Hi guys!
Could someone compare these two boards? Especially considering that one has a displacement hull, with a very rounded nose, and the other a planning hull, with a flatter nose. Kalama comments in the last video that he always looks for the maximum ease to take off, even thinking about people who do prone, but the theory (according to some) is that the displacement hull is faster when it comes to reaching that Minimum speed that the foil needs.

Has anyone tried both? Anything else to keep in mind? All the best, thanks!!

Like for like, the rounded hull should have less wetted area and thus accelerate quicker, the other one should have more stability. When releasing a hard edge is better than a round edge.......so a whole lot of compromises being entertained. Haven't tried either so no idea which is "better". I'd be worried about the round hull as instability kills your paddling effort and then it doesn't matter how efficient it otherwise is.

I prefer my boards to be narrow 18 inches or less, but in a design that is very stable - that usually means well defined rails on the board and harder edges. In my experience the hull design is crucial, but i think the most important aspect of it is providing stability so you can put the power down easily, like Peter said. If I had a board with completely rounded bottom I feel I would need approx another 2 inches of board width and extra volume to be as stable. Then this board won't feel as nice on foil because of the extra width and volume.

Iv paddled up both with the same foil on the same day in Maui. This was 2 years ago before both brands released final production models. Both boards similar in dimension too. The Kalama released from the water significantly faster with less effort and felt overall more stable. My new V2 Barracuda is 8'6 x 17.5" at 98 and feels more stable, faster and easier than my 7'10 x 19.5 at 102L V1

Thanks for your replies. Maybe the rounded bottom would be better suited to winging and proning? (Because you don't need so much stability as SUP). And harder rails and planning hull por SUP.
Does It make sense?

And for surfing... (prone/SUP/Wing) Maybe better rounded bottom and displacement hull? To take faster the initial speed and water touches being softer.

Thanks for your valuable replies!!

A family member owns a V1 Barracuda and was interested in the KT. He has now paddled a KT of similar dimensions three times doing flat water paddle ups. his comments are as follows.

The Barracuda moved noticeably quicker through the water and broke from the water easier. Go Figure. No comments on stability specifically.

Just like to point out a couple of things to consider when buying a DW board. Paddling up on the flat is a good trick but not exactly the same in choppy water and into bumps. So narrow is great and makes it easy to paddle up on flat water but it's in the ocean you be downwinding. Once up and if your going to be standing there for a couple of hours consideration of the deck shape and comfort is important. And lastly the tail needs to be clear and not touch down or catch any chop or swell. I have owned the cuda V1 and the KT and agree the cuda gets up quicker but I think the KT has its measure in terms of comfort and keeping clear around the tail area. Both excellent DW boards so it's all personal preference at the end of the day. Maybe the clearance issue is improved on the cuda V2 I don't know.

Thanks guys, that's what I'm looking for, side by side comparison. So Scotty, it's in your opini?n the KT more confortable than de Barracuda in Choppy conditions? What do you mean by confortable, more stable when standing? I thought the rounded nose would be more unstable. Or do you mean in the air, when foiling?

Thank you so much!

The Cuda deck is basically flat which is totally fine. The KT has quite a pronounced and complex single/double concave shaped into the deck in the rear foot area which is very comfortable to stand on when you're flying along at high speed and it just feels great. The V1 cuda I had was 7'10" x 19.5. Both the KT models 7'7" x 20" and 8'2" x 21" are more stable in chop than the cuda but obviously both wider boards. The cuda paddles up a fair easier than the KT 7'7 and maybe similar to the KT 8'2". The deck grip on the cuda is probably better except I don't like that hump. Like I said I have not ridden the new V2 cuda. I was surprised the KT was stable as when you look at the round bottom it looks like it would be evil but the flat section around the foil mount must really help stability I assume.

Select to expand quote

Scotty Mac said..
Just like to point out a couple of things to consider when buying a DW board. Paddling up on the flat is a good trick but not exactly the same in choppy water and into bumps. So narrow is great and makes it easy to paddle up on flat water but it's in the ocean you be downwinding. Once up and if your going to be standing there for a couple of hours consideration of the deck shape and comfort is important. And lastly the tail needs to be clear and not touch down or catch any chop or swell. I have owned the cuda V1 and the KT and agree the cuda gets up quicker but I think the KT has its measure in terms of comfort and keeping clear around the tail area. Both excellent DW boards so it's all personal preference at the end of the day. Maybe the clearance issue is improved on the cuda V2 I don't know.

I would suggest that if your tail is touching down or catching chop or swell then its more likely and an indication that you are riding too low on the mast regardless of mast length.

Yer sure Hank but thats not always how it plays out. There are many times this can happen. When it's really choppy or your getting low as your about to drop in a big one or your driving into a turn or your on the edge of dropping off foil. If you're keen to grab a big wing and a longer mast and just cruise along sure. Have you seen the tail shape of the V2 barracuda? They didn't change that for no reason.

Agreed the tail shape is different but i would suggest the refinement has nothing to do with improvements in design that eliminate tail touchdowns and much more to do with board speed and stability? Neither the V1 and V2 do not have significant tail rocker behind the boxes out through the rear of the board like some other designs.

If your low on the mast and about to drive down a big bump then the angle of the foil and the board should be matching the gradient of the bump, meaning nose down tail up. I believe and this is just my opinion, if your consistently touching down then its either technique issues or tactical errors as apposed to an equipment (board) fault.

Who said continually? I have DW a fair bit Hank I think I might have a bit on an idea why it's there. And since I rode both board shapes for over a year on each I know what is the advantages and disadvantages of each. Amos bullet, DCs crossings, KT and now Kalama have all introduced some sort of tail cut out and I can tell it's all about reducing the chance of the tail touches by the water surface. During pumping, taking a turn or when ever. Anyways you ride what you like.

%3D%3D
And here's a 39km run did with my mate Jamie a couple of months ago. I think we did the first 21-22km without falling. Happy for you to critique my technique or point out my tactical issues..

Select to expand quote

Scotty Mac said..

%3D%3D
And here's a 39km run did with my mate Jamie a couple of months ago. I think we did the first 21-22km without falling. Happy for you to critique my technique or point out my tactical issues..

I was making a general statement not directed at you regarding the additional possible causes of tail touchdowns beyond just equipment. In any scenario when evaluating performance, equipment is not the only factor to consider. That was the point i was attempting to make by including technical and tactical factors into the conversation which may contribute to tail touchdowns? Again, not directed at you personally, nor was i questioning or attempting to critique your technique or tactical skill level. Appreciate you sharing the video, I will leave the technical and tactical review process part to you.