There is my feedback regarding dw boards. I've been testing 6'4 x 20 - 87L vs 7'6 x 18 - 86L
I tried them both on different conditions, from light dw, strong bay run to tricky open ocean dw. Mostly with Axis art 1099 and 999.
I like the 6'4 better, I would say perfect allround board, it makes the take off easier than a 6'0 and while flying it feels the same as a small board because the mast is more forward so you don't have too much nose in front of you.
The 7'6 is nice to ride, you don't even need a good bumps, you just paddle and get up on pretty much anything, then flying it feels like it is the dw Cadillac, super comfortable at high speed, easy to move even on tight short hollow bumps but feels better on big long bumps. The down side is when it gets slow, the board (even it is ultra light and responsive) feels slow and it need more work. I will keep this 7'6 for specific conditions, such as big tricky open ocean dw.
Select to expand quotefrenchfoiler said..
There is my feedback regarding dw boards. I've been testing 6'4 x 20 - 87L vs 7'6 x 18 - 86L
I tried them both on different conditions, from light dw, strong bay run to tricky open ocean dw. Mostly with Axis art 1099 and 999.
I like the 6'4 better, I would say perfect allround board, it makes the take off easier than a 6'0 and while flying it feels the same as a small board because the mast is more forward so you don't have too much nose in front of you.
The 7'6 is nice to ride, you don't even need a good bumps, you just paddle and get up on pretty much anything, then flying it feels like it is the dw Cadillac, super comfortable at high speed, easy to move even on tight short hollow bumps but feels better on big long bumps. The down side is when it gets slow, the board (even it is ultra light and responsive) feels slow and it need more work. I will keep this 7'6 for specific conditions, such as big tricky open ocean dw.
Wow, that mount is really far forwards. But I guess the tail is really thin proportionally. I wonder how the board balances up with the CoL and the CoG. Interesting your thoughts on the 6'4" vs 7'6", I was thinking this might be the case in real world (non Maui) conditions.
Looks cool with that tail though.
JB
Great vid frenchfoiler ! Love the constant experimentation and innovation and sharing that you are doing.
if you are happy to, could you please share how far the trailing edge of the mast is from the tail, looks so far forward. Thanks
Select to expand quoteJonathanC said..
Great vid frenchfoiler ! Love the constant experimentation and innovation and sharing that you are doing.
if you are happy to, could you please share how far the trailing edge of the mast is from the tail, looks so far forward. Thanks
fin box at 50cm from the tail and it is 6cm on the box (I use 14" box to have more room).
I am observing that (almost) every place that used to be on the world Map for windsurfing is now being Re-Livened for SUP Foil downwinding.
The Gorge and Maui the best places by far in the United States. BUT a close runner up - San Francisco. I moved here 25 years ago because you could have a job and windsurf every day from March through August. Then 3 times a week for the rest of the year.
One summer we took the 11 hour drive to the Gorge and we got skunked 3 out of 7 days. What!!! No Wind. In San Francisco, July and August there is wind EVERY day if you're willing to drive 1 hour.
So San Francisco is in Play. Here was my 1st attempt at Downwinding. Coyote Point to 3rd Avenue. I outed the spot. Defined as a 'Green Run' by ski hill standards. I purposely show the paddle up, forward and backward views to see the bumps. I was amazed at how far upwind I could track. See the guy on the Wingding that I am almost keeping up with. But what do I know I am just a Day-1 beginner.
The board was a custom Jeff Clark 7'8" x 25" x 120 Liters.
Another good dw :
www.instagram.com/p/CkfquF9vMfO/
It is a bay run, so even it was 40+ mph it was kind of easy bumps.
I did two runs, one with Axis art 899/460 and another with Axis art 999/325.
I was my first time trying the 899 in dw with 460 to get a better stall speed in cas I do a mistake. It took me some time to understand the 899, on those small ha wings you need to adjust your foot pressure, it is different than a bigger foil, way harder than 999 for exemple. Once you get it then it is all good. Flying, it feels amazing, so much control at hight speed.
Then went back to 999 paired with smaller 325 to see i could get better top speed.
I think on those conditions, I didn't really need the 899, I had the same average speed and even same top speed but I was feeling more comfortable on the 999 oevrall excpet on the steepest part where the 899 was super trusty. But for taking off, with the 999 it took me less than 10 sec to get going, so easy with my 6'4 x 20.
Want to keep this thread alive
Any home-diy-hackers still experimenting or are we all going long and narrow?
Personally I am getting used to long/narrow boards, but there is something that bugs me every session - the thickness! I am 90% of the time pronefoiling, so when im supfoiling my dw-boards (5" thick) I feel like standing waaaayyy above the the water resulting in flying the foil too low/ feeling of being disconnected to my foil.
I began drafting a on a dw-board with the goal of making it just as stable, or even more stable, but only 3 1/2 thick. No, its not a dug-out. More a scow-looking board. Shorter but wider in both ends. This will make it possible to shave off volume while keeping it stable, resulting in lighter weight and better aerodynamics
Select to expand quotedanish said..
Personally I am getting used to long/narrow boards, but there is something that bugs me every session - the thickness!
I went with a very deep recessed deck for the same reason, 1.25" deep recess to reduce the thickness to 4.5" or thereabouts, the board is 18.5" wide and the recesses reduces the effective standing platform to around 16.5" which is roughly the same as as my prone board, however with the size of the board I do miss the extra space, I've got used to it.
The biggest issue with the length is the inertia, you really feel the swing weight in turning and pivoting especially with the big DW foils. It is less of an issue winging it as I can move it around, but in bumps with a big span foil the whole setup really slows down.
I plan to cut the tail off, and probably cut away the rails to remove the recess and just have an open standing platform. It works fine but curious to see what the difference is. On the whole I struggle to think you can beat long and skinny for beginners. It is so incredibly easy to get it onto foil compared to lower aspect ratio boards.
Pics of the board and some documentation on board aspect ratios on the link below
docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/15rVPnnlLZkhOkmEmCUAB3mst5VYilamjlVagCQrZhl0/edit#gid=0
To your scow idea, I find the wide boards a nightmare to get enough speed to get on foil. I don't think width is the solution to stability. My long and skinny 100L 18" wide board is more stable in choppy bumps than a 110L 24" wide board? Surely this is the difference between primary stability (wide) and secondary stability (narrow?)
Select to expand quotecornwallis said..danish said..
Personally I am getting used to long/narrow boards, but there is something that bugs me every session - the thickness!
I went with a very deep recessed deck for the same reason, 1.25" deep recess to reduce the thickness to 4.5" or thereabouts, the board is 18.5" wide and the recesses reduces the effective standing platform to around 16.5" which is roughly the same as as my prone board, however with the size of the board I do miss the extra space, I've got used to it.
The biggest issue with the length is the inertia, you really feel the swing weight in turning and pivoting especially with the big DW foils. It is less of an issue winging it as I can move it around, but in bumps with a big span foil the whole setup really slows down.
I plan to cut the tail off, and probably cut away the rails to remove the recess and just have an open standing platform. It works fine but curious to see what the difference is. On the whole I struggle to think you can beat long and skinny for beginners. It is so incredibly easy to get it onto foil compared to lower aspect ratio boards.
Pics of the board and some documentation on board aspect ratios on the link below
docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/15rVPnnlLZkhOkmEmCUAB3mst5VYilamjlVagCQrZhl0/edit#gid=0
To your scow idea, I find the wide boards a nightmare to get enough speed to get on foil. I don't think width is the solution to stability. My long and skinny 100L 18" wide board is more stable in choppy bumps than a 110L 24" wide board? Surely this is the difference between primary stability (wide) and secondary stability (narrow?)
Woah, good job on that sheet. Great contribution
I dont want dugout for exactly the same reason as you mention- limited stance.
The scow-concept is still narrow (about 19-20") but instead "only" 7'2 long. More parrallel rails will maybe contribute to glide? Volume should be bodyweight + 10ltrs so sinkers-ish. No need to stand high above waterline as I dont think it will make this concept more stable
Select to expand quoteGrantmac said..
What about a catamaran or tunnel hull?
Not sure you want to surf a catamaran? Tunnel-hull/ deep concave could work? Dont know if it would have a sticky effect to the water before launch
Select to expand quotedanish said..cornwallis said..danish said..
Personally I am getting used to long/narrow boards, but there is something that bugs me every session - the thickness!
I went with a very deep recessed deck for the same reason, 1.25" deep recess to reduce the thickness to 4.5" or thereabouts, the board is 18.5" wide and the recesses reduces the effective standing platform to around 16.5" which is roughly the same as as my prone board, however with the size of the board I do miss the extra space, I've got used to it.
The biggest issue with the length is the inertia, you really feel the swing weight in turning and pivoting especially with the big DW foils. It is less of an issue winging it as I can move it around, but in bumps with a big span foil the whole setup really slows down.
I plan to cut the tail off, and probably cut away the rails to remove the recess and just have an open standing platform. It works fine but curious to see what the difference is. On the whole I struggle to think you can beat long and skinny for beginners. It is so incredibly easy to get it onto foil compared to lower aspect ratio boards.
Pics of the board and some documentation on board aspect ratios on the link below
docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/15rVPnnlLZkhOkmEmCUAB3mst5VYilamjlVagCQrZhl0/edit#gid=0
To your scow idea, I find the wide boards a nightmare to get enough speed to get on foil. I don't think width is the solution to stability. My long and skinny 100L 18" wide board is more stable in choppy bumps than a 110L 24" wide board? Surely this is the difference between primary stability (wide) and secondary stability (narrow?)
Woah, good job on that sheet. Great contribution
I dont want dugout for exactly the same reason as you mention- limited stance.
The scow-concept is still narrow (about 19-20") but instead "only" 7'2 long. More parrallel rails will maybe contribute to glide? Volume should be bodyweight + 10ltrs so sinkers-ish. No need to stand high above waterline as I dont think it will make this concept more stable
Thanks!
That sounds very good, I would be interested in seeing how that materialises as I think once you are at a certain level you probably can do with less length, and definitely need less float. Targeting 3" would be very interesting. So many of the production boards are 6"+ and I guess that only makes the setup feel less connected. Do you have any insight into why this is? If it is just an adjustment like a longer mast then less of an issue but I feel like it is more than that.
Select to expand quotedanish said..Grantmac said..
What about a catamaran or tunnel hull?
Not sure you want to surf a catamaran? Tunnel-hull/ deep concave could work? Dont know if it would have a sticky effect to the water before launch
I mean a narrow one. Just to reduce thickness on foil and improve hull speed.
getting closer. Having a hard time putting in volume. Yes yes, I know that KT makes the cut-away on the bottom as well, but it makes sense if you want to reduce the thickness at the foil/standing area. Had to do recessed deck as well:( But this is not the final version. What do you guys think? Any ideas welcome
7'8 x 20 1/2
I like it, you aren't happy with recessed deck? I put one on my board and it is fine, only issue is reducing the effective standing area. It also catches some water that sloshes around but it falls off pretty quickly.
Something I like the idea of is the nose pushing through bumps and nose-diving while paddling. I have a flat top deck area and the idea to have something more like a sloped bow to allow water to fall off easily and the nose to come back up quickly is interesting. This Glenn Pang board has it, you can't quite see it in the pic but the board definitely has a pronounced V on the top deck. I think this helps with popping up after nose submersion
www.instagram.com/p/CvOIiWfJ536/?img_index=3
Nice
How much more volume do you need? Could you show the rail shape and the volume distribution graph?
One way to maintain more volume is to do a cut out for the foil mount section instead of step tail.
I've done it on one of my boards (see pic). With the deck and foil cut outs thickness around the foil mount is about 3.8".
it looks like F-one had a proto with similar direction before they released their current step tail version.
Select to expand quoteburchas said..
Nice How much more volume do you need? Could you show the rail shape and the volume distribution graph?
One way to maintain more volume is to do a cut out for the foil mount section instead of step tail.
I've done it on one of my boards (see pic). With the deck and foil cut outs thickness around the foil mount is about 3.8".
it looks like F-one had a proto with similar direction before they released their current step tail version.
That looks impressive Burchas! Very creative, and good end thickness youve got. Are you happy with it?
My idea on having the cutaway all across the bottom was also to create some turbulence in order to reduce the sticky-effect.
I am new to Shape3d since I have shaped in a more traditional manner before. But here is the volume distribution:
Not really sure how to analyze this. To me it looks like it is pretty centered which should be good. Please comment
Foiling scow-boats normally have reduced thickness in the bow and stern which makes them more aerodynamic. Volume is created from width. Translating this to boards= This could also help make a board more stable in none-foiling mode, which then can result in need for less overall volume. Does it make sense or is it just me?
I am 88kg with wetsuit. Goal for the board is around 110ltrs.
Cornwallis. The reason I do not like recessed deck is part personal (hope the boards don't go canoe-style as SUPs are), part reduced standing area. But yes, it reduces the thickness and strengthens the overall boardstifness. I am actually working on making a V deck at stern area as it makes perfect sense as you say. SUP's and scow-dinghy's do this as well. But it will not save you, if you go from foiling mode to nose-dive on the scow-board anyhow. Think it will submarine no matter what. But for taking off it will be ideal.
Some of the racing wing boards have broad nose and tail release. Zane uses this for downwind Sup as well as wing racing. 6' x 21, 85L
www.instagram.com/reel/Cu7q0lHg7Hp/?igshid=MzRlODBiNWFlZA==
Select to expand quotedanish said..burchas said..
Nice How much more volume do you need? Could you show the rail shape and the volume distribution graph?
One way to maintain more volume is to do a cut out for the foil mount section instead of step tail.
I've done it on one of my boards (see pic). With the deck and foil cut outs thickness around the foil mount is about 3.8".
it looks like F-one had a proto with similar direction before they released their current step tail version.
That looks impressive Burchas! Very creative, and good end thickness youve got. Are you happy with it?
My idea on having the cutaway all across the bottom was also to create some turbulence in order to reduce the sticky-effect.
I am new to Shape3d since I have shaped in a more traditional manner before. But here is the volume distribution:
Not really sure how to analyze this. To me it looks like it is pretty centered which should be good. Please comment
Foiling scow-boats normally have reduced thickness in the bow and stern which makes them more aerodynamic. Volume is created from width. Translating this to boards= This could also help make a board more stable in none-foiling mode, which then can result in need for less overall volume. Does it make sense or is it just me?
I am 88kg with wetsuit. Goal for the board is around 110ltrs.
Cornwallis. The reason I do not like recessed deck is part personal (hope the boards don't go canoe-style as SUPs are), part reduced standing area. But yes, it reduces the thickness and strengthens the overall boardstifness. I am actually working on making a V deck at stern area as it makes perfect sense as you say. SUP's and scow-dinghy's do this as well. But it will not save you, if you go from foiling mode to nose-dive on the scow-board anyhow. Think it will submarine no matter what. But for taking off it will be ideal.
Interesting concept! I like the more parallel outline it creates, as well as more compact shape would perhaps lower swing weight than the longer designs... One thing I think you may be missing comparing the scow design vs a longer more piercing bow design is not just the low drag of a long waterline but also a lack of pitching of the hull. The lift from wider nose design may cause the board to pitch more with the chop or swell which may disrupt the flow over the foil & inhibit takeoff? ... a longer piercing design could tend to run flatter - thus the foil may be more efficient at takeoff... just a thought...???
Select to expand quoteJonathanC said..
Some of the racing wing boards have broad nose and tail release. Zane uses this for downwind Sup as well as wing racing. 6' x 21, 85L
www.instagram.com/reel/Cu7q0lHg7Hp/?igshid=MzRlODBiNWFlZA==
Interessting. But not really radical. The tail is very much a copy of their windsurf/raceboard. But heard that SB was releasing a hawaii'an inspired board? They are normally not afraid of innovating (was testing for them in Thailand for a while). But they have been far behind when it comes to foil boards?
Select to expand quotedanish said..JonathanC said..
Some of the racing wing boards have broad nose and tail release. Zane uses this for downwind Sup as well as wing racing. 6' x 21, 85L
www.instagram.com/reel/Cu7q0lHg7Hp/?igshid=MzRlODBiNWFlZA==
Interessting. But not really radical. The tail is very much a copy of their windsurf/raceboard. But heard that SB was releasing a hawaii'an inspired board? They are normally not afraid of innovating (was testing for them in Thailand for a while). But they have been far behind when it comes to foil boards?
Yes, both AK and Starboard have their own downwind boards in a range of sizes coming soon.
Select to expand quotedanish said..JonathanC said..
Some of the racing wing boards have broad nose and tail release. Zane uses this for downwind Sup as well as wing racing. 6' x 21, 85L
www.instagram.com/reel/Cu7q0lHg7Hp/?igshid=MzRlODBiNWFlZA==
Interessting. But not really radical. The tail is very much a copy of their windsurf/raceboard. But heard that SB was releasing a hawaii'an inspired board? They are normally not afraid of innovating (was testing for them in Thailand for a while). But they have been far behind when it comes to foil boards?
I saw a proto SB downwind board, it looks kinda like what'd you imagine, boxy SUP looking rails in the mid section with the standard DW gun shaped pin tail and nose. Not sure if this is what they will release. If the price is low it could be interesting as it was pretty light and their construction is probably a good compromise for weight/strength/priceSelect to expand quotedanish said.
Cornwallis. The reason I do not like recessed deck is part personal (hope the boards don't go canoe-style as SUPs are), part reduced standing area. But yes, it reduces the thickness and strengthens the overall boardstifness. I am actually working on making a V deck at stern area as it makes perfect sense as you say. SUP's and scow-dinghy's do this as well. But it will not save you, if you go from foiling mode to nose-dive on the scow-board anyhow. Think it will submarine no matter what. But for taking off it will be ideal.
Yeah it is paddling up in bumps where the V deck helps, and short period bumps where you sink into the one in front.
Recessed deck - I guess so - I will chop the rails off my recessed deck when I get a chance, and probably won't do it again unless I do it extreme, and add drains, but then I think becomes a pure race board rather than a surf-style. Inevitable this for the paddle power I imagine.
Select to expand quotedanish said..burchas said..
Nice How much more volume do you need? Could you show the rail shape and the volume distribution graph?
One way to maintain more volume is to do a cut out for the foil mount section instead of step tail.
I've done it on one of my boards (see pic). With the deck and foil cut outs thickness around the foil mount is about 3.8".
it looks like F-one had a proto with similar direction before they released their current step tail version.
That looks impressive Burchas! Very creative, and good end thickness youve got. Are you happy with it?
My idea on having the cutaway all across the bottom was also to create some turbulence in order to reduce the sticky-effect.
I am new to Shape3d since I have shaped in a more traditional manner before. But here is the volume distribution:
Not really sure how to analyze this. To me it looks like it is pretty centered which should be good. Please comment
Foiling scow-boats normally have reduced thickness in the bow and stern which makes them more aerodynamic. Volume is created from width. Translating this to boards= This could also help make a board more stable in none-foiling mode, which then can result in need for less overall volume. Does it make sense or is it just me?
I am 88kg with wetsuit. Goal for the board is around 110ltrs.
Cornwallis. The reason I do not like recessed deck is part personal (hope the boards don't go canoe-style as SUPs are), part reduced standing area. But yes, it reduces the thickness and strengthens the overall boardstifness. I am actually working on making a V deck at stern area as it makes perfect sense as you say. SUP's and scow-dinghy's do this as well. But it will not save you, if you go from foiling mode to nose-dive on the scow-board anyhow. Think it will submarine no matter what. But for taking off it will be ideal.
I can't take credit for this feature. I've seen something similar on a European brand, can't remember the name.
The are few things this feature suppose to address theoretically. The thickness around foil mount.
Less wetted surface with, better flow over handle and mast plate, easier release with the two pin points at the tail.
That is a concept for light wind wing board. it does work pretty well for what it suppose to do.
not a game changer, incremental improvement but worth exploring and probably need few more tweaks.
Your volume distro looks pretty good. I would put slightly more in the nose the way cornwallis described both for
popping out and shedding water.
Looks cool, what is the bottom contour meant to do? It looks like some kind of channels and a V in the nose? Something I noticed in the recent videos is how big the Armstrong boards look in side-profile in the nose compared to the Kalama and KT which are much more refined and look very sleek. I wonder if because you have width in the nose you will keep the side profile (ie windage) quite low?
