Intrigued by mid lengths and looking for an equaliser in crowded/maybe bigger surf...I am the proud owner of a Vaquero 7"2", it's a beautiful craft. Mines equipped with futures for side bites. Anyone running these as twin? Thinking maybe Rasta sea shepherd or EN.
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.
Vaquero... twin?
- Thread starter chilly1
- Start date
I’ve ridden a Robert August 8’4 long board, it’s basically his signature board shorted a bit (otherwise same dims as a 10’0) with Merrick twins in the side bites.
The waves were very small but I had fun.
Good idea but won't the Futures side bite boxes be shallow depth only?
The T-1's will need the deep Futures fin boxes.
I suppose you could sand down the fins to make them fit if really determined.
Oh no! I did not know that. Might have to go with largest quad rears I have...not sure that will be enough, or appropriate. Thanks
that would be pretty cherry, honestly that would be a design I would recognise better than what it is.
Double check your side bite boxes.
The ones with the X on the trailing end will be shallow boxes.
The ones with the F on the trailing end will be main fin depth.
I hate that chit with Futures...
I always wondered how a hully midlength would surf if set up for 2 hi-aspect semi-flex fins out at the rail. You'd probably have to use a somewhat stiffer fin than you'd use in a singlefin. Maybe less cant than a thruster set. Like a Zinger or a Twinzer without the canard or the concaves. The board would still drive off the rail line and not the fin cluster and you wouldn't need a really deep fin for it to hold - maybe 6" or so.
OTOH, ACE (who was one of the shapers for the Zinger) favored a wierd low-aspect potato shaped fin for those boards (not a regular fin shape as shown below). Kind of like a keel but with no tip, but those boards had the canard and the heavy bonzer bottoms. Still, what he was doing was closer to a fish-style keel.
OTOH, ACE (who was one of the shapers for the Zinger) favored a wierd low-aspect potato shaped fin for those boards (not a regular fin shape as shown below). Kind of like a keel but with no tip, but those boards had the canard and the heavy bonzer bottoms. Still, what he was doing was closer to a fish-style keel.
Last edited:
Then it's likely deep. Side bites look maybe custom, not sure and couldn't check yet.
I have a few sets of fiberglass grom fins that might be a good starting place, thanks!
Yes, I've got a 7' Takayama Howard mini clone that I run with a 6.5" Bonzer center and some Future grom fins as side bites.
Great setup, took a little stickiness of the turns and made the board flow a little better.
Great setup, took a little stickiness of the turns and made the board flow a little better.
Anything will work. Depending on how open your mind is, it may or may not be fun for you.
That being said, a hull’s engine is the interplay between the rail and a single, tuned fin. The convex bottom facilitates that relationship, rolling and winding-up as you shift through the various gears.
With hulls, I find that any additional fins placed closer to the rail only serve a less efficient means of directional stability. At that point I’d be more inclined to surf a thruster or fish.
That being said, a hull’s engine is the interplay between the rail and a single, tuned fin. The convex bottom facilitates that relationship, rolling and winding-up as you shift through the various gears.
With hulls, I find that any additional fins placed closer to the rail only serve a less efficient means of directional stability. At that point I’d be more inclined to surf a thruster or fish.
Last edited:
I always wondered how a hully midlength would surf if set up for 2 hi-aspect semi-flex fins out at the rail. You'd probably have to use a somewhat stiffer fin than you'd use in a singlefin. Maybe less cant than a thruster set. Like a Zinger or a Twinzer without the canard or the concaves. The board would still drive off the rail line and not the fin cluster and you wouldn't need a really deep fin for it to hold - maybe 6" or so.
OTOH, ACE (who was one of the shapers for the Zinger) favored a wierd low-aspect potato shaped fin for those boards (not a regular fin shape as shown below). Kind of like a keel but with no tip, but those boards had the canard and the heavy bonzer bottoms. Still, what he was doing was closer to a fish-style keel.
View attachment 90834
Love these fin set ups. 7'6" and an 8'er. Tried other fin set ups and so far these two are the money ones for these particular boards. The large flex twins great in up to overhead. Super loose but still with great drive. The other twins with the bonzers are flexy and good for well overhead.
View attachment 90833
