Finally got to try different boards, what a revelation!

[manuel]

Conditions:
- Waves: 2 to 4m (was big)
- Wind: 15-23 knots
- Me: 70kgs (fully wet)
- Sail: 2009 Neilpryde Alpha 5.4 (strong downhaul, average outhaul, untouched the whole day)

Board 1 - 2012 Starboard Evo IQ 86L 60.5cm width setup with twin 15,5cm (or 16cm?)

Straps: by Drake based on Dakine Primo but softer. Easy to adjust, they support the top of foot well but lack a little side support (flat feet size 10).

Weight: Average, balances out around the front strap.

Volume: Right away, I recognized Starboard genes, it reminded me of my 2007 Acid 86L. However, it floats a little bit less. Despite the 60.5cm, taking off from the wind shadowed beach wasn't as easy.



Planing Release: Progressive and not on/off, it feels a little delayed as the board moves around and lacks forward drive, it's not just from the fins, my Acid does the same thing.

Cruising: Wide with a loose rear, it has a nice "skate" feel, footing needs to stay light. It needs strong wind or inertia (from someone bigger), for a light weight in medium winds, it doesn't work, at least for me. Precisely the same issues I've always suffered from my Acid but worsened by the twins and wider board. The syndrome of bent front leg and upwind rounding in lulls is there. I prefer having the board maintain its direction slowing the plane instead of rounding upwind stalling which makes sailing through the impact zone not as confident.



Because of this lack of drive, I have difficulties applying power onto the board. The rear squirms around hurting the power transfer. It's an active type sailing, the board trim always needs to be adjusted. At medium to low speeds, it's difficult. The board follows the different angles of the chop, a similar problem I have with my Acid.

However, I felt the potential for sliding pivoting perfect for takas, etc especially on small waves or white water. Sadly for me, the lack of drive to go through the impact zone in light winds cannot work. I jibed it (with a soft loose rear) and headed back to the beach.

Board 2 - 2012 JP Single Thruster 82L 57.5cm wide

Straps: Much more connected, the straps held my feet in place better and don't progressively get shoved in after a few turns. Very good later support (nice for jumps).

Weight: Heavy version so rather heavy! But not felt with sailing or jumping.

Volume: 82L seems dead on, with a 57.5cm width, I just need to watch the nose (228cm de long) and it slogs relatively easily.



Planing Release: It sticks a bit to the water like another tri I tested (2011 Exocet U-Surf 84L) but not as badly. A little pop and off we go. Possibly changing fins (was 20cm + 2x9cm) could produce a welcome boost.

Sailing: From the Evo wow the trifin setup just bites the water like crazy and is super directional. With the help of my trusted NP Alpha semi I tried to break the fins loose and felt the threshold but is quite far. After landing a crappy jump, the tail bites fast which gets planing again faster!

The drive reminded me of my freewave 77L, straight, no need to worry how to trim the board. I thought it rode a bit higher on the board than the Acid and a little harsher. Really easy though which allows to focus on where to go which relieves stress from crossing the waves.

Speed: Weird thing but I felt like the board has a speed plateau, I'm not sure whether it's the confident ride which feels slow or what but it feels like it accelerates and then settles at a certain speed. Now, the Acid does this also and it's actually quite nice because when it gets crazy it stays well in control, for example full speed down at the surf.

Jibe: With a more locked in stance, I feared that it wasn't going to jibe as well, well not as all, the board turns quite sharply, often times I found myself applying too much pressure. Finally a board matching my size! The slashing is a little bit more rear foot biased, I need more time on the water to try committing with the full rail engaged.

Surf: I don't know whether the conditions helped, but I found that the board kept its speed through the bottom turn really nicely which opened up access to sections I would have never been able to get to (I had read this before but never experienced it!). It holds its turn nicely and may not be as front foot radical as the Acid in terms of having its full rail engaged biting into the turn.

Bottom:


Cutback:


Jumps: Here too it reminded of my freewave 77, very easy to control, no undesirable push, it'll increase my confidence tenfold for looping! Setup with my 5.0, it's going to be an awesome combo !



Conditions:
Earlier, when light, I went out with my 105L to scope things out (volume + freeride board = stability and easy planing no matter how low the wind drops)
Mast high on the right, had to avoid being at the wrong place at the wrong time for sure...


Mast high here too. I was debating going down this one (probably would have imploded on my 105) so I went to kick out when my rear foot tripped out of the strap. That's when I heard a kiter falling off the lip of the next one scream something. I turned around a saw a mast high wall coming straight at me. I gave up on jibing and started pumping! The wave slope built up nicely and I took off like a bat out of hell, pfeeew, chills running down my spine type thing, the noise from the wave was insane (and I wear ear plugs!)


Conclusion: I confirmed that most of the behavior resulted from a shape and not a fin setup. I consider my Acid closer to a twin in this case. with a front foot bias. While the Thruster is closer to a freewave cruising with a loose back foot bias at the surf. So we can have a slim pin tail board which still tracks forward comfortably.

The Thruster also reminded me of the wave cult by RRD, same program, same tracking feel but still jibed beautifully. And I should have ditched my Acid a long time ago since it doesn't fit my style well for something that is more stable to sail.

Sorry for the poor quality of the photos, I had fogging issues and was trying out different camera modes, I found out that the 960p mode was actually excellent and render the water state quite nicely. The extra margins can then be trimmed out with editing software.

[adywind]

Hi Manuel
Great reviews, very informative! Thanks man!
Funny how I have very similar experience to yours from my Starboard AtomIQ and JP FSW although totally different models and years which made me scratch the Kode as a future heir to my oldish 2007 JP-I prefer the JPs reactive style like you. At this point I'm just not sure if the Tri Fin or the FSW or both in different sizes.
I think the Tri Fin will help you a lot in nailing the Forward -your Goya /maybe?/ 105 seemed a bit too big for learning it on, later when you get good at it perhaps. Thanks again for the reviews!

[manuel]

[adywind]

That's exactly what I don't like in my 92 most of the volume is in the center and front which makes it more difficult to plane and very unstable off the plane which sucks here in the gusty lake winds also because it's from 2007 I hate how the nose is always up in the pictures Ince planing though is a lot of fun .

[jingebritsen]

adywind, do you have the base all the way forward?

i've found myself testing jp's with base forward, all the way, and adjusting back if necessary. guessing not many at jp testing these boards uses a seat harness. also, countless promo shots of people sailing in maui not sheeting in hard. thus, the base is set a bit too far back?

[adywind]

[manuel]

I tried the 2012 version in 101 and 5.7, couldn't get going, wind was really light (13-17 knots). As a reference I can now get going in about 15 knots with my 105 and 5.4 with a 22cm fin.

Couldn't find a profile view.



Then, I tried the 2009 version which looks pretty close in terms of shape.



It was the 112L version with a 7.2 in 13-16 knots.
It worked well although maybe a touch draggy? The jibe was really nice, could be tightened (within reasons), the jump pop was also very good.
I don't remember slogging issues.

It's quite normal to have to place the front foot forward of the mast on smaller boards. I do it when taking off or returning using swell speed with no wind. It can be done when dropping in with little wind. And finally if I do a really aggressive jibe sometimes I place my front foot immediately forward. The farther back the mast base the more it's true.

Back to the FSW, from the profile you posted I can see lots of volume in the nose for sure, on the other hand it also spreads all the way to the back gradually lowering but it's not nearly as pronounced as the Evo. So long as there's enough volume there given the board range.

Back then I think the FSW were meant to make the most out of the conditions and also for bigger riders (more volume + width out back).

What were the conditions your sailed the board and fin size?

The Evo volume distribution is much more prounced than on that FSW though, it looks like it's bulging in the middle and thin from the front footstrap to the rear, kinda like it stayed in the sun too much!

Interesting to note that their later version shrunk width-wise dramatically. It was 60.5cm(!) for 86L, it's now 58cm. Maybe I would have liked their 80L version, it's not available here.

My Acid is 59cm, always found it too wide especially in heavy chop but the nice rails made up for it at the jibe and high speed bottom turns.

[adywind]

I think I hijacked your tread big time and I'll stop here, sorry. I'll start a new one about my issues and I'll be looking forward for your input.
About the actual subject of your tread -board shapes I don't have much to say-it's too complicated for someone who never build a board in his life and hates to get himself dirty and when he does small repairs at home or on his cars is just to save money Anyway from what I know the volum distribution is just a small part in the equation . Planing area lenght , tail rocker and width, rail thickness even mast track and footstraps holes placement play a big role. To achieve a specific goal -let's say a certain early planing level- the shapers may take a different approach. For example one can use a wider tail but to keep a good turning will make sharper rails while another one will shape a narrower tail but thicker rail . It's too complicated, it's shapers talk and probably that's why nobody wants to dig in it.

[jingebritsen]

far better freestylers and wave riders than me are starting to agree with me about lengths below 8 feet are full of their own set of problems. the application of power tightens fore and aft. this can be especially a problem when one is turning out of a wave and losing a bit of power. the wind comes back, and one buries the nose. waves come and get you.

longer hulls do not allow that.

there's whole lots more than volume distribution in board design. rail thickness, tuck and foil. rocker. planform. they all collectively affect performance. it is complicated.

[isobars]