Back to top

eppo forum posts in last 60 days

Show Edits
Reply in Topic: Rip up and stow parawing
eppo
eppo

WA

9762 posts

21 Feb 2026 8:12am
Select to expand quote
czareka said..

Spark said..
Thanks for the replies!
ended up finding a 5.2M North Ranger for $500. Basically new too!
had a crack today on my 5'2 35L and did get up, but it was bloody hard work.
thinking at 83-84 Kg a bit more length and probably 55L would be a bit more realistic



To be honest, a 70/80L board would be much more realistic for your 84 kg. I'm 92 kg and started with 34L (4'5) and it worked, but ended up settling on 85L for most days.When it's blowing 25+ kts, I'll grab a 70L board, but I'd still rather have a smaller parawing than a smaller board for flying.


why is that. Sending it DW you want smallest board possible - para gets put away - set and forgot - are you doing up / downwinders ?
eppo
eppo

WA

9762 posts

18 Feb 2026 5:28pm
Hilly sent me this clip - so worth a watch .

?si=uE99AoQ63DZhZ4y1
eppo
eppo

WA

9762 posts

15 Feb 2026 7:51am
Yeh I don't agree with a lot of his observations comparing negatives of the PR - except it's easier to pack. But even that can be sorted if you get good enough and practised enough, with enough water time under your belt. wave riding - yeh probs the PP

I will say for packing and redeploying constantly - he is correct on that. Then again i get near 100 percent redeployment on the PR and i'm quick to get it away.

PR def goes upwind at a far greater angle, has a much bigger wind range and has a lower accessible wind range usability to get up due to its aspect and the way it drives into the window without falling back.

It's the same as a mid aspect versus a high aspect kite. Same same. Physics is physics.


eppo
eppo

WA

9762 posts

10 Feb 2026 7:18am
A lot of understandable whining about change of system . but i say better of doing it now to take on more high aspect wings and allow heavy riders to use them. It had to be done at some stage.
Reply in Topic: Armstrong advice
eppo
eppo

WA

9762 posts

9 Feb 2026 5:38pm
Select to expand quote
CH3MTR4IL5 said..

ninjatuna said..
I sup foil. Rode the 880/140, then 880/120, then 880/130. Now 890/130. But I was real impressed with the way the 130 made the 880 feel. The turns felt like it was on a rail but not locked in. Like really powering through the turns. Kind of hard to describe but put a big smile on my face. Armie has always said the tails are the cheapest way to change a front foil. I also read somewhere some one else had good results doing it. It was a stepping stone to buying the 890.



Thanks for mentioning this to you and eppo, I have paired the 130 with red shim with the 890 and its a whole new world! i thought it might be too skittish but have had a few sessions and nice setup. I have run it in fairly large waves when I underestimated the conditions on a longer run and still goes hard.

790/130 shimmed is still my favourite but this is a great setup, and weirdly fast, I am not being massively outrun by DW foilers on much smaller and higher aspect setups.


know what you mean. I did a 30 odd km run on the 770 (with 130) in 16-18 ish then sent it for another 18km when wind and runners were better slightly on the 890 with the 130 (blue and red) and was shocked how well it kept up with the runners and allowed you to smash turns all the way. Both superb setups.
eppo
eppo

WA

9762 posts

4 Feb 2026 7:08am
I lengthened my 4.3 back out again - flies much better and at least 15 percent better bottom end. Just saying.
Reply in Topic: Armstrong advice
eppo
eppo

WA

9762 posts

1 Feb 2026 6:24am
Select to expand quote
Sonsaleta said..
I feel the same more or less. I stay personally with the 120 for everything. Carving as the 130 but less drag (even shimming more the 130)


no issues with pitch on that 120 - that's my only criticism of it ?
eppo
eppo

WA

9762 posts

31 Jan 2026 7:07pm
Select to expand quote
BWalnut said..

eppo said..
disagree - they will evolve boards to suite parawing more. but for now yeh - any mid will do the job



How much better do we think they will get? What's the tangible change we predict?

I've been thinking about this a lot watching this thread unfold. If the perfect parawing board released tomorrow, would everyone be on lower volumes? Shorter lengths? Smaller sails? Or, will it be more of a small upgrade? A 5% easier but no significant alteration to dims and sails?

Ideally it will reduce volume for given para size / weight of rider as volume equals eight given same materials. We all said this about DW boards 2-3 years ago and look how much they have evolved. Para and board evolution is guaranteed in the next 2 years until it reaches a point of finishing returns. They will also get specialised depending on the type of riding.
eppo
eppo

WA

9762 posts

31 Jan 2026 11:27am
disagree - they will evolve boards to suite parawing more. but for now yeh - any mid will do the job
eppo
eppo

WA

9762 posts

30 Jan 2026 8:58am
Select to expand quote
Thatspec said..




I have the 6' x 19 x 82L (same board in '25) and the shape, while really quite good could use a little more volume up front. It's easy to stuff the nose and kill your momentum on Pwing starts.

The construction is absolute crap though. Not a shred of carbon in it and it cracks and dents if you look at it crosseyed.


oh . that's not good .
eppo
eppo

WA

9762 posts

30 Jan 2026 8:57am
Select to expand quote
ninjatuna said..
Great info Eppo!!

What tails are you liking with the UHA's. I figure the darts and the crisp. But have you tried the surf 130 or 170


I'm yet to try the surf tails mate but will eventually. Crisp and 120-140 so far
eppo
eppo

WA

9762 posts

30 Jan 2026 7:30am
Someone of the FB forum a winger made a great call last night. Match the span of your UhA to the equivalent Ha rather than size.
Reply in Topic: Armstrong advice
eppo
eppo

WA

9762 posts

30 Jan 2026 7:28am
Select to expand quote
ninjatuna said..
I sup foil. Rode the 880/140, then 880/120, then 880/130. Now 890/130. But I was real impressed with the way the 130 made the 880 feel. The turns felt like it was on a rail but not locked in. Like really powering through the turns. Kind of hard to describe but put a big smile on my face. Armie has always said the tails are the cheapest way to change a front foil. I also read somewhere some one else had good results doing it. It was a stepping stone to buying the 890.


yeh into have been swapping between the 140/130 surf and the 120 dart. Generally in the same day on three different runs or at least two. 140 provides a little more glide / speed (but not much) but the 130 has none of that tip flex when carving harder - so it rolls better rail to rail as you have said. It's definitely more "lively". Needs at least a red shim more due to its inherent pitch angle so shimming it correctly is important. The 120 is faster all round but can suffer from pitch issues if you are not ready for it. 120 works really well with bigger foils for some reason though. I also run a crisp flex 130 tail which is a dream to carve but doesn't like real bumpy conditions nor really light conditions when you have to pump a fair bit to access runners. Well it takes a more subtle pumping technique anyhow.

Tails are so important and a cheap way to get more range out of a given front foil.
eppo
eppo

WA

9762 posts

29 Jan 2026 8:40pm
Select to expand quote
FarNorthSurfer said..
Thanks very much @eppo for taking the time to post that info. For sure I have never managed to get the best out of the DWP foils and at 60yo and 94kg I probably never will. Might try and sell them on and put the cash towards a UHM. Sounds like the 870 would be the core size to start with, replacing the 980.



yeh that's a good measure - one size down

DW para with my 7'3 Mk3 today with the 970. Took a bit to adjust to the span but when i did - was brilliant in like 11-13 knots max.
Reply in Topic: Armstrong advice
eppo
eppo

WA

9762 posts

29 Jan 2026 11:38am
Select to expand quote
GCfoiler said..
New to Armstrong, seeking some advice please. Intermediate level prone foiler, happily turn, pump and link waves etc. primarily small, weak waves with crowds (fun of the gc!)
been demo'ing the HA780 front wing the last few days and really love it- The glide, low end, forgives of the pump and fun to turn.
however, swell was a bit bigger today and on the outgoing tide waves had a bit more face to them. I found it had a fair bit of lift and I fell a few times turning, I guess from tip breaches. found myself being hesitant to make more critical turns. If I was to get a smaller front wing for bigger days and towing, what's best? Or Is there one size does everything front wing to save getting two? i tried the MA 790 but that wasn't for me in the small stuff, much preferred the HA. any and all advice appreciated, thanks!



What tails you running and shims. Also what you weigh? I've always considered the 780 the perfect all rounder.

Be honest will the 780 cover most days ? Don't make a sizing decision on 20 percent of your conditions.

Better off getting two foils then.

and interesting prone setup could be the 680 (def less pump) and the 770 UHA . which would cover nearly every small day you could imagine for superior pump and link.

kinda depends on your weight, current ability and what to grow into.

what i am saying above is - if only one wing then base that decision on 80 percent of the condtions you ride in and out with the odd bigger day.

You could then run two tails as well to really hone to conditions and minimise the impact of those 20 percent days.

Honestly though a bigger MA to really rip turns like the 990 would be sick as well


a crazy ass combo would be the 670 uha and a 990 ma
eppo
eppo

WA

9762 posts

29 Jan 2026 10:21am
Select to expand quote
FarNorthSurfer said..



eppo said..
well this was my review of the 770 i put on the armstrong facebook page after my 3rd DW on it.

770 UHA Magic

Just did 18km DW in around 18- 20 knots on the 770 in weed that left every other rider totally despondent and exhausted - was just carpeted in the stuff in lines stretching as far as the eye could see.
I came in just utterly stoked. Weed . what weed!
The 770 / 140 just kept motoring on - sure you had to adjust and at times took of the the U in UHA. But She kept just motoring on and at no stage did i feel i was coming down.






Thanks for the post @eppo, I'm not on Facebook so if its not on here it passes me by, my choice.
Do you have any thoughts on the differences between HAv2 and UHA?
I'm on HA780, 980 and 1180 which I really enjoy riding but also use the DWP755 and 930, maybe not as often as I should.
Mostly wingfoil, parawing early days and SUP Foil and the HAv2 works for everything. Don't get to DW as much as I would like.
As usual FOMO is strong, but the wallet is light




Yeh took 5km on my first session to dial in its characteristics - then after 30 odd km on the water - was ready for this session. Yeh the stoke is real. Shame ya not on the facebook page there's a ton of nuanced discussion on this wing. but hey as you said your choice - no doubt less social media equals more sanity.

Look to me the UHA is definitely suited to DW - not sure i'd be using it to wing - except if going DW. That being said if someone if cranking upwind on a wing then flag riding the bumps DW - then yeh it's the one. Smaller sizes could serve for an advanced winger but man those new Mas are hard to leave alone. In waves it's a no brainer - i'm saying it now that the new Mas are just as good as the UHA but obviously for different reasons. They also make a sick para DW wing when you really want to turn and burn in the pocket.

Look my bread and butter was the 780ha for prone, wing (although i tended to use a 680 mostly) and DW paddle and para. 880 as the easy to use reliable wing when wind is not as strong or predictable or going DW in a need unknown place. 980/1080 was my light wind wing - and the 980 still serves as a decent slow arc surf wing being under that metre span.

Probably my weed experience explains the weed took the U out of the UHA - which leaves a HA lol. Can defintely feel the pedigree genetics from the HA. Take off is
smother and easier i feel on the UHA though.

Basically they have made a high performance foil that is very user friendly. Not an easy job to do. It's like it has different gears - from a stupidly low access speed generated from this insane concrete like pumping platform that allows you to dig yourself out of swell hollows to the usual high aspect efficient "tap tap" - to generate fantastic glide speed - and having lots of weed in the foil made me access the MA/ Ha mode - when weed was off then one can then open the foil up - different turning to the former foils - it banks like I said like a fighter jet - just shoots you out of a turn.

Id call the DWP a high performance foil without the user friendly aspect mentioned above. Never got along with the DWP myself. But hey each to their own. It would span out on me unless the conditions were ideal.

Which brings me to the fact the carbon layup is seriously "intense" on the UHA and it's noticeable heavier in your hand with equivalent size of the Ha. This has produced a super stiff wing which equals less chance of being spanned out like in the DWP.

and man invest time on the para . that's the ticket man!

.. yeh the 870 from which all the other sizes were based off - most prototypes built at this size - is seriously good.

Other advantage is its wind range. 770
pretty much covers the 780 and the 880 and probably even touches into the 980 part of the spectrum. Hence why i've ordered a 570 . hope to cover the 680 is also use to DW with.

That being said when conditions are really hectic and all
over the place - the Ha and Ma still has its place. Also no matter how stiff they make them - span is span - no getting around it. The 770 had almost the the span of the 980 - so the bigger you go the more you will need to adjust your riding style to allow for this span.


negative . much harder to get enough tip out on a turn to release weed. MAs are much easier and even the Ha for that. You do need to adjust the way you turn .
eppo
eppo

WA

9762 posts

28 Jan 2026 9:52pm
well this was my review of the 770 i put on the armstrong facebook page after my 3rd DW on it.

770 UHA Magic

Just did 18km DW in around 18- 20 knots on the 770 in weed that left every other rider totally despondent and exhausted - was just carpeted in the stuff in lines stretching as far as the eye could see.



I came in just utterly stoked. Weed . what weed!



The 770 / 140 just kept motoring on - sure you had to adjust and at times took of the the U in UHA. But She kept just motoring on and at no stage did i feel i was coming down.



Stopped twice to wait for the slow pokes - then hit a 5km stretch of no weed - where the streets have no name from U2 came on the shocks and i opened that baby up. Fk me turn, connect and not flow - but fckn go! Go fast laterally, up and over at will or go slow carving inside hollows - didn't matter. This bloody beast bank turns like a fighter jet!



Total flow in the true Csikszentmihalyi sense. Just one with 75ML, the foil and the ocean. Never had that experience at that level before. Truly remarkable wing we have here.



glad i got the 570

coming . anymore power and i'd be seriously having to hold back.



not sure why im dribbling about this but I had to write something somewhere.
eppo
eppo

WA

9762 posts

28 Jan 2026 1:15pm
Select to expand quote
hilly said..
Really there are two categories good wind and bad wind. Good wind do what you want as anything with in reason will work.
Bad/marginal wind needs more thought.



yes and no. The nose "thing" was a real issue on that 70km osprey exmouth run on the 65Ml in head to double head high runners starting wise and the reason i got the 75 instead - which was a shame because the 65 was significantlt more nimble. Then again i was only 4 para sessions in might be a different story now so you may very well be right. Steely and angus are on 19L prones in big winds so not sure there is any talk of nose volume etc lol!


must admit since this thread i've been getting up way further back and . not many issues
eppo
eppo

WA

9762 posts

28 Jan 2026 6:49am
Select to expand quote
Windoc 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.


so you using this sub 18-20L board in marginal winds on the 4.3 . ? that's crazy. We also though we needed more width on the boards say 19-20 - yet my DW sup and prone boards were all 17' wide. Make sense to be narrow as possible. Does it "track" though . when you don't want it to ?
eppo
eppo

WA

9762 posts

27 Jan 2026 6:06am
Select to expand quote
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.
eppo
eppo

WA

9762 posts

26 Jan 2026 6:53am
Select to expand quote
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.
eppo
eppo

WA

9762 posts

26 Jan 2026 6:48am
Select to expand quote
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.
eppo
eppo

WA

9762 posts

25 Jan 2026 11:06am
Select to expand quote
CH3MTR4IL5 said..

eppo said..


zarb said..
Next time it happens honestly just hold it by the mast like you would a big sledge hammer, with the titanium end of the fuse as the "head" of the hammer. Find a hard piece of pavement and just belt the **** out of the pavement. Don't be shy. I've split the concrete before - no damage the fuse or mast.




yep that's how i do it .



bloody hell, just put a block of wood on the concrete and hit that you madmen.


Ah yeh - that's probably more sensible
eppo
eppo

WA

9762 posts

25 Jan 2026 7:00am
Select to expand quote
zarb said..
Next time it happens honestly just hold it by the mast like you would a big sledge hammer, with the titanium end of the fuse as the "head" of the hammer. Find a hard piece of pavement and just belt the **** out of the pavement. Don't be shy. I've split the concrete before - no damage the fuse or mast.


yep that's how i do it .
eppo
eppo

WA

9762 posts

24 Jan 2026 8:50am
Select to expand quote
Youngbreezy 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.
eppo
eppo

WA

9762 posts

24 Jan 2026 7:06am
Select to expand quote
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?











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 ?
eppo
eppo

WA

9762 posts

21 Jan 2026 4:11pm
the mini darts are not light. Built to handle a thrashing. Seen one in the flesh - looks like an ideal design though
for para
eppo
eppo

WA

9762 posts

17 Jan 2026 6:38pm
but good is the sonar ?
Reply in Topic: Duotone stash V2
eppo
eppo

WA

9762 posts

15 Jan 2026 8:02am
Select to expand quote
rgmacca said..
www.duotonesports.com/en/uk/products/duotone-stash-2026-42260-3550?_kx=CcQH8LQYZukltw5Npd8tOYMqvld9tZQvnc6QzTwCPbs.WvpNAe
Ditched the double skin wing tips. With V2s will be interesting times for PW.


I like the look of that bar ..
Return To Classic site