I think the worry about board thickness doesn't take all factors into account. It's ultimately what height you're at deck to fuselage. The notched tail gimmick is nothing more than making a mast that is too tall, ride like a shorter one. Same with basic board thickness. Your mast is taller than your preferred ride height? Sure a thinner board will reduce that. Ride HEIGHT is what determines rail to rail quickness.
I guess the other way to do it is to recess the deck... of course there are limits to this.
I've winged a couple downwind boards in the ~21" width @ 115l and the AFS Blackbird 6'2" x 21.1" @ 90l. Interesting get up and go w/ all these boards, but the Blackbird rides way more "normal" with only about 24" of nose ahead of the front foot. Comparing the BB w/ a traditional board (~70-75l) in marginal conditions, the BB takes so much less effort to get going even w/ an 850 foil.
The BB has a recessed deck and is pretty think in the standing area. Another nice thing is how wide the deck is over the tracks/back foot.... winging with big feet or any sort of offset stance on a narrow board you can feel your heels or toes going off the deck pad and over the rail of the board. The BB rides really normal. That said, winging the Duotone DW 115 while it felt a little weird w/ the narrowness over the back foot sailed great and felt natural and balanced in the turns/tricks.
a couple tracks from a day of testing. the track w/ all the red trying to get going is the conventional board ~70l and the other is the BB 90l. Other equipment used: Unit D/LAB 3.5 (2024) and AFS Silk 850. I'm 190-195lbs.
Of course a more apples to apples comparison would have been boards of equal volume, and volume did play a part in being able to stand and slog near shore.
Select to expand quoteDWF said..
I think the worry about board thickness doesn't take all factors into account. It's ultimately what height you're at deck to fuselage. The notched tail gimmick is nothing more than making a mast that is too tall, ride like a shorter one. Same with basic board thickness. Your mast is taller than your preferred ride height? Sure a thinner board will reduce that. Ride HEIGHT is what determines rail to rail quickness.
Well, board thickness is the most commonly changed element for most users I would expect. Changing the mast length usually requires about a 10cm change in size whereas a board that is thicker is going to add 5cm at the most for the average rider. So, yes, your overall ride height is correctly calculated from deck to fuse but altering mast height to compensate for a thicker board is typically overkill and tbh, I think most people really struggle to ride shorter masts. Here in the gorge people ride 85-95cm masts all the time and when they take my 66 or 76cm mast out they don't have a very good time since they aren't used to having to play with the pitch so much.
I have a nutty idea to recess the mast track area almost to deck level then use either a foam insert or something like center board gaskets to seal the area.
Would let you make a VERY stiff standing area (think kite foil pocket board) and a minimal layup on the hull of the board.
I stole the idea from starboard:
www.windspirit.ca/product/starboard-2022-2023-inflatable-sup-air-foil-deluxe-sc-58-x-28-x-4-75/
Would get that connected feel or a short mast while keeping volume. Might even be able to make it modular.
Try my friend BB, the bigger one. They are more stable on the roll axis compared to my similar volume Sunova DW 18" board.
But my 18" is noticeably faster on the water than the BB. One thing that I don't like is the very sharp edge of the rail. Can be dangerous if you wipe your leg or your parts on that rail when you fall.Select to expand quotesunsetsailboards said..
I guess the other way to do it is to recess the deck... of course there are limits to this.
I've winged a couple downwind boards in the ~21" width @ 115l and the AFS Blackbird 6'2" x 21.1" @ 90l. Interesting get up and go w/ all these boards, but the Blackbird rides way more "normal" with only about 24" of nose ahead of the front foot. Comparing the BB w/ a traditional board (~70-75l) in marginal conditions, the BB takes so much less effort to get going even w/ an 850 foil.
The BB has a recessed deck and is pretty think in the standing area. Another nice thing is how wide the deck is over the tracks/back foot.... winging with big feet or any sort of offset stance on a narrow board you can feel your heels or toes going off the deck pad and over the rail of the board. The BB rides really normal. That said, winging the Duotone DW 115 while it felt a little weird w/ the narrowness over the back foot sailed great and felt natural and balanced in the turns/tricks.
Select to expand quoteDWF said..
I think the worry about board thickness doesn't take all factors into account. It's ultimately what height you're at deck to fuselage. The notched tail gimmick is nothing more than making a mast that is too tall, ride like a shorter one. Same with basic board thickness. Your mast is taller than your preferred ride height? Sure a thinner board will reduce that. Ride HEIGHT is what determines rail to rail quickness.
Oh, didn't think about that. So do you think the feeling would be the same in model 1 and model 2, and model 3 and model 4? I Talk about the connection with the foil.
Like the idea of Grantmac!
Select to expand quotejanoj said..DWF said..
I think the worry about board thickness doesn't take all factors into account. It's ultimately what height you're at deck to fuselage. The notched tail gimmick is nothing more than making a mast that is too tall, ride like a shorter one. Same with basic board thickness. Your mast is taller than your preferred ride height? Sure a thinner board will reduce that. Ride HEIGHT is what determines rail to rail quickness.
Oh, didn't think about that. So do you think the feeling would be the same in model 1 and model 2, and model 3 and model 4? I Talk about the connection with the foil.
Like the idea of Grantmac!
Yep, same feeling, but less room for pitch control errors on shorter masts. Less drag and easier water start on short masts too.
Select to expand quoteBWalnut said..bolocom said..
I agree with you on everything except for the 8' long board. Never tried an 8' but tried a 7' and didn't like the length.
I think they have a life of their own and you lose feel. If you downwind with a wing they are great. You become more aware the moment you go back to a high performance board.they feel so much better.
IMO longer boards go up easy, you can use a smaller wing and foil but you give up a lot of feel and control.the stronger the wind gets the worst they become.
I think we're in agreement actually, you're just referencing something I'm not discussing.
I was responding to Zimboflyman about his 6'x28" board. An 8'x21" barracuda would blow that thing away in every category. I definitely stand by that. I also rode the 8' in 45 knots without issue, but carrying it in and out of the water did suck. He's specifically asking about a 5'9"x22.5" which will also be worlds better than what he is currently riding.
You're referencing your 5'x22" thin freestyle board. For what you specifically want to do, jumps, you are correct, smaller is generally better.
My current board is 5'3"x22" and I don't expect to miss it at all when I switch to my 5'10"x20" that is arriving soon (well, hopefully not!). I surf swell in the river and ocean, not actual breaking waves. I leave my jumping to my kiting. So in my circumstances, the ability to ride a 550-700 foil with a 2.5-3.5m wing every day is more valuable and the losses would be far too significant for me to tolerate to drop down to a 5' board again.
So yes, I think you are correct for your situation, I'm correct for mine, and I think Zimboflyman will be a lot happier with a slightly shorter and significantly narrower board to progress on!
Hi B Walnut hope you had a great Christmas do you think rear stabiliser size or type have any affect on early planning as well as board width cheers Rich
Select to expand quoterichw said..
Hi B Walnut hope you had a great Christmas do you think rear stabiliser size or type have any affect on early planning as well as board width cheers Rich
Merry Christmas to you too Rich!
I do think that larger stabs with additional lift can get you up quicker, but I don't think they are necessary on the mid length narrow boards since they are so fast on their own unless you are trying to work small foils in ultralight wind. I like the increased efficiency of the smaller stabilizers over the added lift.
That being said, whenever I get a new foil I typically like to learn it with a larger stab and then size the stab down to get a feel for the foil as a whole.
Select to expand quoteBWalnut said..richw said..
Hi B Walnut hope you had a great Christmas do you think rear stabiliser size or type have any affect on early planning as well as board width cheers Rich
Merry Christmas to you too Rich!
I do think that larger stabs with additional lift can get you up quicker, but I don't think they are necessary on the mid length narrow boards since they are so fast on their own unless you are trying to work small foils in ultralight wind. I like the increased efficiency of the smaller stabilizers over the added lift.
That being said, whenever I get a new foil I typically like to learn it with a larger stab and then size the stab down to get a feel for the foil as a whole.
Cheers thanks for the advice
Select to expand quoteBWalnut said..janoj said..DWF said..
I think the worry about board thickness doesn't take all factors into account. It's ultimately what height you're at deck to fuselage. The notched tail gimmick is nothing more than making a mast that is too tall, ride like a shorter one. Same with basic board thickness. Your mast is taller than your preferred ride height? Sure a thinner board will reduce that. Ride HEIGHT is what determines rail to rail quickness.
Oh, didn't think about that. So do you think the feeling would be the same in model 1 and model 2, and model 3 and model 4? I Talk about the connection with the foil.
Like the idea of Grantmac!
Yep, same feeling, but less room for pitch control errors on shorter masts. Less drag and easier water start on short masts too.
Nope. Merely with a 2D drawing you can't describe how the board behaves in the 3D world, like during the rail to rail turns. You should really look at the 3D model of the board instead.
The rail to rail quickness is not determined by the distance from the fuselage to the deck of the board only. It has lots to do with the inertia of the entire setup. A thinner but wider board with very boxy rails could feel way less reactive from rail to rail compared to a narrower yet thicker board with beveled rails, and pulled in nose and tail.
Take a look at the drawings 3 and 4 for example. The model 4 is nearly 2 times thinner. In order to maintain a similar rigidity and similar volume compared to the model 3 you would likely need to use a different and heavier construction, and in order to make up for the lost volume you would likely have to make the rails boxier, the board more wider and more rectangular, with more volume in the tail and nose areas of the board. This all would result in a less nimble board that would feel slower in the rail to rail turns.
Select to expand quoteTaavi said..BWalnut said..janoj said..DWF said..
I think the worry about board thickness doesn't take all factors into account. It's ultimately what height you're at deck to fuselage. The notched tail gimmick is nothing more than making a mast that is too tall, ride like a shorter one. Same with basic board thickness. Your mast is taller than your preferred ride height? Sure a thinner board will reduce that. Ride HEIGHT is what determines rail to rail quickness.
Oh, didn't think about that. So do you think the feeling would be the same in model 1 and model 2, and model 3 and model 4? I Talk about the connection with the foil.
Like the idea of Grantmac!
Yep, same feeling, but less room for pitch control errors on shorter masts. Less drag and easier water start on short masts too.
Nope. Merely with a 2D drawing you can't describe how the board behaves in the 3D world, like during the rail to rail turns. You should really look at the 3D model of the board instead.
The rail to rail quickness is not determined by the distance from the fuselage to the deck of the board only. It has lots to do with the inertia of the entire setup. A thinner but wider board with very boxy rails could feel way less reactive from rail to rail compared to a narrower yet thicker board with beveled rails, and pulled in nose and tail.
Take a look at the drawings 3 and 4 for example. The model 4 is nearly 2 times thinner. In order to maintain a similar rigidity and similar volume compared to the model 3 you would likely need to use a different and heavier construction, and in order to make up for the lost volume you would likely have to make the rails boxier, the board more wider and more rectangular, with more volume in the tail and nose areas of the board. This all would result in a less nimble board that would feel slower in the rail to rail turns.
Unfortunately I think it is hard to discuss these concepts if you try to take every detail into consideration.
In general, the deck height to fuse height can be checked to and referenced in relation to rail to rail speed. Yes, there are many other variables that also impact rail to rail speed, but in this circumstance it's simplified into concepts that can be shared on a more wide spread manner than if we try to dive all the way into analyzing board construction and weight distribution.
Select to expand quoteBWalnut said..Taavi said..BWalnut said..janoj said..DWF said..
I think the worry about board thickness doesn't take all factors into account. It's ultimately what height you're at deck to fuselage. The notched tail gimmick is nothing more than making a mast that is too tall, ride like a shorter one. Same with basic board thickness. Your mast is taller than your preferred ride height? Sure a thinner board will reduce that. Ride HEIGHT is what determines rail to rail quickness.
Oh, didn't think about that. So do you think the feeling would be the same in model 1 and model 2, and model 3 and model 4? I Talk about the connection with the foil.
Like the idea of Grantmac!
Yep, same feeling, but less room for pitch control errors on shorter masts. Less drag and easier water start on short masts too.
Nope. Merely with a 2D drawing you can't describe how the board behaves in the 3D world, like during the rail to rail turns. You should really look at the 3D model of the board instead.
The rail to rail quickness is not determined by the distance from the fuselage to the deck of the board only. It has lots to do with the inertia of the entire setup. A thinner but wider board with very boxy rails could feel way less reactive from rail to rail compared to a narrower yet thicker board with beveled rails, and pulled in nose and tail.
Take a look at the drawings 3 and 4 for example. The model 4 is nearly 2 times thinner. In order to maintain a similar rigidity and similar volume compared to the model 3 you would likely need to use a different and heavier construction, and in order to make up for the lost volume you would likely have to make the rails boxier, the board more wider and more rectangular, with more volume in the tail and nose areas of the board. This all would result in a less nimble board that would feel slower in the rail to rail turns.
Unfortunately I think it is hard to discuss these concepts if you try to take every detail into consideration.
In general, the deck height to fuse height can be checked to and referenced in relation to rail to rail speed. Yes, there are many other variables that also impact rail to rail speed, but in this circumstance it's simplified into concepts that can be shared on a more wide spread manner than if we try to dive all the way into analyzing board construction and weight distribution.
Hmm, I am thinking quite the opposite - there is no need to oversimplify it, and to give the false impression that 4 totally different boards would feel the same. Well, even the very same board and front wing would feel different once you start changing the settings like the stabiliser and its angle, mast location, mast plate shim.
Not all riders have the time to experiment with the settings unfortunately, and that's totally understandable - better to spend the limited available time flying around rather than fiddling with the setup. But I think to some extent it's also because of this already too widespread (but false, in my opinion) narrative that the board design is not important once you are already foiling.
It is a damn nuanced hobby, and that's what makes it so rewarding too - put more energy in, into experimenting with different settings and shapes, and a whole new world opens up.
Select to expand quoteTaavi said..
Hmm, I am thinking quite the opposite - there is no need to oversimplify it, and to give the false impression that 4 totally different boards would feel the same. Well, even the very same board and front wing would feel different once you start changing the settings like the stabiliser and its angle, mast location, mast plate shim.
Not all riders have the time to experiment with the settings unfortunately, and that's totally understandable - better to spend the limited available time flying around rather than fiddling with the setup. But I think to some extent it's also because of this already too widespread (but false, in my opinion) narrative that the board design is not important once you are already foiling.
It is a damn nuanced hobby, and that's what makes it so rewarding too - put more energy in, into experimenting with different settings and shapes, and a whole new world opens up.
Well, I don't think anyone was saying that all four boards would be exactly the same if you take into consideration every element. I think the original note from DWF was just pointing out a specific element of the kit that has a very direct change on the rail to rail performance, which it does.
I agree with you that it's a very nuanced hobby with tons of unique characteristics to consider. I think there has to be a balance struck between simplifying individual elements so that conversations can be had and ultimately decisions can be made and moved forward on. After that, I think you can tune/tweak your way to the perfect setup for yourself. That's why in my OP I made note of knowing what your style is and how to pursue those characteristics. If rail to rail performance is the pinnacle for the rider, then researching what makes for good rail to rail on foil, stab, fuse, mast, board, and wing is important. If racing DW is important, then different characteristics are valued.
I think all the variables and stylistic possibilities make it that much more fun for myself. I've done a lot of hobbies in the past where it was pretty much just buy gear and go. Which was great in its own way for sure. However, trying to tune a kit to get the perfect performance for yourself... feels like an endeavor that will be a fun adventure for years to come! Absolutely rewarding when you get close and as you said, a whole new world opens up!
Those images of the Blackbird bottom look like it is the offspring of a Windfoil board and a DW paddle board. 
I am enjoying the discussion and I understand both points of view. In the end, what Taavi says makes a lot of sense because with the same liters, same length, same width, we have two options: either distribute the volume uniformly from rail to rail, making the board thinner, or make it thicker in the center, focusing the weight more. Which one would then give better sensations? I don't know yet ??
Thank you for your contributions and happy new year!
Select to expand quotejanoj said..
I am enjoying the discussion and I understand both points of view. In the end, what Taavi says makes a lot of sense because with the same liters, same length, same width, we have two options: either distribute the volume uniformly from rail to rail, making the board thinner, or make it thicker in the center, focusing the weight more. Which one would then give better sensations? I don't know yet ??
Thank you for your contributions and happy new year!
In that circumstance I would definitely want chined rails, not for rail to rail performance, but for better takeoffs and harder carving capabilities. You do sacrifice by then pushing the deck farther from the fuse, but you can counteract the loss of rail to rail in that circumstance by altering other elements of the mast, foil and stab.
Playing around with 3 boards atm. Using with a FoilDrive Gen 2 and dinging. I am 105kg.Kalama E3 5 4 x 27 x 104l and two custom Ben Tardrew boards for foil drive 6 4 x 24 x 115l for ding 6 1 x 21 x 95l The 6 4 is harder to stand on due to corky nature, thick with narrow nose and tail, but takes off really well and surfs better due to the lighter weight and mast track further forward. 5 4 harder to lift off and I can feel the swing weight of wider nose and a touch more weight. Using Code foils so boxes are just a bit too far back for optimum position.
6 1 is the best for ding easily. Super fast take off, light and nimble in the air. Mast track forward helps.
Take away is that all designs have pros and cons the trick is to get the best compromise that works for what you want to do. For ding I am sorted still not totally happy on sup.5 4
6 1
6 4
Thanks BWalnut, one question, what do you mean with "harder carving capabilities"? It's not the same as rail-to-rail performance?
Thanks!!
Thanks BWalnut, one question, what do you mean with "harder carving capabilities"? It's not the same as rail-to-rail performance?
Thanks!!
Select to expand quotehilly said..
Playing around with 3 boards atm. Using with a FoilDrive Gen 2 and dinging. I am 105kg.Kalama E3 5 4 x 27 x 104l and two custom Ben Tardrew boards for foil drive 6 4 x 24 x 115l for ding 6 1 x 21 x 95l The 6 4 is harder to stand on due to corky nature, thick with narrow nose and tail, but takes off really well and surfs better due to the lighter weight and mast track further forward. 5 4 harder to lift off and I can feel the swing weight of wider nose and a touch more weight. Using Code foils so boxes are just a bit too far back for optimum position.
6 1 is the best for ding easily. Super fast take off, light and nimble in the air. Mast track forward helps.
Take away is that all designs have pros and cons the trick is to get the best compromise that works for what you want to do. For ding I am sorted still not totally happy on sup.5 4
6 1
6 4
Good contribution!
I struggled a touch with my Kalama box placements since I'm on Cloud IX which likes to sit farther forward as well. This didn't bother me with a wing, but in SUP, it was a significant negative.
What SUP dims do you think you would want to try next if someone dropped a board in your lap tomorrow?
Select to expand quotejanoj said..
Thanks BWalnut, one question, what do you mean with "harder carving capabilities"? It's not the same as rail-to-rail performance?
Thanks!!
In my mind, rail to rail is more about how quick you can get from one rail, back over to the other. A harder carve is created by laying the board over farther and getting the rail closer to the water.
Select to expand quoteBWalnut said..hilly said..
Playing around with 3 boards atm. Using with a FoilDrive Gen 2 and dinging. I am 105kg.Kalama E3 5 4 x 27 x 104l and two custom Ben Tardrew boards for foil drive 6 4 x 24 x 115l for ding 6 1 x 21 x 95l The 6 4 is harder to stand on due to corky nature, thick with narrow nose and tail, but takes off really well and surfs better due to the lighter weight and mast track further forward. 5 4 harder to lift off and I can feel the swing weight of wider nose and a touch more weight. Using Code foils so boxes are just a bit too far back for optimum position.
6 1 is the best for ding easily. Super fast take off, light and nimble in the air. Mast track forward helps.
Take away is that all designs have pros and cons the trick is to get the best compromise that works for what you want to do. For ding I am sorted still not totally happy on sup.5 4
6 1
6 4
Good contribution!
I struggled a touch with my Kalama box placements since I'm on Cloud IX which likes to sit farther forward as well. This didn't bother me with a wing, but in SUP, it was a significant negative.
What SUP dims do you think you would want to try next if someone dropped a board in your lap tomorrow?
Good question at 100 kgs + myself be curious same question Hilly assuming Bwalnut is referring to a regular supfoil board?
pretty amazed at the board sizes Hilly riding for 105kgs impressive as I thought I had cat like balance for a big guy,but Hilly is blowing me out the water.I actually just ordered a Casey DW 7'6"x25"145L for lite wind winging and foildrive assist in waves and regular supfoiling hoping for 3 in 1 board maybe experimenting with a little sup DW?after seeing Hillys rides think I'm gonna be riding a aircraft carrier Lol.
for reference my usual wing board is a ppc 90L and my supfoil reg board Kalama 6'6"x30"kalama also 6'0"30" Kalama 130L
hope I've done right with the Casey 25 145L I ordered was a bit gunshy about going to a narrow board at my weight don't feel like punishing myself so kinda went a bit big on vol near to what I'm used to with my Kalama supfoil boards hard to incorporate 3-4 disciplines in 1 board Lol
Next SUP specific (FoilDrive) board will be 6 x 26 x 115l but with straighter rails to carry a little more width forward and aft to thin out the overall plane shape. Combo of 5 4 and 6 4.
6 months ago I was on a 6 6 x 31 x 141l Kalama. Awesome board. But I made the mistake of trying narrower low volume boards and could not go back to the barge. It is way harder but once up and going chalk and cheese. Not a fan of the really long boards.
Probably like this.
Photo pinched from Ben Tardrew.
Select to expand quoteBWalnut said..janoj said..
Thanks BWalnut, one question, what do you mean with "harder carving capabilities"? It's not the same as rail-to-rail performance?
Thanks!!
In my mind, rail to rail is more about how quick you can get from one rail, back over to the other. A harder carve is created by laying the board over farther and getting the rail closer to the water.
Understood!
Select to expand quotehilly said..
Next SUP specific (FoilDrive) board will be 6 x 26 x 115l but with straighter rails to carry a little more width forward and aft to thin out the overall plane shape. Combo of 5 4 and 6 4.
6 months ago I was on a 6 6 x 31 x 141l Kalama. Awesome board. But I made the mistake of trying narrower low volume boards and could not go back to the barge. It is way harder but once up and going chalk and cheese. Not a fan of the really long boards.
Ah okay, sounds like you are 100% foildrive with it then? Never trying to paddle it without?
I paddled the 5'3"x22" Kalama e3 with a foildrive on it which was kind of a shocking experience but I never could get a feel for the foildrive and sold mine pretty quick. I've also tried a few different sup foilboards but haven't found the right blend of stability on the water plus fun in the air. Borderline giving up on sup in the surf and just switching to prone since I don't want to buy any more big boards.
I recently picked up a pretty beat up 6'5"x23.5" 116l kalama that I still need to try in the surf. For $400 I just had to give it a shot but the conditions haven't come together for me to give it a crack yet. I'm excited to see if that's a more appropriate shape with the paddle in hand in the surf.
May I ask about Code Foils.
I have 850S with 150AR Tail with 85cm mast and Medium and Long fuse. Thinking about getting R series for very light and for downwinding with the wing (go upwind with the wing and downwind back mostly in a small condition). I don't have a spot for DW with the paddle and local conditions are mostly light. I'm 75kg.
I think about getting 860R but not sure about the tail. I want something to complement my AR150. What is your recommendation?Select to expand quotehilly said..
Playing around with 3 boards atm. Using with a FoilDrive Gen 2 and dinging. I am 105kg.Kalama E3 5 4 x 27 x 104l and two custom Ben Tardrew boards for foil drive 6 4 x 24 x 115l for ding 6 1 x 21 x 95l The 6 4 is harder to stand on due to corky nature, thick with narrow nose and tail, but takes off really well and surfs better due to the lighter weight and mast track further forward. 5 4 harder to lift off and I can feel the swing weight of wider nose and a touch more weight. Using Code foils so boxes are just a bit too far back for optimum position.
6 1 is the best for ding easily. Super fast take off, light and nimble in the air. Mast track forward helps.
Take away is that all designs have pros and cons the trick is to get the best compromise that works for what you want to do. For ding I am sorted still not totally happy on sup.5 4
6 1
6 4
