Hi Doug,
Was sailing on my mates cat last Saturday and saw some wind foil racing off takapuna.
From a distance looked pretty much Starboard boards and Severne sails was the majority of the fleet.
Cheers Greg 
Select to expand quotefjdoug said..
i use the 95 with a 255 . it took a few runs to get used to the difference in pitch stability compared to the 115 but really like it.
the 95 with a 330 should be really good , I imagine the stability would be more like the 115/255 setup but with the lift a bit further back .
It works for sure, but for sure more draggy and slower if you use the 330 vs the 255.
I tried the big GT1100 wing on the 75cm fuselage, works amazing. Think it would be aweful with any longer fuselage though for more board layouts.
This was my first session with the 1000 front foil. My top speeds were around 23/24 knots, so not must less than the 24/25 knots I usually get on the 800 foil.
Select to expand quoteCJW said..
The foil is going to be more front foot biased with the longer fuselage compared to the stock GT length fuse, even with a 255 stab on the 95 fuse.
The longer fuselages require you to move the front foot straps forward because the wing has moved forward. You can be just as balanced if the foot straps are in the same, relative location.
My Supercruiser turned up at my local dealers this week 2 months earlier than expected, can't wait to try her out!
Select to expand quotemcross19 said..
My Supercruiser turned up at my local dealers this week 2 months earlier than expected, can't wait to try her out!
Had my first go on the Starboard supercruiser last week. Totally wild to see such a huge front wing 1700. Had out in 12-16kts with a 5.8m wave sail. Very forgiving, stable and you can cruise at a crawling pace. Surprisingly it still has quite a bit of top end speed. A much more upright riding style and can ride unhooked more easily on the beam and broad reaches. Was using the Starboard ultrasonic (wide board) with back foot out half the time and more inboard. I can see how narrower boards could easily be used with this foil and possibly preferred. Looking foward to my next ride on the Supercruiser.
Why do you take your back foot out? Is the Ultrasonic too wide? I have both the Ultrasonic and Airtime boards for foiling, which do you think will be best for first attempts?
Mcross, I was taking my rear foot out at times and placing inboard as this felt a bit more comfortable stance. The riding style felt different when compared to the Starboard Freeride, GT and Race foils where you tend to load up foil more . At the later part of the session the wind dropped and was riding underpowered which could have contributed to me riding the rear foot more frequently inboard on beam and broadreaches. Riding upwind backfoot went in footstrap most of the time. I do feel I need to have a few more sessions on the supercruiser to become more familiar with this foil. Not sure if the Starboard Ultrasonic board is too wide for the Supercruiser but it could be said that a slightly narrower board might be more suitable/comfortable to the more upright riding style. I am not familiar with the Airtime boards. What are the board dimensions? Definitely give the SC foil a test out on both board setups.
YouTube link below has Starboard Manager touching a bit on riding style based on the foil choice... I think he is using the Supercruiser on a very narrow Starboard Foil board..
Mcross19, was thinking that it would have been cool if the Starboard Supercruiser 87cm fuselage had the front wing further forward of the mast to gain more lift only to realize that Starboard gives you that very option ie 2 settings ( I think). On the front of the fuselage there are three holes and only two are used to secure the front wing. Use the front two holes on the fuselage to have the front wing 52mm further forward from the other wing setting. Definitely need to try this new front wing setting being further forward by 52mm/2inch. Nothing was mentioned about this feature but pretty certain this is the intended purpose. I was puzzled initially as to why they put in three threaded holes instead of just 2 as only 2 holes are needed to secure the front wing. Also wanted to note that my first session I had the stabilizer set on the neutral setting. Pretty neat system to adjust the stab.
The airtime board you have sounds cool. Who is the manufacture..? ??
I'm not sure that the front two holes are for moving this foil further forward in relation to the mast, If I were to guess it is that Starboard has some plans for future front wings that use all three (6) screw holes. There are some monster surf wings about by other manufacturers with a surface area of around 2500 cm squared so maybe they have future proofed it? I always wondered why starboard had four holes in the front part of their 75/115 fuselages and then they brought out the Freeride wing (1100). Just my guess. If I were to use just the front two holes I would like a collar to put around the exposed fuselage to make it more streamlined. Do you really think the Supercruiser set up needs more front foot lift?
As to the board it is made by Flikka to dimensions specified by Horue.
Select to expand quotemcross19 said..
I'm not sure that the front two holes are for moving this foil further forward in relation to the mast, If I were to guess it is that Starboard has some plans for future front wings that use all three (6) screw holes. There are some monster surf wings about by other manufacturers with a surface area of around 2500 cm squared so maybe they have future proofed it? I always wondered why starboard had four holes in the front part of their 75/115 fuselages and then they brought out the Freeride wing (1100). Just my guess. If I were to use just the front two holes I would like a collar to put around the exposed fuselage to make it more streamlined. Do you really think the Supercruiser set up needs more front foot lift?
As to the board it is made by Flikka to dimensions specified by Horue.
Would have been a cool feature to have the ability to shift the front wing forward to give even more lift. I think it would change the feel as it does when you use the Starboard 75, 95 and 115 fuselages all of which have the front wing progressively moving forward the longer the fuselage. After only 1 session on the supercruiser I feel that the Race 1000 wing, 115 fuselage and 255stab is a more powerful foil, though the supercruiser once up and foiling has the ability to glide at a very low speed which is pretty cool. The Supercruiser feels much more surf ie easier to turn as well which would be expected with the front wing closer to the mast and the shorter fuselage.
Yeah the collar idea I was thinking would be a cool accessory if the front two bolts were used. I guess only using the front two holes on the supercruiser fuselage might put too much stress on the fuselage or wing. Will be interesting if Starboard comes out with monster wings in 2500cm2 which right now seem mainly for SUP downwinders but I'm guessing could be used on the Supercruiser windsurf setup.
You might well be able to do it but I am not going to risk a breakage on such a new bit of kit. If you need more lift why don't you shove the stab all the way to the front position that way it will be pointing down giving you a little more lift.
I bet the 1000 wing on the 115 fuse is a beast, has anyone tried this wing on either the 95 or 75 fuselages?
I have not as normally when I choose the 1000 race wing I want maximum light wind performance as I don't want be wallowing and with the 115 fuselage you get that. For me at 70kg this foil becomes super powerful at only 15 knots and ideally should be using the 800 front wing. Would be interesting to try the 1000 with the shorter fuselage 75 and 95 to see the results. Guessing there might be some similarities to the Starboard freeride foil but maybe a bit more freerace.
Will try adjusting the stabilizer on Super cruiser foil as you mentioned.
As I understood from the dutch olympic team they are currently training with a 900 wing. I haven't seen any news about it anyway, think it is intended for the starboard olympic class gear. They say they use it to fly from 6 knots but can keep it under control for way longer! Would be a good option for a lot of people I think.
I kept seeing the 900 under Starboard's list of foiling parts but when I could not find any information I thought it may have been a misprint. So has anyone got any information on this 900 wing? I take that it sits somewhere between the 800 and 1000 in amount of lift generated or does it have a different aspect ratio?
I don't know why the Dutch Olympic team are training using foils or any nation for that matter, it is not as if foiling will be included in any Olympics before 2028 or is there something that I have missed (sorry for going off topic).
Select to expand quotemcross19 said..
I kept seeing the 900 under Starboard's list of foiling parts but when I could not find any information I thought it may have been a misprint. So has anyone got any information on this 900 wing? I take that it sits somewhere between the 800 and 1000 in amount of lift generated or does it have a different aspect ratio?
I don't know why the Dutch Olympic team are training using foils or any nation for that matter, it is not as if foiling will be included in any Olympics before 2028 or is there something that I have missed (sorry for going off topic).
The only information and visuals I could find is here:
www.facebook.com/117247751657004/posts/2156739917707767?sfns=mo
As far as I know are the classes for 2024 still not determined. General guidelines have been set, but the gear hasnt been put in stone so to say. Brands can still hand in their proposed gear and they will be taken under consideration by the Olympic Comittee.
Select to expand quotePatK said..
900 Front Wing is out :-)
Wow, 500 cm stabilizer! That is massive! What set does it come with?
The 500 stabilizer comes with the Starboard freeride foil setup.. ie 1100 front wing, 75cm fuselage and 500 rear wing. A very stable and forgiving foil. Closer feel to the Starboard GT foil than the Super Cruiser in my opinion.
Select to expand quotemcross19 said..
I'm not sure that the front two holes are for moving this foil further forward in relation to the mast, If I were to guess it is that Starboard has some plans for future front wings that use all three (6) screw holes. There are some monster surf wings about by other manufacturers with a surface area of around 2500 cm squared so maybe they have future proofed it? I always wondered why starboard had four holes in the front part of their 75/115 fuselages and then they brought out the Freeride wing (1100). Just my guess. If I were to use just the front two holes I would like a collar to put around the exposed fuselage to make it more streamlined. Do you really think the Supercruiser set up needs more front foot lift?
As to the board it is made by Flikka to dimensions specified by Horue.
How you making out on your new Supercruiser? I was informed that Starboards foil engineer uses the front two holes to gain more upwind power on the Supercruiser Starboard foil.
The Supercruiser has the same connection system as the sb wave foils.
starboardfoils.com/pages/technology-2019#
So you can adjust the rear wing angle with the rocker style mount to gain more lift, not upwind power imho.
Select to expand quotePatK said..
The Supercruiser has the same connection system as the sb wave foils.
starboardfoils.com/pages/technology-2019#
So you can adjust the rear wing angle with the rocker style mount to gain more lift, not upwind power imho.
Correct you can adjust the rear wing, but from my understanding you can also adjust the front wing by extending the front wing further forward of the mast which will help gain more upwind power. You will see on the supercruise fuselage (and surf fuselage) there are 3 hole options to secure the front wing, which will give you 2 setting for the front wing thus changing the performance.
I see the 3 holes. Thought the third would be for an other bigger front wing.
In the assembly guide there is no such adjustement described.
Would end in a nasty gap.
starboardfoils.com/pages/assembly-guides-2019%20#
Select to expand quotePatK said..
I see the 3 holes. Thought the third would be for an other bigger front wing.
In the assembly guide there is no such adjustement described.
Would end in a nasty gap.
starboardfoils.com/pages/assembly-guides-2019%20#
Was informed that the Starboard foil designers have used on the outer setting (3rd hole) to offer more upwind power. Not sure what the 3rd hole is for but to have the ability to move the front wing further forward by 2 inches is pretty cool to change the performance. I guess to strengthen the setup, a collar of some sort could be added.
I've recently got both the new 900 foil wing and the millennium. I've foiled with both of them and compared them on the 115 race and 95 fuselages with the 255 stab.
All the chat about the 900 is true, in that it's an easier wing to handle in a breeze. Much more low end power than the 800- which feels almost freeride in comparison.
The 95 fuselage combo with the 1000/900/800 and 255 stab is fantastic.
soooo much easier to use on an 80cm wide board than the 75 fuselage.
Select to expand quoteRuddeBos said..
I've recently got both the new 900 foil wing and the millennium. I've foiled with both of them and compared them on the 115 race and 95 fuselages with the 255 stab.
All the chat about the 900 is true, in that it's an easier wing to handle in a breeze. Much more low end power than the 800- which feels almost freeride in comparison.
The 95 fuselage combo with the 1000/900/800 and 255 stab is fantastic.
soooo much easier to use on an 80cm wide board than the 75 fuselage.
In the low wind side, how would you compare the 1000 to the 900 wing when using the 115 fuselage and 255 stab? I too think having the 95 and 115 fuselage is a huge asset.
IWB as you'd envisage, the 1000 is slower but keeps you up on the foil.. the vmg and the floating foiling gybes are amazing tho.
if you're lighter in weight and it's slightly windier then 8mph, the 900 probably is more versatile, as it's more manageable over a range of wind conditions.
The pwa men were rumoured to register in the 1000 and 800 wings. Whilst the ladies, the 900 and 800 wings.
Just picked up a new 95 fuselage for my wife's setup, and SB have changed the design. All the threads for the wings front and rear now have stainless helicoils inserted. The wings are a lot more secure, as I can feel I can tension the bolts up to 6nm, rather than the 4nm I've been using.
Select to expand quoteRuddeBos said..
Just picked up a new 95 fuselage for my wife's setup, and SB have changed the design. All the threads for the wings front and rear now have stainless helicoils inserted. The wings are a lot more secure, as I can feel I can tension the bolts up to 6nm, rather than the 4nm I've been using.
Oh nice!!!
