Damn it's great to see JP shredding those waves, still one of the greatest wavesailors on the planet.
They have introduced a hint of winger in the tail section. Reminds me of the old Bombora Tri Fin, a revolutionary board of its time but just weighed about 15 kg's.
Slot boxes instead of US boxes for the rear fins.
got a love those team rider statements" "this year I really love the boards". What else are they going to say? The boards are ok but could be better?
See my other post about putting a bit more thought into producing these videos.
RE the board, It looks a lot like those custom boards Kauli has been using for years.
Cool vid
Didnt JP have boards years ago with a channelled flat spot between the straps for early planing and speed?
Yep, wave & freestyle wave boards had it up until 2011 I think.
this shape is way more radical than that tho.
Select to expand quotewindaddict said..
They have introduced a hint of winger in the tail section. Reminds me of the old Bombora Tri Fin, a revolutionary board of its time but just weighed about 15 kg's.
Slot boxes instead of US boxes for the rear fins.
Finally realised their plan shape was way different to everyone else last couple of years ("too pintail" for the wide modern style resulting in not enough width near back foot in larger sizes)
But dunno about slot for rears, it is not strong enough to carry 15cm plus fins, and not enough fore and aft adjustment..... US box rears and slotbox sideys is ideal I reckon.
IMHO
Loving that bottom shape, what Werner says makes sense and I'd love to try one.... but where's the 104L? :(
Select to expand quoteMark _australia said..windaddict said..
They have introduced a hint of winger in the tail section. Reminds me of the old Bombora Tri Fin, a revolutionary board of its time but just weighed about 15 kg's.
Slot boxes instead of US boxes for the rear fins.
Finally realised their plan shape was way different to everyone else last couple of years ("too pintail" for the wide modern style resulting in not enough width near back foot in larger sizes)
But dunno about slot for rears, it is not strong enough to carry 15cm plus fins, and not enough fore and aft adjustment..... US box rears and slotbox sideys is ideal I reckon.
IMHO
Loving that bottom shape, what Werner says makes sense and I'd love to try one.... but where's the 104L? :(
Yeah agree about the slot boxes for the rears...when I typed my post, I originally entered slot boxes for the fronts until I re-watched the vid and realised they had used them for the rears....pretty strange thinking IMO!
^^^ I don't think it is strong enough for larger fins. So I reckon all slot boxes is fine for smaller board sizes perhaps, but not for say 90L upwards where you may run 12cm plus in the rears.
Or you may wish to run 15's or 16's to make it twinny.
The pros all run small fins and hardly care for longevity.
Strange that they decided to use them only for the rears...should of used them for both front and rear, or just front...I would of thought a slot box is much easier to install than a powerbox seeing as a power box is basically a hole right through the board which to me seems far more complicated, but I am not a board maker so I could be wrong.
Never had a problem running 16.5 rears in a starboard 100 l in slots - i reckon your banging on about nothing
Select to expand quoterussh said..
Never had a problem running 16.5 rears in a starboard 100 l in slots - i reckon your banging on about nothing
Yeah, I run 16.5's in my board. Also used 18's in protos I've tested with no issues.
Well everything old is new again hay concaves and wingers reminds me of some older boards but with a fraction of the old weight.
Select to expand quoteMark _australia said...
^^^ for how many years fellas? 
At least 3 now with 17's
Ok for the people who wanted to know more i took some pics and a bunch of measurements :)
New rear fin profiles.
Under the front foot is a 2mm single concave with a 5mm total depth cut into the single.
Across the rear foot 2.5mm single concave.
Under the mast track is an approx 2mm single concave. Sorry pic doesnt show this well and the graphis make it look like a double conc here.
One foot off the tail is 305mm wide. Winder is approx 380mm from the tail. There is a nice bit of tail flip behind the rear finboxes. Should make for some nice turns!!!
The tail looks super narrow and weird. I'd say the tail outline is the most "radical" part of the overall design.
Quite a pinny nose. I like the graphics up there :)
Overall i'd say the concaves aren't radical when you compare them the concaves used in the Tabou wave boards or the 2010 JP Quads. Maybe just the outlines and quite likely how the rockerline interacts with the concaves the flatten the board between the feet to keep it fast the still keep plenty of curve in the rails for cranking into the turns.
The next step is the ride the thing 
I thought the concaves were not much as Werner said 6mm, I thought yeah so what, then I saw your pics and they are pretty substantial
The video nspired me to hack some big wingers into my current abortion board. Hmm maybe more concave too
Looks good Bertie. When I saw it on FB I thought it was clear coat full carbon under the wrapping. It will be good to hear your feedback on the narrow tail and early planing flat spot.
Edit
Ps thats a busy looking mancave.
When I first saw your pics bertie I was wondering why Mick Fanning was measuring your board and thought maybe he had flipped. Got me for a few seconds.
Found a replacement for my small board 
Comparing the 14 to 15 quads.. like bertie said pinnie nose and completely different tail but the flat section werner talks about is very long. Tried to get this in the picture. The entire rule (that you can see) is flat against the board. This is the area with the double concaves. The rails here are also sharper than the 14 quad. Hard to comment on the volume distribution because theyre different sizes but the 14 has a lot of tail volume.
Now in the same boat as Bertie... waiting for wind!!!
The volume is more evenly distributed than the 2014 boards, but I think there is still a bit tucked in behind the mast track. Found mine easy to bog around on, even with the super narrow tail. Definitely not as easy as a widestyle board but better than you would expect for sure. The older shape feels waaaaay more directional, the RQ is very responsive and feels like it wants to be turning all the time.
