Looking hard at the 116 as my shlogging wave board....can't find a review of the bigger boards anywhere. Just the smaller models. I always stayed away from the older 118 as it just didn't plane quick enough for my liking. Anyone....

I m interested too...

From here:
http://forums.boards.mpora.com/showthread.php/77013-Review-Goya-Quad-118-2015#4dBUzYBsvJHvEtTM.97

"Also good to know is that the 2016 shape is really different. I havent sailed it yet, but Lampie told me it has less float (the difference is a lot bigger as the 2 liter diff suggests), its faster rockered and has a more electric instead of controlled ride. It planes a lot faster as well.
The lesser float made me decide to go for the 2015 2th hand instead of buying a new 116 as it suits better MY Needs"

I own the 116 Quad by myself and can only confirm that it's early planing, when setup and riden right.
You have to send it downwind a little and for lightwind i use 18.5 K4 Rockets.
On a wave it turns like a 90 l board , amazing.

18.5 rocket as twin...or ?

I have the 118 and just bought the 116. Only used it twice, but so far I can confirm it is earlier planing than the 118. It turns really well in crappy small waves.

Thanks for the input....once you guys get some waves under your belt can you post an update. They don't even have one on the U.S. Mainland so I'll have to special order.

Couple more days in the waves now. All of them cross on, varying from almost cross shore to almost straight onshore. For almost straight onshore I still prefer a big single fin, but as long as there is enough of a wind angle to the waves that I can try a DTL turn I love this board. I have set up the 116 L as a twin, with 18 cm rear fins and covers over the thruster boxes. I only weigh 80 kg and I have no problem whipping the board around in a snappy bottom turn or drawing it out into a longer fast bottom turn. For me this board is magic, earlier planing than the old 118 L Goya quad, and amazingly enough also more lively on a wave.

The rocker is noticeably flatter than the old 118 L when compared side by side, hence the earlier planing. The wide point on the 116 L is further forward and the board narrows to the tail with less curvature than the older 118 L, thus being narrower under the rear foot than the older 118 L. The rear hole is 16 cm from the tail vs. 18 cm on the 118 L. Combining the more rearward stance and the changed outline means that the 116 L is 5 cm narrower under my rear foot compared to the 118 L.

One thing to add, the red MFC fins that come with the Goya are absolute cr*p. Dinged them up pretty bad on sand. WTF! Fortunately I had the 18 cm G10 fins ready to go.

Does the 116 have a standard US box or mini US?

I am starting to think the big problem with the 118 is that's it's simply underfinned and because they decided to put in mini US fin boxes there is much on the market when it comes to bigger fins.

Thanks for your review Phil. I'm an enthusiastic user of the previous Goya series, where I have 94, 104 & 118. There's a couple of things I wonder about the new ones-how do they go with float and ride, and what happens in big swell where you really need to commit body wt forward to engage the rail and climb the wall?

As you point out they seem to be less hippy and flatter rocker than the previous generation, which no doubt will improve their planing performance, but I wonder if this comes at the expense of float and ride capacity? I really value the wide hips of my series which seem to support your weight when the wind suddenly drops. I find myself edging forward to the wide point whenever I'm forced to do windless gybes, and then I'm really glad of the extra buoyancy here. Do find any differences here in the new generation?

This year I've pushed everything as far forward as possible: all footstraps and mast foot, and I'm really loving the drive down the line both in big and small waves. It really promotes the feeling of flow, and makes it so easy to charge down the line. In fact I'm not noticing any downsides at all at any other point of sail, on the wave (where they still climb really sharply) or off (pointing, chop hopping, jumping etc.) That being the case, I don't know how I'd get on with the new generation which is driven off the back foot according to what I've read. What's your take on this? How do you engage the rails on big swells if you have to drive mostly off the back foot?

One of the locals at a big wave location south of here couldn't get on with the new generation at all because of this. Whenever he committed weight forward he'd trip up the board, so he went back to his trusty 118.

Interested in your views on this.

Cheers, Jens

Select to expand quote

stehsegler said...
Does the 116 have a standard US box or mini US?

I am starting to think the big problem with the 118 is that's it's simply underfinned and because they decided to put in mini US fin boxes there is much on the market when it comes to bigger fins.

It has the mini us boxes. The original 118 came with G10 18 MFC rears and 7 cm sharkbite thrusters so I'm using those rear fins on the 116. I have just ordered a set of 18.5 MUF fins as apparently they have a short base that will fit the mini us box. I pretty happy with the 18 cm MFC fins, so this is just to try a fin I've never used before.

Select to expand quote

Jens said..
Thanks for your review Phil. I'm an enthusiastic user of the previous Goya series, where I have 94, 104 & 118. There's a couple of things I wonder about the new ones-how do they go with float and ride, and what happens in big swell where you really need to commit body wt forward to engage the rail and climb the wall?

As you point out they seem to be less hippy and flatter rocker than the previous generation, which no doubt will improve their planing performance, but I wonder if this comes at the expense of float and ride capacity? I really value the wide hips of my series which seem to support your weight when the wind suddenly drops. I find myself edging forward to the wide point whenever I'm forced to do windless gybes, and then I'm really glad of the extra buoyancy here. Do find any differences here in the new generation?

The slog and ride of the 116 L is in some ways better and some ways worse than the 118 L. The 116 L is shorter, which makes it fractionally harder to climb white water if not enough wind to present the underside of the board to the white water. But if there is enough wind to get the front of the board up right as the white water arrives (without stalling the rig) then the wide nose helps the board pop right over the white water. Trying to plow through (not over) the white water is challenging because of the short and wide template gives the white water lots to grab. So in really light wind / big wave scenarios I prefer my Exocet 10'5 longboard for getting out. However thanks to the faster rocker I find it easier to pump onto a wave in light winds, so where previously I was missing a lot of waves on the 118 L because of the banana rocker, I can now catch those waves, or else catch them earlier so I can position myself better before the wave breaks.
<!--[if !supportLineBreakNewLine]-->
When the wind drops to the point of barely slogging, the 116 L is still comfortable with front foot behind mast foot and back foot behind front straps. Yes, less volume further back, but not enough change to make floating unpleasant.
<!--[endif]-->

Select to expand quote

Jens said..
This year I've pushed everything as far forward as possible: all footstraps and mast foot, and I'm really loving the drive down the line both in big and small waves. It really promotes the feeling of flow, and makes it so easy to charge down the line. In fact I'm not noticing any downsides at all at any other point of sail, on the wave (where they still climb really sharply) or off (pointing, chop hopping, jumping etc.) That being the case, I don't know how I'd get on with the new generation which is driven off the back foot according to what I've read. What's your take on this? How do you engage the rails on big swells if you have to drive mostly off the back foot?

One of the locals at a big wave location south of here couldn't get on with the new generation at all because of this. Whenever he committed weight forward he'd trip up the board, so he went back to his trusty 118.

Interested in your views on this.

Cheers, Jens

The 116 L definitely has more of a rear foot bias compared to the 118 L or the older Quatro Cube / LS Quad range. I've traditionally sailed with a very wide stance - front foot front hole, back foot back hole, even though I'm only 6'2. I noticed that I had to change my style when I first sailed the 116 L as I straight lined on a couple of bottom turns when I tried to turn over my front foot. I've moved my front foot back by 1 hole, and adapted my sailing style to bend my knees more to get lower (like surfing) and equally balance both feet, maybe slightly rear foot biased. I also think compared to really good wave riders, my hips are further back and I'm bending more at the hips (butt sticking out?). I'd love to do lay down bottom turns like Levi, but my body doesn't follow my mind. But my conditions are cross onshore and small weak waves and back foot biased riding seems acceptable in those conditions. Since I haven't sailed it in decent waves yet, I'm not qualified to give you an answer. If we get any decent waves this winter I'll write up what I find.

I watched a video of Marcilio Browne talking about tuning and he recommended bringing the mast track back for big sails to offset the weight of the rig, so with my 6.7 I set the mastfoot in the back third of the mast track, and my 6.1 just back from center. I've had to lower my boom slightly to compensate.

Select to expand quote

uweh said..
18.5 rocket as twin...or ?

Yes twin.

Reg. front-/backfoot riding I can't compare new 116 to 118 (had none), but new 96 to 94.
Yes it's more rearfoot biased, but not negative for me, more kind of getting used to a new style.
For me it's easier now since i don't have to shift my weight front-back so much in bottomturn to cutback transitions like before.
You always stay more on the backfoot.
No controll problems so far in bigger frontside waves (logo high), the narrower, more parallel tail seems to help here.

Alex

hi there - would you say the 2016/7 Goya 96 is a early planer & good float for its size or not renowned for it?
im 90kg and this would be my main / big wave board....so it needs to have some zip

Cheers,
northy1

Select to expand quote

northy1 said..
hi there - would you say the 2016/7 Goya 96 is a early planer & good float for its size or not renowned for it?
im 90kg and this would be my main / big wave board....so it needs to have some zip

Cheers,
northy1

A board for big waves or a big board for waves?

I am 91 kg and have the 2017 Goya Quad 106. For a wave board it is both quick to plane and fast. It was a choice between the 96 or the 106 for me - I was leaning towards the 96 but after correspondence with Pascal at Goya I went for the 106 and am glad I did. I use the 106 with sails from 4.7 up to 6.2 and it's only when I am really powered-up with the 4.7 in choppy conditions that it starts to get out of shape. It's a cracking board.

Select to expand quote

northy1 said..
hi there - would you say the 2016/7 Goya 96 is a early planer & good float for its size or not renowned for it?
im 90kg and this would be my main / big wave board....so it needs to have some zip

Cheers,
northy1

I would say so. For a waveboard it is a early planer.
Alex

Havnt sailed the 2017 goya - but rockerline measurements Ive seen - they are FAST ...

Northy , shouldnt you be thinking another size up ? 96 for a 90kgs doesnt give alot of backup float for light side/side off / float of wind drops etc etc ... I regularly use upto 20 ltrs bigger than my weight ... And can turn it fine .... (and more to the point - piss kiters off who cant even get upto the break in some conditions I sail )