Standup Zone Forum
Stand Up Paddle => Gear Talk => Topic started by: nalu-sup on June 26, 2019, 02:27:51 PM
-
WARNING!. This review is really long, so if you are not a nut about board design minutiae, stop here and move on to another post, or you will hate me.https://www.standupzone.com/forum/Smileys/default/rolleyes.gif
I have been needing to fill a hole in my quiver between my 87 X 30.25 120 L Sunova Flow which I love when it is glassy surf, and my 90 X 31.5 145L Tabou which saves the day when it is rough and choppy. What I wanted was a board with the performance of the Flow, with a little bit more of the stability of the Tabou. I had narrowed my search down to looking for something around 88 X 31. After considering every offering from every brand, I settled on the All Good from Blue Planet at exactly 88 by 31, with the same volume as the Flow at 120L, which was achieved by the All Good being thinner by ½ which makes up for the volume added by the extra width. The extra inch in length is negligible, due to the Flow being a squash tail, and the All Good being a round pin.
The All Good really ended up checking the boxes for me by gaining a little bit of stability while achieving great performance, though it does not quite replace my other boards at the extremes of my usage. I am very happy with the decision, and am really enjoying the new board.
Since the Flow and the All Good are both 120 liter boards, I thought that it would interesting to compare the very different approaches that the two great shapers took in designing a 120L board. Both are great boards, both having plus and minus tradeoffs in their design intents.
Outline: The two boards could not be more different. The Flow has a more pulled in nose, and then carries its width from the wide point all the way back to the rear fins and the squash tail. The All Good is Ύ wider at the wide point, 3 wider at one foot off the nose, one inch narrower at one foot off the tail, and exactly the same width at the front fins where my rear foot usually surfs. This all results in: the Flow is the faster paddler, since the wide nose of the All Good pushes more water when it is not planing. The All Good planes sooner and longer, once there is enough speed for the wide nose to create lift. The Flow is more like a shortboard in that it likes you to plant your feet in surf stance back near the tail where the volume is, and stay there. The All Good is also happy to surf that way, but also encourages you walk up onto the wide nose if you are tempted. The narrower round pin tail creates a smoother rail to rail transition, as opposed to a squash tail which makes the rail changes more defined; both fun but a different feel. The stable wide nose on the All Good creates more swing weight and visual mass during tight turns; you know that volume is up there. The narrower nose of the Flow virtually disappears when surfing, which is a treat.
Thickness: The ½ narrower center thickness of the All Good was a good tradeoff for me in terms of volume. At my weight (163lbs), I did not need more volume than the Flow, just more width for stability when the water was rough. I think that the thinner profile which makes the standing area sit lower in the water, also helps with the stability. While the deck of the Flow is pretty flat, somehow the deck of the AG seems even flatter because the flat carries further up into the wide nose; both are good.
Rocker: The Flow has more rocker throughout, especially in the nose, and through the mid-section, which makes it fit well into steep hollow waves. The All Good is designed more for planing on slopier waves like Waikiki which is where this family of boards was designed, with a flatter entry and a flatter mid-section. This creates a couple of key differences on the wave. First of all, the flow never pearls, even on the steepest and hollowest drops. Twice in the first few days the AG pearled on a steep takeoff; hopefully I can learn to adjust. On the Flow, I really like to start the bottom turn on my front foot, burying the rail right up to the shoulders, and using that mid section rocker to help create the turn. With the All Good, I can still enter the turn on my front foot, but it likes me to use the extra curve in the rail outline of the rear half of the board for tight turns, which is aided by the accelerating V in the bottom shape. The Flow relies more on bottom rocker, and the All Good relies more on rail curve and bottom V. The rocker through the mid-section and more edgy rails makes the Flow love to be pumped down the line, while the flatter rocker and softer rails of the All Good are happy just to trim down the line more like a longer board, and does not respond as much to pumping at this point (still working on that).
Bottom shape: Once again, these boards have completely opposite approaches. The Flow is a single concave from nose to tail to create lift, bite, and drive. The All Good starts off flat as far as I can tell with a straight edge ruler, starts to show some V in the stance area, and then accelerates that V through the tail. The single concave gives the Flow more lift for paddling and planing, more initial stability, and more grip and drive on the wave face, with a definite black and white transition from rail to rail. The V of the All Good gives it a very smooth roll onto the rail, and very smooth and flowing rail to rail transitions. The Flow needs to be pushed from rail to rail creating drive, while the AG just wants to flow from rail to rail almost on its own. This bottom V is great for fluid surfing, but not for initial stability or speed; a reasonable tradeoff either way. The accelerating V is also a way of adding rocker to the rear rail lines, while keeping the center line rocker flatter for speed and planing on mellow waves.
Rails: Again the two boards could not be more different. The Flow has the rails of a shortboard that has been blown up, and the All Good has more the rails of a long board that has been shrunk down. This is no surprise since the Flow is actually a short board design that was blown up for SUP, and the All Good is the shortest in their Fun Series of longer boards designed for smaller south shore waves at Waikiki. The rest of the boards in that line range from 9 to 11, which really fits for the longboard style egg rails with a higher rail apex. The Flow has much more volume in the rails through the mid section, minimal tuck through the length of the rail, with a bit of an edge coming up off the concave bottom almost all the way up to the nose. The Flow also carries more of the deck volume out into the rails, even though it does drop off some. All of this aids in speed and stability. The All Good has very thin rounded rails all the way back to the front fins, with no edge coming off the bottom, and more of an egg rail with a ton of top and bottom tuck resulting in a thinner, higher apex than the Flow, more like a classic longboard rail until you reach the forward fins, where a hard edge suddenly appears for a clean water release off the tail. This creates a very forgiving rail, with easy flow from rail to rail on mellow waves, at the expense of speed and stability. The rail tuck coming up off the bottom essentially makes the bottom of the board an inch narrower in terms of stability than its outline would indicate.
On the Flow, the rails start to drop from the flat deck just a few inches from the apex of the rails, while the rails on the All Good start to drop down quite a bit starting at 4 ½ from the apex of the rails, which along with the large amount of bottom tuck, creates a much more sloped and thinner rail profile. This early slope from the deck can cause the rails to get sucked down when a cross swell washes over them, but it does assure that a lighter person will have no trouble setting the rail on a larger wave with more speed. If you have ever seen a Joe Blair SUP, the rail profile is very similar. Performance wise, this makes the All Good slightly tippier initially, since the thinner rail with the rounder bottom shape going up to the rail apex, does not resist tipping as much as a fuller rail with less tuck (contrary to some rumors), but once the rail is fully submerged, the extra width of the board kicks in to keep me upright (unless a cross roller rolls over the sloping deck rail and tries to suck it under). Once on the wave, the higher volume mid-section rails of the Flow allow me to weight my front foot more during hard bottom turns, where the thinner rail of the All Good can penetrate too deep on a slower wave, encouraging me to turn a little more off the back foot, at least when at slower speeds. On bigger faster waves, being able to bury this thinner rail may become an asset.
Finish: Both boards have a great finish. The All Good has a much thicker and softer deck pad, which is a mixed blessing. It is much softer on the feet and body which is awesome for long sessions, but absorbs more water, adding weight when it is wet. Both boards use a wood sandwich, with the Sunova using carbon rails, and the Blue Planet using Kevlar rails, with a carbon deck patch on my bamboo model. BP also makes their boards in a more expensive full carbon construction, which is roughly 10% lighter, which would make the weight and price more comparable to the Flow.
Weight: I chose the heavier, less expensive construction on the All Good, just because I was buying without trying. This made it a great deal but pretty heavy. The Carbon option is supposed to come in at 18.4 lbs+/-. The bamboo construction I ordered is supposed to come in at around 20.2 lbs+/- which would have been very close to my other boards, but mine arrived at 22, so noticeably heavier than any of my other boards. The lighter carbon construction Blue Planet offers would make it more similar in weight and price to my other boards. I am rationalizing that the extra weight provides more inertia so that the board does not get knocked around as much by chop and wind, but would pay the extra for the lighter construction if I had it to do again, especially considering the weight my bamboo version came in at.
Performance:
Paddling: The Flow is the faster paddler with its narrower outline, especially in the entry area near the nose. The one time that I really notice this is when trying to sprint out to an outside set. The concave bottom also helps the Flow to get moving under paddle power. The AG tracks straighter with less yaw.
Stability: Very interesting. The thinner and more tapered egg rails, along with the V bottom of the All Good make it feel tippier initially than I was expecting based on the specs, but the extra width in the mid and nose area keep me dryer in the long run once the board tips far enough to kick in the secondary stability from the additional width. With the width focused up in the nose area, the All Good is super stable when climbing up onto the nose to claw into a wave, whereas the width in the tail and less slope in the deck rails makes the Flow more stable when doing pivot turns in front of a wave.
Wave catching. Both boards are amazing at catching anything, though the wider nose on the All Good does let me climb out further on the nose without catching a rail like the Flow can sometimes do because of the narrower shoulders. This morning I caught some knee high rollers on the All Good that never even broke, and rode them for 50 yards playing with turns on the unbroken face; not bad glide for an 88, but something you might expect from a Waikiki inspired board.
Bottom turns. Both boards are outstanding, encouraging tight turns and vertical hooks back up to the lip. I love them both. For me, the Flow demands turning off the front foot to use the rail curve all the way up to the shoulders, and the All Good likes using the rounded outline and V in the rear half of the board. So far I have only been able to surf the AG in small waves, though the one decent head high wave I caught hinted that I might be able to drive the AG off the front foot when there is enough speed not to over-bury the thinner rails through the mid section.
Top turns and roundhouses: The concave bottom on the Flow gives more of a sense of creating drive off the top, while the soft rails and V of the All Good create a very easy flowing feeling.
Late hollow drops: I completely trust the rocker and nose kick of the Flow. The flatter nose rise and flatter mid rocker of the All Good concern me on late or steep drops over a shallow reef, since it looks and feels like it was designed for slopier waves.
Speed down the line: No question that the Flow is faster, due to how well it responds to pumping down the line with its harder rails, concave bottom, lighter weight, and more rocker. I am currently working on addressing this on the All Good by using larger thrusters so that I have more fin to pump against to make up for the softer rails and V bottom which both tend to release water off the rails rather than capturing the energy under the board.
Fin tuning:. I am currently playing with putting larger and stiffer fins on the All Good to increase speed and drive, which seems to be working well so far. Today I put on a set of Colin McPhilips fins, which I am hoping will be the perfect match for my weight on this board. The board is so nice and loose due to the curvy outline and V, that I am focusing on adding drive through the fins; whereas the Sunovas have been the opposite with the concave, channels, and harder rails creating drive, and me needing smaller fins to create looseness. May just be me, but so far I like quads to help channel the water down the concave bottom on the Flow, and a thruster setup with the center fin working together with the V in the tail of the All Good.
The All Good has proven to be a great addition to my quiver, and makes for an easy transition back and forth with the Flow, depending on conditions, with the Tabou still in backup if conditions get really rough and windy. If I had it to do again, now that I know how much I like the board, I would go with the more expensive carbon option which is supposed to come in at 18.4 lbs+/-, almost 4 lbs, 20%, lighter than my current board, though this time I would ask the shop to weigh the board before shipping, just to make sure it is closer to the target weight.
-
Pheeeew.....thanks for the warning. Luckily I had a helmet on and was prepared for unconsciousness!! LOL.
COOL REVIEW!!👏👏👏👏
-
For a person like me who likes "details" in a review, your review provided plenty of indepth details and I enjoyed reading it.
BTW, thanks for sharing your review.
-
Nalu-
Awesome review! Super informative.
I wish more people would take the time to write this kind of in-depth, side-by-side comparison of two boards. Much more useful than the typical Zone review, which tends to run along the lines of: "I just bought a new board. I haven't gotten it wet yet, but I'm completely frothing!"
Thanks for putting so much thought into your analysis. Post like this are a true public service!
-
Yeah, this is really great, helped me understand both boards better!
-
Nice writeup Nalu!
You are very astute at understanding the "why's" of design differences....
Interesting to see how you break them down.
I more just know what I like when I ride it, but don't "feel" the design features individually.
Have fun on your new All Good, Robert and the Blue Planet folks do nice work.
-
Brief update: after trying over half a dozen different fin combinations, both quads and thrusters in different sizes and designs of fins, I think that I have found my happy place on the All Good. My goal was to increase the drive of the board, without losing too much looseness; and today I think I found the magic combo. I put in hex core Futures Colin McPhilips front fins at 5.16" deep and 17 sq in that are fairly upright and narrow with not much rake, and a Rainbow 4" center fin with quite a bit of rake, with the center fin pushed all the way forward in the box to what I tend to think of as the thruster sweet spot: leading edge of center fin lined up with the trailing tips of the front fins. With the minimal tip rake on Colin's fins, applying this rule brought the center fin a bit further forward than with front fins with more extended tip rake. Colin is probably my favorite SUP surfer to try and emulate, so I must admit to some fantasy that using the fins he designed will get me closer to his style.
This combo generated a lot more drive off the bottom, and I was able to efficiently pump the board through some fast hollow sections better than before; sweet. Still nice and loose. I think that a little unintentional bonus is that the largish thrusters with their outward cant sitting right out on the rails added some primary stability. The smallish center fin pushed all the way forward seemed to help my last second pivot turns in front of waves.
I had to laugh at myself after one short test session when the board felt too loose and squirrelly for me, kind of like I was on a twin fin. Really surprised me considering the thruster setup that I was testing. Sure enough, the FCS converter that I was using to run FCS fins in the center US box had failed ( I should have known better), and the center fin had fallen out, leaving me riding a twin fin. A little too loose, but it did inspire me to go down to the 4" center fin, pushed all the way forward in the box; perfect.
-
Can you post a pic of the current fin set up from the side, showing rear fin relationship to the sides? Would much appreciate it.
-
OkiWild, I will send a photo tomorrow once I have daylight to take to the picture.
-
Maybe go all the way and try a twin fin plus trailer?
Obviously, the board isnt the usual shape that youd consider for a twinnie, but I find its more about the waves and riding style than the board design anyway. In small conditions, a twin setup can have plenty of advantages.
-
Hi OkiWild,
Here are the pics you requested. There are a couple of pics of the fin setup I have been very happy with in smaller surf. There is also a shot of a setup I am going to try tomorrow for bigger surf, switching out the 4" for a 4.75" cutaway. Note: In order to run a fin this far forward in a US box, you have to make sure that the base is short enough that the rear fin pin does not line up with the slot in the fin box. A large center fin will put the pin safely behind the slot, but any fin that large is probably too large for this purpose. Most thruster center fins will put the pin right in the slot if you try to run it all the way forward.
Today was the first day of an advisory level south swell with the best sets up to a few feet overhead, so my first chance to get the board out in some juice. It was one of the lowest tides of the year, so the waves were sucking out like crazy off the reef, resulting in some very hollow drops. My first wave of the day, the bottom sucked out of a well overhead wall just as I was taking off, so I top turned to race a high line down the wall. Being that high on a hollow wall, it suddenly felt like I had no center fin on the widish tail of the All Good, and I sideslipped on the face for the first 20 feet before I got low enough on the face to get some fin traction. That one wave is why I am trying the 4.75 cutaway tomorrow. Same surface area and placement, but a little more center fin depth for getting some grip on steep hollow walls.
Area 10- That is basically what I am doing. With my thrusters being 5.16", they are nearly the size of twins, and I am wanting them to establish the turning point along the rails just like twin fins would. I want just enough center fin to eliminate any twin fin twichtiness, but not enough to provide too much resistance to being able to turn around the front fins. This is why I went to such a small center fin placed so far forward. With the fin further back, I could feel the center fin having to be pushed sideways through the water breaking the laminar flow as the board turned around the larger thrusters, not a feeling that I liked. With the center fin being closer to the turning point, it is able to follow the same arc, and not lose laminar flow in tight turns.
For what very little its worth, here is my theory on thruster setups, based just on my own 40 years of playing with thruster setups on prone boards, wavesailing boards, short performance waveskis, and SUPs.
Three distinct categories:
1. Large center and smaller sidebites. The large center fin controls the turns like a single fin, with a slight amount of pull into the turn from the sidebites, at the expense of some drag. A little less flow rail to rail, and a little more snap.
2. Three fins all the same size. I view these as acting as a team, with the turning point being between the front and center fins.
3. Larger front fins, and smaller trailing fin. Like Area 10 pointed out, this surfs more like a twin fin, with the turning point being up at the large front fins. The rear fin basically resists this turning force since it is off the axis, so it does not make sense to run it as far back as in a setup with all three fins being the same size and working together.
No promises that any of that fin theory is true; just my experience.
-
After all the fin talk, I wanted to make a quick update on the board review for the All Good.
When I was using it in smaller surf with the original fins, the board felt slower down the line than some of my other boards. Switching to better fins in a different setup, improved that dramatically.
Today I got the board out into some steep hollow overhead waves, and discovered its speed potential. By moving a bit more forward to make use of the flatter rocker, the board was able to outrace some seriously steep and fast sections, which I entered thinking that there was absolutely no hope of outracing the wall. I swear that my eyes were watering from the speed down the line just under the lip. Very cool.
Also, in smaller waves, the new arch bar felt too far back, and the board tended to stall a little if my foot was right on it. Today with more juice and speed, I kept discovering that my rear foot just naturally ended up right on the arch bar, without even thinking about it. Very cool again.
-
Awesome. Thanks.
Working on different fin stuff. When I was a surfer...LOL...I never cared about fins. Coming from the glass-on fin era, I always surfed boards with the plastic or whatever they came with. Could you make a board better? Sure, but the board was always so much more capable than what I could do, so I never got interested in fin stuff. With SUP, that's all changed, and I've found that fins and fin placement make a huge, huge difference, especially with the center box.
Since it's flat, I spent days this last week measuring fin placement on short boards vs. where they "like" to be on a SUP, and trying to understand why moving stuff around makes the difference it does.
-
OkiWild. Just to add to the never ending quest and confusion over fin options, I should mention that Robert Stehlik of Blue Planet who designed this board, told me that he prefers running the center fin all the way back in the box. I am guessing that part of this is due to the fact that Robert outweighs me by 30+ pounds, so he can drive harder against the fins. Burt Berger of Sunova fame even writes the intended surfer's body weight in kilos on his fins. He recommends sizing way up for SUP boards, so he ends up shipping 105s and 94s with his boards to average sized people, which many of us find to be way to big.
-
OkiWild. Just to add to the never ending quest and confusion over fin options, I should mention that Robert Stehlik of Blue Planet who designed this board, told me that he prefers running the center fin all the way back in the box.
Interesting... I first stood on a SUP exactly two years ago, so I'm still learning a lot where it comes to the differences between this and the typical short board. At first, I started using the fins in the standard thruster set up, just like I would on one of my short boards. To do this required the center fin to be as far back in the box as I could get it with the screw just in front of the tab slot. Measuring some modern short boards, placement was around 7.25" from the leading edge of the rear fin to the leading edge of the side fins. Yesterday I found that I was running about 7.5" on the Ninja Warrior.
Set up like this, the board feels great in bigger, hollow surf, but tight in lower power surf. Not enough speed to put it hard on a rail, but it doesn't really want to pivot, either. Pushed forward to 6.5" or even all the way forward, the board pivots easily in small stuff, but I find that I can slip the board if I push too hard, making it a tad unpredictable. The GL2's have a narrow base, but I've tried wider base fins, same result.
I've hurt my knees pretty bad from surfing, and really just want to carve lines now. Sliding the tail around off the top is a lot of what caused this, and I'd like to stay away from it as much as possible.
From that I thought "quad" because that's what so many were riding on a SUP... Hated quads on short boards, but figured there might be something different about SUP. Incredible speed and hold on the rail, but too much hold in most cases. Tried a couple of different sets with smaller rear fins, and while it was OK, it just didn't click with me for the average day we have here.
So I've decided that I'm sticking to the 2+1 in thruster or smaller center fin. Larger center fin was ridiculous for me. Seemed to really kill rail to rail transition time, the bigger the fin, the worse it was.
I'm really happy with the GL2's and have them in the Ninja and NP10. I might also buy the Collin McPhillips with the wider base, and shorter center to see how that works. Have about $1k wrapped up in fins now, and getting kind of tired of it. All of the boards feel good and are completely acceptable. I'm not really a "switch fins" kind of guy. I like to find something that works overall, and never take the fins out...LOL
Always open minded, and open to all suggestions.
-
I think Id be trying the FCS MR TFX PC Carbon Twin + Stabilizer Fin in X Large.
But the right set of fins is such a personal thing, and sometimes people transitioning from surf to SUP tend to try to turn the board from the middle too much at first. Once you get used to a full-on traditional 2+1 setup, it can do a lot of things for you in a SUP. But you may need to start getting your rear foot further back. You may be wanting to bring the focus of the fins forwards because you are trying to turn the board more from the middle than the board was intended to do.
The biggest clue to amount and type of finage youll need is the thickness of the board in the rear half, and the amount of hard rail on the board, throughout (although obviously, most important in the rear half).
-
Well, the results are in, and I think that I have found the ideal fin combo for me on this board, for waves from one foot up to hollow three feet overhead. As mentioned in my last post, I was going to try keeping the Coln McPhillips 5.16" front fins, and changing the rear fin to a 5" cutaway in order to gain a little more depth for holding on steep hollow overhead walls, while keeping about the same surface area and rake as the 4" center that had been working well in small surf.
I spent four hours today trying this combo in everything from overhead fast hollow walls, to mellow thigh high, and it worked amazingly well. I had good hold, speed, and tracking on the steep overhead walls; and the turning on the playful waist to shoulder high waves was at a whole new level. The board turned so tight on the first few waves, that my bottom turns almost turned into kickouts, since I was back up to the lip so much faster than I was used to. The roundhouses were so quick and tight that I was 10 feet back up the line rebounding off the white water in the time that it would have previously taken me just to get the board through the turn.
This combo has opened up whole new levels of surfing for me on the All Good, making me appreciate the board even more
Here are my thoughts on the All Good after getting it into some good sized surf with juice.
The rocker is working out fine in steep hollow drops; I just have to be sure to use my rear foot to adjust the nose angle when coming down with a pitching lip.
As soon as I was on waves with any speed, I no longer have any concerns about the thin rails; they are easy to engage, and do not overbury as along as I have decent speed.
I have come to love the arch bar for locating my rear foot. Most rear stomp pads to not give enough tactile feedback to reliably nail the rear foot position, and the kick in the back of the pad is too far back much of the time to be useful as a tactile reference. The arch bar is an easy to find, useful reference, that I have quickly become addicted to; no more inconsistencies in my rear foot positioning during rushed last second takeoffs.
The speed down the line on steep fast waves has turned out to be awesome, once I got the fins dialed in, and figured out how to use the boards rocker line to optimize speed. I made a number of super fast walls the past two days, that on takeoff I never thought I had a prayer of making.
The stability has worked out perfect for what I was looking for; enough extra stability to make a difference when it gets windy and choppy, without hurting the performance.
Its 'All Good".
(The attached image showed the cutaway fin I am loving, but the camera is really distorting the size. This cutaway is 5" (4.75 measured off the deck), so it is roughly the same depth as the Colin front fins.
-
I wish all write-ups and reviews had this kind of depth. Thanks nalu.
-
Thanks for sharing, I am enjoying the Fun Stick.
-
Totally Good review, Nalu. The forum dearly needs more library material. It's not only today's readers that appreciate the information. Maybe Admin (when he off-the-foil) can set up a 'board name' index. Cheers.
Jim
-
Hi sflinux, glad to hear that you are enjoying the Fun Stick. A friend of mine just got one, based in part on my experience with the All Good. When you have time, we would love to hear your review of the Fun Stick.
-
Hi Nalu-sup,
I became interested in the Fun Stick based on Dusk Patrol's post (thank you for that) on his travel board: https://www.standupzone.com/forum/index.php/topic,33688.msg380846.html#msg380846
I weigh 200# and am 6'2", so the 140L Fun Stick gives me a guild factor of 1.52.
You at 165# (All Good 120L) gives you a guild factor of 1.62.
Your impressions on the All Good at your weight, mirrors what I feel on the Fun Stick at my weight after one surf session.
Most of my boards are in the 29-30" width and I've struggled in chop (majority of my sessions are in chop). I struggled with boards at those widths that were under 138 L (guild factor 1.5). When I got a 10'11" x 32" board, I instantly saw the advantage of wide boards in chop. When the winds pick up, I prefer carrying smaller boards, so have been looking for something smaller. I found an older used Fun Stick carbon deck, which is 9'4" x 33" (140L). I like how the newer models have Kevlar rails.
My first surf session on the Fun Stick was by far the best session I have had to date. The conditions were mild and somewhat clean. That session I had my highest wave count. It seemed like I could catch anything. A friend of mine was out on his longboard. He couldn't believe that it was my first time on this SUP, he was hooting and hollering for me on some of my waves. I told him that this board is wider, so easier.
The session had fun waves, an elephant seal, pair of dolphins riding waves, and my friend teaching his 8 year old daughter in the lineup. It will be a memorable session for sure.
I rode the board as a quad (L41 simsup fins), and don't see myself changing the fin setup for this board. I was able to make some steep drops, without pearling. Once the waves get bigger, I would be more comfortable on a more gun-like shaped board. But for head high and smaller, which I think this board was designed for, it is appropriately named. I was a little nervous because Blue Planet shows the Fun Stick is for Advanced riders of 195+ lbs. I consider myself as an Intermediate, who graduated from beginner. The Fun Stick gave me the confidence to aspire to be an Advanced Rider, as I pulled of my first floater reentry on this board. The Fun Stick is very intuitive and I would recommend it to anyone who is interested seeking more stability, if this is the guild factor that you are looking for. I have no problem with the nose to tail stability of the 9'4", which definitely makes me interested in trying the All Good, which would get me down to a stable board with a guild factor of 1.3. I was also looking at the Fanatic Allwave 9'2", but am pleased that I ended up with the Fun Stick, as I prefer boards with thinner rails.
The only negative, remember this is a older model used board, was the tail kick area on the built in deck pad was slippery. I have since sprayed the deck pad, at the tail kick, with contact cement, hoping that will give it more grip. I plan on using the Fun Stick and my 10'11" as my winter boards. I could do a more in depth review in the months ahead, but I think you nailed it on the head. I would think the Fun Stick would just have more swing weight compared to the All Good. But the shape is legit, Robert Stehlik has done a great job with his boards.
Surfboards that come in wider are beneficial for surfers in the beginner, injured, and older category. Wider sups are too. I suspect the learning curve will be shorter for those that spend time on boards of not just the appropriate length, but also the appropriate width.
p.s. I love that you referenced Joe Blair. His boards are super fun, though mine are older at 8'10" x 30" (rides like a "malibu") and 9'6" x 30" (rides like a "gun"), so challenging in choppy conditions at my present skill level.
-
Great report, thank you!
I don't think you would have any trouble with the nose to tail stability with the All Good, since the nose and tail are both wide enough to be pretty forgiving. Because the board has been thinner than most at 3.75", you might find that your weight sits low in the water. The 2020 version changes that by going up to 4" thick, increasing the volume to 125 liters. That new version might be great for you
-
This was a great review. An All Goodwill be joining my quiver this December, along with two other new boards. The All Good specifically for the more choppy days.
-
I received the 2019 All Good on Christmas day. Had to go to the air freight terminal and grab all the presents! Since then, I've had it in the water four times, and the results are fantastic. For reference, I'm 5'10 and about 180#. 2019 board is 8'8"x31.5"x120L.
I chose this board for the increased width and stability on windy, choppy days, not expecting it to be a great board, but a compromise for stability in crappy conditions. I have a lot less fun when I'm falling off all the time... First day out I set it up as a quad with Futures GL2's, the waves were just overhead, really hollow, side-off wind with some chop, and about 700M off shore. Paddling and dropping in, the board exceeded expectations. No "easy in" on bowling, hollow reef waves, only a slight paddle speed advantage for SUP over short board, but you catch it in the same steep, critical section. However, the board never stuck the nose once, and standing on the tail didn't make it squirrely. Plenty of nose kick, and plenty of tail kick that you don't really notice until it's flat in the water next to you. Rocker throughout, but still paddles quickly. Turns in and grabs the face quite well. I was actually quite shocked, as I was expecting a dog because of the 31.5" width. That said, rail to rail, and in a rail cut-back, it felt quite stiff, and I had to use a lot of rear leg to "push" it around.
Next day, same spot, wind from the opposite side-off direction, same size, a little less chop. I switched out the fins for the GL2 thruster, with the center fin all the way in the back of the box. I thought for sure it was going to slide down the face on the steep drop in, but it held fast, and pulled into the wave face...again...shockingly well. Two unintentional cover-up's where I had to be mid-board, and it just stayed locked in. Got spit on one, got too high and thumped on the next :D With the thruster set up, the rail to rail and cutback became excellent. Interestingly, one thing that really stuck out was drive. Coming off the bottom, or into a cutback, pushing with the rear foot, I could really feel the board drive forward, which I never expected. Granted, I had low expectations for such a wide board compared to something 28" wide, but the board went way past expectations. I was taking a little video, and caught myself blabbering on about how the board really was the "All Good," and how it would be an excellent board for the transitioning prone surfer. I love all my boards, but after surfing the All Good only four times, I could just surf this one board forever. It feels that good. The only "down side" was that I had to move my rear foot quite a bit more than I'm used to when going from a bottom turn to a cut back.
The next two times out were on the west side of the island at a head-high hollow bowl that transitions to a fat shoulder to a dumping close out in six inches of water. First day had no wind and was incredible. Probably got 50 waves,and was blabbering on about how good the board was again. The next time, the wind was side at 20 knots, and the surf was really thumping. Initially, I took out a different board that was 8'8"x28"x116" with squash tail, as the surf was about 12' faces, but slabbing hollow. After falling off about three hundred times, I paddled in and got the All Good. Running out of time and tide, I never grabbed any bombs on it, so I don't know how it rides at high velocity in larger surf, but it was a real test of the stability I bought it for, and it didn't disappoint. Very stable in all four compass directions, and I only fell off a couple of times while standing waiting for waves.
So excited for the coming year. Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to everyone.
-
@ Oki
Looks like Santa was very generous with the 4 presents he left for you at the air freight terminal. ;)
Robert makes some really good designs for his boards that perform remarkably well. And the "All Good" proved it's worth to you in your sessions with it. BTW, that was a very nice review. Lots of good info and details in it.
All you have to do now is to enjoy your new "presents" Santa just sent you. 8)
-
Hi Oki. Congrats on the new quiver. I think that you and that All Good are going to have a lot of fun together.
-
Thanks for all the detail, I think, still digesting it all. I wanted to mention that I have bought way too many fins and finally found that the Collin McPhillips are the best for me. I have them on both of my performance boards.
-
Thanks for all the detail, I think, still digesting it all. I wanted to mention that I have bought way too many fins and finally found that the Collin McPhillips are the best for me. I have them on both of my performance boards.
A set of the Colin fins are on my wish list, but I can't get them directly from Futures any more, and I'm pretty deep in fins already :D
-
I just came across this awesome, detailed report, thank you! I will refer customers to this for fin selection. I really appreciate the feedback Nalu.
Oki wild, that is quite the quiver you got there, stoked, keep those gopro videos coming!