Carbon fins

[bherder]

John,

Yes, I searched. So I have 3 of your carbon fins. I have skied on one of them for the last few years on a F1, and D3 RC. I couldn't find any documentation on what the numbers on the fins mean. If I remember back in the day, some were meant for 34 and some for 36 (I'm a 36'er through and through, until I turn 35). Can you explain what the numbers mean?

 

Also, what was the conclusion of the carbon fin? Not different enough from the standard fin? Is anyone currently using one?

[jackski]

I've been using one of John's fins for the last 4 years, It helped me get from 35 to 38 on a 9700

Just got the Nano a couple of days ago. Couldn't use the stock settings on the std fin. and I think that I'll bolt on the carbon fin tommorow. Mine was a 88

[Ed_Johnson]

jackski,

 

Let us know how you like the Nano. Mine arrives Thurs. according to Fed Ex.

[Ed_Obermeier]

I have an 88+ that has been barely used, if anyone is interested make me an offer.

 

Ed

[jackski]

EJ

I can only really compare to my previous 9700. I've only skied 3 sets on it and don't have my fin settings where I want them yet. The water is only 52 and the air bounces around the same, so it's far from ideal conditions.

Regardless I know this is a huge step forward from a 9700. In comparision it has a solid feel, it holds edge better and gains angle with less effort while not over rotating. It accelerates faster but more progressively so it feels more under control. The edge change is more equal both sides and it seems easier to keep the ski under you at that point. A few settings away from Nirvana? Keep in mind I'm on a 64.25 so my view may not translate to the longer skies.

[Ed_Johnson]

jski,

 

Thanks for the info, enjoy and keep us informed.

 

Do you plan to try the Ventrals?

[Horton]

The 88 is a mid-soft flex

106 is was the standard

116 was extra stiff but did not work as good as the 106

105 was soft and love by a few.

[Boody]

I had a 116 when I skied 36 mph and I thought it worked really well. It felt like it allowed the ski to finish with more angle by sliding around.

[Horton]

116 was good for some skiers. 106 was the gold standard for 34 mph.

 

The 116 was an attempt to get back it an first gen design that I was never able to replicate (89i)

[jackski]

Ed, I'll try ventrals when the water warms up a little. Probably late June here.

 

Thanks for the reminder about the numbers John.

[Stefan]

@Horton I found this old thread after reading the new thread about a CarbonFin for sale. Since I have four of your fins in my old tool box, but not the manuals/descriptions any more I have a question. The 106+ I have is not mentioned above, what is the difference vs the106 ?

[baja]

It is 9 years old and it sucks.

[Horton]

@Stefan I'm not exactly sure I understand your question. I don't remember if I called those fins 106+ or just 106. Either way it's the same thing.

 

@baja ?

[Stefan]

@Horton I thought 106+ as it says on mine maybe was a slightly different version

[Horton]

@Stefan it's been enough years that I don't exactly remember but maybe I did call it 106+. the numerical 106 is literally a description of the carbon layup. 10 layers vertical & 6 layers horizontal.

[liquid d]

The + is just like on zero off...it just hammers the shit out you at the gate.