Hi everyone,
I've been closely watching the parawing scene develop lately, and there is a trend that is starting to pick up.More and more, we see boards being labeled as "parawing boards", but in reality, many of them are just rebranded mid-length boards.
Simply changing a name or making a standard shape a bit narrower doesn't mean it will actually work for the specific demands of a parawing. A label doesn't change the physics, and the market needs a more systematic approach to what actually makes a board work.
To get on foil with a parawing, you aren't just looking for a "narrower" board; you are looking for a very specific type of hydrodynamics designed from the ground up. Based on technical deep divesfromexperts likeGav (Hydrofoil), Foilrat, and many others across international forums, I believe we can define a set of requirements for any board to be truly parawing certified.
The most critical part of this design is the Forward Volume Distribution. When you are standing on the board, generating power and pumping the foil to get that initial lift, you need the buoyancy right under your feet and shifted forward. This is the only way to stop the nose from pearling or diving when you apply high pressure during the start. If a board lacks this forward float, the nose will just sink the moment you try to build speed.
Equally important is the Narrow Tail with a Sharp V exit. A skinny tail is essential to reduce drag, but the deep V at the back is what allows you to sink the tail just enough to pop the nose up the second the foil starts to engage. Without this specific tail shape, the board stays glued to the surface, making it much harder to initiate the flight.
Then we have the hull design. A true parawing shape must have IMO a Continuous V-Hull with zero flat spots. Flat surfaces act like giant suction cups on the water. The design should start as a mild V at the nose and progressively become deeper and sharper as it moves toward the tail. This breaks the surface tension and allows the board to track perfectly straight without sticking to the surface.
A critical detail that many manufacturers overlook and a major red flag in rebranded boards, is how the foil tracks are installed. The industry standard is often to create a flat section on the hull to mount the tracks, which destroys the bottom curve and the V-shape. On a truly optimized system, the foil tracks are installed with a very precise angle (rake) without ruining the hull's curve. This precise rake angle is of fundamental importance for early takeoff and board aerodynamics in flight mode.
In terms of construction, we have to look at the balance of weight and safety. While lightness is vital for high-frequency pumping, pure hollow boards have a major downside: if the shell is breached, they fill with water and sink. A better systematic approach issemi-hollow construction. This gives you the extreme lightness needed to minimize swing weight, but because it still contains a core, it maintains buoyancy. Even in a serious accident, the board won't drown; it stays afloat and can be used as alife raft, which is a huge peace of mind when you are far out.
To finish the design, the hardware needs to be optimized for weight. Short, well-positioned foil tracks are far superior to heavy, long tracks for parawinging. You also want a Recessed Mast Track to bring your feet closer to the foil head for better leverage, and Progressive Rails that are rounded at the front but transition intorazor-sharp edges at the tail for clean water separation.
A Real-World Example IMO is mySkywalker Vuelo 85L (6'0). It's a board that actually follows this entire design philosophy rather than just being a marketing rebrand. It implements the semi-hollow Airex core(!) technology, the continuous V-flow with no flat spots around the tracks, and the specific forward volume that keeps the nose up during the pump.
If you are looking for a dedicated parawing board, here is a checklist:
* Forward Float: The volume must be biased toward the front to prevent the nose from diving during the start. This is the foundation of a good parawing board.
* Narrow Tail and Sharp V: You need a skinny tail for speed and a sharp V-exit to allow the board to "tilt" and release from the water.
* Total V-Shape: Look for a continuous V from nose to tail. If you see flat spots on the bottom, especially around the tracks, it will likely act like a suction cup.
* Weight and Safety: Look forsemi-hollow construction and short, well-positioned tracks. It's about the balance between lightness and the ability to stay afloat in an emergency.
* Stiffness: Full carbon[/b]is a must. Any flex in the board is lost energy during your pump.
I'm curious to hear from others. Have you tried one of those renamed mid-length boards?
Interesting that the Skywalker website states they don't advertise, well not pay to advertise. But, these pictures are straight from their website so obviously happy to fudge the lines between information and advertising.
Built in Poland and this green board retails at 1800 Euro, just over AUD$3000 
Select to expand quoteairsail said..
Interesting that the Skywalker website states they don't advertise, well not pay to advertise. But, these pictures are straight from their website so obviously happy to fudge the lines between information and advertising.
Built in Poland and this green board retails at 1800 Euro, just over AUD$3000
Thanks for the comment!
Just to clarify-those photos on the web page are actually mine.
I provided some feedback and technical input to the shaper at Skywalker during the development phase. I specifically pushed for the forward-shifted volume[/b] and the narrower tail[/b] to ensure the board handles the specific pumping requirements of parawinging.
The construction and tech are all their expertise, but I'm stoked that the final shape reflects that input.
IMO it turned out exactly how a dedicated parawing tool needs to function.
Cheers!
I think "parawing certified" is a bit silly honestly. Not trying to be negative here but I think everyone will have their own board preferences and companies will always look to tweak wording for sales. At this point in time, with the parawings still early in their development, I think overspecializing on the board might be a mistake for buyers since we are still in the breakthrough phase of parawing development.
Select to expand quoteairsail said..
this green board retails at 1800 Euro, just over AUD$3000
Yeah the boards I build very similar to this cost $600 in materials. They've gotta pay for that CNC machine somehow I guess. The shape is pretty much a revision of a Mk1 Kalama anyway so not that ground breaking. The forward third volume bias has been pretty much done for years in Hawaiian boards. I think this is bit of an ad disguised as information.
As far as "carbon is a must" & "semi hollow" yeah I dunno about that. I've been draining one of my full eps boards for the last week or so after getting a couple of the inevitable hairline cracks that happen with carbon rails & rocks. A semi hollow board would be good where there's no rocks but I'm going back to FG rails.
Select to expand quoteBWalnut said..
I think "parawing certified" is a bit silly honestly. Not trying to be negative here but I think everyone will have their own board preferences and companies will always look to tweak wording for sales. At this point in time, with the parawings still early in their development, I think overspecializing on the board might be a mistake for buyers since we are still in the breakthrough phase of parawing development.
Thanks for the comment! I totally get that the term "certified" sounds a bit like marketing fluff, but it was really intended as a hook to spark exactly this kind of technical debate.I've been exclusively focused on parawinging since last May, to the point where my wing and kite gear are mostly just collecting dust. My motivation for the checklist comes from seeing too many beginners get frustrated and walk away from the sport simply because they are struggling with gear that isn't fit for purpose.
A lot of those "mid-length" boards that were the big thing in wingfoiling just don't meet the specific hydrodynamic requirements of a parawing. Having the right board is easily half the battle here, and I wanted to highlight those technical differences so newcomers don't waste their time on shapes that act like suction cups.
Cheers for taking the time to share your thoughts!
You are making it utterly complicated. Just take your favourite wing board and enjoy the ride ;-) 60 L board here, and next not zero PW experience, just 3-4 times trying it. My point is... it's not that complicated.
Select to expand quoteczareka said..
Hi everyone,
I've been closely watching the parawing scene develop lately, and there is a trend that is starting to pick up.More and more, we see boards being labeled as "parawing boards", but in reality, many of them are just rebranded mid-length boards.
Simply changing a name or making a standard shape a bit narrower doesn't mean it will actually work for the specific demands of a parawing. A label doesn't change the physics, and the market needs a more systematic approach to what actually makes a board work.
To get on foil with a parawing, you aren't just looking for a "narrower" board; you are looking for a very specific type of hydrodynamics designed from the ground up. Based on technical deep divesfromexperts likeGav (Hydrofoil), Foilrat, and many others across international forums, I believe we can define a set of requirements for any board to be truly parawing certified.
The most critical part of this design is the Forward Volume Distribution. When you are standing on the board, generating power and pumping the foil to get that initial lift, you need the buoyancy right under your feet and shifted forward. This is the only way to stop the nose from pearling or diving when you apply high pressure during the start. If a board lacks this forward float, the nose will just sink the moment you try to build speed.
Equally important is the Narrow Tail with a Sharp V exit. A skinny tail is essential to reduce drag, but the deep V at the back is what allows you to sink the tail just enough to pop the nose up the second the foil starts to engage. Without this specific tail shape, the board stays glued to the surface, making it much harder to initiate the flight.
Then we have the hull design. A true parawing shape must have IMO a Continuous V-Hull with zero flat spots. Flat surfaces act like giant suction cups on the water. The design should start as a mild V at the nose and progressively become deeper and sharper as it moves toward the tail. This breaks the surface tension and allows the board to track perfectly straight without sticking to the surface.
A critical detail that many manufacturers overlook and a major red flag in rebranded boards, is how the foil tracks are installed. The industry standard is often to create a flat section on the hull to mount the tracks, which destroys the bottom curve and the V-shape. On a truly optimized system, the foil tracks are installed with a very precise angle (rake) without ruining the hull's curve. This precise rake angle is of fundamental importance for early takeoff and board aerodynamics in flight mode.
In terms of construction, we have to look at the balance of weight and safety. While lightness is vital for high-frequency pumping, pure hollow boards have a major downside: if the shell is breached, they fill with water and sink. A better systematic approach issemi-hollow construction. This gives you the extreme lightness needed to minimize swing weight, but because it still contains a core, it maintains buoyancy. Even in a serious accident, the board won't drown; it stays afloat and can be used as alife raft, which is a huge peace of mind when you are far out.
To finish the design, the hardware needs to be optimized for weight. Short, well-positioned foil tracks are far superior to heavy, long tracks for parawinging. You also want a Recessed Mast Track to bring your feet closer to the foil head for better leverage, and Progressive Rails that are rounded at the front but transition intorazor-sharp edges at the tail for clean water separation.
A Real-World Example IMO is mySkywalker Vuelo 85L (6'0). It's a board that actually follows this entire design philosophy rather than just being a marketing rebrand. It implements the semi-hollow Airex core(!) technology, the continuous V-flow with no flat spots around the tracks, and the specific forward volume that keeps the nose up during the pump.
If you are looking for a dedicated parawing board, here is a checklist:
* Forward Float: The volume must be biased toward the front to prevent the nose from diving during the start. This is the foundation of a good parawing board.
* Narrow Tail and Sharp V: You need a skinny tail for speed and a sharp V-exit to allow the board to "tilt" and release from the water.
* Total V-Shape: Look for a continuous V from nose to tail. If you see flat spots on the bottom, especially around the tracks, it will likely act like a suction cup.
* Weight and Safety: Look forsemi-hollow construction and short, well-positioned tracks. It's about the balance between lightness and the ability to stay afloat in an emergency.
* Stiffness: Full carbon[/b]is a must. Any flex in the board is lost energy during your pump.
I'm curious to hear from others. Have you tried one of those renamed mid-length boards?
Think i agree with those design criteria. The armie ML for instance lacks that volume in the front - pearling can occur - you need to adjust. I like that shape above - what is different between this skywalker and say the mini dart frank from axis ?
Whilst it would be ideal to have a board purpose built for parawing I don't think people should be put off by thinking they need to buy a new parawing specific board to get started. Right now we are only just receiving the first production boards built for parawing so up until now the majority of parawingers have used boards that are not parawing specific.
Really any mid length or downwind board can work well. Ideally something not too wide or narrow and appropriate volume. Ive got a couple friends on the new axis frank mini dart boards and they definitely work better but it's not crucial that you have a parawing specific board to get started or progress.
Select to expand quoteYoungbreezy said..
Whilst it would be ideal to have a board purpose built for parawing I don't think people should be put off by thinking they need to buy a new parawing specific board to get started. Right now we are only just receiving the first production boards built for parawing so up until now the majority of parawingers have used boards that are not parawing specific.
Really any mid length or downwind board can work well. Ideally something not too wide or narrow and appropriate volume. Ive got a couple friends on the new axis frank mini dart boards and they definitely work better but it's not crucial that you have a parawing specific board to get started or progress.
agree a lot of water to go under this bridge in the next year. It's like the start of the DW board evolution. But i think his design criteria has merit.
I will be in Fuerte for a month next week so will hopfully get a chance to see the board in action. There are some interesting ideas.
My parawing adventures have mostly been on an old beat up Gong Crusader Diamond which has worked fine. So I would agree that a specific parawing board isn't a must have for accessing PW. Some of my best parawing sessions have been on an Armstrong FG semi sinker. Although obviously it needs to be well powered up. Everyday is a school day, that's a lot of the enjoyment.
In my opinion v shaped displacement hull and pin tail are not really prerequisites. A lot depends on volume. Those features are bad on anything under a neutral volume board. Even on a positive volume board those can lead to too tracky a board which isn't a good feature. Rocker nuances are also a big feature that is overlooked here.
this whole post feels like a bad advertisement.
It is a cool looking board. I would ride that. I agree with others that a bunch of designs will work. I go between a 8'4" dw Kalama and a 6'1" home built 68L. Now that I am over a year into para, I find it much easier to get on foil now with my mad skills. I have 16" tracks on my 68L and while heavy, I do use most of the track for various lower plane setups. I ride axis and have a bunch of different fuse lengths and this changes where I set the mast. I think that the parawing design improvements will continue to get better especially in low end grunt improvements. This will make fussing over board dims less important. A lot of pw-ers have a long skinny board for light wind and a midlength for good wind. Many of us already had these boards from previous disciplines. Many of us are already $20k into foiling and have wives on high alert from sneaking around buying the latest greatest. My own foiling gear purchasing has tapered significantly as I am flush with gear like many Breezers are. We are out of the honeymoon phase of foiling. I would recommend that all frothy foilers have a crack at building a custom board as it is much more rewarding than buying one and not as hard as you might think.
F-one came out with a PW specific board, midlength shape, but with slightly more volume in the nose than a the RW midlength intended for winging. Because PW is more passive (less unweighting the board in pumps) in getting up there's more front foot pressure / risk of burrying the nose, hence the shift in volume distribution.
However, no V's anywhere and very straight rocker. How we like our winging boards too.
www.f-one.world/product/rocket-free-surf/
Select to expand quoteczareka said..
Hi everyone,
I've been closely watching the parawing scene develop lately, and there is a trend that is starting to pick up.More and more, we see boards being labeled as "parawing boards", but in reality, many of them are just rebranded mid-length boards.
Simply changing a name or making a standard shape a bit narrower doesn't mean it will actually work for the specific demands of a parawing. A label doesn't change the physics, and the market needs a more systematic approach to what actually makes a board work.
To get on foil with a parawing, you aren't just looking for a "narrower" board; you are looking for a very specific type of hydrodynamics designed from the ground up. Based on technical deep divesfromexperts likeGav (Hydrofoil), Foilrat, and many others across international forums, I believe we can define a set of requirements for any board to be truly parawing certified.
The most critical part of this design is the Forward Volume Distribution. When you are standing on the board, generating power and pumping the foil to get that initial lift, you need the buoyancy right under your feet and shifted forward. This is the only way to stop the nose from pearling or diving when you apply high pressure during the start. If a board lacks this forward float, the nose will just sink the moment you try to build speed.
Equally important is the Narrow Tail with a Sharp V exit. A skinny tail is essential to reduce drag, but the deep V at the back is what allows you to sink the tail just enough to pop the nose up the second the foil starts to engage. Without this specific tail shape, the board stays glued to the surface, making it much harder to initiate the flight.
Then we have the hull design. A true parawing shape must have IMO a Continuous V-Hull with zero flat spots. Flat surfaces act like giant suction cups on the water. The design should start as a mild V at the nose and progressively become deeper and sharper as it moves toward the tail. This breaks the surface tension and allows the board to track perfectly straight without sticking to the surface.
A critical detail that many manufacturers overlook and a major red flag in rebranded boards, is how the foil tracks are installed. The industry standard is often to create a flat section on the hull to mount the tracks, which destroys the bottom curve and the V-shape. On a truly optimized system, the foil tracks are installed with a very precise angle (rake) without ruining the hull's curve. This precise rake angle is of fundamental importance for early takeoff and board aerodynamics in flight mode.
In terms of construction, we have to look at the balance of weight and safety. While lightness is vital for high-frequency pumping, pure hollow boards have a major downside: if the shell is breached, they fill with water and sink. A better systematic approach issemi-hollow construction. This gives you the extreme lightness needed to minimize swing weight, but because it still contains a core, it maintains buoyancy. Even in a serious accident, the board won't drown; it stays afloat and can be used as alife raft, which is a huge peace of mind when you are far out.
To finish the design, the hardware needs to be optimized for weight. Short, well-positioned foil tracks are far superior to heavy, long tracks for parawinging. You also want a Recessed Mast Track to bring your feet closer to the foil head for better leverage, and Progressive Rails that are rounded at the front but transition intorazor-sharp edges at the tail for clean water separation.
A Real-World Example IMO is mySkywalker Vuelo 85L (6'0). It's a board that actually follows this entire design philosophy rather than just being a marketing rebrand. It implements the semi-hollow Airex core(!) technology, the continuous V-flow with no flat spots around the tracks, and the specific forward volume that keeps the nose up during the pump.
If you are looking for a dedicated parawing board, here is a checklist:
* Forward Float: The volume must be biased toward the front to prevent the nose from diving during the start. This is the foundation of a good parawing board.
* Narrow Tail and Sharp V: You need a skinny tail for speed and a sharp V-exit to allow the board to "tilt" and release from the water.
* Total V-Shape: Look for a continuous V from nose to tail. If you see flat spots on the bottom, especially around the tracks, it will likely act like a suction cup.
* Weight and Safety: Look forsemi-hollow construction and short, well-positioned tracks. It's about the balance between lightness and the ability to stay afloat in an emergency.
* Stiffness: Full carbon[/b]is a must. Any flex in the board is lost energy during your pump.
I'm curious to hear from others. Have you tried one of those renamed mid-length boards?
Way over complex. Ride what you have. Pretty sure mine goes against all the "must haves" above.
I would be inclined to look at Hydrocraft boards, and the Frank Mini Darts as possible models
Getting close to 100 sessions riding bumps with a parawing on an army ml 75l. The board is very good and at my 65kg it has much better bottom end performance than my wife's 65l I think because of the length increase. The design planes and releases so well that I only need one board even in light wind.
I think putting any more volume in the nose than the army is just trying to make up for not enough length. Better to have the benefit of the length for planning without the bulbous nose. 6' minimum for me. All I would change is the weight. 75l should easily be 4.5kg or less. Not 5.5kg
That v bottom and fat nose look like trouble to me.
Select to expand quotehilly said..czareka said..
Hi everyone,
I've been closely watching the parawing scene develop lately, and there is a trend that is starting to pick up.More and more, we see boards being labeled as "parawing boards", but in reality, many of them are just rebranded mid-length boards.
Simply changing a name or making a standard shape a bit narrower doesn't mean it will actually work for the specific demands of a parawing. A label doesn't change the physics, and the market needs a more systematic approach to what actually makes a board work.
To get on foil with a parawing, you aren't just looking for a "narrower" board; you are looking for a very specific type of hydrodynamics designed from the ground up. Based on technical deep divesfromexperts likeGav (Hydrofoil), Foilrat, and many others across international forums, I believe we can define a set of requirements for any board to be truly parawing certified.
The most critical part of this design is the Forward Volume Distribution. When you are standing on the board, generating power and pumping the foil to get that initial lift, you need the buoyancy right under your feet and shifted forward. This is the only way to stop the nose from pearling or diving when you apply high pressure during the start. If a board lacks this forward float, the nose will just sink the moment you try to build speed.
Equally important is the Narrow Tail with a Sharp V exit. A skinny tail is essential to reduce drag, but the deep V at the back is what allows you to sink the tail just enough to pop the nose up the second the foil starts to engage. Without this specific tail shape, the board stays glued to the surface, making it much harder to initiate the flight.
Then we have the hull design. A true parawing shape must have IMO a Continuous V-Hull with zero flat spots. Flat surfaces act like giant suction cups on the water. The design should start as a mild V at the nose and progressively become deeper and sharper as it moves toward the tail. This breaks the surface tension and allows the board to track perfectly straight without sticking to the surface.
A critical detail that many manufacturers overlook and a major red flag in rebranded boards, is how the foil tracks are installed. The industry standard is often to create a flat section on the hull to mount the tracks, which destroys the bottom curve and the V-shape. On a truly optimized system, the foil tracks are installed with a very precise angle (rake) without ruining the hull's curve. This precise rake angle is of fundamental importance for early takeoff and board aerodynamics in flight mode.
In terms of construction, we have to look at the balance of weight and safety. While lightness is vital for high-frequency pumping, pure hollow boards have a major downside: if the shell is breached, they fill with water and sink. A better systematic approach issemi-hollow construction. This gives you the extreme lightness needed to minimize swing weight, but because it still contains a core, it maintains buoyancy. Even in a serious accident, the board won't drown; it stays afloat and can be used as alife raft, which is a huge peace of mind when you are far out.
To finish the design, the hardware needs to be optimized for weight. Short, well-positioned foil tracks are far superior to heavy, long tracks for parawinging. You also want a Recessed Mast Track to bring your feet closer to the foil head for better leverage, and Progressive Rails that are rounded at the front but transition intorazor-sharp edges at the tail for clean water separation.
A Real-World Example IMO is mySkywalker Vuelo 85L (6'0). It's a board that actually follows this entire design philosophy rather than just being a marketing rebrand. It implements the semi-hollow Airex core(!) technology, the continuous V-flow with no flat spots around the tracks, and the specific forward volume that keeps the nose up during the pump.
If you are looking for a dedicated parawing board, here is a checklist:
* Forward Float: The volume must be biased toward the front to prevent the nose from diving during the start. This is the foundation of a good parawing board.
* Narrow Tail and Sharp V: You need a skinny tail for speed and a sharp V-exit to allow the board to "tilt" and release from the water.
* Total V-Shape: Look for a continuous V from nose to tail. If you see flat spots on the bottom, especially around the tracks, it will likely act like a suction cup.
* Weight and Safety: Look forsemi-hollow construction and short, well-positioned tracks. It's about the balance between lightness and the ability to stay afloat in an emergency.
* Stiffness: Full carbon[/b]is a must. Any flex in the board is lost energy during your pump.
I'm curious to hear from others. Have you tried one of those renamed mid-length boards?
Way over complex. Ride what you have. Pretty sure mine goes against all the "must haves" above.
Ride what you have ? That's a board built by scotty specifically for para winging!! Does have a lot of volume distributed in the nose.
Select to expand quoteAnyBoard said..
Getting close to 100 sessions riding bumps with a parawing on an army ml 75l. The board is very good and at my 65kg it has much better bottom end performance than my wife's 65l I think because of the length increase. The design planes and releases so well that I only need one board even in light wind.
I think putting any more volume in the nose than the army is just trying to make up for not enough length. Better to have the benefit of the length for planning without the bulbous nose. 6' minimum for me. All I would change is the weight. 75l should easily be 4.5kg or less. Not 5.5kg
That v bottom and fat nose look like trouble to me.
No you are every wrong on this matter hate to say it.
I've ridden two boards with volume distributed to the nose (the smick like hillys above and the flamingo wing board which happens to be an amazing para board shape). And now the 75Ml - the tendency to push the nose down when pumping it up in marginal conditions is noticeable. It was even worse on the 65Ml hence why i got the 75. Im 80 odd kilos.
Dude you are a 65kg guy on a 75l board - that would mask a lot of problems.
By you adjust and make it work.
Select to expand quoteeppo said..hilly said..czareka said..
Hi everyone,
I've been closely watching the parawing scene develop lately, and there is a trend that is starting to pick up.More and more, we see boards being labeled as "parawing boards", but in reality, many of them are just rebranded mid-length boards.
Simply changing a name or making a standard shape a bit narrower doesn't mean it will actually work for the specific demands of a parawing. A label doesn't change the physics, and the market needs a more systematic approach to what actually makes a board work.
To get on foil with a parawing, you aren't just looking for a "narrower" board; you are looking for a very specific type of hydrodynamics designed from the ground up. Based on technical deep divesfromexperts likeGav (Hydrofoil), Foilrat, and many others across international forums, I believe we can define a set of requirements for any board to be truly parawing certified.
The most critical part of this design is the Forward Volume Distribution. When you are standing on the board, generating power and pumping the foil to get that initial lift, you need the buoyancy right under your feet and shifted forward. This is the only way to stop the nose from pearling or diving when you apply high pressure during the start. If a board lacks this forward float, the nose will just sink the moment you try to build speed.
Equally important is the Narrow Tail with a Sharp V exit. A skinny tail is essential to reduce drag, but the deep V at the back is what allows you to sink the tail just enough to pop the nose up the second the foil starts to engage. Without this specific tail shape, the board stays glued to the surface, making it much harder to initiate the flight.
Then we have the hull design. A true parawing shape must have IMO a Continuous V-Hull with zero flat spots. Flat surfaces act like giant suction cups on the water. The design should start as a mild V at the nose and progressively become deeper and sharper as it moves toward the tail. This breaks the surface tension and allows the board to track perfectly straight without sticking to the surface.
A critical detail that many manufacturers overlook and a major red flag in rebranded boards, is how the foil tracks are installed. The industry standard is often to create a flat section on the hull to mount the tracks, which destroys the bottom curve and the V-shape. On a truly optimized system, the foil tracks are installed with a very precise angle (rake) without ruining the hull's curve. This precise rake angle is of fundamental importance for early takeoff and board aerodynamics in flight mode.
In terms of construction, we have to look at the balance of weight and safety. While lightness is vital for high-frequency pumping, pure hollow boards have a major downside: if the shell is breached, they fill with water and sink. A better systematic approach issemi-hollow construction. This gives you the extreme lightness needed to minimize swing weight, but because it still contains a core, it maintains buoyancy. Even in a serious accident, the board won't drown; it stays afloat and can be used as alife raft, which is a huge peace of mind when you are far out.
To finish the design, the hardware needs to be optimized for weight. Short, well-positioned foil tracks are far superior to heavy, long tracks for parawinging. You also want a Recessed Mast Track to bring your feet closer to the foil head for better leverage, and Progressive Rails that are rounded at the front but transition intorazor-sharp edges at the tail for clean water separation.
A Real-World Example IMO is mySkywalker Vuelo 85L (6'0). It's a board that actually follows this entire design philosophy rather than just being a marketing rebrand. It implements the semi-hollow Airex core(!) technology, the continuous V-flow with no flat spots around the tracks, and the specific forward volume that keeps the nose up during the pump.
If you are looking for a dedicated parawing board, here is a checklist:
* Forward Float: The volume must be biased toward the front to prevent the nose from diving during the start. This is the foundation of a good parawing board.
* Narrow Tail and Sharp V: You need a skinny tail for speed and a sharp V-exit to allow the board to "tilt" and release from the water.
* Total V-Shape: Look for a continuous V from nose to tail. If you see flat spots on the bottom, especially around the tracks, it will likely act like a suction cup.
* Weight and Safety: Look forsemi-hollow construction and short, well-positioned tracks. It's about the balance between lightness and the ability to stay afloat in an emergency.
* Stiffness: Full carbon[/b]is a must. Any flex in the board is lost energy during your pump.
I'm curious to hear from others. Have you tried one of those renamed mid-length boards?
Way over complex. Ride what you have. Pretty sure mine goes against all the "must haves" above.
Ride what you have ? That's a board built by scotty specifically for para winging!! Does have a lot of volume distributed in the nose.
It is not long, it is not narrow, it has no V and the bottom is flat. Scotty makes it for all disciplines that is why it is The Jack.
Select to expand quoteeppo said..AnyBoard said..
Getting close to 100 sessions riding bumps with a parawing on an army ml 75l. The board is very good and at my 65kg it has much better bottom end performance than my wife's 65l I think because of the length increase. The design planes and releases so well that I only need one board even in light wind.
I think putting any more volume in the nose than the army is just trying to make up for not enough length. Better to have the benefit of the length for planning without the bulbous nose. 6' minimum for me. All I would change is the weight. 75l should easily be 4.5kg or less. Not 5.5kg
That v bottom and fat nose look like trouble to me.
No you are every wrong on this matter hate to say it.
I've ridden two boards with volume distributed to the nose (the smick like hillys above and the flamingo wing board which happens to be an amazing para board shape). And now the 75Ml - the tendency to push the nose down when pumping it up in marginal conditions is noticeable. It was even worse on the 65Ml hence why i got the 75. Im 80 odd kilos.
Dude you are a 65kg guy on a 75l board - that would mask a lot of problems.
By you adjust and make it work.
Each to their own but in WA you guys are spoilt rotten and would rarely experiences the nuances, of the individual design elements and technique, that make getting going possible after the wind just dropped 5 knots again. This is every session for us on the east coast. I would say I have spent more time getting off the water in conditions under 14 knots than most.
I think asking for more volume in the nose is a very expected request for those early in their parawing journey and I once thought like that myself. Sort of like how wing foilers thought they needed 26" wide boards for balance and now you can't give them away. It will work for most for sure and especially on boards under 6 foot but it does come with trade offs that someone who is very good at getting off the water might not think are worth while. I find all that foam has to make a substantial rail in front of your front foot and the way the water wraps itself around all that rail, on one side, at critical times during bump utilized take offs, can really p!ss you off to the point of causing swearing as now that gust is gone and that rail just pulled you left when the bump energy went right. You might be slogging for another 3 or 4 minutes before your next opportunity to get going. I am not suggesting you need a thinned out nose but that the armstrong front rail is already big enough. It has nice foam distribution already and i am certainly not an armstrong fan in fact the opposite. If the nose of an army mid length feels too thin in the nose you are standing too far forward for the most effective take off.
The board choice for DW sup foilers in the west is vastly different to what we use in the east and it will be the same for parawinging. You guys have relatively reliable wind and my board choice is representative of our conditions and my intelligence not my ability. I would say the wind you play in masks a lot of things that you won't understand. When there is more boards to choose from I think ideally I would achieve the same performance off the water with the same length and width but 15l less and nothing over 4.5 kg. Currently there really are no choices so for now I deal with the extra 15l so i can get the surface area required to plane off the water in the most unlikely success window of conditions.
Nice post Czareka!
I do agree if you can afford it and love PW you should get PW specific board. Im going to change my boards to hollow Midlength boards. Weight save is crucial in my opinion! 2kg lighter!
Select to expand quoteRetina said..
Nice post Czareka!
I do agree if you can afford it and love PW you should get PW specific board. Im going to change my boards to hollow Midlength boards. Weight save is crucial in my opinion! 2kg lighter!
Thanks for the feedback!
Which hollow board are you planning to go for? I ask because there are at least two brands about to launch more "budget-friendly" hollow boards soon, which should really shake up the market.
One of them is Kauper XT from Germany; they are planning two mid-length models, an 85L and a 108L from what I've heard. The second one is a very well-known brand from France.
Select to expand quoteAnyBoard said..eppo said..AnyBoard said..
Getting close to 100 sessions riding bumps with a parawing on an army ml 75l. The board is very good and at my 65kg it has much better bottom end performance than my wife's 65l I think because of the length increase. The design planes and releases so well that I only need one board even in light wind.
I think putting any more volume in the nose than the army is just trying to make up for not enough length. Better to have the benefit of the length for planning without the bulbous nose. 6' minimum for me. All I would change is the weight. 75l should easily be 4.5kg or less. Not 5.5kg
That v bottom and fat nose look like trouble to me.
No you are every wrong on this matter hate to say it.
I've ridden two boards with volume distributed to the nose (the smick like hillys above and the flamingo wing board which happens to be an amazing para board shape). And now the 75Ml - the tendency to push the nose down when pumping it up in marginal conditions is noticeable. It was even worse on the 65Ml hence why i got the 75. Im 80 odd kilos.
Dude you are a 65kg guy on a 75l board - that would mask a lot of problems.
By you adjust and make it work.
Each to their own but in WA you guys are spoilt rotten and would rarely experiences the nuances, of the individual design elements and technique, that make getting going possible after the wind just dropped 5 knots again. This is every session for us on the east coast. I would say I have spent more time getting off the water in conditions under 14 knots than most.
I think asking for more volume in the nose is a very expected request for those early in their parawing journey and I once thought like that myself. Sort of like how wing foilers thought they needed 26" wide boards for balance and now you can't give them away. It will work for most for sure and especially on boards under 6 foot but it does come with trade offs that someone who is very good at getting off the water might not think are worth while. I find all that foam has to make a substantial rail in front of your front foot and the way the water wraps itself around all that rail, on one side, at critical times during bump utilized take offs, can really p!ss you off to the point of causing swearing as now that gust is gone and that rail just pulled you left when the bump energy went right. You might be slogging for another 3 or 4 minutes before your next opportunity to get going. I am not suggesting you need a thinned out nose but that the armstrong front rail is already big enough. It has nice foam distribution already and i am certainly not an armstrong fan in fact the opposite. If the nose of an army mid length feels too thin in the nose you are standing too far forward for the most effective take off.
The board choice for DW sup foilers in the west is vastly different to what we use in the east and it will be the same for parawinging. You guys have relatively reliable wind and my board choice is representative of our conditions and my intelligence not my ability. I would say the wind you play in masks a lot of things that you won't understand. When there is more boards to choose from I think ideally I would achieve the same performance off the water with the same length and width but 15l less and nothing over 4.5 kg. Currently there really are no choices so for now I deal with the extra 15l so i can get the surface area required to plane off the water in the most unlikely success window of conditions.
Yep fair reply and you make some interesting points regarding extra rail area caused by the extra volume in the nose area - i must admit i did find that had the effect you are talking about on the flamingo (not to mention to crappy swing weight it gives you when turning) in lighter winds. I will still like a little more volume distributed forward on the ML though especially when riding -5 to -20 on the board. But it does react well overall to correct body pump up technique as it generates speed from this better than say the flamingo .. maybe something in what you are saying.
Hey we get light winds to like you guys - just before and just after the 3-4 month season 
well 6
months of you head north and south. 
Select to expand quoteczareka said..Retina said..
Nice post Czareka!
I do agree if you can afford it and love PW you should get PW specific board. Im going to change my boards to hollow Midlength boards. Weight save is crucial in my opinion! 2kg lighter!
Thanks for the feedback!
Which hollow board are you planning to go for? I ask because there are at least two brands about to launch more "budget-friendly" hollow boards soon, which should really shake up the market.
One of them is Kauper XT from Germany; they are planning two mid-length models, an 85L and a 108L from what I've heard. The second one is a very well-known brand from France.
Yeah lots of companies want to make hollow board right now. But to pay 3000 euro that's out of question specially when most of them don't have right volume distribution (thinking about naish and duotune). I'm waiting there is more brands (1500 euro!) releasing one soon. Kauper XT has very little volume in the nose.
Select to expand quoteeppo said..AnyBoard said..eppo said..AnyBoard said..
Getting close to 100 sessions riding bumps with a parawing on an army ml 75l. The board is very good and at my 65kg it has much better bottom end performance than my wife's 65l I think because of the length increase. The design planes and releases so well that I only need one board even in light wind.
I think putting any more volume in the nose than the army is just trying to make up for not enough length. Better to have the benefit of the length for planning without the bulbous nose. 6' minimum for me. All I would change is the weight. 75l should easily be 4.5kg or less. Not 5.5kg
That v bottom and fat nose look like trouble to me.
No you are every wrong on this matter hate to say it.
I've ridden two boards with volume distributed to the nose (the smick like hillys above and the flamingo wing board which happens to be an amazing para board shape). And now the 75Ml - the tendency to push the nose down when pumping it up in marginal conditions is noticeable. It was even worse on the 65Ml hence why i got the 75. Im 80 odd kilos.
Dude you are a 65kg guy on a 75l board - that would mask a lot of problems.
By you adjust and make it work.
Each to their own but in WA you guys are spoilt rotten and would rarely experiences the nuances, of the individual design elements and technique, that make getting going possible after the wind just dropped 5 knots again. This is every session for us on the east coast. I would say I have spent more time getting off the water in conditions under 14 knots than most.
I think asking for more volume in the nose is a very expected request for those early in their parawing journey and I once thought like that myself. Sort of like how wing foilers thought they needed 26" wide boards for balance and now you can't give them away. It will work for most for sure and especially on boards under 6 foot but it does come with trade offs that someone who is very good at getting off the water might not think are worth while. I find all that foam has to make a substantial rail in front of your front foot and the way the water wraps itself around all that rail, on one side, at critical times during bump utilized take offs, can really p!ss you off to the point of causing swearing as now that gust is gone and that rail just pulled you left when the bump energy went right. You might be slogging for another 3 or 4 minutes before your next opportunity to get going. I am not suggesting you need a thinned out nose but that the armstrong front rail is already big enough. It has nice foam distribution already and i am certainly not an armstrong fan in fact the opposite. If the nose of an army mid length feels too thin in the nose you are standing too far forward for the most effective take off.
The board choice for DW sup foilers in the west is vastly different to what we use in the east and it will be the same for parawinging. You guys have relatively reliable wind and my board choice is representative of our conditions and my intelligence not my ability. I would say the wind you play in masks a lot of things that you won't understand. When there is more boards to choose from I think ideally I would achieve the same performance off the water with the same length and width but 15l less and nothing over 4.5 kg. Currently there really are no choices so for now I deal with the extra 15l so i can get the surface area required to plane off the water in the most unlikely success window of conditions.
Yep fair reply and you make some interesting points regarding extra rail area caused by the extra volume in the nose area - i must admit i did find that had the effect you are talking about on the flamingo (not to mention to crappy swing weight it gives you when turning) in lighter winds. I will still like a little more volume distributed forward on the ML though especially when riding -5 to -20 on the board. But it does react well overall to correct body pump up technique as it generates speed from this better than say the flamingo .. maybe something in what you are saying.
Hey we get light winds to like you guys - just before and just after the 3-4 month season well 6
months of you head north and south.
Sometimes we actually get good wind like today. 
I have never really thought about what happens over there outside of summer for you poor buggers.
The boxes on the skywalker look like they are not parallel with the deck due to all that nose volume. It looks like the foil would point down when slogging and ride really nose high on foil.
Others designs seem to be adding the nose volume with the wide point well forward of centre and a more traditional even thickness that extends to the nose and tail. I don't mind the look of the axis mini dart but i was hoping it would be lighter and slightly longer for its volume.
While waiting for the new KT "Arc" parawing boards, I've been riding an Omen parawing-specific proto type, the "Pelagic" at 76L 6'6" x 17.5. I'm 93 kg. While I initially found it very narrow (I'm tall and like some offset in my stance), I've gotten used to it. It's actually quite low volume in the nose in contrast to the thinking that we need some volume to allow the nose to rebound and not bog, but the stand out feature is the ability to take off super easily. Being so narrow it rarely catches rail and a 77cm mast feels very sporty. In high wind it slices through the air going upwind. The KT will be 78L, 6' x 20.5 or so, so it'll be interesting to compare its ease of take off with some extra stability from the added width with the Omen's torpedo shape. The KT falls more in line with the Frank mini-Dart-style design. The Omen actually releases easier than my 7'6" SUP and is far less tracky, so if there's more than marginal wind for my 4.3, the Omen is good to go and offers a very high performance feel without being crazy unstable starting. Downside is I sink quickly if the wind lulls.
Select to expand quoteWindoc said..
While waiting for the new KT "Arc" parawing boards, I've been riding an Omen parawing-specific proto type, the "Pelagic" at 76L 6'6" x 17.5. I'm 93 kg. While I initially found it very narrow (I'm tall and like some offset in my stance), I've gotten used to it. It's actually quite low volume in the nose in contrast to the thinking that we need some volume to allow the nose to rebound and not bog, but the stand out feature is the ability to take off super easily. Being so narrow it rarely catches rail and a 77cm mast feels very sporty. In high wind it slices through the air going upwind. The KT will be 78L, 6' x 20.5 or so, so it'll be interesting to compare its ease of take off with some extra stability from the added width with the Omen's torpedo shape. The KT falls more in line with the Frank mini-Dart-style design. The Omen actually releases easier than my 7'6" SUP and is far less tracky, so if there's more than marginal wind for my 4.3, the Omen is good to go and offers a very high performance feel without being crazy unstable starting. Downside is I sink quickly if the wind lulls.
This post has some good nuggets in it. Interesting to compare the different design theories out there and exciting to see whats coming from KT/Omen. I'm guessing the lack of volume in the nose of the Omen is offset with some additional length ahead of the stance? Its not so much "volume in the nose" and more "volume ahead of the stance". Ive parawinged some lower volume wing boards without enhanced nose volume and I notice that my stance scoots back vs winging the same board.
