Standup Zone Forum
The Foil Zone => Foil SUP => Topic started by: GRVN on June 04, 2020, 06:48:09 AM
-
Aloha folks,
I am an avid prone foiler. I am trying to take a step into the darkside ... sup. First I know it will be very difficult. I am not thinking it will be as easy as prone for me. I am heading out to the gorge in July with my family and want to try downwinding (15 years on Maui and never have ) So I am looking at two routes shaping something similar to the sonova casey foil as I heard something over 6ft is way easier (6'2"x27x6) or kalama style in 5'6 or 5'8 everyone I know on maui rides really short square ones but the more traditional shape seems popular world wide. I am also shaping a wing board. Any suggestions are welcome and helpful.
Stats:
175 lbs
5'8
36
recovering from a destroyed L5 back injury
-
Everything I've learned riding a few different shapes is that the ideal profile is a rectangle - but that if anyone made a board like this it wouldn't sell. Style is a powerful thing and people want shapes that please their eye. A lot of these nice looking shapes do their best to mimic traditional surfboards with the pulled in nose and tail. I personally think that's detrimental. I think you want the smallest and shortest board possible to keep weight and swing weight down, but it has to be stable enough to stand on, paddle, and catch waves. The way to get stability in such a short package is not only width, but carrying that width all the way to the tip and tail. There is really no downside that I see to having width in the tip. The tail only needs to be pulled in enough to keep it from touching down in really radical/leaned over turns. Welcome to the Kalama shape, which in my opinion is about as good as it gets (not having ridden a Kalama).
-
I've ridden about ten foil boards, two of the ones I've owned are Kalama boards. I think Dave's shapes are the most practical and advanced for SUP foiling. I don't think anyone is going to be copying him, even though his boards are substantially more stable for the same size. There's a reason I called my first Kalama board Mr. Fugly--even though it was spectacularly good.
There are only two downsides to a Kalama board. One is the look, and you get over that in a hurry. The other is that if you touch down you might dig a corner, and if you do that it's faceplant city. You learn NOT to do that quickly, and some of the design changes Dave has made over the years greatly reduce the issue. My current Kalama board--"Les Fugly" doesn't punch in the corners like Mr. Fugly, but it also doesn't have quite as much stability in the nose. the shape changes Dave made reduce the nose volume. It actually recovers from splashing down better than Mr. Fugly, but I fall more often from the nose suddenly disappearing while I'm standing around looking at the scenery. If I don't freak out, and just paddle a bit the nose comes up, but get a little sporty and there's no recovery--at least not for me. If Les Fugly was here I'd let you borrow it, but it's in Maui--where it belongs. I don't do much wave riding in Oregon other than Columbia River swells. Here I've become a pitiful wing foil addict.
-
I happened to be working on similar shape myself. The first thing I did is copying the new Kalama carbon board and went from there.
2 boards that I really liked as far stability was the Kalama and the Fanatic, they were much more stable for a certain size when compared
with a much more pulled-in ouline boards (JungleWRX comes to mind).
I also think that width is key. Look at a Kalama carbon 5'8" it's is 29.25" wide, the 6'2" is 29.5" wide, too wide for a 5'8" like myself to feel effective with my stroke.
My main objective with this board is downwind and flat water dead starts. I went with a 28.5" width.
To account for lost width I went with a more squared outline than the Kalama's but rounded up the ends just to give the shape some more grace so it would be pleasing to the eye imo.
Also lowered the deck closer to the waterline and increased the wetted surface a bit by widening the flatter section on the bottom to account for the lost of overall width.
Probably won't be as affective on touchdowns due-to changes to the angle of the chined rails, but looking at my priorities, I feel stability at this point is more important.
I intend (at least for the time being) to use it as my wing board as well since it is just an auxiliary activity for me when I have nothing better to do.
That was my brain fart. I gave it to a foiling shaper/builder in the Gorge area to work on, waiting to hear if he has any changes in mind. Hope that helps
-
I like everything about that except the concave deck. I like flat decks, I can live with concave and I detest domed decks.
-
yeah, ditch the hollow deck. I have a board with a hollow deck, and you are NOT going to like it for downwinding and flatwater starts. It takes a few moments to clear the water off the deck, in the meantime you have A LOT of weight on there. It'll keep you in the water just a little longer. Its totally fine in the right conditions, and I'm guessing would be fine on a wing because as soon as you get any speed the water washes out the back. But for catching a downwind type wave, you can't get enough speed to clear the deck until you're running down the swell, but that's the moment you need to pop out of the water. I think I've seen at least one homebuilt foilSUP on this board with a scooped deck, so there should be some other opinions worth considering.
-
look closely at the side view of the Kalama boards. I think you'll see the deckline is at a slight angle to the flat part of the bottom where the foil mounts. I think this is a key feature when I think about why it is that way, but to be honest, all the boards I've ridden have decks that are parallel to the foil mounting surface.
-
I've ridden about ten foil boards, two of the ones I've owned are Kalama boards. I think Dave's shapes are the most practical and advanced for SUP foiling. I don't think anyone is going to be copying him, even though his boards are substantially more stable for the same size. There's a reason I called my first Kalama board Mr. Fugly--even though it was spectacularly good.
There are only two downsides to a Kalama board. One is the look, and you get over that in a hurry. The other is that if you touch down you might dig a corner, and if you do that it's faceplant city. You learn NOT to do that quickly, and some of the design changes Dave has made over the years greatly reduce the issue. My current Kalama board--"Les Fugly" doesn't punch in the corners like Mr. Fugly, but it also doesn't have quite as much stability in the nose. the shape changes Dave made reduce the nose volume. It actually recovers from splashing down better than Mr. Fugly, but I fall more often from the nose suddenly disappearing while I'm standing around looking at the scenery. If I don't freak out, and just paddle a bit the nose comes up, but get a little sporty and there's no recovery--at least not for me. If Les Fugly was here I'd let you borrow it, but it's in Maui--where it belongs. I don't do much wave riding in Oregon other than Columbia River swells. Here I've become a pitiful wing foil addict.
Great info thanks. Iwill be at the gorge this summer working from my trailer. I will be learning to wing Hopeully we can meet up. I know a couple of daves team riders they are telling me I should be ridding a 5'0 or 5'2 at 175lbs that sounds crazy lol
-
I also think that width is key. Look at a Kalama carbon 5'8" it's is 29.25" wide, the 6'2" is 29.5" wide, too wide for a 5'8" like myself to feel effective with my stroke.
My main objective with this board is downwind and flat water dead starts. I went with a 28.5" width.
To account for lost width I went with a more squared outline than the Kalama's but rounded up the ends just to give the shape some more grace so it would be pleasing to the eye imo.
Also lowered the deck closer to the waterline and increased the wetted surface a bit by widening the flatter section on the bottom to account for the lost of overall width.
Probably won't be as affective on touchdowns due-to changes to the angle of the chined rails, but looking at my priorities, I feel stability at this point is more important.
I intend (at least for the time being) to use it as my wing board as well since it is just an auxiliary activity for me when I have nothing better to do.
That was my brain fart. I gave it to a foiling shaper/builder in the Gorge area to work on, waiting to hear if he has any changes in mind. Hope that helps
[/quote]
This looks great!!
-
yeah, ditch the hollow deck. I have a board with a hollow deck, and you are NOT going to like it for downwinding and flatwater starts. It takes a few moments to clear the water off the deck, in the meantime you have A LOT of weight on there. It'll keep you in the water just a little longer. Its totally fine in the right conditions, and I'm guessing would be fine on a wing because as soon as you get any speed the water washes out the back. But for catching a downwind type wave, you can't get enough speed to clear the deck until you're running down the swell, but that's the moment you need to pop out of the water. I think I've seen at least one homebuilt foilSUP on this board with a scooped deck, so there should be some other opinions worth considering.
I was going back and forth on the concave deck, specifically with concern of water pooling inside. I have few thoughts as to why it's a positive overall.
I don't really have any preference between domed, sunken or flat deck. Love them all if supporting the use case.
- Improved stability
- Eliminates 10 liter of volume = Less overall weight for the board
- Help with pitch control during flight for beginner (due to the angle of the deck)
- Help with overall deck rigidity?
I have no facts or experience to suggest it is, just theory, so any comments based on experience/knowledge that suggest otherwise will help.
The way I went about the deck is giving it slight angle down towards the tail achieving (in my head at least) immediate water drainage through the wide open tail.
My experience on dugout sups with open tail design is that water moves through the tail and clear the deck very fast.
So my question to you, did your hollow deck had an angle to it with an open tail or was is all flat inside and no outlet to the water?
Also, would be interested to hear comments about how the angle of the deck will affect pitch control. It seems to me the downside is in the take-off where you have to compensate
for the angle but once in flight should be a positive. Thoughts?
Server seems to have issues again with image upload :(
-
I think you have the angle of the deck wrong unfortunately. The angle you need to drain water is the opposite of the angle you should have for a comfortable takeoff and flying (in my opinion). I think you essentially want a few degrees of pitch up in the foil and the bottom contour when the standing deck is level. What you've got is foil pitched down when the deck is level. Interested to hear other opinions as well.
(https://i.imgur.com/HgV95AE.png)
-
I think you might be right, I scrapped the concave deck to flat. Keep it simple.
Looking in details at the Kalama board the picture on the website is not 100% aligned if I to assume the flat section at foil mount supposed to be leveled. it was angled down a bit.
I leveled it and superimposed on top of my board to check the deck line (my deck line is blue), see what you make of it if anything. To me it seems like the Back foot placement is about 1/8" higher than the front foot placement on a straight line.
(https://previews.dropbox.com/p/thumb/AA0wmUJNAJyQPa87X1Yg_TvChXHwfGuiUmg-JpmQ58BEh9bd0_ltQ7P0BnumMU-_exXluJXX2ZDJL_JZWbyhyUrabIxBk8jeAA2geUKxf8BoJfNGl9VjcsXDhssr495YPNq3sBz0G6CePL2raSgQ4ehZ4HoSvQJqs7mISM1OzCPoOHIaj843X8ny0DXJ4aNAHgRskB1LYxE6rl1XXSXWw6DieqnsaUiF23iGdoLABZsoWiFpzyeQ5TixnumBgTpJ8SbYlIpG_KA1UTNcDgjn7KmjnES1QUKr0Ncps5eOhsD0wqpU3TmpvJ0PPXoZ14d24Zw9663FIPsgzTWUgdRa6nFzaafbeJAuo4ED3ZYntC4aeAkasVXW3QaTA2OE88VeuzeSakMJBUEkhjc3SLuK3xWZY6AHL6BP0WbcVrvGmhijp192iEOtHG5cKvaCioIflZE/p.jpeg?fv_content=true&size_mode=5)
-
I think you have the angle of the deck wrong unfortunately. The angle you need to drain water is the opposite of the angle you should have for a comfortable takeoff and flying (in my opinion). I think you essentially want a few degrees of pitch up in the foil and the bottom contour when the standing deck is level. What you've got is foil pitched down when the deck is level. Interested to hear other opinions as well.
I like my decks exactly parallel with the bottom of the board (actually the fuselage), since I'm never sitting level in the water at takeoff anyway (I sink the tail just before TO so the swell picks it up, tips me forward, and my first paddle stroke is essentailly downhill down-wave), so then after TO when I'm in the air, the deck and bottom/fuselage is level, and thusly I'm flying level (for the most part) which makes controlling the board easier than nose down if my foil is slightly "pitched up" from the get go.
Also with a parallel deck and bottom/fuselage, if I do need to make any slight pitch adjustments one way to the other, it's easier for me to know which direction to throw in the shim, and I don't have to use more in one direction than I would in the other to compensate for basically the tail rocker in the board. IOWs, my boards now have zero tail rocker in them, and only a little rocker in the front...just enough to keep the nose out of the water when I'm paddling.
But then again, maybe I'm reading your post all wrong, and talking about something completely different than you are...I'm apparently good at doing that oftentimes, at least that's what the wife tells me all the time. :-[ :)
-
There are a lot of features that folks add to boards to "reduce weight" that actually increase weight. Like the pickle fork or manta nose. It seems like the cutout would reduce weight, but actually there's quite a bit more glass, and the tight turns generally hold resin. Same thing is true for concave sections. I REALLY good glasser can eliminate the extra glass and resin that accumulates on the inside edge, but any normal builder will wind up with more weight than flat. Neither that nor the extra water it holds on takeoff are the real reasons I don't like them. Number one is getting gutted sliding over the rail to get back on the board. We all know dugouts can crack your ribs and relocate your spleen just getting into them. Then there's the irritation of sliding your foot to the rail and hitting a stop.
Of course I'm beating a dead horse since Burchas has already shot it, but ...
-
Of course I'm beating a dead horse since Burchas has already shot it, but ...
And it's appropriate but.. You never know when the next horse might come sniffing around this thread :D
-
There are a lot of features that folks add to boards to "reduce weight" that actually increase weight. Like the pickle fork or manta nose. It seems like the cutout would reduce weight, but actually there's quite a bit more glass, and the tight turns generally hold resin. Same thing is true for concave sections. I REALLY good glasser can eliminate the extra glass and resin that accumulates on the inside edge, but any normal builder will wind up with more weight than flat. Neither that nor the extra water it holds on takeoff are the real reasons I don't like them. Number one is getting gutted sliding over the rail to get back on the board. We all know dugouts can crack your ribs and relocate your spleen just getting into them. Then there's the irritation of sliding your foot to the rail and hitting a stop.
Of course I'm beating a dead horse since Burchas has already shot it, but ...
This is very true I have tried to explain this to people when they would want channels in my boards. I can glass them but they always add weight mostly bc its impossible to do a thin hotcoat
-
But then again, maybe I'm reading your post all wrong, and talking about something completely different than you are...
No, I think you read it exactly right. I totally see what you're saying about keeping the deck parallel to the fuse, and I can see how some would really like that way of thinking. I'm not in agreement, but that's OK! There is another consideration - the way the Kalama board side profile is angled puts a bit more volume in the back of the board, which is also good for moving the balance point rear. That's a pretty big issue with a lot of SUPs that the ideal paddling point is 8-12" forward of the ideal balance point when on foil. So there is a lot of weight shift (and foot placement movement) when going from in the water to out of the water.
-
But then again, maybe I'm reading your post all wrong, and talking about something completely different than you are...
No, I think you read it exactly right. I totally see what you're saying about keeping the deck parallel to the fuse, and I can see how some would really like that way of thinking. I'm not in agreement, but that's OK! There is another consideration - the way the Kalama board side profile is angled puts a bit more volume in the back of the board, which is also good for moving the balance point rear. That's a pretty big issue with a lot of SUPs that the ideal paddling point is 8-12" forward of the ideal balance point when on foil. So there is a lot of weight shift (and foot placement movement) when going from in the water to out of the water.
Too true. When I'm paddling hard to catch a marginal wave I tend to leap forward to get a better angle and weight shift. But once you catch it you have to get both feet back to foiling position--a shitty time to be shuffling around. Thank goodness it's leaping forward to catch the wave instead of leaping back. That wouldn't turn out well.
-
On the concave deck side we at ONE do some foil boards with quite a deep concave in the deck and for 99% off the time this is no worries at all. I really like it for DW foiling and never find i have water on the deck as i pump up when going for bumps and for me our concave deck boards are the easiest we have found to get up in DW conditions, the only time i might get water on the deck is catching a broken wave where all the water pushes hard forward and this might take a quick pump to get rid off it all. I do like the feel through to the foil that it seems to give and how it feels that little more direct, for me i really like the concave but we are also working on a few different concepts that run a flatter deck for different styles of riding.