap routing templates or adjust the router depth. Would this be too deep for those of you who are shaping thin tails? Which would you prefer?
I think having the Centre Box shallower is better because of the thin tail.
It makes sense it should be suitable for more board shapes even if is a little more finicky to install.
Thanks RDM!
If anyone gets to printing and using these please reply with your impressions.
Getting them printed now.
so the screws will be added by the user once the box is printed? I assume just a basic threading tool to start?
all the best
On some tools ive printed the holes to correct size to be tapped and just used the screw itself. The plastic taps very easy.
If I was going to order some (oooh, they have a clear version) what infill and layer thickness should I choose? The default is 17% and >.2mm
That’s what I’ve found Deez, hex key and a screw, find the correct angle and they go in no problem.
Monk-my last ones are 70% infill at 0.2mm layer height with ABS. This was reccommended to me by my printing guy.
GregTate-I ended up using a tap with my setscrews. I had it in my set already, it was very easy, and the set of boxes will give you many chances to practice the art.
Because there’s such an array of fin shapes and bases available, there’s a selection of screws in these boxes that suit a wide range of fins and personal choices.
Some screws align with the FCS 1 twin tabs and give you a full 2 inches of adjustment fore and aft.
Similarly on the other side of the box there’s 2 screws that suit the triangular frame of the Futures fin base.
Not that everyone would ride with 7 screws in all holes but sensibly you only need 2 screws at any time.
But even if you rode a quad with a screw on all holes, it’s less weight than a 1/4 of a block of wax in your pocket.
So I received the 3-D printed Universal Fin System boxes today.
Its a smooth dull grey plastic and quite strong and tough. Looks more like it’s been injection molded.
A double handed squeeze in the middle of the box only moves the walls by .5mm.
It’s got a square wall all around for a simple rout, and a top lip but the screw holes are open so a post glass install is likely.
There’s holes in the base but I’m not sure if resin would get in. It’s a good idea to create a solid frame without a Resin infill.
Great job Rohan and the other contributors. It’s freaking amazing how a pencil drawing can become a specialised product because of the ingenuity, skills and collaboration of the people involved.
Good to see Surfoils.
If those cavities are air tight when printed then there should be very limited resin intrusion into them when you push the boxes down into the resin in the routed fin box cavities, because of the air volume trapped as you push.
How do the the different fins fit? Have we got it right with the slightly increased slot width for the Futures? Are the stand off ribs at the bottom of the rear box fin slot correctly located and dimensioned?
Hi RDM, I didn’t pay a lot of attention with the latest variations but it seems to all be in order.
The flat sides would be easier to rout.
The cavity will exclude resin but strengthen the box rigidity. Are there some interior supports between the interior and exterior walls ?
I’ll check how the various fins fit ove the weekend.
There are interior support walls. One separate cavity each per hole.
Thanks for that Rohan.
The beauty of the FCS round plug was that it rarely changed dimensions due to the surrounding resin wall. The Smallest volume within a circle, but with larger integrated, longer fin systems the boxes flex due to the longer foam / resin wall support.
Both the centre and side boxes are on the money for FCS fins.
But I haven’t got any Futures boards anymore and gave away the fins.
Which box was widened for Future fins ? I’ve measured old and new boxes and they’re the same or very close.
Back on page 24…the V3 boxes seemed about .3mm (.012") tigher than a factory Futures box so RDM adjusted that going forward.
Thanks for that Jrandy, I’ll have to test some Futures fins in to see the difference.but I also figured that fins would always wear slightly or there could be some lateral box expansion over time.
With this version sanded down the FCS fins sit with the fore or aft end of the fin base sitting on the box so that’s a perfect fit.
However someone could force the fin into the bottom of the box but the thickness at the apex of the chord is greater than the box width. Only just, but guided gently into the box it sits where it’s meant to.
Possibly bring the inside lip up a mm but with there slight variations between such a range of fins, is it better to have the base slightly IN the box by a mm or Out ?
I think we could lift the internal lip up 2 mm to remove any chance of a fin sitting too low.
