I forgot why I stopped coming in to this forum....
I can't afford all these dark impulses
I can't afford all these dark impulses
REMINDER: THE ARENA PLATFORM, INC. has no obligation to monitor the Forums. However, THE ARENA PLATFORM, INC. reserves the right to review any materials submitted to or posted on the Forums, and remove, delete, redact or otherwise modify such materials, in its sole discretion and for any reason whatsoever, at any time and from time to time, without notice or further obligation to you. THE ARENA PLATFORM, INC. has no obligation to display or post any materials provided by you. THE ARENA PLATFORM, INC. reserves the right to disclose, at any time and from time to time, any information or materials that we deem necessary or appropriate to satisfy any applicable law, regulation, contract obligation, legal or dispute process or government request. Click on the following hyperlinks to further read the applicable Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
Thoughts on Roberts' Twonzer setup
- Thread starter 302PD
- Start date
The Eaton Zinger was a lot like this. His tweak of the Bonzer. I have some friends that used to swear by this design. This one was my wifes. Sadly, now that Eaton is not shaping anymore, and Baguess is no longer with us, nobody seems to be able to duplicate it that well. My friends have tried and tried, but always left wanting.
AC Elliott was shaping many of the Zingers for Eaton, and he has commented before that he thinks fins do the same thing as the bonzer concaves. He was doing his 6-shooter (basically a flat bottom quad with canard) but it never caught on.
I was talking with Pro-Box Larry Allison about quads a long time ago and he commented that switching a staggered set of quads around between weak vs juicy conditions was a thing. Bigger fin goes in back for more drive and in front for more control. Which makes a bit of sense if you think about the runners in a Zinger or Twonzer in terms of being fins. Taller fin is in the back, not the front. Even with the Speedialer (split keel), the taller fin is in the rear, not the front. Robin Mair does this with severalof his fin sets, too . Allison + Mair used to be a partnership so I don't know which of the two was the driving force on those ideas although I suspect it was Mair.
This was one of the combos they were suggesting for the Bing Accelerator, for those of you who may remember that. It's my favorite setup for a fish shape. You do want to get your rear foot over those keels, though.
I was talking with Pro-Box Larry Allison about quads a long time ago and he commented that switching a staggered set of quads around between weak vs juicy conditions was a thing. Bigger fin goes in back for more drive and in front for more control. Which makes a bit of sense if you think about the runners in a Zinger or Twonzer in terms of being fins. Taller fin is in the back, not the front. Even with the Speedialer (split keel), the taller fin is in the rear, not the front. Robin Mair does this with severalof his fin sets, too . Allison + Mair used to be a partnership so I don't know which of the two was the driving force on those ideas although I suspect it was Mair.
This was one of the combos they were suggesting for the Bing Accelerator, for those of you who may remember that. It's my favorite setup for a fish shape. You do want to get your rear foot over those keels, though.
Last edited:
I remember seeing those when I was working at Channin’s in 2000. Ed, their sander, swore by them.
used to stick the plexiglass runners on by routing a groove and sticking them in with hot glue.
When they ask for a Twinzer they usually never ride it as just a Twin .
Customers are very happy - and silent ;-) with both
Customers are very happy - and silent ;-) with both
In the past the impression I got was that you thought the twinzers were just a gimmick and that your placement of your twins corrected the problems the twinzers were adapted to address.
I was just asking to see if you had customers who owned both and had provided any feedback. I mean, aren't you curious about their opinions?
I was just asking to see if you had customers who owned both and had provided any feedback. I mean, aren't you curious about their opinions?
Not a Gimmick - the design claims were
A water hose will prove that
Wills main fins placed at 8 3/4" in the late 80's and early 90's just can't- won't - have the drive and thruster like sweet spot as fins placed 2+ " further back
Many have learned that here on skurfer ;-)
A water hose will prove that
Wills main fins placed at 8 3/4" in the late 80's and early 90's just can't- won't - have the drive and thruster like sweet spot as fins placed 2+ " further back
Many have learned that here on skurfer ;-)
This is why i have tons of respect for Greg. Tell it like it is. Miss you man.
WJ is also a great guy, and an amazing guitarist, like savant good. Don’t get him started on mountain bikes either. BUT he’s totally blinkered into his design. Which is sound, but he does make a lot of claims.
some of the boards he made while i was in Santa Cruz had fins further forward that you mentioned GG
My mission here has been to steer you all thru the BS in this industry , like 20 % of it ;-)
This makes me an ass to some but thats their problem .
The canard added at 10 3/4" to 11 1/2" or further on longer boards provides more energy - hold + uplift-in the rail and some resistance which makes the board pivot - initiate -slightly more around this forward fin in turns .
Yup, one of my good friends was Eatons only real team rider from when I met him in 95, until Joe passed. He pretty much only rode the plexiglass runners. Mike shaped all his boards until Joe started working for him. Then once Joe learned the design, he preferred Joes shapes over Mikes, as the rails were less boxy. That was OK with Mike though, I think Mike lost interest when he started making a lot of prone paddlers. My wife has another Zinger with plexiglass runners. She liked that board way more than the one with the wood fins. We still have the one with plexiglass. The wood fin one we just sold recently.
I'm willing to make both
As I am willing to make these
You learn alot about fins and placements over 53 years of working with them
A anecdote on fin placement goes that when Pavel came up with his split keel, that he called a canard quad, was that the fins had to work in harmony. The “slot” had to be just so, so that the water doesn’t bunch up between the fins, but close enough to compliment each other. He refused to tell me where, or mark his fins when I was the hotcoat/fin box rat at Channin. Drove me crazy. Hopefully no one got any duds in the early 00s.....
There’s some great looking twonzer/twinzer windsurfing boards too, with super wide clusters because they’re hauling ass....
There’s some great looking twonzer/twinzer windsurfing boards too, with super wide clusters because they’re hauling ass....
I've ridden many different cants (mainly b/c I've busted out so many canards on my Jobson). I never felt a difference in the canard cant. Main, however, makes a big difference in hold, even just 2 degrees.
I've also had the pleasure to ride one of Greg's twins/twinzers, which is my current board now. I rode it as a straight twin. I've also ridden my Jobson as a straight twin after losing canards.
The canard adds hold and drives through turns, especially noticeably off the bottom. There's no comparison.
The distance between canards and mains makes a huge difference, too. More so than the size of the canard. I've ridden canards w/ bigger bases which made them overlap w/ the main, and they felt looser. The canards that are overlapping w/ mains by a lot have a reduced effect. It's not a slot/venturi effect that's at play; it's a pressurizing the outside main surface, causing less wash at high angles of attack at low speeds effect. If your canard is too far back, that flow passes over the trailing edge of the main, w/o any benefit.
According to Wil, he liked the horrible C5 boxes b/c that allowed some fore/aft movement of the canard: move them forward for bigger waves; aft for smaller waves. Unfortunately, RFC, who made his fins, had long canard tabs, so fore/aft movement wasn't even a possibility. Coupled w/ the faulty grub screw hole of the C5 box (and the fact that they split in half), and you had a recipe for lost canards.
I've also had the pleasure to ride one of Greg's twins/twinzers, which is my current board now. I rode it as a straight twin. I've also ridden my Jobson as a straight twin after losing canards.
The canard adds hold and drives through turns, especially noticeably off the bottom. There's no comparison.
The distance between canards and mains makes a huge difference, too. More so than the size of the canard. I've ridden canards w/ bigger bases which made them overlap w/ the main, and they felt looser. The canards that are overlapping w/ mains by a lot have a reduced effect. It's not a slot/venturi effect that's at play; it's a pressurizing the outside main surface, causing less wash at high angles of attack at low speeds effect. If your canard is too far back, that flow passes over the trailing edge of the main, w/o any benefit.
According to Wil, he liked the horrible C5 boxes b/c that allowed some fore/aft movement of the canard: move them forward for bigger waves; aft for smaller waves. Unfortunately, RFC, who made his fins, had long canard tabs, so fore/aft movement wasn't even a possibility. Coupled w/ the faulty grub screw hole of the C5 box (and the fact that they split in half), and you had a recipe for lost canards.
It's the shape of the c5 plug that never made any sense to me. That, and they have that weird angle on the screw that seems to engage the tab right near the bottom. It seems to me that the screw angle results in more torque being transmitted to that triangular tip of the plug.
Round plug more better. I quite like the half-a-Fusion solution. IMO. The optimal design for a canard install would be a 3" long mini-Fusion shape with a single slot and 2 screws, maybe 2" long. Then you could use a longer single tab for the fin and still leave a little room for fore/aft. You'd never lose or break a canard.
Round plug more better. I quite like the half-a-Fusion solution. IMO. The optimal design for a canard install would be a 3" long mini-Fusion shape with a single slot and 2 screws, maybe 2" long. Then you could use a longer single tab for the fin and still leave a little room for fore/aft. You'd never lose or break a canard.
Last edited:
uni | Liv3mind
The Uni Box is perfect when you are setting up a twinzer, side bite, 5th and so much more. We custom 3D print all of our boxes in house and they are made from recycled and/or reclaimed PET plastic. They are installed Pre-Lam and are very strong. Our boxes also have positive buoyancy (meaning...
www.liv3mind.com