Select to expand quoteZasby said..
I recently purchased the new 935 mast and a 1225 foil and 235 tail. I am 90Kg. I am having a lot of trouble with pitch control and I can't get it balanced. When it gets going there is great glide but I feel like a beginner again trying to get going smoothly. I have the mast all the way forward on my SMIK and it is still very back-foot heavy. Any suggestions from those tweaking a setup like this?
These MAs need lots of forward positioning, even more than the HAs. What were you running previously? How are you shimming the tail currently? I'd suggest trying one red shim reversed. More drag, but should help the back foot feeling. Even on my Armstrong FG SUP foil board I'm running the mast at 10 (no shim with chopped 212). For winging, my KT board is working with the mast fully forward, a red, negative 1 deg shim with HA195 and it solved the backfoot heavy/pitch instability. It did add some drag, but it's a good compromise. Hopefully the same will be true with your SMIK. When you find the correct tuning for this foil it's fantastic. Unfortunately some boards just won't play nicely with the MAs...
Select to expand quoteWindoc said..Zasby said..
I recently purchased the new 935 mast and a 1225 foil and 235 tail. I am 90Kg. I am having a lot of trouble with pitch control and I can't get it balanced. When it gets going there is great glide but I feel like a beginner again trying to get going smoothly. I have the mast all the way forward on my SMIK and it is still very back-foot heavy. Any suggestions from those tweaking a setup like this?
These MAs need lots of forward positioning, even more than the HAs. What were you running previously? How are you shimming the tail currently? I'd suggest trying one red shim reversed. More drag, but should help the back foot feeling. Even on my Armstrong FG SUP foil board I'm running the mast at 10 (no shim with chopped 212). For winging, my KT board is working with the mast fully forward, a red, negative 1 deg shim with HA195 and it solved the backfoot heavy/pitch instability. It did add some drag, but it's a good compromise. Hopefully the same will be true with your SMIK. When you find the correct tuning for this foil it's fantastic. Unfortunately some boards just won't play nicely with the MAs...
that is the main problem with Armie and heavy riders. I turn my shim around to get enough front foot pressure.
I sent an email to armie when they will bring out a decent negative shime. no answer yet.
Select to expand quoteWindoc said..Zasby said..
I recently purchased the new 935 mast and a 1225 foil and 235 tail. I am 90Kg. I am having a lot of trouble with pitch control and I can't get it balanced. When it gets going there is great glide but I feel like a beginner again trying to get going smoothly. I have the mast all the way forward on my SMIK and it is still very back-foot heavy. Any suggestions from those tweaking a setup like this?
These MAs need lots of forward positioning, even more than the HAs. What were you running previously? How are you shimming the tail currently? I'd suggest trying one red shim reversed. More drag, but should help the back foot feeling. Even on my Armstrong FG SUP foil board I'm running the mast at 10 (no shim with chopped 212). For winging, my KT board is working with the mast fully forward, a red, negative 1 deg shim with HA195 and it solved the backfoot heavy/pitch instability. It did add some drag, but it's a good compromise. Hopefully the same will be true with your SMIK. When you find the correct tuning for this foil it's fantastic. Unfortunately some boards just won't play nicely with the MAs...
The HS are fine with the Naish Hover S26. But same front foot problem with 95 kg, harder to jibe. Has someone tested the MAs with Naish Hover?
reading this thread, it's clear there are as many opinions as there are configurations with the Armstrong line-up. mine is:
1- i really hope they don't do away with the HS's. I still prefer the HS1850 to the MA1225. Was never a fan of the HS1250, and I feel that's most like the MA1225, though the latter is clearly a faster foil thru the water. (p.s. i like going slow).
2- I've never messed with shims or mast track setting when i got the MA1225. same as before...all the way back on my mast track (F-One Rocket).
3- never experienced instability/pitch or any other issues with the MA1225. it was plug and play coming from the HS/CF line.
4- the MA1225 is not a game changer. it is a faster foil, but i don't find the glide significantly better than my HS's.
Select to expand quotemarco said..aahi said..marco said..
Finally was able to try the MA1225 - I was blown away from it 
. Best wing for my use.
Is there a bigger MA coming?Thanks, M
I've heard rumors of two bigger sizes 1400ish and 1600ish and one smaller size 600ish.
my personal guesses/theories is that the 1400 and 1600 will be slightly higher AR around 7.5 for sup downwind. i also want to think that once the whole line of MAs are out they will discontinue the HS. Makes the most business sense to me, the foil line will be quite big otherwise. Who knows though 
sounds like plan.
when I look on other brands (not mention any name) they have some many lines and foils which is very confusing. Less is more and hopefull Armie keeps it that way!
I am agree with that. Personally I would just want a fuse between 50 and 60 and then it would be perfect for me.
Select to expand quotemarco said..aahi said..marco said..
Finally was able to try the MA1225 - I was blown away from it . Best wing for my use.
Is there a bigger MA coming?Thanks, M
I've heard rumors of two bigger sizes 1400ish and 1600ish and one smaller size 600ish.
my personal guesses/theories is that the 1400 and 1600 will be slightly higher AR around 7.5 for sup downwind. i also want to think that once the whole line of MAs are out they will discontinue the HS. Makes the most business sense to me, the foil line will be quite big otherwise. Who knows though
sounds like plan.
when I look on other brands (not mention any name) they have some many lines and foils which is very confusing. Less is more and hopefull Armie keeps it that way!
I am agree with that. Personally I would just want a fuse between 50 and 60 and then it would be perfect for me.
Select to expand quotebeached57 said..
reading this thread, it's clear there are as many opinions as there are configurations with the Armstrong line-up. mine is:
1- i really hope they don't do away with the HS's. I still prefer the HS1850 to the MA1225. Was never a fan of the HS1250, and I feel that's most like the MA1225, though the latter is clearly a faster foil thru the water. (p.s. i like going slow).
2- I've never messed with shims or mast track setting when i got the MA1225. same as before...all the way back on my mast track (F-One Rocket).
3- never experienced instability/pitch or any other issues with the MA1225. it was plug and play coming from the HS/CF line.
4- the MA1225 is not a game changer. it is a faster foil, but i don't find the glide significantly better than my HS's.
Very interesting. I still have the 1850 as a session saver and quite like it, but the 1225 blows it and the HS1250 away for performance in every respect, quite clearly, in my experience. The pitchy feel of the 1225 shows up more in the upper speed range. Possible that you don't feel this if you "like going slow"? Tuning with mast position and shimming seems pretty important for getting the most out of foils (we all are different weights and have feel preferences). When tuned to taste, the 1225 has been a real eye opener for me to the point of being a game changer. So much performance may be getting left on the table if you set it and forget, but admittedly I'm a tuning nerd. I've never ridden an F-one Rocket but am surprised the 1225 works for you positioned fully back. I had the HA1125 and the 1225 is not its equivalent for glide but it's not miles apart. What it does do so much better is turn beautifully, recover from breaching, and ride well through a wide speed range. I'm even finding my top speed is faster on it than the 1125 and HS1250. Glide feels so much better than 1250. The new mast has to be a factor too. So I genuinely wonder what's happening with the geometry, set up, etc. that we can feel things so differently unless you are much lighter? I'll have to try going back to positioning the 1225 way back with no shim again to see if I feel as strongly as I do now about its tuning.
The pitch control issues come from a few things- baseplate angle, downforce created by the tail at high speed, and how long the tail's lever is.
Baseplate angle has been changed on the new mast for better pitch stability. They pitched the nose of the board up by 1?. This has made a large difference in high speed stability and the feeling of "dropping out" when pumping or at low speed. It's an ergonomic change that forces your body further forwarded on the board. The effect is a more "old school" pump style, carvy feel, better high speed stability. You can achieve all this by adding a baseplate shim to the old masts. You don't need to go and buy a nice shim, I test using washers or cut up epoxy squeegees. For non performance mast users I would start here.
The second factor- tail downforce at high speed is something most armstrong stock tails struggle with. I have found only the 232 to give adequate stability at speed. The 195 and v-tail both need around -1.5? more to achieve the same effect, in my experience. There are a few ways you can fix this. The easiest is a shim. You can use washers, print a shim, buy shims, or just reverse the included armstrong shims to get a negative angle. The problem with all these is it will leave a draggy gap at the front of your tail connection. These tails also may not have been designed with this angle in mind and may create excessive drag. This brings me to your second option, a new tail.
The Crisp tails out of Australia have a powerful section designed to create high speed stability without much drag. I'm not sure what the stock angle feels like. I have heard outstanding feedback from riders. They look well made
My own KD Marlin for armstrong is designed for max efficiency in normal tail loading range on modern foils. This covers takeoff speed to close to top speed on most foils. The stock setting has extra negative angle so only positive shims are needed with most configurations. It rides similar to the 195 fixes the pitch sensitivity and offers better glide and top end speed. The 195 has a slight advantage in low speed glide.
3rd option is wait for the 205 and 235 armstrong tails to be available. From what I've seen, they have a design that supports high speed pitch stability and should create an easy, forgiving ride that will let you push the foil to its limits.
A longer fuselage will also help with pitch stability. A longer fuselage requires less force from the tail meaning you can ride a smaller tail/angle with less drag. The main trade off will be responsiveness.
all these changes combined will work best with your baseplate a bit farther back in the tracks. For strapless riders I recommend the balance test and strapped riders might need to experiment to find best position relative to the straps.
clif from unifoil just put out a good YouTube video on tail design and angle. It is on the unifoil channel.
Select to expand quoteFoilAddict said..
The pitch control issues come from a few things- baseplate angle, downforce created by the tail at high speed, and how long the tail's lever is.
Baseplate angle has been changed on the new mast for better pitch stability. They pitched the nose of the board up by 1?. This has made a large difference in high speed stability and the feeling of "dropping out" when pumping or at low speed. It's an ergonomic change that forces your body further forwarded on the board. The effect is a more "old school" pump style, carvy feel, better high speed stability. You can achieve all this by adding a baseplate shim to the old masts. You don't need to go and buy a nice shim, I test using washers or cut up epoxy squeegees. For non performance mast users I would start here.
The second factor- tail downforce at high speed is something most armstrong stock tails struggle with. I have found only the 232 to give adequate stability at speed. The 195 and v-tail both need around -1.5? more to achieve the same effect, in my experience. There are a few ways you can fix this. The easiest is a shim. You can use washers, print a shim, buy shims, or just reverse the included armstrong shims to get a negative angle. The problem with all these is it will leave a draggy gap at the front of your tail connection. These tails also may not have been designed with this angle in mind and may create excessive drag. This brings me to your second option, a new tail.
The Crisp tails out of Australia have a powerful section designed to create high speed stability without much drag. I'm not sure what the stock angle feels like. I have heard outstanding feedback from riders. They look well made
My own KD Marlin for armstrong is designed for max efficiency in normal tail loading range on modern foils. This covers takeoff speed to close to top speed on most foils. The stock setting has extra negative angle so only positive shims are needed with most configurations. It rides similar to the 195 fixes the pitch sensitivity and offers better glide and top end speed. The 195 has a slight advantage in low speed glide.
3rd option is wait for the 205 and 235 armstrong tails to be available. From what I've seen, they have a design that supports high speed pitch stability and should create an easy, forgiving ride that will let you push the foil to its limits.
A longer fuselage will also help with pitch stability. A longer fuselage requires less force from the tail meaning you can ride a smaller tail/angle with less drag. The main trade off will be responsiveness.
all these changes combined will work best with your baseplate a bit farther back in the tracks. For strapless riders I recommend the balance test and strapped riders might need to experiment to find best position relative to the straps.
clif from unifoil just put out a good YouTube video on tail design and angle. It is on the unifoil channel.
Damn good read read and highly informative. Cheers
Thanks for that info, Kane! Very helpful. I just wrapped up a SUP foil session on the 1225 (60 fuse, 212 tail red shim, FG board with 795 mast at 11). Really liking the set up today in 2-6' surf with very challenging current and wonk. Felt fast, drivey, and very maneuverable. Tip out turns and steep drops managed just fine. So stoked with this rig/board.
Select to expand quoteFoilAddict said..
The pitch control issues come from a few things- baseplate angle, downforce created by the tail at high speed, and how long the tail's lever is.
Baseplate angle has been changed on the new mast for better pitch stability. They pitched the nose of the board up by 1?. This has made a large difference in high speed stability and the feeling of "dropping out" when pumping or at low speed. It's an ergonomic change that forces your body further forwarded on the board. The effect is a more "old school" pump style, carvy feel, better high speed stability. You can achieve all this by adding a baseplate shim to the old masts. You don't need to go and buy a nice shim, I test using washers or cut up epoxy squeegees. For non performance mast users I would start here.
The second factor- tail downforce at high speed is something most armstrong stock tails struggle with. I have found only the 232 to give adequate stability at speed. The 195 and v-tail both need around -1.5? more to achieve the same effect, in my experience. There are a few ways you can fix this. The easiest is a shim. You can use washers, print a shim, buy shims, or just reverse the included armstrong shims to get a negative angle. The problem with all these is it will leave a draggy gap at the front of your tail connection. These tails also may not have been designed with this angle in mind and may create excessive drag. This brings me to your second option, a new tail.
The Crisp tails out of Australia have a powerful section designed to create high speed stability without much drag. I'm not sure what the stock angle feels like. I have heard outstanding feedback from riders. They look well made
My own KD Marlin for armstrong is designed for max efficiency in normal tail loading range on modern foils. This covers takeoff speed to close to top speed on most foils. The stock setting has extra negative angle so only positive shims are needed with most configurations. It rides similar to the 195 fixes the pitch sensitivity and offers better glide and top end speed. The 195 has a slight advantage in low speed glide.
3rd option is wait for the 205 and 235 armstrong tails to be available. From what I've seen, they have a design that supports high speed pitch stability and should create an easy, forgiving ride that will let you push the foil to its limits.
A longer fuselage will also help with pitch stability. A longer fuselage requires less force from the tail meaning you can ride a smaller tail/angle with less drag. The main trade off will be responsiveness.
all these changes combined will work best with your baseplate a bit farther back in the tracks. For strapless riders I recommend the balance test and strapped riders might need to experiment to find best position relative to the straps.
clif from unifoil just put out a good YouTube video on tail design and angle. It is on the unifoil channel.
Awesome read and information.
I was just thinking if we can get crisp tail with extra negative made? could be an option for heavier rider not? I hate the gap on my 195 with the reversed shim.
Select to expand quoteFoilAddict said..
The pitch control issues come from a few things- baseplate angle, downforce created by the tail at high speed, and how long the tail's lever is.
Baseplate angle has been changed on the new mast for better pitch stability. They pitched the nose of the board up by 1?. This has made a large difference in high speed stability and the feeling of "dropping out" when pumping or at low speed. It's an ergonomic change that forces your body further forwarded on the board. The effect is a more "old school" pump style, carvy feel, better high speed stability. You can achieve all this by adding a baseplate shim to the old masts. You don't need to go and buy a nice shim, I test using washers or cut up epoxy squeegees. For non performance mast users I would start here.
The second factor- tail downforce at high speed is something most armstrong stock tails struggle with. I have found only the 232 to give adequate stability at speed. The 195 and v-tail both need around -1.5? more to achieve the same effect, in my experience. There are a few ways you can fix this. The easiest is a shim. You can use washers, print a shim, buy shims, or just reverse the included armstrong shims to get a negative angle. The problem with all these is it will leave a draggy gap at the front of your tail connection. These tails also may not have been designed with this angle in mind and may create excessive drag. This brings me to your second option, a new tail.
The Crisp tails out of Australia have a powerful section designed to create high speed stability without much drag. I'm not sure what the stock angle feels like. I have heard outstanding feedback from riders. They look well made
My own KD Marlin for armstrong is designed for max efficiency in normal tail loading range on modern foils. This covers takeoff speed to close to top speed on most foils. The stock setting has extra negative angle so only positive shims are needed with most configurations. It rides similar to the 195 fixes the pitch sensitivity and offers better glide and top end speed. The 195 has a slight advantage in low speed glide.
3rd option is wait for the 205 and 235 armstrong tails to be available. From what I've seen, they have a design that supports high speed pitch stability and should create an easy, forgiving ride that will let you push the foil to its limits.
A longer fuselage will also help with pitch stability. A longer fuselage requires less force from the tail meaning you can ride a smaller tail/angle with less drag. The main trade off will be responsiveness.
all these changes combined will work best with your baseplate a bit farther back in the tracks. For strapless riders I recommend the balance test and strapped riders might need to experiment to find best position relative to the straps.
clif from unifoil just put out a good YouTube video on tail design and angle. It is on the unifoil channel.
I don't get why a baseplate improves pitch stability, and don't think Armie gave that as a reason. Armie says move new mast back, but are you saying don't and sail with more front foot instead?
Also at what speed do you find current stabs cause pitch stability?
Select to expand quotepatronus said..FoilAddict said..
The pitch control issues come from a few things- baseplate angle, downforce created by the tail at high speed, and how long the tail's lever is.
Baseplate angle has been changed on the new mast for better pitch stability. They pitched the nose of the board up by 1?. This has made a large difference in high speed stability and the feeling of "dropping out" when pumping or at low speed. It's an ergonomic change that forces your body further forwarded on the board. The effect is a more "old school" pump style, carvy feel, better high speed stability. You can achieve all this by adding a baseplate shim to the old masts. You don't need to go and buy a nice shim, I test using washers or cut up epoxy squeegees. For non performance mast users I would start here.
The second factor- tail downforce at high speed is something most armstrong stock tails struggle with. I have found only the 232 to give adequate stability at speed. The 195 and v-tail both need around -1.5? more to achieve the same effect, in my experience. There are a few ways you can fix this. The easiest is a shim. You can use washers, print a shim, buy shims, or just reverse the included armstrong shims to get a negative angle. The problem with all these is it will leave a draggy gap at the front of your tail connection. These tails also may not have been designed with this angle in mind and may create excessive drag. This brings me to your second option, a new tail.
The Crisp tails out of Australia have a powerful section designed to create high speed stability without much drag. I'm not sure what the stock angle feels like. I have heard outstanding feedback from riders. They look well made
My own KD Marlin for armstrong is designed for max efficiency in normal tail loading range on modern foils. This covers takeoff speed to close to top speed on most foils. The stock setting has extra negative angle so only positive shims are needed with most configurations. It rides similar to the 195 fixes the pitch sensitivity and offers better glide and top end speed. The 195 has a slight advantage in low speed glide.
3rd option is wait for the 205 and 235 armstrong tails to be available. From what I've seen, they have a design that supports high speed pitch stability and should create an easy, forgiving ride that will let you push the foil to its limits.
A longer fuselage will also help with pitch stability. A longer fuselage requires less force from the tail meaning you can ride a smaller tail/angle with less drag. The main trade off will be responsiveness.
all these changes combined will work best with your baseplate a bit farther back in the tracks. For strapless riders I recommend the balance test and strapped riders might need to experiment to find best position relative to the straps.
clif from unifoil just put out a good YouTube video on tail design and angle. It is on the unifoil channel.
I don't get why a baseplate improves pitch stability, and don't think Armie gave that as a reason. Armie says move new mast back, but are you saying don't and sail with more front foot instead?
Also at what speed do you find current stabs cause pitch stability?
I had the 1000 out with 195 tail (with 1 red shim) and 50 fuse out for some friendly races the other day on a short track, running slight broad and slight upwind reaches around two buoys. Really fun with three guys going into a gybe at close quarters haha. Back to topic at hand - when pushing my top speed (guessing around 20-21 mph (watch died)) I was getting some of the pitchiness, but it was totally manageable, much more so compared to the old mast due to what Kane was saying. The pitching moment was much easier to counteract and keep in line with my target elevation. Sort of like - drop - catch - drop catch in rapid succession, almost like mini pumps. In hind sight, mast sliding forward a CM would have likely helped (set at 6 or 7 @ 65kgs). The few times where I did touch down, it was just a glancing blow and easy recovery. Old mast would cause a bigger deceleration in those situations as the entry angle was slightly steeper, also sometimes causing a bigger 'bounce' effect.
Some great discussion. I am wondering if we are moving to a point when foils will only work well with boards from the same brand. Is the mix and match becoming more difficult as the equipment evolves?
Select to expand quoteFoilAddict said..
The pitch control issues come from a few things- baseplate angle, downforce created by the tail at high speed, and how long the tail's lever is.
Baseplate angle has been changed on the new mast for better pitch stability. They pitched the nose of the board up by 1?. This has made a large difference in high speed stability and the feeling of "dropping out" when pumping or at low speed. It's an ergonomic change that forces your body further forwarded on the board. The effect is a more "old school" pump style, carvy feel, better high speed stability. You can achieve all this by adding a baseplate shim to the old masts. You don't need to go and buy a nice shim, I test using washers or cut up epoxy squeegees. For non performance mast users I would start here.
The second factor- tail downforce at high speed is something most armstrong stock tails struggle with. I have found only the 232 to give adequate stability at speed. The 195 and v-tail both need around -1.5? more to achieve the same effect, in my experience. There are a few ways you can fix this. The easiest is a shim. You can use washers, print a shim, buy shims, or just reverse the included armstrong shims to get a negative angle. The problem with all these is it will leave a draggy gap at the front of your tail connection. These tails also may not have been designed with this angle in mind and may create excessive drag. This brings me to your second option, a new tail.
The Crisp tails out of Australia have a powerful section designed to create high speed stability without much drag. I'm not sure what the stock angle feels like. I have heard outstanding feedback from riders. They look well made
My own KD Marlin for armstrong is designed for max efficiency in normal tail loading range on modern foils. This covers takeoff speed to close to top speed on most foils. The stock setting has extra negative angle so only positive shims are needed with most configurations. It rides similar to the 195 fixes the pitch sensitivity and offers better glide and top end speed. The 195 has a slight advantage in low speed glide.
3rd option is wait for the 205 and 235 armstrong tails to be available. From what I've seen, they have a design that supports high speed pitch stability and should create an easy, forgiving ride that will let you push the foil to its limits.
A longer fuselage will also help with pitch stability. A longer fuselage requires less force from the tail meaning you can ride a smaller tail/angle with less drag. The main trade off will be responsiveness.
all these changes combined will work best with your baseplate a bit farther back in the tracks. For strapless riders I recommend the balance test and strapped riders might need to experiment to find best position relative to the straps.
clif from unifoil just put out a good YouTube video on tail design and angle. It is on the unifoil channel.
great overview!
But we have to be careful though, as Armstrong and Unifoil use the term positive /negativ (rear wing) angle contrary. Both mount the rear wing under the fuse. When Armie says a negative angle, Unifoil says it's a positive angle!
You speak of a negative angle -1.5 to improve pitch stability. Right in the unifoil world. For Armstrong, this corresponds to a positive angle. Unfortunately, Armie has only offers negative angle shims so far.
In summary: more pitch stability in Armstrong terminology "positive" and with Unifoil "negative" angle of attack of the rear wing!
I'll wait for the new rear wings!
Thx for your perfekt summary FoilAddict!
in the video (ca. 27:30) they talk about the problem of the different use of terms (angle) between the two, but Clifford and James don't fully capture the problem because they doesn't know Armstrong well! but the video gives a good overview How complex the things are 
Select to expand quoteWingOut said..FoilAddict said..
The pitch control issues come from a few things- baseplate angle, downforce created by the tail at high speed, and how long the tail's lever is.
Baseplate angle has been changed on the new mast for better pitch stability. They pitched the nose of the board up by 1?. This has made a large difference in high speed stability and the feeling of "dropping out" when pumping or at low speed. It's an ergonomic change that forces your body further forwarded on the board. The effect is a more "old school" pump style, carvy feel, better high speed stability. You can achieve all this by adding a baseplate shim to the old masts. You don't need to go and buy a nice shim, I test using washers or cut up epoxy squeegees. For non performance mast users I would start here.
The second factor- tail downforce at high speed is something most armstrong stock tails struggle with. I have found only the 232 to give adequate stability at speed. The 195 and v-tail both need around -1.5? more to achieve the same effect, in my experience. There are a few ways you can fix this. The easiest is a shim. You can use washers, print a shim, buy shims, or just reverse the included armstrong shims to get a negative angle. The problem with all these is it will leave a draggy gap at the front of your tail connection. These tails also may not have been designed with this angle in mind and may create excessive drag. This brings me to your second option, a new tail.
The Crisp tails out of Australia have a powerful section designed to create high speed stability without much drag. I'm not sure what the stock angle feels like. I have heard outstanding feedback from riders. They look well made
My own KD Marlin for armstrong is designed for max efficiency in normal tail loading range on modern foils. This covers takeoff speed to close to top speed on most foils. The stock setting has extra negative angle so only positive shims are needed with most configurations. It rides similar to the 195 fixes the pitch sensitivity and offers better glide and top end speed. The 195 has a slight advantage in low speed glide.
3rd option is wait for the 205 and 235 armstrong tails to be available. From what I've seen, they have a design that supports high speed pitch stability and should create an easy, forgiving ride that will let you push the foil to its limits.
A longer fuselage will also help with pitch stability. A longer fuselage requires less force from the tail meaning you can ride a smaller tail/angle with less drag. The main trade off will be responsiveness.
all these changes combined will work best with your baseplate a bit farther back in the tracks. For strapless riders I recommend the balance test and strapped riders might need to experiment to find best position relative to the straps.
clif from unifoil just put out a good YouTube video on tail design and angle. It is on the unifoil channel.
great overview!
But we have to be careful though, as Armstrong and Unifoil use the term positive /negativ (rear wing) angle contrary. Both mount the rear wing under the fuse. When Armie says a negative angle, Unifoil says it's a positive angle!
You speak of a negative angle -1.5 to improve pitch stability. Right in the unifoil world. For Armstrong, this corresponds to a positive angle. Unfortunately, Armie has only offers negative angle shims so far.
In summary: more pitch stability in Armstrong terminology "positive" and with Unifoil "negative" angle of attack of the rear wing!
I'll wait for the new rear wings!
Thx for your perfekt summary FoilAddict!
in the video (ca. 27:30) they talk about the problem of the different use of terms (angle) between the two, but Clifford and James don't fully capture the problem because they doesn't know Armstrong well! but the video gives a good overview How complex the things are
I'm pretty sure Kane's angle references are in line with Armstrong's methodology, as I own a set of kdmaui negative shims for Armstrong, which raise the front of the tail wing, rather than the rear.
Select to expand quoteMidAtlanticFoil said..WingOut said..FoilAddict said..
The pitch control issues come from a few things- baseplate angle, downforce created by the tail at high speed, and how long the tail's lever is.
Baseplate angle has been changed on the new mast for better pitch stability. They pitched the nose of the board up by 1?. This has made a large difference in high speed stability and the feeling of "dropping out" when pumping or at low speed. It's an ergonomic change that forces your body further forwarded on the board. The effect is a more "old school" pump style, carvy feel, better high speed stability. You can achieve all this by adding a baseplate shim to the old masts. You don't need to go and buy a nice shim, I test using washers or cut up epoxy squeegees. For non performance mast users I would start here.
The second factor- tail downforce at high speed is something most armstrong stock tails struggle with. I have found only the 232 to give adequate stability at speed. The 195 and v-tail both need around -1.5? more to achieve the same effect, in my experience. There are a few ways you can fix this. The easiest is a shim. You can use washers, print a shim, buy shims, or just reverse the included armstrong shims to get a negative angle. The problem with all these is it will leave a draggy gap at the front of your tail connection. These tails also may not have been designed with this angle in mind and may create excessive drag. This brings me to your second option, a new tail.
The Crisp tails out of Australia have a powerful section designed to create high speed stability without much drag. I'm not sure what the stock angle feels like. I have heard outstanding feedback from riders. They look well made
My own KD Marlin for armstrong is designed for max efficiency in normal tail loading range on modern foils. This covers takeoff speed to close to top speed on most foils. The stock setting has extra negative angle so only positive shims are needed with most configurations. It rides similar to the 195 fixes the pitch sensitivity and offers better glide and top end speed. The 195 has a slight advantage in low speed glide.
3rd option is wait for the 205 and 235 armstrong tails to be available. From what I've seen, they have a design that supports high speed pitch stability and should create an easy, forgiving ride that will let you push the foil to its limits.
A longer fuselage will also help with pitch stability. A longer fuselage requires less force from the tail meaning you can ride a smaller tail/angle with less drag. The main trade off will be responsiveness.
all these changes combined will work best with your baseplate a bit farther back in the tracks. For strapless riders I recommend the balance test and strapped riders might need to experiment to find best position relative to the straps.
clif from unifoil just put out a good YouTube video on tail design and angle. It is on the unifoil channel.
great overview!
But we have to be careful though, as Armstrong and Unifoil use the term positive /negativ (rear wing) angle contrary. Both mount the rear wing under the fuse. When Armie says a negative angle, Unifoil says it's a positive angle!
You speak of a negative angle -1.5 to improve pitch stability. Right in the unifoil world. For Armstrong, this corresponds to a positive angle. Unfortunately, Armie has only offers negative angle shims so far.
In summary: more pitch stability in Armstrong terminology "positive" and with Unifoil "negative" angle of attack of the rear wing!
I'll wait for the new rear wings!
Thx for your perfekt summary FoilAddict!
in the video (ca. 27:30) they talk about the problem of the different use of terms (angle) between the two, but Clifford and James don't fully capture the problem because they doesn't know Armstrong well! but the video gives a good overview How complex the things are
I'm pretty sure Kane's angle references are in line with Armstrong's methodology, as I own a set of kdmaui negative shims for Armstrong, which raise the front of the tail wing, rather than the rear.
Totally agree, I didn't mean to hurt you ;-)
A negative stabilizer shim angle in the Armstrong and Kane world means negative shims for raise the front of the tail wing, rather than the rear. 
The crucial question is what increases pitch stability: raise (negative shim armstrong) or lower (positive shim armstrong) the leading edge of the tail wing.
As far as I understand it, pitch stability can be achieved by a POSITIVE shim (lowering the leading edge)to increase the downward forces of the tail foil. A bigger tail wing has similar effect. But this results in an increase in drag, which is undesirable.
Armie has increased the camber section of the MAs and increased the Ranke angle of the mast to avoid this and achieve better pitch stability without increasing drag.
do you agree?
It gets confusing as we talk about raising and lowering the leading edge of tail wing, as we are often referencing the changes while rigging (upside down) so in practice it's all opposite :-)
One interesting note from Cliff in that video is that increasing the camber in the underside of a wing has a big negative attribute - an increased forward pitching moment when reaching higher speeds. I'm guessing the camber in the new tails will attempt to offset that. The 195 has basically no camber that I can discern, so going no shim or adding a front shim like kdmaui or reversed blue shim with 195 can help if pushing higher speeds in powered conditions and experiencing twitching or forward pitching.
Select to expand quoteMidAtlanticFoil said..
It gets confusing as we talk about raising and lowering the leading edge of tail wing, as we are often referencing the changes while rigging (upside down) so in practice it's all opposite :-)
One interesting note from Cliff in that video is that increasing the camber in the underside of a wing has a big negative attribute - an increased forward pitching moment when reaching higher speeds. I'm guessing the camber in the new tails will attempt to offset that. The 195 has basically no camber that I can discern, so going no shim or adding a front shim like kdmaui or reversed blue shim with 195 can help if pushing higher speeds in powered conditions and experiencing
I think we agree.
Select to expand quoteWingOut said..MidAtlanticFoil said..WingOut said..FoilAddict said..
The pitch control issues come from a few things- baseplate angle, downforce created by the tail at high speed, and how long the tail's lever is.
Baseplate angle has been changed on the new mast for better pitch stability. They pitched the nose of the board up by 1?. This has made a large difference in high speed stability and the feeling of "dropping out" when pumping or at low speed. It's an ergonomic change that forces your body further forwarded on the board. The effect is a more "old school" pump style, carvy feel, better high speed stability. You can achieve all this by adding a baseplate shim to the old masts. You don't need to go and buy a nice shim, I test using washers or cut up epoxy squeegees. For non performance mast users I would start here.
The second factor- tail downforce at high speed is something most armstrong stock tails struggle with. I have found only the 232 to give adequate stability at speed. The 195 and v-tail both need around -1.5? more to achieve the same effect, in my experience. There are a few ways you can fix this. The easiest is a shim. You can use washers, print a shim, buy shims, or just reverse the included armstrong shims to get a negative angle. The problem with all these is it will leave a draggy gap at the front of your tail connection. These tails also may not have been designed with this angle in mind and may create excessive drag. This brings me to your second option, a new tail.
The Crisp tails out of Australia have a powerful section designed to create high speed stability without much drag. I'm not sure what the stock angle feels like. I have heard outstanding feedback from riders. They look well made
My own KD Marlin for armstrong is designed for max efficiency in normal tail loading range on modern foils. This covers takeoff speed to close to top speed on most foils. The stock setting has extra negative angle so only positive shims are needed with most configurations. It rides similar to the 195 fixes the pitch sensitivity and offers better glide and top end speed. The 195 has a slight advantage in low speed glide.
3rd option is wait for the 205 and 235 armstrong tails to be available. From what I've seen, they have a design that supports high speed pitch stability and should create an easy, forgiving ride that will let you push the foil to its limits.
A longer fuselage will also help with pitch stability. A longer fuselage requires less force from the tail meaning you can ride a smaller tail/angle with less drag. The main trade off will be responsiveness.
all these changes combined will work best with your baseplate a bit farther back in the tracks. For strapless riders I recommend the balance test and strapped riders might need to experiment to find best position relative to the straps.
clif from unifoil just put out a good YouTube video on tail design and angle. It is on the unifoil channel.
great overview!
But we have to be careful though, as Armstrong and Unifoil use the term positive /negativ (rear wing) angle contrary. Both mount the rear wing under the fuse. When Armie says a negative angle, Unifoil says it's a positive angle!
You speak of a negative angle -1.5 to improve pitch stability. Right in the unifoil world. For Armstrong, this corresponds to a positive angle. Unfortunately, Armie has only offers negative angle shims so far.
In summary: more pitch stability in Armstrong terminology "positive" and with Unifoil "negative" angle of attack of the rear wing!
I'll wait for the new rear wings!
Thx for your perfekt summary FoilAddict!
in the video (ca. 27:30) they talk about the problem of the different use of terms (angle) between the two, but Clifford and James don't fully capture the problem because they doesn't know Armstrong well! but the video gives a good overview How complex the things are
I'm pretty sure Kane's angle references are in line with Armstrong's methodology, as I own a set of kdmaui negative shims for Armstrong, which raise the front of the tail wing, rather than the rear.
Totally agree, I didn't mean to hurt you ;-)
A negative stabilizer shim angle in the Armstrong and Kane world means negative shims for raise the front of the tail wing, rather than the rear.
The crucial question is what increases pitch stability: raise (negative shim armstrong) or lower (positive shim armstrong) the leading edge of the tail wing.
As far as I understand it, pitch stability can be achieved by a POSITIVE shim (lowering the leading edge)to increase the downward forces of the tail foil. A bigger tail wing has similar effect. But this results in an increase in drag, which is undesirable.
Armie has increased the camber section of the MAs and increased the Ranke angle of the mast to avoid this and achieve better pitch stability without increasing drag.
do you agree?
Roper of Axis has a logical definition of angles, +ve is anything that increases the difference between front foil and stab.
As you go faster the angle of attack of the front foil decreases, so stab AoA increases, so would think going faster gives more pitch stability, but that's not what I experience so what else is going on?
A bigger stab, or shim that lowers leading edge of Armie stab will both increase drag won't they? So which is better for pitch stability
Rake angle of mast doesn't change angle front wing goes through water, just make you fly nose up. Someone said the nose up makes flying less pitch sensitive but I didn't understand why.
My super non-scientific method of explaining tail wing shimming is this: imagine the paper airplane you made in grade school. The two little flaps in the back that you can add are sort of like the tail wing. If you flip them up, drag increases and creates a very stable cruisey flight (unless you throw it hard and it will actually backflip). If you slightly put them down, the speed is noticeably faster, but the plane will generally pitch down. Same goes for foils, but our body weight and positioning by is required to offset the results of the shim.
Regarding rake angle creating a more stable platform, I'd agree with that sentiment. Imagine cruising along at level board and then the nose pitches down 1 or 2 degrees. This causes a rear leg bias and a bit less stable feeling. Now imagine riding along with front foot a cm or two higher and then it dropping to level platform when at high speed. Much more stable and ability to handle additional pitch changes are greater.
Select to expand quoteMidAtlanticFoil said..
My super non-scientific method of explaining tail wing shimming is this: imagine the paper airplane you made in grade school. The two little flaps in the back that you can add are sort of like the tail wing. If you flip them up, drag increases and creates a very stable cruisey flight (unless you throw it hard and it will actually backflip). If you slightly put them down, the speed is noticeably faster, but the plane will generally pitch down. Same goes for foils, but our body weight and positioning by is required to offset the results of the shim.
Regarding rake angle creating a more stable platform, I'd agree with that sentiment. Imagine cruising along at level board and then the nose pitches down 1 or 2 degrees. This causes a rear leg bias and a bit less stable feeling. Now imagine riding along with front foot a cm or two higher and then it dropping to level platform when at high speed. Much more stable and ability to handle additional pitch changes are greater. Select to expand quoteMidAtlanticFoil said..
My super non-scientific method of explaining tail wing shimming is this: imagine the paper airplane you made in grade school. The two little flaps in the back that you can add are sort of like the tail wing. If you flip them up, drag increases and creates a very stable cruisey flight (unless you throw it hard and it will actually backflip). If you slightly put them down, the speed is noticeably faster, but the plane will generally pitch down. Same goes for foils, but our body weight and positioning by is required to offset the results of the shim.
Regarding rake angle creating a more stable platform, I'd agree with that sentiment. Imagine cruising along at level board and then the nose pitches down 1 or 2 degrees. This causes a rear leg bias and a bit less stable feeling. Now imagine riding along with front foot a cm or two higher and then it dropping to level platform when at high speed. Much more stable and ability to handle additional pitch changes are greater.
A very nice comparison! Bravissimo!
The slightly larger rake angle of the mast allows "the flaps of the paper airplane" to be raised at higher speeds through front food pressure (level the board) in order to reduce pitch instability. In this way, the AOA of the rear wing can be dynamically adjusted. Theoretically
Rather long review of the MA205 tail from a prone foiler. Says much more glide than hs232.
Select to expand quoteninjatuna said..
some profile pics
For the ones who could test the new stab 205 and the HA195 what the differences are?
I just bought one of the first 205 tails in the country and rode it today for a couple of hours in 12 -17knots sideshore with a nice lined up 3-4ft swell breaking on the beach. I was a little underpowered at times on a 5m so it was a good test. I have been using the new 935 mast MA1000 and 195 tail for about a month and got everything balance well without any shims with my 75LT FG board. I've been very happy with the upgrade from the A+. I weigh 85Kg
The only complaint I had with this setup was a feeling the 195 tail was ventilating at high speed and especially when banking hard onto an oncoming wave. It never cause me to fall but subconsciously I was backing off slightly. From the first turn onto a wave I knew this 205 was a big improvement. I started running it at the same track position 5.5 as the 195 and no shim but too much front foot so came in an adjusted it back to 5 which balanced it up. I might still need some fine adjustment,
The short answer is everything about the 205 with the MA1000 and 935mast is slightly better than the 195. 1. Pumping up on foil feel really smooth and progressive,
2. Tracking up wind hard you can really load up it feels solid and balanced.
3. Turning onto a wave and riding a wave is really where it earns it's pay though. Approaching an oncoming wave you can go into the turn at max speed and push so hard it's goes around tight and comes out with incredible exit speed such a fun feeling. Riding waves the same I can turn tighter and whole setup now feels like it wants to be pushed harder. It feels so solid. '
So the 195 tail works well with the MA foils but I would highly recommend getting the 205. Especially if you are into wave riding.
Select to expand quoteKB7 said..
I just bought one of the first 205 tails in the country and rode it today for a couple of hours in 12 -17knots sideshore with a nice lined up 3-4ft swell breaking on the beach. I was a little underpowered at times on a 5m so it was a good test. I have been using the new 935 mast MA1000 and 195 tail for about a month and got everything balance well without any shims with my 75LT FG board. I've been very happy with the upgrade from the A+. I weigh 85Kg
The only complaint I had with this setup was a feeling the 195 tail was ventilating at high speed and especially when banking hard onto an oncoming wave. It never cause me to fall but subconsciously I was backing off slightly. From the first turn onto a wave I knew this 205 was a big improvement. I started running it at the same track position 5.5 as the 195 and no shim but too much front foot so came in an adjusted it back to 5 which balanced it up. I might still need some fine adjustment,
The short answer is everything about the 205 with the MA1000 and 935mast is slightly better than the 195. 1. Pumping up on foil feel really smooth and progressive,
2. Tracking up wind hard you can really load up it feels solid and balanced.
3. Turning onto a wave and riding a wave is really where it earns it's pay though. Approaching an oncoming wave you can go into the turn at max speed and push so hard it's goes around tight and comes out with incredible exit speed such a fun feeling. Riding waves the same I can turn tighter and whole setup now feels like it wants to be pushed harder. It feels so solid. '
So the 195 tail works well with the MA foils but I would highly recommend getting the 205. Especially if you are into wave riding.
Curious if you've used the V at all too? Don't have a 195 yet. Been holding off and solely ride the v tail, hoping to hear which I should go with.
Had the best session ive ever had on the 1225 this morning, does everything you hear, even got a 1/4 mile ride (sup surf) which for my beginner side of intermediate self was huge!, Breached a few times doing 17-18 mph down a wave face and it just skips and reconnects. Gave me significantly more confidence once dialed in; though I needed to be 1/2-1" more forward, and ended up putting in a 1 degree mast shim to match the newer rakes.
I'm 170 lb riding a 6' Kalama 72 mast/70fuse/vtail.
No I don't use the V tail I tried it when it first came out but preferred the 212 at that time Don't know anyone around here that uses the V tail for winging anymore.
How does the 205 compare to the 212?
I read that the 205 was based on the 212 and the 235 was based on the 232. Not sure if I should get a 205 to go with 232 (that I have) or chop to 212 and get 235? I guess it depends how 205 compares to 235?
