Hey,
In the market for a new board, I've made a table comparing specs for a bunch of boards. I'm tempted by the FG, weirdly though, the overall announced specs don't really line up with the rest of the bunch. Specifically thickness seems too thin to achieve the overall volume compared to other boards.
Not sure if that makes sense, but I'd really appreciate if someone could measure the thickness of the 80L and confirm the 4.5" announced. It's thinner than the 4.75" of the previous version (88L) yet all the reviews talked about how Armie reduced the width in exchange for thickness in the newer version. So yeah, unless I'm missing the obvious (or the nose is taking all the added volume), that doesn't make sense to me.
Thanks!
I had the 'old' 88l and got the new 90l. I think the old 88l deck was more scooped
Select to expand quotepatronus said..
I had the 'old' 88l and got the new 90l. I think the old 88l deck was more scooped
Thanks, yeah could be.
I'm now hesitating between the ML 75L or the FG 80L, so many questions 
.
A mate has the 105L and that is about 5in thick so the thickness posted sounds about right.
I just measured my Wing FG80L. It is about 14cm at its thickest point. Note that this is at the rail. The deck is sunken and also the hull is concave at this location, so if Armie measures at the centreline and without deck pad the factory numbers may be closer to reality.
Select to expand quotepaulweller2 said..
A mate has the 105L and that is about 5in thick so the thickness posted sounds about right.
Thanks a lot!
Select to expand quoteWingthing said..
I just measured my Wing FG80L. It is about 14cm at its thickest point. Note that this is at the rail. The deck is sunken and also the hull is concave at this location, so if Armie measures at the centreline and without deck pad the factory numbers may be closer to reality.
Exactly what I was looking for, thanks heaps!
So going by this, the difference between the top of the rail and center line would be 2.5cm (1"). If that's the case then you're assumption is bang on. I agree it may be closer to reality but it is not consistent with how measurements are provided for the previous version of the board. Anyway, food for thoughts for choosing between FG and ML. Thanks again
Guessing and about 14cm etc won't help.
I shape boards all the time to an exact volume and it's very hard to estimate from looking at it. when chasing a target volume and weighing the blank as I go, it can really surprise you where it is hidden (or removed in big rail bevels etc)
on your wing boards 3mm of pvc foam all over the bottom or deck is about 2L so if anyone here claims something to be correct from just looking at it and not putting calipers all over the whole board, they're dreaming
Hi Mark. I measured what was asked which was the maximum thickness. It's not that hard. It wasn't a guess. I could measure it to the micron if it was relevant which it is not.
Mate wasn't having a crack at you. I'm saying to ascertain if a board might be 75L or 80L from a thickness measure is just futile.
all the owners could measure length width and thickness of their boards and the OP will be none the wiser
And which manufacturers are using rocker line length or straight nose to tail? On your mid length foil board that's almost 2" variance. So a table with various boards compared, does not mean the outlier in the specs is due to thickness.. It could be wrong, or just measured differently
If a board is say an inch thicker is that 'detatched from foil' feeling the same as having an inch longer mast on a thinner board
Just wait for it to swing the other way man... the further u are away the better so u can extert more force and have more control with finer movements. They will sell long masts when they need a new trend
Select to expand quoteMark _australia said..
And which manufacturers are using rocker line length or straight nose to tail? On your mid length foil board that's almost 2" variance. So a table with various boards compared, does not mean the outlier in the specs is due to thickness.. It could be wrong, or just measured differently
I agree with it all. Surprisingly out of the 16 boards I researched the delta across those metrics was mostly proportional across all of them except the FG, which led me to asking the question. Like you're saying it's all useless guess work though and far from anything scientific. I'm unable to go in the water for a month so I'm geeking out on this to stay connected to the sport
Case closed.
Hi jafalex, it is actually an interesting question you raised. The boars thickness changes along the board and from rail to rail. So, what board thickness gets reported? The average, max. Is there an industry standard? For me
, I would like to know the thickness between the base of the foil track and the deck.
Any one knows?
Select to expand quotepatronus said..
If a board is say an inch thicker is that 'detatched from foil' feeling the same as having an inch longer mast on a thinner board
In my experience it's very different. Thick boards have a disconnected feeling which is unstable. Longer masts feel more stable.
I've been trying to get a handle on why that is true for me and I don't have a concrete answer. I'm going to try to demo one of the Starboard inflatables which mount the mast directly to the deck plate to see if that feels more connected/stable.
Unless something is majorly off in terms of rocker angles, almost any board will work, and the leading brands will have quite a lot of similarity across their current models. It can be appealing to compare what can be compared (e.g. aspect ratio of the board), while throwing out a number of the true differentiators.
Does the board have inserts where you want them? Is the track position compatible with your brand of foil? If you ride barefoot, is the traction pad soft, or tough-diamond pattern that chews up your feet? Is it a color you like? Does it fit in your car? If it is convex, is that something you actually want? Do you have a rocky or tricky entrance where a bottom handle would make it safer - or less likely to go through your wing?
The self-evaluation to me is so important. I ride an Armstrong 58L FG, but if the ML's and FG's were launched at the same point of the year, I could see myself having gone with the 65L ML instead - it's just such a good fit for *the things that I want to do* - paddles great, short enough to have negligible swing weight, great range for race and adventure.
The more I do DW, Wing, and SUP - the more I realize that one of the most critical board dimensions is width (and length) in terms of acceleration and performance. The tradeoff if you go from FG->ML are insert-options, positions, less of a concave feeling of control, and compactness that is great for air-freestyle (which is niche), and leverage on the windward rail when carving hard upwind. The benefits of going from FG->ML is going to be more low-end power, faster acceleration onto foil, more paddle speed which unlocks prone foil, Foil Drive, Lightwind winging. Armstrong boards are really well made and stiff too given the carbon stringers, carbon tracks, etc. Without more detail on your goals I would say go for the ML75!
Select to expand quotewingding said..
Unless something is majorly off in terms of rocker angles, almost any board will work, and the leading brands will have quite a lot of similarity across their current models. It can be appealing to compare what can be compared (e.g. aspect ratio of the board), while throwing out a number of the true differentiators.
Does the board have inserts where you want them? Is the track position compatible with your brand of foil? If you ride barefoot, is the traction pad soft, or tough-diamond pattern that chews up your feet? Is it a color you like? Does it fit in your car? If it is convex, is that something you actually want? Do you have a rocky or tricky entrance where a bottom handle would make it safer - or less likely to go through your wing?
The self-evaluation to me is so important. I ride an Armstrong 58L FG, but if the ML's and FG's were launched at the same point of the year, I could see myself having gone with the 65L ML instead - it's just such a good fit for *the things that I want to do* - paddles great, short enough to have negligible swing weight, great range for race and adventure.
The more I do DW, Wing, and SUP - the more I realize that one of the most critical board dimensions is width (and length) in terms of acceleration and performance. The tradeoff if you go from FG->ML are insert-options, positions, less of a concave feeling of control, and compactness that is great for air-freestyle (which is niche), and leverage on the windward rail when carving hard upwind. The benefits of going from FG->ML is going to be more low-end power, faster acceleration onto foil, more paddle speed which unlocks prone foil, Foil Drive, Lightwind winging. Armstrong boards are really well made and stiff too given the carbon stringers, carbon tracks, etc. Without more detail on your goals I would say go for the ML75!
Thanks a ton, you addressed many questions I had. For the past couple of years I've progressed to being confident in most areas (except jumping, I competed in snowboarding in the French alps in my youth and don't need to jump anymore). Only recently though I've started going to shorebreak spots with the odd overheader day and after a couple of sessions in these conditions, a whole new world has opened to me. This is what I want to focus on, wave riding, catching swell as early as possible and carving into them all the way in. I'm not attracted to DW and will keep sessions to my local lake for testing new gear/techniques and work lunch breaks 
I'm now selling my foil setup to get carving oriented wings (F-One Sk8). That's why I'm looking at the Armie ML, because it could potentially take me to prone surfing one day soon. winds here are very often 15kts+, so I'm definitely not looking at that board for its low-end capabilities, but more for its carving and fast take off advantages. Hence why I'm also going 75L for my 82kgs, knowing I'll sink it somewhat. I'm tall-ish at 185cm/ and hopefully still have some grunt at 35 years old 
Still think the ML is the go?
Select to expand quoteI'm now selling my foil setup to get carving oriented wings (F-One Sk8). That's why I'm looking at the Armie ML, because it could potentially take me to prone surfing one day soon. winds here are very often 15kts+, so I'm definitely not looking at that board for its low-end capabilities, but more for its carving and fast take off advantages. Hence why I'm also going 75L for my 82kgs, knowing I'll sink it somewhat. I'm tall-ish at 185cm/ and hopefully still have some grunt at 35 years old Still think the ML is the go?
The ML is not necessarily going to carve any better- and it might actually be worse! Narrow boards dont allow you to get the same leverage for extreme riding you see from Cash Berzolla or Adam Bennets. But for the average intermediate foiler, its probably wide enough to do s-turns and rip around plenty!
In an absolute-scientific performance sense- the FG will be the better carver- more compact, more control from the convex, etc. but i feel like practical reality often gets in the way and you end up in lightwind, or need more board to get the smaller foil ip and going. I think I still would prefer the ML for my needs- check out Jeremy Wilmotte's riding on it- he is absolutely ripping!
He is ripping alright indeed, he seems to be using both boards too. thanks again for taking the time to provide your insights here, really appreciated. Happy foiling
Select to expand quoteJafalex said..
Still think the ML is the go?
I thoroughly enjoy my ML-75. My body weight is 74Kg in dry shorts. As said many riders have said, they don't feel real heavy when up on foil, and when in the water they are very slippery for both paddling and lift-off release. And I don't see any need for a wide deck to move the feet side to side to control a foil unless the foil is wide and roll stiff, such a paddle up DW foil. Or any foil set with poor turning response.
Watch Cash's feet in this clip, and how little body movement he needs to setup his turns:
Select to expand quotepatronus said..
If a board is say an inch thicker is that 'detatched from foil' feeling the same as having an inch longer mast on a thinner board
I have often wondered the same thing. Is the hollow deck feature just a marketing gimmick? I guess that if everything is kept the same (hydroplane, foil angles, mast type, board construction, board weight, deck to foil angle, etc) then the difference felt would be a function of the change in mast flex and board/trackbox flex, and the thicker board rails touching the water a bit more often in carve turns. But who is going to do a valid test with everything else the same? And how many riders can feel the flex difference from a change in 1" of mast length vs board thickness? I also guess that hollow board decks do help for roll stability with sinker boards, and do help control very wide roll stiff foils when the feet need to be moved alot.
^^^ it also adds more crossection profile to the board (like corrugated steel sheet) so makes it stiffer and stronger. thus they can just get away with crap construction and save $10 on the board they sell for $2000 
(in response to the concave deck discussion. Not about Armie, I do rate their construction highly)
I feel board thickness a LOT. I'm not a particularly good winger and a thick board feels weirdly disconnected.
I find boards with deeply dished decks that are thin over the foil are far better both when on the water (less corky) and when flying.
I use straps and width doesn't add anything for in flight control.
