Wanted to start a separate thread on this topic, as there are a number of threads on these newer board designs, and some scattered comments on how thick many of them are...for instance, the Amos Sultan Wing is 6-1/8" thick, even for a 5'5", 75L board.
Some people say they don't like the feel...to disconnected from the foil. Others seem to suggest they don't like the position (not sure whether it is simply the added height, and/or stability/corkiness in the water).
I'm curious about both the design rationale, and what it means for how the board rides, as I think my next board will be something in this category...that is boards like the Amos Sultan Wing, Sunova Carver, and the inevitable additional models soon to be released...
If you reduce the width of a board but want the same volume, you have to increase the length and/or the thickness. So unless you make boards very long, they have to get thicker.
The same thing happened to high-volume boards when the design imperative was to make them short. I've winged on a 130 l board that was more than a foot shorter than my 140 l board, and much thicker. I really did not care for that at all, I much prefer the longer, thinner board, even though it's also a lot heavier. So I can certainly understand that some do not like the added thickness of narrow shapes.
The catch-22 comes if narrow boards are designed for early takeoff, as they usually are. That requires enough volume so the top of the board is above water even at very low speeds - typically at least +10 l. If the board is fully submerged at low speeds, you loose a lot of the advantages a narrow shape offers.
To me, ideally, that should depend on board construction design rather than just board thickness. Taking a simplified view of the mechanics, it should make no difference to the feel on foil if you have the same stiffness/ rigidity of connection to the mast regardless of board thickness. I'm sure that can be achieved with top and bottom surfaces being locally tied rigidly together around the foil area. Some board construction attempt to do this with higher density foam stringers and reinforcement in the foil area for example, how successfully for a given thickness I dont know.
That being said, if most boards are made with the same construction or even in the same factory they will most will likely be comparable to each other and if that connection to foil is not optimal a thicker board is likely to exhibit a less direct feel. Board construction should be considered though when comparing to see if there are any differences other than just looking at thickness alone.
I don't think the feel is due to flex in the board, most builders have figured that out by now... I think it's that you are closer to the water on a thinner board, on a pump tray your feet are practically on the water when you touch down, on a DW board you are 6-7" above the water when you touch down... Prone and wing boards are in between those extremes but the same concept applies.
I think there are 3 or 4 basic approaches to these new style longer narrower wing boards:
1. Shrunken DW boards with full displacement hulls, very narrow and thick, pointy nose, round or big chine bottom, narrow tail (Amos etc)
2. Chopped off DW boards with semi displacement hulls, moderately narrow, thick to semi-thick, pointy-ish nose, rounded or big chine bottom, wide tail (Carver, Omen)
3. Mashup Wing/DW boards, full planing, moderately narrow, moderately thick, wider nose, flat or concave bottom, hard rails, moderate narrow tail (Ken Adgate, my board)
4. Stretched out prone boards, semi-planing thinner, moderate narrow, moderate outline (Portal/Unifoil)
It will be super interesting to see how these different concepts shake out, I've been surprised that mine goes quite well prone and I have the feeling that the planing bottom and hard rails promote a lot of stability during launch phase. I initially went that direction for splashdown performance (jumping and I do a lot of "grasshops" to clear weed) but it seems like it might have other advantages.
ok maybe I misunderstood, I was talking about when on foil. When off foil and on water its a whole different dynamic at play
Select to expand quotesbm said..
ok maybe I misunderstood, I was talking about when on foil. When off foil and on water its a whole different dynamic at play
I am talking about on-foil, standing a couple of inches higher is something that you can feel.
Select to expand quoteJonahL said..sbm said..
ok maybe I misunderstood, I was talking about when on foil. When off foil and on water its a whole different dynamic at play
I am talking about on-foil, standing a couple of inches higher is something that you can feel.
Ok, well, assuming for argument sake the same structural stiffness/ rigidity of connection to foil on different boards that makes no sense to me from an engineering/ dynamics perspective. Just being up slightly higher than a thinner board should make no difference but I guess it could just be down to the subjective nature of perception. Unless you are foiling super close to the water I would struggle to tell the difference in height in the same same way I would struggle to tell the difference between riding an 80 vs 85cm mast for example which is the same 2". Maybe I dont have the same sensitivity to height 
Select to expand quotesbm said..JonahL said..sbm said..
ok maybe I misunderstood, I was talking about when on foil. When off foil and on water its a whole different dynamic at play
I am talking about on-foil, standing a couple of inches higher is something that you can feel.
Ok, well, assuming for argument sake the same structural stiffness/ rigidity of connection to foil on different boards that makes no sense to me from an engineering/ dynamics perspective. Just being up slightly higher than a thinner board should make no difference but I guess it could just be down to the subjective nature of perception. Unless you are foiling super close to the water I would struggle to tell the difference in height in the same same way I would struggle to tell the difference between riding an 80 vs 85cm mast for example which is the same 2". Maybe I dont have the same sensitivity to height
I think perception may have something to do with it; when I first rode my nearly 7" thick DW board, I found that I was breaching a bunch even though I was on my normal mast and foil setup. You would think that I would be riding lower in the water on the thicker board since my feet were further from the foil, but I was having the opposite issue. The problem went away after a couple of sessions, but I think it shows that the "feels" aren't always obvious.
Select to expand quoteJonahL said..sbm said..JonahL said..sbm said..
ok maybe I misunderstood, I was talking about when on foil. When off foil and on water its a whole different dynamic at play
I am talking about on-foil, standing a couple of inches higher is something that you can feel.
Ok, well, assuming for argument sake the same structural stiffness/ rigidity of connection to foil on different boards that makes no sense to me from an engineering/ dynamics perspective. Just being up slightly higher than a thinner board should make no difference but I guess it could just be down to the subjective nature of perception. Unless you are foiling super close to the water I would struggle to tell the difference in height in the same same way I would struggle to tell the difference between riding an 80 vs 85cm mast for example which is the same 2". Maybe I dont have the same sensitivity to height
I think perception may have something to do with it; when I first rode my nearly 7" thick DW board, I found that I was breaching a bunch even though I was on my normal mast and foil setup. You would think that I would be riding lower in the water on the thicker board since my feet were further from the foil, but I was having the opposite issue. The problem went away after a couple of sessions, but I think it shows that the "feels" aren't always obvious.
I can understand that as I had something similar going from long to short board. Same mast, foil and balance position on both boards but I would breach on the short board a lot during the first sessions but I think that was due to losing my ride height calibration as I had little to no board out front for reference compared to the longer board. So that side of things I get and maybe you lose some ride height calibration on a narrow board also when transitioning.
I had two thicker wing boards. 6.5 and 6 inches thick and it was very noticeable and I really didn't care for them being that thick for whatever reason. Thick boards suck IMO.
If you need a mid-sized wing board that is not too wide and not too thick. I think the max volume possible is around 70L to 75L
Here are Appletree Skipper Wing dimensions from their website:
appletreesurfboards.com/product/apple-skipper-wing-foil-board/#stock-or-custom
LengthWidthThicknessVolume
4'8"20.0"3.6"45L
4'9"20.5"3.8"50L
4'10"21.0"4.1"55L
4'11"21.5"4.2"60L
5'0"22.0"4.4"65L
5'2"22.5"4.7"75L
If 4.5" is still too thick for you. You need a sinker or stick with 1st gen wing board shape. It's simple math.
Select to expand quoteTaeyeony said..
If you need a mid-sized wing board that is not too wide and not too thick. I think the max volume possible is around 70L to 75L
Here are Appletree Skipper Wing dimensions from their website:
appletreesurfboards.com/product/apple-skipper-wing-foil-board/#stock-or-custom
LengthWidthThicknessVolume
4'8"20.0"3.6"45L
4'9"20.5"3.8"50L
4'10"21.0"4.1"55L
4'11"21.5"4.2"60L
5'0"22.0"4.4"65L
5'2"22.5"4.7"75L
If 4.5" is still too thick for you. You need a sinker or stick with 1st gen wing board shape. It's simple math.
Or, take the Carver, and keep the same length and 20" width for each of them, and cut 5-10L of the thickness...at least on the larger ones
