Been thinking about upgrading fin material, but after reading this (below) and talking to others, may not. I have heard from very good surfers who say they cannot tell the difference and others saying they can...Iam just an average surfer and probably will tell no difference, so I think I may stick to my cheaper composites...any thoughts? I might add...I do feel a difference in using different size fins.
The study appears to be glass vs composites, if I am reading it right. Not sure on the accuracy of the report...others may have read it or has been posted before, none the less, interesting read.
Results 1 to 10 of 20
Dec 28, 2013, 05:08 PM #1
Last edited by mrcoop; Dec 28, 2013 at 05:11 PM.
I can't feel the difference between FCS glass flex and performance core. The only significant difference between the two is weight. What I like about glass flex is the molding is impeccable and they're much more consistent due to the removal of the human final shaping element.
Futures are a different story: Thermotech (their version of glass flex) is junk. They're heavier and molded so poorly, they actually need to be post-sanded (increasing the inconsistency). The only improvement between Thermotech and Future's previous composite material is it's no longer so soft that screws literally crush it.
Last edited by waterbaby; Dec 28, 2013 at 09:02 PM.
Dec 28, 2013, 06:59 PM #3
exactly. & solid fiberglass/RTM fins are just a scam by Big Fin to take your money.
I wouldn't go that far...RTM are significantly lighter (not that it matters in bigger waves) and come in candy colors. If RTM weren't so inconsistently sanded, even between sets, I'd like them better...but that's aesthetics, more than anything
Dec 28, 2013, 07:58 PM #5
Dec 28, 2013, 08:12 PM #6
What the study says is that it is possible to create a homogeneous short fiber/epoxy composite fin that has flex properties identical to traditional layered fiberglass. The question then becomes... does FCS use the formula (fiber to epoxy ratio, and aspect ratio of fibers used in the matrix) that will result in those properties? FCS could be using any formula.
Why didn't they just test an FCS fin rather than create their own fin identical in shape and size to the FCS?
Last edited by LBCrew; Dec 28, 2013 at 08:15 PM.
Last edited by waterbaby; Dec 28, 2013 at 09:05 PM.
Dec 29, 2013, 10:40 PM #8
Last edited by waterbaby; Dec 29, 2013 at 11:34 PM.
Dec 29, 2013, 11:28 PM #10Senior Member
- Join Date
- Sep 2010
- Cackalacka border beaches
That chaps final report/thesis/anylasis is an incredible example of techno-wank. IMO the material the skeg is made of is much less important than the toe, cant and attachment style of a multi fin hull. Totally barking up the wrong tree. He should have studied the difference between attachment systems. He is using FCS style boxes for a control? The little bit of difference in flex between materials the fin is made of is greatly outweighed by the way they are stuck on the hull not withstanding a fin made of pasta or rubber. Try it some time. Push on the side of an FCS then a Future systems or whatever else. Then try the same with a glass on of the same relative size and material. FCS are a joke. I'm sure the object of the report was not really to research materials but to show the professor he could spank it. But I hope he at least got an A. Now he has to get a job.