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.
Glass on vs Futures - unscientific experiment….
- Thread starter Duffy LaCoronilla
- Start date
The flow off the glass on is smoother, which probably means it'll 'grab' the water more. Meaning you won't get as quick a release as you might want. Like a squared off rail versus a 50/50 rail. The Futures will probably be faster, if even just a hair, which is a good thing IMO.
Edit: That said, you know I love and miss glass-ons.
Edit: That said, you know I love and miss glass-ons.
I do not miss traveling with glass ons! that dam giant foam block fin protectors
Seriously - that was the huge PITA.
Aside (I've mentioned this before): I had a great Al Merrick shaped board. Truly an Al shape, not just his name on it. Had glass-ons. Brought it to Fiji with 3 other boards with fin systems and used the Al shape most of the time. That board was awesome. I desperately did NOT want to repack it for the trip home so sold it to a boatman for super super cheap. Stupid cheap - meaning $100. Did it so I wouldn't have to deal with packing the boards so the glass-ons were in the block and fins in with the other boards providing insulation, and the rails covered and the noses protected and and and and and.
To this day I regret that sale.
Aside (I've mentioned this before): I had a great Al Merrick shaped board. Truly an Al shape, not just his name on it. Had glass-ons. Brought it to Fiji with 3 other boards with fin systems and used the Al shape most of the time. That board was awesome. I desperately did NOT want to repack it for the trip home so sold it to a boatman for super super cheap. Stupid cheap - meaning $100. Did it so I wouldn't have to deal with packing the boards so the glass-ons were in the block and fins in with the other boards providing insulation, and the rails covered and the noses protected and and and and and.
To this day I regret that sale.
I'll go this far, Malcolm prefers the glass-ons. For fin systems, he has to alter the bottom design slightly to accommodate. The best single fin boards I ever had all had glass ons. But on the other side of that equation, I have had boards that I thought were total dogs that had a box. And I changed out fins/moved fins and the board lit up. I shudder to think how many boards with glass-ons I probably rejected over the years that simply needed a fin adjustment.
I had twin recently that had glass ons. Keel fins with double foils. The board was a dog. Barely worked. I almost took a chainsaw to it. Instead, out of professional curiosity, (I couldn't understand how the board wasn't working) I had someone grind/knock the fins off and put boxes in. Slightly different position. Board went off. ymmv.
I had twin recently that had glass ons. Keel fins with double foils. The board was a dog. Barely worked. I almost took a chainsaw to it. Instead, out of professional curiosity, (I couldn't understand how the board wasn't working) I had someone grind/knock the fins off and put boxes in. Slightly different position. Board went off. ymmv.
GG would say the fin system provides the better hydrodynamics.
He used to route glass-ons into the board and anchor them to the deck somehow to get rid of the fin rope around the typical glass-on fins.
What are your thoughts on putting the NVS Kraken set in the AO?I'll go this far, Malcolm prefers the glass-ons. For fin systems, he has to alter the bottom design slightly to accommodate. The best single fin boards I ever had all had glass ons. But on the other side of that equation, I have had boards that I thought were total dogs that had a box. And I changed out fins/moved fins and the board lit up. I shudder to think how many boards with glass-ons I probably rejected over the years that simply needed a fin adjustment.
I had twin recently that had glass ons. Keel fins with double foils. The board was a dog. Barely worked. I almost took a chainsaw to it. Instead, out of professional curiosity, (I couldn't understand how the board wasn't working) I had someone grind/knock the fins off and put boxes in. Slightly different position. Board went off. ymmv.
Convertible Kraken Twin - Apex
For a while now we’ve been encouraging people to try riding their thrusters with a twin + stabilizer setup. Tends to work well for many shapes; particularly swallow tails and fishy hybrids. Sometimes though, the fin box placement isn’t quite right for twins. Twin boxes are generally placed a...
www.surfnvs.com
Actually what I see is that the water on the glass on is going more vertically up the fin. Remember that deflection I was talking about? What's missing in your test is the water that would be flowing fore/aft right above the fin root. I doubt the deflection has a noticeable effect.
Putting boxes right where two concaves meet means sanding down the edges of the box and compromising sturctural intergrity. ven worse are channels. You cannot put a fin (in a box) right on the edge of a channel.
Do you see show the inside edge of the fin will be 1/2" away from the channel? Depending on the depth of the channel you carve away a sizeable chunk of the box/plugs = compromised structural integrity.
Pic is a little deceiving. I’ve seen this board in person with fins on it. The inside foil on 80/20 quad rears sits right on the channel edge.
Front fins are slightly offfset. Board was a one off and judging by the general lack of pressures I saw on this retired board it wasn’t ridden much at all.
Another was made with curved channels that got more use and the fins were not lined up with the channel edges.
My curved channel CI boards have FCS plugs generally in line with the channel. It's basically an extension of the fin's side. Talk about drive!
Rode the DA AO in some real waves today. I’m going out on limb a little here because it’s possible that I have been mentally compromised by expectations but I’ll spout off anyway.
The board felt faster, looser, more squirrelly, less “attached” overall. It seemed to have less of that “bonzer feel”. Not saying this is good or bad, just different.
Several things factor into the equation. I am a few surfs detached from the PU/PE AO and rode different boards in between. The PU/PE board was noticeably heavier than the PU/DA. The PU board has a gloss coat.
Similarities are same design, exact same dims, same fins.
Thinking of putting on some bigger fins on the DA. Maybe try the Pangs or pick up some NVS Orcas.
Or the NVS T Knox?….
to be continued…..
PS: these boards are sofa king fast.
The board felt faster, looser, more squirrelly, less “attached” overall. It seemed to have less of that “bonzer feel”. Not saying this is good or bad, just different.
Several things factor into the equation. I am a few surfs detached from the PU/PE AO and rode different boards in between. The PU/PE board was noticeably heavier than the PU/DA. The PU board has a gloss coat.
Similarities are same design, exact same dims, same fins.
Thinking of putting on some bigger fins on the DA. Maybe try the Pangs or pick up some NVS Orcas.
Or the NVS T Knox?….
to be continued…..
PS: these boards are sofa king fast.
TBH, that first impression doesn’t surprise me. I could apply your description to the DAs I’ve had/tried- particularly “less attached“ (which is also how I’d articulate the difference between DA vs Varial carbon).
I like all that for small-weak-mushy waves. My DA superchunk feels like Marty McFly’s hovercraft skteboar, and is a blast.
But that would be my hesitation for a DA in more powerful / good waves.
I know you have DA townsend and ghost. How does the feel compare to AO? I imagine the extra weight of an added layer of glass (like the ghost) would make a difference in decent waves.
Next time you’re down in SD, we’ll have to surf them together and compare. For science!
I haven’t ridden the ghost in any real waves. Also, the ghost is at my lower end for volume so it sinks in the water more. The Townsend works really good in solid surf but I do think a PU/PE version the same size might be better in some ways. I ride the Townsend like a shortboard and the extremely light weight of it helps with that.
My DA Plasmic is something else altogether. Extremely light and very floaty for how short it is. Perfect combo for what it does - small wave fun.
The AO has a PU blank with stringer so it’s closer in weight to a normal PU/PE shortboard but much lighter than your AO you just got from me.
Today I rode the DA AO in waves a couple feet overhead, wind blowing into the face, slight cheese chop (let’s just call it “Rincon”) and it worked just fine.
yes. The fillet provides better flow. Water tends to "pile up" or "puddle" at the intersection of the boar and fin. The fillet is more hydrodynamic. And probably provides better hold