I've got JP wave boards and a brand new Quatro cube all with Mini Tuttle fins?
Ive had other Severne and Carbon art Wave boards with slot boxes for all fins, both thrusters and quads.
Both new boards JP (2018/2019)and Quatro (2020) are made by Cobra believe. Why do they use MT fin arrangements? I thought they were used to limit, weight and cost of US boxes for small side fins ?
Is it a cost thing for mass manufacturing ?, isn't a slot boxes a better option ?, or maybe more drag with screws in the boards bottoms ?
They don't look as strong for board construction as a slot box arrangement ?, cause of hole arrangement through deck, only a guess on my part.
Quatro customs board don't look like they use them MT ?
They MT seam odd to me, anyone know why they are used and only by a few board brands ? Cheers ??

you might need a few pictures for this one ,

I don't think the MT box is any weaker.
JP's - keep an eye on where the tube for the screw hole meets the deck, the 2015 -17 ones let go there.

I was a bit annoyed my Cube has MT side fins and virtually no adjustment for the main fins, but its a bloody ripper wave board so they must have positioned them spot on. Then I realised - how many surfboards have fore-aft adjustment on fins.....?

My Witchcraft has MT for sides. It's limited by nothing, except movement fire and aft, none.
The Maui customs used to use shortened US Boxes, now ? The boards I have had made I specified what boxes.
Anyway yours are store bought, surely you paid enough attention to the specifications

for strength on side boxes the MT IMO are the strongest, I don't like that no adjustment exists.

Depending on installation , USBox , shortened or Slotbox (Starbox) are slightly less.

While you didn't bring up strength , this as sides don't pose the prospect of damage, small fins, something else center or quad rears should impact first.

Slot-box as a center is another book.

I knew the boards (cobra production - JP and Quatro) had MT mini tuttles when I ordered / bought them. The fins secure awesomely to the board, stiff, but zero adjustment (prob not needed for such small fins on a quad arrangement).
My question was relating to the board, it's seams overly complicated, to locate through the board and possible weaker due to reducing sandwich construction, foam, sharp edges to crack and with a hole through the deck right under/near the back foot.
The realty is boards snap around the centre/mast base due to flat landings etc.
Was only an observation why not slot boxes for small side fins or future/FSC style (reducing weight, easier to build then MT style ?
Stone surf wave boards are beautiful with quad or thruster arrangements for side fins, same with other brands that use other systems.
I do prefer the US style boxes for the main fins, although my JP 94 and 102 have slot box and work. Great even with large 21/23 cm fins as well. Was just a question as MT seam weird to me ?

I've been using Quatro production wave boards since 2012. Haven't had a problem with a mini tuttle box yet.

I don't think they are weird. They aren't slot box is all.
i disagree that strength is compromised with them, how would they not compare to tuttle, surely the strongest large box.

prob a typo in your post , but meaning "FCS "or Futures, both Surf Boxes, FCS have 3 variations, both for use as intended , WITH, proper installation could be used as side fins, so small fins. I use a similar box from Hawaii, ProBox, that takes their fins or series I FCS.
Both FCS n Futures , should have copyrights, so Cobra would pay a fee to make them, they can buy as many as they like , fins I think are free game.

Slot box was invented by Tabou, who did not copywrite. Starboard used them right away. Then have the Starbox, now.
MT , when I searched to buy the boxes were extremely hard to find and expensive.
US box are cheap and cut a end off for smaller.

i don't know if US or MT have copywrite.

Many people ell slotbox now, Flikka is the best.

Little more here
year 1 of Starboards Quad, think 2009, they used MT boxes forward,
and a box called SurfInz, think that's right , that was a copy of FCS, prob so a royalty didn't have to be paid, and sold with FCS fins, which had suspect fitting . Next year they used all slot boxes.

I love the MT's. Simple, set and forget, no second guessing the position - as the manufacturer has nailed the placement (or so I've found on last 4 Quatro boards with MT's). I've always found Quatro have enough movement in rear fins to allow for adjustments as required.

I am on Goya/Quatro wave boards for almost 5 years now- not a problem with MT so far. You have to be careful not to loose some of th e screws after unscrewing- because you have to turn the board upside down so that they fall out. Watch out for thick mushy grass,sand etc.. I recall Francisco Goya somewhere saying that for the time being they are happy with MT being the lightest and durable option. Considering the gems his boards are, this is a true statement. US box- gold standard of course no comment. As for slots- they work ok and the chance of loosing and playing with screws is less, but... Saving a few grams which is questionable is no justification imho. I had a few da curves back in the day. The thing I dont like about slots that you brutally damage the fin base with the screws right from day one. Somehow it doesn't feel right to me- buying a brand new K4 scorcher, expensiveMFC,MUF,whatever and molesting it in such a way. Sorry for taking your time.
Cheers

Damage is way overboard, it marks the fin, digs, mars it . It's not visible once installed. are you in a concours for fins ?

forceten if you're still after some MT boxes I have plenty.
They're only for the (rare) person who specifies it or a replacement, so can send if you need some

Select to expand quote

Mark _australia said..
forceten if you're still after some MT boxes I have plenty.
They're only for the (rare) person who specifies it or a replacement, so can send if you need some

Appreciate it, but the only ones I ever had I resold .

My Goya quad has SB rears and MT side. why the mix? Goya designer said SB have negligible adjustment if fins moved then to get a balanced performance you would have to move bootstraps (doable) and rocker (impossible). My Tabou has five boxes and lots of room for fins to move which I played with as my first mutlifin board, and I ended up with fins in the middle

Select to expand quote

maker said..
My Goya quad has SB rears and MT side. why the mix? Goya designer said SB have negligible adjustment if fins moved then to get a balanced performance you would have to move bootstraps (doable) and rocker (impossible). My Tabou has five boxes and lots of room for fins to move which I played with as my first mutlifin board, and I ended up with fins in the middle

Horse ****. You need to move straps , don't they have adjustments?

what did the designer say was the choice of mt sb? Both these are adequate strength. I have never used mt, I like shortened us box , way freaking cheaper.
you have lots of room to move fins, hows that? The mt is zero, the sb if it's the longer 10cm box that is installed most fins have room to move, not the 9cm box.

why purchase such a odd board

MT prolly stronger than any other wave fin box.
If designers never try anything new, how can they progress?

Select to expand quote

forceten said..

maker said..
My Goya quad has SB rears and MT side. why the mix? Goya designer said SB have negligible adjustment if fins moved then to get a balanced performance you would have to move bootstraps (doable) and rocker (impossible). My Tabou has five boxes and lots of room for fins to move which I played with as my first mutlifin board, and I ended up with fins in the middle

Horse ****. You need to move straps , don't they have adjustments?

what did the designer say was the choice of mt sb? Both these are adequate strength. I have never used mt, I like shortened us box , way freaking cheaper.
you have lots of room to move fins, hows that? The mt is zero, the sb if it's the longer 10cm box that is installed most fins have room to move, not the 9cm box.

why purchase such a odd board

The board shop told me what Goya designer said as they also wondered about zero adjustment on side MTs and only a small amount on rear US boxes on Goya., and yes I can move straps and mast. My comment on "lots of adjustment" referred to my second board form Tabou and was meant to show that after lots of playing around I eneded with quad config and fins in the middle so maybe Goya saved me a lot of useless faffing about

Does it have US or SB rear ?

multi fins really need little adjustment. A little overthinking never hurts, but

Select to expand quote

May have seen this before. Kinda relates to the subject...
Broken

My 5 cents: all of the Goya protos that Brawzinho tests for production and all the JP protos that swifty, Leon and Antoine test for for production have long US boxes. They test and test and test until they find the right fin positioning. The back fins have some options but the fronts are fixed. I trust those guys to get it right; after all, if it's good enough for them, how will punters like us have anything to complain about?

Yes but moving them to suit onshore or side shore.........?

Select to expand quote

RuaraidhK257 said..
My 5 cents: all of the Goya protos that Brawzinho tests for production and all the JP protos that swifty, Leon and Antoine test for for production have long US boxes. They test and test and test until they find the right fin positioning. The back fins have some options but the fronts are fixed. I trust those guys to get it right; after all, if it's good enough for them, how will punters like us have anything to complain about?

Their requirements don't suit all. However I do trust them , enough that I prefer to purchase a Witchcraft .

when did 2 cents get to be 5

^^ Here in Oz 2c was withdrawn from service February 1992. 5c then became the lowest value coin.

Select to expand quote

olskool said..
^^ Here in Oz 2c was withdrawn from service February 1992. 5c then became the lowest value coin.

Explains it, we have 1cent still

A small tiny piece of weed on your fin causes a noticeable amount of drag ... I would take the MT box solely for the benefit of minimising drag ...

and if the pros do their testing and know the best place for the fin location, then that's good enough for me.

Loosing the screws is def annoying!

Slot box is fine for playing around with the fin placement but just until the screws eat in and you have to cut pieces from a beer can to make the fins stick tight again.
SB in Tabou has these bronze nuts melted into the plastic. Then you meet a rock and the box is finished. Front nut pops out and fin pivots around the back screw, breaking through the bottom of the box, bang...
Seen too many slot boxes damaged and loose fins in em to ever want one in my board again.
US works totally fine.