I want to get a better low end so I've got more opportunities to get out on the water. On my current 5.4m wing with 115L Duotone sky free I need about 16 knot gusts to get going with pumping. I could get a bigger wing, like 6.0 or 6.5, but a lot of people on here talk about the benefits of a mid length for creating board speed and how on their mid length they don't really want anything bigger than a 5.
So my options seem to be: (1) get a 6/6.5 and stick on the current board, but then possibly sell that wing once I do get a mid length, or (2) just get a mid length now.
The reason I'm hesitant to get a mid length now is I'm not sure if I'm ready, hence the question. I have been improving my gybes: yesterday I did 10 heelside/toeside gybes in a row without falling in my preferred stance. Non-preferred toe-side riding has regressed but I'm sure it will "click" again soon. I'm doing foot switches usually with a brief touchdown and occasionally without a touchdown. I haven't tried tacking.
So at what point is one able to consider using a mid length without it being a hugely frustrating experience?
For reference, I'm low 90 kgs and was looking at the 95L or 104L super K 2. I would keep my current board for e.g. learning tacks.
I'm 86kg and was on my custom 5'11"x20" 77l Sunova Carver today. 5m AA wing and Silk 650 foil in 13 knots.
I'd get the mid sooner than later. There are tricks to getting your balance initially but once you have that sorted you'll probably never ride your other board again. Plus, you'll prefer the mid for any future explorations into parawinging.
I think you have the right idea. If you have the toy funds available, and you're eventually gonna downsize your board anyway then go for it. Don't go too small; 95-104 L sounds about right for your size, and definitely hang onto your big board for continued learning. You'll know when it's time to say goodbye to it.
I'm coming up on 6 yrs of winging (started sept 2019), and I just rode my first mid-length last week. I'm an OK winger for my age. The middie I tried was great, and I'm finally buying one, but it's not gonna instantly/radically change my/your progression. I'm still hanging on to my soap bar. Also remember that everyone comes at this from a different perspective. This forum is dominated by posters where the main goal is to flag out or stuff away and ride swell. Flatwater freestyle stuff (more my emphasis), not so much. Good luck!
If you really want to use the mid-length in light winds and use the smaller wing, the 104l midlength option could be best to start with. It will give you more low-end than the 95l. The 95l will also be awesome but you might find you lose 2-3kn of low end windspeed, especially in your next learning phase. It could make the difference of getting up in an 8kn gust and a 10kn gust.
If you can make it work in the future, a 2-board quiver would be awesome - the 104l as your light wind 'safe' board and an 80l midlength for windier days.
At 95kg I've got a 85L 5'8" midlength and I'm unimpressed. I've ridden a 75L bar of soap and a 40L prone board for years and I don't find the mid to be a game changer. Maybe a little better if it's flat water but if there's any chop any advantage on the bar of soap is nill.
I think this particular model might be to blame. There's a bunch of stupid marketing crap on the deck.big domed sections, wave piercing deck forward, concave standing area - all ****ing useless. The wave piercing nose wants to dive into every piece of chop, filling that concave standing area as fast as it splashed out - so I've got 15lbs of water on the board exactly when I need it least.
Select to expand quoteTooMuchEpoxy said..
At 95kg I've got a 85L 5'8" midlength and I'm unimpressed. I've ridden a 75L bar of soap and a 40L prone board for years and I don't find the mid to be a game changer. Maybe a little better if it's flat water but if there's any chop any advantage on the bar of soap is nill.
I think this particular model might be to blame. There's a bunch of stupid marketing crap on the deck.big domed sections, wave piercing deck forward, concave standing area - all ****ing useless. The wave piercing nose wants to dive into every piece of chop, filling that concave standing area as fast as it splashed out - so I've got 15lbs of water on the board exactly when I need it least.
Yup noticed that a few brands don't have enough volume in the nose to be effective in pop-ups, especially in chop.
Best design so far has been a custom shape with a pulled-in tail, and all the volume shifted into a broad nose. No fancy bottom shapes, no fancy rails.
My wife learnt on a 5'2" X 24 69l about 3.5 years ago. 6 months ago she borrowed a 65l Armstrong mid length and we had to buy one immediately. The difference in the bottom end is amazing and it means she rides the correct size wing instead of oversizing in light wing.
She is maybe 52kg for reference. Under volume mid lengths seems to be self defeating.
I have winged and parawinged her 65 and the narrow width is greatly appreciated when laying into turns. If your not into jumping then i can't see the point of the smaller wing boards over a sensibly sized mid length for waves and bumps.
Select to expand quoteAnyBoard said..
Under volume mid lengths seems to be self defeating.
I think this is the key. Long term you can work your way down in midlength volume to slightly negative but anyone starting out on one that doesn't have at least neutral volume rarely says anything positive about them. I'm at -9l right now and could never justify going lower but can easily imagine adding a few liters back in.
I'm 95kg on 95l Carver. 12mths in. If I could have bought one +10l I would've. I'm still of that view. When the wind is a bit iffy my neutral buoyancy ML is a real challenge, particularly if water conditions are rough. It does get on foil well in light winds (yesterday 8-12kts, 1200cm foil, 6m wing, aggressive pumping) but if it had a bit more float it'd be a real light wind weapon. Once it's on top of the water and planing it accelerates quickly and is great for getting smaller foils like my ART Pro 851 going. My perfect ML: 105L, 6'2" x 22"
I have a omen emissary 55l at 80kgs. If the wind is zero, I can obviously not stand on it and therefore not slog. But when there's just a little bit of pressure in the wing, the board is at the surface and I get going. I was hesitant to go that low in volume, but other than the non existing slogability, I don't see any downsides. And when it's up, a smaller board obviously is more fun.
I don't really see the benefit of neutral volume boards. If there's no wind, you still can not stand on it and if there's enough, you don't need all that volume anymore.
Select to expand quotepacoz said..
I have a omen emissary 55l at 80kgs. If the wind is zero, I can obviously not stand on it and therefore not slog. But when there's just a little bit of pressure in the wing, the board is at the surface and I get going. I was hesitant to go that low in volume, but other than the non existing slogability, I don't see any downsides. And when it's up, a smaller board obviously is more fun.
I don't really see the benefit of neutral volume boards. If there's no wind, you still can not stand on it and if there's enough, you don't need all that volume anymore.
I actually have a case for "neutral volume boards", and that is making it possible to slog out and back (mainly back...) to the windline. My local spot requires 4-500 meters, where some slogability is most welcome. I've found that a board with neutral volume (around my weight, 80 kgs, so typically 75-80 litres) is much easier to slog that my standard 65 liter. Other than that, I am with you, a smaller board is more fun when up.
One area of midlengths that maybe gets a little bit forgotten is that I actually think that they create good habits. Being more reactive than larger "soap boxes", it prepares you nicely for the day when you are ready for a smaller board. For me, this made the step from 90 to 65 litre quite nice and I felt at home on the smaller board almost immediately.
Thanks everyone for your input. Seems like just pulling the trigger on a mid length be the way to go.
I just discovered the Super K 2 104L non-pro model is over $3600 Aussie dollars and has an 80% chance of arriving by November lol. Definitely makes one consider a Skybrid for almost half the price...
I was well below the level of Mr Seagull when I got my first midlength. Could get up and flying in both directions, had made one or two gybes but was falling at each end of a run almost all of the time!
I moved from a 95l JP X-winger (5'x27") to an 84l Omen Flux (5'11"x22"); I'm 75kg in kit.
For me it was easier in every way. No concerns with lateral balance as as soon as the wing is in the air the board started moving forward and creating stability from the foil/mast. Much easier fore/aft balance due to the length. I had to be very conscious of this on the 5' to avoid burying the nose in the steep short chop we have here whereas the Flux just rides over it.
Take offs and touch down recovery were immeasurably better. The JP seemed to catch it's 'shoulders' on chop all the time and completely kill speed but the Flux doesn't suffer from this at all.
The other benefit I found with the narrower width was learning to switch feet. The narrower width gives you a smaller target area so less opportunity to stick your feet in the wrong place!
Have now got to the point where I'm confident gybing in both directions and spend my sessions cranking upwind for a mile or so then swell riding back down again. Again, the midlength works brilliantly for this as even if I touch down it carries speed and allows me to grave dig back up again or power the wing and pop back on foil really easily. I'm now looking at adding a 48l Flux to the quiver.
In summary, to give my opinion on the original question of when is the right time to consider a midlength, I'd say as soon as your focus is on flying on the foil rather than taxiing about there will be advantages.
Obviously with the caveat that they aren't the right tool if your aspirations run to jumps and spins rather than carving turns.
Select to expand quoteStanDingup said..
I was well below the level of Mr Seagull when I got my first midlength. Could get up and flying in both directions, had made one or two gybes but was falling at each end of a run almost all of the time!
I moved from a 95l JP X-winger (5'x27") to an 84l Omen Flux (5'11"x22"); I'm 75kg in kit.
For me it was easier in every way. No concerns with lateral balance as as soon as the wing is in the air the board started moving forward and creating stability from the foil/mast. Much easier fore/aft balance due to the length. I had to be very conscious of this on the 5' to avoid burying the nose in the steep short chop we have here whereas the Flux just rides over it.
Take offs and touch down recovery were immeasurably better. The JP seemed to catch it's 'shoulders' on chop all the time and completely kill speed but the Flux doesn't suffer from this at all.
The other benefit I found with the narrower width was learning to switch feet. The narrower width gives you a smaller target area so less opportunity to stick your feet in the wrong place!
Have now got to the point where I'm confident gybing in both directions and spend my sessions cranking upwind for a mile or so then swell riding back down again. Again, the midlength works brilliantly for this as even if I touch down it carries speed and allows me to grave dig back up again or power the wing and pop back on foil really easily. I'm now looking at adding a 48l Flux to the quiver.
In summary, to give my opinion on the original question of when is the right time to consider a midlength, I'd say as soon as your focus is on flying on the foil rather than taxiing about there will be advantages.
Obviously with the caveat that they aren't the right tool if your aspirations run to jumps and spins rather than carving turns.
Thanks, this is very reassuring. My biggest worry was investing (apparently as much as $3600+!) into a new board that I'd be unable to ride and have to go back to the old one.
I know what you mean about the stability and was hoping that would be a benefit. I occasionally suffer from that feeling of trying to balance on a pole with the fore/aft and side/side instability of a "shorter" board, even on my 115L. Especially when you throw in some chop and gusty conditions that rapidly power up the wing, it's very easy to sink the nose and then it's a struggle to get it back.
Comparing like for like in volume, ML boards are a lot harder to slog on, side chop is a nightmare, extra thickness makes it harder to get your legs up on deck. Thickness and length make them corky and wobbly in messy water.
In decent wind I much prefer my 60L Apple Slice 5'0, heaps better for jumping too. On foil I much prefer it too.
Where they shine for me is in lighter smooth water conditions. Getting on foils is noticably easier, narrow width is great when laying over in tacks or riding swell too but for me the only real advantage is ease of lift off. If you don't jump there's probably more in favor of a ML.
I have one for the light days 5'10 x 18 6'5/16 92L but looking at getting an Armie ML 85L for a bit more width and less thickness.
There are some wider mid lengths out there like the Duotone Skybrid which are a better compromise between stability and efficiency.
I few things to know. Based my experience building and riding any size I want. I've built a lot of them.
The narrow width is more challenging when too corky. The too corky danger is much worse than on old wide boards.
When under water too far, you loose a lot of the magic low end.
You don't need a little one and big one. They handle high wind better than the wide soap bar shapes. They are streamlined in the wind.
So, a true neutral buoyancy board is the ideal MAX volume. True being body weight + board weight + foil weight = Max volume for max stability. Won't feel like climbing aboard a rolling log in the water.
For you, 100 liter would be the perfect light wind size, that also works great in high wind.
Select to expand quoteStanDingup said..
I was well below the level of Mr Seagull when I got my first midlength. Could get up and flying in both directions, had made one or two gybes but was falling at each end of a run almost all of the time!
I moved from a 95l JP X-winger (5'x27") to an 84l Omen Flux (5'11"x22"); I'm 75kg in kit.
For me it was easier in every way. No concerns with lateral balance as as soon as the wing is in the air the board started moving forward and creating stability from the foil/mast. Much easier fore/aft balance due to the length. I had to be very conscious of this on the 5' to avoid burying the nose in the steep short chop we have here whereas the Flux just rides over it.
Take offs and touch down recovery were immeasurably better. The JP seemed to catch it's 'shoulders' on chop all the time and completely kill speed but the Flux doesn't suffer from this at all.
The other benefit I found with the narrower width was learning to switch feet. The narrower width gives you a smaller target area so less opportunity to stick your feet in the wrong place!
Have now got to the point where I'm confident gybing in both directions and spend my sessions cranking upwind for a mile or so then swell riding back down again. Again, the midlength works brilliantly for this as even if I touch down it carries speed and allows me to grave dig back up again or power the wing and pop back on foil really easily. I'm now looking at adding a 48l Flux to the quiver.
In summary, to give my opinion on the original question of when is the right time to consider a midlength, I'd say as soon as your focus is on flying on the foil rather than taxiing about there will be advantages.
Obviously with the caveat that they aren't the right tool if your aspirations run to jumps and spins rather than carving turns.
I'll add that I think the length adds stability for the foot switches too. I first noticed that on an 8' board. The pitch stability is a lot better!
Any thoughts on why you'd go 48l flux over 55l emissary? My buddy was a flux fanatic but when he got his hands on the 55l emissary it was all over. That's all he'll ride now.
Select to expand quoteDWF said..
For you, 100 liter would be the perfect light wind size, that also works great in high wind.
Thanks, unfortunately that puts me right between the 95 and 104. I was leaning towards the 104 super k 2.
Edit: or a 100l skybrid
Select to expand quotedieseagull said..DWF said..
For you, 100 liter would be the perfect light wind size, that also works great in high wind.
Thanks, unfortunately that puts me right between the 95 and 104. I was leaning towards the 104 super k 2.
Edit: or a 100l skybrid
I have an 85l Skybrid, a 6ft 8in x 26in x 96l JP year 2021 and Armstrong 8ft 11in x 17.25 x 108l all fantastic for their purpose - me 73kg.
The JP is my comfort board and is thin so absolutely no corky issues and surprisingly gets up on the foil easily, a very underrated board and cheap as second hand.
The Skybrid is a good all-around board, gets up on the foil easily and good in touch downs however, a bit corky.
The Armstrong is a light wind killer and more stable than the Skybrid and possibly lighter. I use it mostly atm.
Select to expand quotedieseagull said..DWF said..
For you, 100 liter would be the perfect light wind size, that also works great in high wind.
Thanks, unfortunately that puts me right between the 95 and 104. I was leaning towards the 104 super k 2.
Edit: or a 100l skybrid
I have an 85l Skybrid, a 6ft 8in x 26in x 96l JP year 2021 and Armstrong 8ft 11in x 17.25 x 108l all fantastic for their purpose - me 73kg.
The JP is my comfort board and is thin so absolutely no corky issues and surprisingly gets up on the foil easily, a very underrated board and cheap as second hand.
The Skybrid is a good all-around board, gets up on the foil easily and good in touch downs however, a bit corky.
The Armstrong is a light wind killer and more stable than the Skybrid and possibly lighter. I use it mostly atm.
Select to expand quotewarwickl said..
The Armstrong is a light wind killer and more stable than the Skybrid and possibly lighter. I use it mostly atm.
That's very interesting. I was thinking the skybrid would be a touch easier due to its width. I've seen the Armstrong ML described on here as being less stable than the Super K.
Does anyone have thoughts about whether the 104L being slightly positively bouyant (probably about +5L including wetsuit and foil and board) would be any better or worse than the 95 at maybe -5L?
Thinnes is absolutely an important metric for me. Nothing makes me dislike a board like excess thickness both on the water and in the air.
Select to expand quotedieseagull said..
Does anyone have thoughts about whether the 104L being slightly positively bouyant (probably about +5L including wetsuit and foil and board) would be any better or worse than the 95 at maybe -5L?
Some other factors I've figured out.
If you want to error with more volume, make sure it's spread out via extra length. Packing high volume into a shorter mid length, will add a lot of thickness, making it more tricky, and less stable.
The magic really kicks in at 20 wide. At 21, 22, 23, wide you loose more of the magic.
Select to expand quoteBWalnut said..
Any thoughts on why you'd go 48l flux over 55l emissary? My buddy was a flux fanatic but when he got his hands on the 55l emissary it was all over. That's all he'll ride now.
I haven't firmly made a decision as yet, will add the smaller board over the winter.
Main driver for me looking at the Flux rather than the Emissary is I like the wider tail section on the Flux. This will be my first sinker board and I can see the wider tail section making it much easier to get the board on top of the water when first starting. Also, the Emissary seems primarily focused on wave foiling whereas most of my sessions are swell riding rather than anything critical.
That said, like I did when I bought the Flux, I'll get in touch with Greg and chat through the options and what he would recommend when it comes to making the final decision.
Select to expand quotedieseagull said..warwickl said..
The Armstrong is a light wind killer and more stable than the Skybrid and possibly lighter. I use it mostly atm.
That's very interesting. I was thinking the skybrid would be a touch easier due to its width. I've seen the Armstrong ML described on here as being less stable than the Super K.
Does anyone have thoughts about whether the 104L being slightly positively bouyant (probably about +5L including wetsuit and foil and board) would be any better or worse than the 95 at maybe -5L?
My $0.02. If you want better light wind get-up, the 104l. If you want a great 1-board quiver and more fun/performance (that will still work ok in light winds) then the 95l.
Ok thanks again everyone for the advice, I really appreciate the perspectives!
I've tried to synthesise recommendations varying from max volume = weight + board + foil, to bodyweight + 10, to just bodyweight (from my shop).
I've decided to pull the trigger on a 90L Super K 2. Rationale being:
1) I'm currently losing a bit of weight to get back to an ideal of about 86-ish kgs.
2) 86 kgs + board + foil = just over 90, complying with all advice except the over-sizing advice.
3) Wanting to avoid corkiness that might come from oversizing.
4) More motivation to continue dropping the kgs (not that I've really been struggling, but everything helps).
5) Kinda want a 1 board quiver.
Hopefully I'll be able to provide an update when the board arrives November-ish on whether it's awesome or whether I've made a huge mistake!
You can also go for the V1 92l.I,m 97-98kg have the V1 92l for a year and demoed( + ordered the V2 95l Pro).I see the V2 more as an advanced board where the V1 is easier to use. Funnily the V1 92l feels more floaty then the V2 95l. The V1 has a bit more width that makes it more accesible and is imo the easiest board ever I tried to get on foil...and has almost no top-end. I use it in 3-4m waves with an 3m in 30 knots as well (totally ignoring the fact that I have an 5.4x56l in the back of my car as well)Reason to swap: My DW is 20 wide and i,m so used to the lesser width that I want my wingboard less wide as well.
Select to expand quoteJeroensurf said..
You can also go for the V1 92l.I,m 97-98kg have the V1 92l for a year and demoed( + ordered the V2 95l Pro).I see the V2 more as an advanced board where the V1 is easier to use. Funnily the V1 92l feels more floaty then the V2 95l. The V1 has a bit more width that makes it more accesible and is imo the easiest board ever I tried to get on foil...and has almost no top-end. I use it in 3-4m waves with an 3m in 30 knots as well (totally ignoring the fact that I have an 5.4x56l in the back of my car as well)Reason to swap: My DW is 20 wide and i,m so used to the lesser width that I want my wingboard less wide as well.
Interesting, do you reckon the V2 is harder to get going than the V1?
I've paid a 50% deposit on the V2 now so I'm committed.
Just to chuck a spanner in the works sunk deals work very well. AFS do them and Smik just started. Shorter length with great stability. Amazing when up and gliding.
Select to expand quotedieseagull said..
Ok thanks again everyone for the advice, I really appreciate the perspectives!
I've tried to synthesise recommendations varying from max volume = weight + board + foil, to bodyweight + 10, to just bodyweight (from my shop).
I've decided to pull the trigger on a 90L Super K 2. Rationale being:
1) I'm currently losing a bit of weight to get back to an ideal of about 86-ish kgs.
2) 86 kgs + board + foil = just over 90, complying with all advice except the over-sizing advice.
3) Wanting to avoid corkiness that might come from oversizing.
4) More motivation to continue dropping the kgs (not that I've really been struggling, but everything helps).
5) Kinda want a 1 board quiver.
Hopefully I'll be able to provide an update when the board arrives November-ish on whether it's awesome or whether I've made a huge mistake!
Stoked for ya. I think you picked the right board for sure.
Just FYI I kinda feel like the corkiness thing is just people who are off the balance point. We keep hearing this come up in boards for as long as I can remember but nobody seems to be able to narrow down what makes a board "corky" and what doesn't. My thought is that it's simply the balance point. If you are on that Super K and go for your water start with too much weight towards the back it will be easy to submerge the narrow deck and then of course, it will pop out from under you like a cork. This seems like a more common complaint with midlengths because of the narrow design being easier to submerge. More volume actually solves this in most cases because unless it's a custom, the board get's longer, widening the sweet spot so you can't initiate cork mode. However, if you go with more volume but no additional length the board get's tippy side to side making it tough on multiple axis instead of just the one.
So, I don't really think any board is actually corky, I just think everyone has different balance skills and experiences and it takes time to sort out the best positioning in the water.
