Why not a quad fin formula board??

27th June 2009, 06:37 PM

Does it make sense?

27th June 2009, 10:34 PM

It doesn't make sense at all.

Ken · 27th June 2009, 10:39 PM

Four 17.5 cm fins = 70 cm.

17.5 cm too sort for flexing?

Same drag, less drag, more drag?

Four custom 17.5 cm fins = expensive.

Four tuttle boxes, eight bolts = more weight

Too much to comprehend at the moment.

nonopr · 27th June 2009, 11:36 PM

Basic logic. Have you seen a sailboat?.

crazychemical · 28th June 2009, 12:25 AM

I owned an old Klepper120 which was an oldskool slalomboard with 3 fins. I remember that at first i always put in all 3 but then one day 1 of them broke and since you can't find that finbox anymore i had to sail twinfin. The first thing i noticed when i went out was that it suddenly tacked and jibed much faster. Then i tried the one fin setting and it went through the curve like a modern freerider.
I guess that with 3 fins or more you increase the sideways resistance of the board making the turn more physical for the sailor however increasing planningtime and eventually speed? I mean, the twinfins where praised because they created a bigger spray and jumped higher. A big spray is made by 1) pure legpower and 2) the board not slipping away over the wave because of that power, ie a slower curve. And big speed = big air so the planning issue and speed issues i noticed could be explained.
So i don't really see the problem in making quadfin formulas though i'd have my doubts considering a quadfin slalomboard.

just my thoughts ...

28th June 2009, 04:47 AM

That brings me to my point:

What is so good about the quad fin then?

Hot Ice · 28th June 2009, 04:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Unregistered

That brings me to my point:

What is so good about the quad fin then?

Fast and skatey.

Remi · 28th June 2009, 07:14 AM

Hi All,

The main reason is first because is a Class and we have to play with the rules.

Only one fin, second price, weight but of course will be interest to test to see what's going on.

All the best

7th July 2009, 04:46 AM

Do you think you could handle a quad finned formula board?
Imagine the forces trying to gybe the thing in more than 15k!!
Your ankles would be ripped out of their sockets.

7th July 2009, 07:43 AM

For a formula board you need a deep fin that flexes to allow the fin to bend enough to fly the board. Short fins might proved lateral resistance but the board would sit too flat on the water.

27th June 2009, 06:37 PM	#1
Unregistered Guest Posts: n/a	Why not a quad fin formula board?? Does it make sense?

28th June 2009, 12:25 AM	#5
crazychemical Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Zaventem, Belgium Posts: 352	I owned an old Klepper120 which was an oldskool slalomboard with 3 fins. I remember that at first i always put in all 3 but then one day 1 of them broke and since you can't find that finbox anymore i had to sail twinfin. The first thing i noticed when i went out was that it suddenly tacked and jibed much faster. Then i tried the one fin setting and it went through the curve like a modern freerider. I guess that with 3 fins or more you increase the sideways resistance of the board making the turn more physical for the sailor however increasing planningtime and eventually speed? I mean, the twinfins where praised because they created a bigger spray and jumped higher. A big spray is made by 1) pure legpower and 2) the board not slipping away over the wave because of that power, ie a slower curve. And big speed = big air so the planning issue and speed issues i noticed could be explained. So i don't really see the problem in making quadfin formulas though i'd have my doubts considering a quadfin slalomboard. just my thoughts ... __________________ Haiko, AKA crazychemical

28th June 2009, 07:14 AM	#8
Remi STARBOARD DEVELOPMENT Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Thailand Posts: 2,334	Hi All, The main reason is first because is a Class and we have to play with the rules. Only one fin, second price, weight but of course will be interest to test to see what's going on. All the best __________________ Rémi Can answer if you have any questions on this following boards : Carve 111, 121, 131, 141, 151 & 161 Futura 93, 101, 111, 121, 131 & 141. iSonic 80, 87, 90, 97, 107, 110, 117, 127 & 137 To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. UltraSonic 147 Formula Experience One Design Phantom Race 377/320 To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. Phantom 295 : To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. Formula 167 & 167 Wide : To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. Racing Serinity Cat Concept To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

27th June 2009, 10:34 PM	#2
Unregistered Guest Posts: n/a	It doesn't make sense at all.

27th June 2009, 10:39 PM	#3
Ken Member Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Dallas, Texas USA Posts: 797	Four 17.5 cm fins = 70 cm. 17.5 cm too sort for flexing? Same drag, less drag, more drag? Four custom 17.5 cm fins = expensive. Four tuttle boxes, eight bolts = more weight Too much to comprehend at the moment.

27th June 2009, 11:36 PM	#4
nonopr Member Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: San Juan, Puerto Rico Posts: 572	Basic logic. Have you seen a sailboat?.

28th June 2009, 04:47 AM	#6
Unregistered Guest Posts: n/a	That brings me to my point: What is so good about the quad fin then?

7th July 2009, 04:46 AM	#9
Unregistered Guest Posts: n/a	Do you think you could handle a quad finned formula board? Imagine the forces trying to gybe the thing in more than 15k!! Your ankles would be ripped out of their sockets.

7th July 2009, 07:43 AM	#10
Unregistered Guest Posts: n/a	For a formula board you need a deep fin that flexes to allow the fin to bend enough to fly the board. Short fins might proved lateral resistance but the board would sit too flat on the water.