LOGIN | REGISTER

Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234
Results 31 to 38 of 38
  1. #31
    Always rode my motivator as a thruster. You got yourself a fun board...its fun in big surf too in rhode island. I have trouble not using that board.

  2. #32
    It depends. If you are used to standard quads, the nubster will make you feel like you're dragging kelp. If you like thrusters, it will make your quad feel more angular and thruster-like.

  3. #33
    Quote Originally Posted by sisurfdogg View Post
    I have a rocket fish that I tried a FCS trailer with AM-1s on the side, but it had no drive at all. It works alot better with the AM-1s on the side and in the center, or a G3 in the center. (Someone told me to try it out with the FCS twin fin keels and no center fin).

    A true MR twinnie would probably be fun with a little trailer on steep bowls. But I kinda like the skatey feeling of a true twin fin or a quad in certain waves, as long as the drop is not too sketchy.
    That makes sense to me...about not enough drive on those combos. I have run AM1s all around and I've also run them with the g3 in the center. That's even marginally enough fin for me to drive on, so I'll probably skip testing a nubster all together.

    Big fan of the quad setup for the drive, and I love a skatey feel anyway. I only switch to 3 when its bigger and has punch, in which case I don't need to drive so hard to create speed, so it's not as missed.

    I guess the nubster probably isn't for me.

  4. #34
    Quote Originally Posted by hinmo24t View Post
    Always rode my motivator as a thruster. You got yourself a fun board...its fun in big surf too in rhode island. I have trouble not using that board.
    I have only ridden it once in thigh high so no way to call it one way or another but it definitely showed promise. It's got be one of the funkiest shaped I ever owned ( been surfing for 40+ years so that's saying a lot) with the step down tail and beak nose. It' like he (Matt Biolis) wanted people to see the rocket shape it was based on.

    I never had futures before but was bummed when I realized I couldn't use the rear quad fin to try as thruster just to check that out. Why do they have a different box in the trailer like that it really limits you or is it just to make you buy more fins for the trailer individually.

  5. #35
    Quote Originally Posted by risurfdog View Post
    ...
    I never had futures before but was bummed when I realized I couldn't use the rear quad fin to try as thruster just to check that out. Why do they have a different box in the trailer like that it really limits you or is it just to make you buy more fins for the trailer individually.
    yeah, I'm sure sales factors in there, but also can be argued that shallower rear boxes don't core out as much of the thin tail area, they flex better and also don't add as much fin base weight

  6. #36
    i actually never noticed a different fin box...i think i have all fcs... and yeah man it is a wild board design. the beak nose gets a lot of attention... its really just a beefy rocket pretty much. i ride a 5'10 and im 6'3 210lb so the volume is amazing.

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Monmouth Beach, NJ
    Posts
    2,438
    Quote Originally Posted by beachbreak View Post
    i am disappointed in you for drinking the Kool-Aid on this one.pros and slater are not god.
    I wouldn't call it drinking the kool-aid, brother.... maybe tasting it a little, though, I'll admit. But I did it out of curiosity, to be informed enough to at least discuss it. And here's what I did... I ride a hpsb when the surf is good... and by that I mean hollow chest high or better. So on a solid, clean head high day, I rode a 6'6 round tail I have set up as a thruster/quad convertible. The quad setup is the Rusty formula, which is one of the rail oriented quad setups. I built this board specifically to test ride different fin setups, keeping all other factors the same. So on this day I surfed for an hour and a half with the quad setup, with the nubster in. Then I took the nubster out and went back out, on the same day, same swell, same conditions... and rode it for over an hour again, just to feel the difference. My evaluation is based on that experience alone. And what I felt was a smoother transition from rail to rail. Contrary to what others have said (and I'm not disagreeing with them) but I didn't feel any discernible added drive; no down-the-line drag. Maybe its the way I surf... or maybe I just didn't notice. But what I did perceive was a noticeable, but not dramatic, enhanced feeling of flow from rail to rail. Quads with rail oriented placement, as opposed to the McKee setup, have a very "staged turn" feeling, where you ride the rail, then the board goes to flat, then goes to the other rail. Thrusters don't feel that way to me... particularly on round tails, where the board rolls smoothly from rail to rail under your back foot. The nubster puts a little lever, back, behind your back foot, and you can feel transitioning from bottom turn to top turn, and back. That's the only time I could feel it, and I think it's such a small fin, with a symmetrical foil, so it provides zero lift and near zero drag.

    One session and that was my takeaway.

  8. #38
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Chadwick
    Posts
    1,317
    i'm sorry lb,it's just when people compare slater/dane/ci to real shapers/designers,i.e.,MR/Simon.there was a lot of local guys surfing MR twins really bad back then,like slater/dane boards today.simon's boards were the opposite,we could all rip like never before on our first thrusters.i think all designs have flaws,thrusters need to be pumped,quads definitely do track,singles can bog/bury rail,twins lack drive,etc..I like the thread,and just disagreeing because I think I have a valid argument,and disputing is healthy if we're going to improve boards.thanks,dude.