Finally got to try different boards, what a revelation!

[adywind]

Same volume distribution like on mine. I've read that it was made like this to pop over the white water easily. Try mast foot and front foot straps/if you can/ forward like John and others have suggested - mastfoot and footstraps if you can to see if it would be better in regards to planing.
Also thruster in light wind may not be a good idea-drag only, no lift. I'm using a 28cm MFC Freewave with my 5.8.

[manuel]

[manuel]

Thanks to Vela Cabarete I was able to try out more boards.

Two days ago we had about the same wind as the day before, maybe even less 12-16 knots.
The waves were smaller but with a nice short slope to them.

Boards:
I took out the JP single thruster 93L tri (20 + 2 x 10) regular version



and the 86L (16 x 2 + 12 x 2) quad from Starboard in their carbon version:



The Quad has a more even volume distribution which resembles more freewave boards so I was expecting better slogging and more comfortable planing. It also felt quite light.

Footstraps:
Most of you know my obsession on footstraps (you can check out my detailed video in my signature) and the Starboard Drake footstraps from 2010 are pretty terrible to me. First I can fit about two fingers beside my foot when inside and I wish they were more ergonomic feeling. In 2011, they moved onto their "Dakine primo" type strap with an adjusting scale which helped some. The JP footstraps with the "gel" type of padding felt wonderful, solid and they hold my foot perfectly in place.

Slogging:
The first thing I noticed about the Quad was that it slogged itself! Of course it's quite wide but it feels well balanced and never once nose dove on me even when not careful with footing. It did feel like it was a size larger. My Acid 86L doesn't float nearly as well.

On the JP, the volume is definitely a little bit more forward. It gets good firm contact with the white water to pop over it. It was also easy to slog but maybe felt a bit more "tilty" and rides a bit lower in the water. Overall the board feels a bit smaller than 93, it's true of the 2012 82 model as well. And from what I read true as of newer versions too.

Planing:
I was expecting quite a bit of drag from the Quad after experiencing the drag from trying out Tris, well I was wrong. The Quad popped on a plane more suddenly than the 93 JP. The JP drags for a while and needs to accumulate speed before taking off. I wonder if it can be addressed with a different fin setup (owners feedback on this?). The Quad felt like it was pre-planing farther out of the water, so the JP had to do more work to get out of the water. Could very well be the more volume/width out back from the Quad.

Once on a plane, the Quad felt fast and this is in very light winds (12-16 knots and 5.4 for 70kgs). It accelerated nicely off of the slope of some chop, goes upwind without issues. The JP on the plane is nice too. Neither board slows down dramatically in lulls and round upwind, they track wonderfully which gives me the confidence I like when crossing the reef waves. The Quad did feel fast and I know from earlier testing that the JP does feel like reaching and settling for a top speed.

Waves:
Without much wind, I slogged quite a bit through the waves. I picked up my first wave on the quad and similarly to taking off on a plane, the board nearly instantly planed once the wave provided some slope. I moved back in the straps and started my turn, when oops "something" caught, but then it took off and zoooom, it flew down the wave with the most speed I have ever experienced.

The turn was smooth controllable with a good bite.
The carve felt similar to the type of carve I can get from my Acid except that it was easier to steer with finer input. As opposed to other boards, the Quad felt "floaty" meaning that it feels forgiving, it's soft on the water.

As I got out of the waves, picked up the plane again and did my first jibe, now the same "catchy" thing happened. Only then I knew what it was. I was pressuring the rear of the board too much and slid some. So I had to change my stance a bit, be less aggressive with my rear foot and started to commit more the whole rail of the board, wow did it feel nice!

That's what the board wanted, it might have more fins but less side-to-side leverage and likes to have its rail fully engaged. In the 2011 Quad video by Peter Hart (found on youtube), he describes exactly that and says to take it easy on the rear foot.

One thing, I'm bad at but it can be convenient sometimes, is to power up the board by pulling on the rear arm to give a little push to the board when dropping in on small side-on waves. The board didn't seem to like that at all. I felt like completely depowering the sail and lean forward to engage the rail. Then the board was free to glide and accelerate.

At the cut-back, the four fins feel like they are all grabbing water to throw up and out, definitely feels pretty good!

Going out with the JP, it may have felt a little more secure to go through the white water with a bit more volume up front, although this is hard to review unless I spend more time on the water.

Settling in the straps at the drop-in, it has a more firm response and isn't bothered by heavier input, the speed is quite nice down the wave, it's more of a back foot weighing action with a nice carve. The fins provide more grip than the Quad so it's more secure but maybe not as responsive. The Quad has more speed, I wonder what happens in larger waves, my take is that the added grip and narrower width of the single thruster would be a plus in terms of control and confidence.

Jibes:
Another point about the Quad, when we say that a board is fast down a wave (and headed the other way so particularly useful in side-on conditions), it's also valid at the jibe. When turning the board keeps its momentum which makes it easier to complete jibes and plane through them, exactly what one of the video reviewers said. It almost feels like it springs out of the jibe. This I believe is due to having more rear volume, freestyle waves boards also do that but tend to struggle with the chop. The Quad is easier to control and turns more sharply.

How does it compare to a loose 105L freeride?
At the end of the day, I took my 105 out to compare. I have really enjoyed my 105 since new (2006!). The board is a bit slow but stays in control in high winds, responds well to aggressive turns, and has good float. But for the first time ever, dropping in on a small wave I thought my 105 was terrible! The board slowed down as I was "waiting" for the lip like it had put on the brakes, which prevented me from reaching sections more "behind me."

The Quad 86L which has a width of 60.5cm versus my 105L 63cm felt faster to plane and immensely faster on a wave. My take is that it would be too big with a 5.0 for my size which is exactly what I heard from online reviews as well. It sizes quite large.

Jumps:
Unfortunately, I didn't have enough planing speed to test the jumping ability of the Quad, reviews describe it as a good jumper but one has to be wary of the width and angle the board appropriately in the air.

As tested earlier, the JP jumps are nice and easy to control, quite reassuring.

For my use and size, the quad could be a great low wind board and the 82L JP a great high wind one. One sizing up and the other down would complement each other quite nicely.

For intermediate days, I could set the 5.4 on the 82 or a 5.0 on the 86, have four combos, possibly even riding the JP with a single fin too.

The JP is narrower which gives me better trim control but needs more wind to slog comfortably, the Starboard wider and looser would give me more productivity in lighter conditions and more comfort when slogging.

And finally Quads definitely have their place in the bump & jump category as they are fast quite forgiving.

[adywind]

Any chance of trying a Kode Wave in twinser mode? Those are supposed to be loads of fun-very fast and great for jumping. Similar-of the rail- riding style to the quads but looser.

[manuel]

I'd like to try it as my high wind board but 82 might be too big. It seems to work best with good wind from the reviews.

I'd also like to try JP twinser 82 (possibly quad) and Fanatic NewWave twin from 2010 both really good boards.

I'm interested in buying a low wind and a high wind board so I'm trying to target my tests with this in mind.

Also, I had never tried same model boards in different volumes, quite interesting!

[adywind]

Looks like the popular combo in places with good waves and wind nowadays is a single-thruster for light wind and a quad for strong. Starboard market a Black Box+ Kode wave combo for crappy conditions. There are so many options out there that it makes it actually harder to choose isn't it

[manuel]

The intent is to use this specific quad (not all quads are alike, I'm sure the Fanatic or Tabou quads cannot compare) in side-on light conditions. I need a fast board. I tried it on light days and it delivered exactly what I was looking for and more, I wasn't expecting it to be so good on a plane. With the big fins up front, it tracks without effort.

One thing that makes me feel more comfortable about crossing the reef is planing loss threshold. Some boards will lose the plane fast no matter how much effort I put into it. This quad loves to accelerated off of the wave faces. Plus its extra width makes it keep the plane nicely. It feels like a potato chip with its fish tail, lots of surface and nicely distributed volume.

As far as the tri goes, its program will be higher wind. I need a slimmer board, one that's easy to control in the air. Its grip is astounishing, maybe too much, fins need tuning especially to gain on early planing. I love the secure footing of the tri.

For sure, if the waves are large the quad might saturate, I will need to adapt my riding to accomodate this.

Of course, if budget weren't an issue, I'd try other boards, more recent ones, etc. For right now these are my options.

I tried a 2010 Newwave Twin in 86L, it didn't work for me, more detailed review to follow, but basically tracking is problematic in chop. I like my boards to be easy (for my level) but exciting (somewhat fast and lively).

[jingebritsen]

in mushy waves and puffy winds multifin boards have less lift and more drag. but, at least they plane off slowly?????

onshore wave boards designed for light winds do not detract much for my 210lbs carcass when conditions are prime. note some guys that seem to want their booms sky high tend to complain about not being able to set their rails on such boards. i tell them to lower their booms to squat down lower for better leverage. their response, " i need earlier planing." my immediate response, "it's florida, get a 6.2 sail." they don't.

it's rather odd to see me, with a seat harness, out plane and out perform guys lighter than me by 40-50 lbs because of several realities they don't want to face. kit sizes are just the beginning. waste harnesses that turn into nipple harnesses are merely a side issue.... again, the biggest problem is seeing folks superimposing maui conditioned stuff to far humbler venues.

there's chit, and shinola. adapt to your venues, stop trying to force maui perfection into them. an utter waste of time,

[isobars]

[adywind]

I'm starting to doubt a bit the wisdom behind the wave thrusters. I can see the usefulness in FSWs-to slow things down a bit in realy rough stuff, to eliminate tail-walk and provide tight turning on a wave or in a jibe, but on a wave board with a lot of rocker already?! What you say Manuel-don't you think the JP FSW in thruster mode will be on par for wave-riding and better in anything else then the JP SingleThruster ?
I mean look at Starboard-they stopped doing thrusters for a while and the reason I guess is that quads and twins work so nicely in any kind of waves. Now they are puting thrusters in the Kode FSWs in 2015 which makes sense-the FSW is the best contender for a one board strong wind solution for guys like me sailing in crappify conditions but still wanting to have some wave "simulation " now and then.