This is really brief. I got to try out a Severne Nano 92L today. It belonged to a guy Nick who bravely let me try it his board, I managed to return it in one piece, didn't hit any reef with it.... Phew....
I was using my custom 95 L quad and Nick's 92 was set up as a quad. I used my rig on his board then back on mine then back on his board again and so on.
Its got a lot of vee in it I couldn't judge the rocker by eye, but it's not a high rockered wave board. Pads, straps and non slip felt good, Nick's a bit taller than me so the front and rear footstrap spread felt a tad to wide for me. His feet are bigger than mine I like loose straps but his were too big, I didn't want to adjust his straps, cause I hate it when people do that to mine when I have them perfectly set up.
It was a bit slower to get on the plane than mine, but it's no slouch. In a straight line the vee eats up all the chop, it's got good speed. There were a few bits of seaweed floating around that didn't catch on the fins at all.
I've tried a few quad boards Goya RRD Quatro F2. On todays waves it felt better than other production boards I've tried. It was cross onshore today and just small chest high waves but it turns really well in these conditions as in easy to initiate and carries good speed letting me come back up the face clew first with ease. But the top turn is where this board excelled , it just hooks around so tightly and quickly off the top of the wave I couldn't stop smiling. After going back on my board I had to have another go just to make sure the top turns I did weren't a fluke, no the weren't. I don't know what the Severne guys have done in the tail area to make such sweet top turns, but they've done a great job. Nice board!!! I'd like to try it out again in better conditions with straps set for me.

what are your specs ?

RIDER sounds sweet. I note your comments about perhaps being a bit slower to plane. In view of its fast rocker as you have suggested and since I understand it can be used as a thruster I believe this would promote earlier planing over the quad configuration. Any thoughts ? Alternatively do you believe the board is better as a quad ? Naturally compared to the other brands of quad ( relatively older models of quad with older school shapes) you have mentioned, this is somewhat not apples and oranges , as this NANO is the new school wider "Tomo" type shape with a more parallel outline and set up for earlier planing anyway. I note your comments about its "turneability" off the top and in view of its wide tail, I understand that wider usually means that you can turn the board a bit better over the outline; narrower usually gives you more control in over-powered conditions but also makes the board less stable and seem to be less floaty. Any thoughts on the shapers intent here ? I guess the quad configuration will be better in overpowered conditions and bigger waves and so allow more tuneability and range. Thanks.

Select to expand quote

uweh said..
what are your specs ?

I'm 89kg I used it with a 2018 5.7m blade I was overpowered and should have been using a 5.3 but the forecast was for the wind to get lighter. Nick was using it with a 5.6 s1 most other guys out were on 5.3m and under at the time of trying it out.

Select to expand quote

RichardG said..
RIDER sounds sweet. I note your comments about perhaps being a bit slower to plane. In view of its fast rocker as you have suggested and since I understand it can be used as a thruster I believe this would promote earlier planing over the quad configuration. Any thoughts ? Alternatively do you believe the board is better as a quad ? Naturally compared to the other brands of quad ( relatively older models of quad with older school shapes) you have mentioned, this is somewhat not apples and oranges , as this NANO is the new school wider "Tomo" type shape with a more parallel outline and set up for earlier planing anyway. I note your comments about its "turneability" off the top and in view of its wide tail, I understand that wider usually means that you can turn the board a bit better over the outline; narrower usually gives you more control in over-powered conditions but also makes the board less stable and seem to be less floaty. Any thoughts on the shapers intent here ? I guess the quad configuration will be better in overpowered conditions and bigger waves and so allow more tuneability and range. Thanks.

My comment about being slower to plane was only in relation to my board I was using which is longer and therefore might possibly have a lower water entry point, I'm being super picky about the planing as I said it's no slouch. I didnt think I suggested it had a fast rocker i couldn't tell, by eye it looks like it's not a heavily rocker board. I didn't try it as a thruster so I can't comment or speculate on how it would go as a thruster. Yes I might be comparing apples to oranges. But in the end they are all wave boards and how much fun we can get out of them. Sorry I have no idea on the shapers intent I can only comment on how the board felt for me.


If I needed a new board and my circumstances were different would I get one ??? Hell yeah.
But I would like to try out the stubbie F2 and JP first.

F2 still make boards??

Oops I meant Fanatic sorry, but yes F2 do just not any stubbies www.f2.com/surf/boards.php

Got the same board and loving it. Have only used as quad so far and have switched to makani fins (as in all my other boards), which seem a lot thinner and faster. Had to cut a notch in front fins to fit flush over bar in slot box.
Yeah top turn is great - some fascinating back-foot dynamics possible with this board. Have had it out in decent cross-off waves and can get some really short sharp bottom turn into top turn or aerial combos particularly when the wave is walling up and even about to close out, where other boards have to run out in front.
I'm certain my wave count was so much higher than other boards, it's just so stable and easy to cruise over white water and around the break.
Coming from the longer Fanatic Triwave, the Nano's shortness and very rear-position fins enable much more of this short radius, radical turning, but perhaps doesn't favour as much big drawn out power turns and snaps. On the other hand, found you can stay closer to the face going down the line (not as far out in front), allowing fast short gouges and easier aerials (as starting closer to the lip). Keen to try thruster set up next in decent waves, as guessing will enable bit more drawn out turning, but thinking this will come at a cost to late critical gouges.

Select to expand quote

R1DER said..

RichardG said..
RIDER sounds sweet. I note your comments about perhaps being a bit slower to plane. In view of its fast rocker as you have suggested and since I understand it can be used as a thruster I believe this would promote earlier planing over the quad configuration. Any thoughts ? Alternatively do you believe the board is better as a quad ? Naturally compared to the other brands of quad ( relatively older models of quad with older school shapes) you have mentioned, this is somewhat not apples and oranges , as this NANO is the new school wider "Tomo" type shape with a more parallel outline and set up for earlier planing anyway. I note your comments about its "turneability" off the top and in view of its wide tail, I understand that wider usually means that you can turn the board a bit better over the outline; narrower usually gives you more control in over-powered conditions but also makes the board less stable and seem to be less floaty. Any thoughts on the shapers intent here ? I guess the quad configuration will be better in overpowered conditions and bigger waves and so allow more tuneability and range. Thanks.

My comment about being slower to plane was only in relation to my board I was using which is longer and therefore might possibly have a lower water entry point, I'm being super picky about the planing as I said it's no slouch. I didnt think I suggested it had a fast rocker i couldn't tell, by eye it looks like it's not a heavily rocker board. I didn't try it as a thruster so I can't comment or speculate on how it would go as a thruster. Yes I might be comparing apples to oranges. But in the end they are all wave boards and how much fun we can get out of them. Sorry I have no idea on the shapers intent I can only comment on how the board felt for me.


If I needed a new board and my circumstances were different would I get one ??? Hell yeah.
But I would like to try out the stubbie F2 and JP first.

Thanks. Do you believe the 2018 model is revised over the 2017 ?

Select to expand quote

RichardG said..

R1DER said..

RichardG said..
RIDER sounds sweet. I note your comments about perhaps being a bit slower to plane. In view of its fast rocker as you have suggested and since I understand it can be used as a thruster I believe this would promote earlier planing over the quad configuration. Any thoughts ? Alternatively do you believe the board is better as a quad ? Naturally compared to the other brands of quad ( relatively older models of quad with older school shapes) you have mentioned, this is somewhat not apples and oranges , as this NANO is the new school wider "Tomo" type shape with a more parallel outline and set up for earlier planing anyway. I note your comments about its "turneability" off the top and in view of its wide tail, I understand that wider usually means that you can turn the board a bit better over the outline; narrower usually gives you more control in over-powered conditions but also makes the board less stable and seem to be less floaty. Any thoughts on the shapers intent here ? I guess the quad configuration will be better in overpowered conditions and bigger waves and so allow more tuneability and range. Thanks.

My comment about being slower to plane was only in relation to my board I was using which is longer and therefore might possibly have a lower water entry point, I'm being super picky about the planing as I said it's no slouch. I didnt think I suggested it had a fast rocker i couldn't tell, by eye it looks like it's not a heavily rocker board. I didn't try it as a thruster so I can't comment or speculate on how it would go as a thruster. Yes I might be comparing apples to oranges. But in the end they are all wave boards and how much fun we can get out of them. Sorry I have no idea on the shapers intent I can only comment on how the board felt for me.


If I needed a new board and my circumstances were different would I get one ??? Hell yeah.
But I would like to try out the stubbie F2 and JP first.

Thanks. Do you believe the 2018 model is revised over the 2017 ?

Again sorry I dont know, I thought it said 92 on the board but looking at the website they say 93 , Obviously I wasnt paying enough attention to store that info in my head

Select to expand quote

R1DER said..

RichardG said..

R1DER said..

RichardG said..
RIDER sounds sweet. I note your comments about perhaps being a bit slower to plane. In view of its fast rocker as you have suggested and since I understand it can be used as a thruster I believe this would promote earlier planing over the quad configuration. Any thoughts ? Alternatively do you believe the board is better as a quad ? Naturally compared to the other brands of quad ( relatively older models of quad with older school shapes) you have mentioned, this is somewhat not apples and oranges , as this NANO is the new school wider "Tomo" type shape with a more parallel outline and set up for earlier planing anyway. I note your comments about its "turneability" off the top and in view of its wide tail, I understand that wider usually means that you can turn the board a bit better over the outline; narrower usually gives you more control in over-powered conditions but also makes the board less stable and seem to be less floaty. Any thoughts on the shapers intent here ? I guess the quad configuration will be better in overpowered conditions and bigger waves and so allow more tuneability and range. Thanks.

My comment about being slower to plane was only in relation to my board I was using which is longer and therefore might possibly have a lower water entry point, I'm being super picky about the planing as I said it's no slouch. I didnt think I suggested it had a fast rocker i couldn't tell, by eye it looks like it's not a heavily rocker board. I didn't try it as a thruster so I can't comment or speculate on how it would go as a thruster. Yes I might be comparing apples to oranges. But in the end they are all wave boards and how much fun we can get out of them. Sorry I have no idea on the shapers intent I can only comment on how the board felt for me.


If I needed a new board and my circumstances were different would I get one ??? Hell yeah.
But I would like to try out the stubbie F2 and JP first.

Thanks. Do you believe the 2018 model is revised over the 2017 ?

Again sorry I dont know, I thought it said 92 on the board but looking at the website they say 93 , Obviously I wasnt paying enough attention to store that info in my head

No worries. Thanks for your posts on this exciting board.

Have heard a few average reviews about the Nano but they were all running the tri setup. I recon Severne are doing themselves a disservice not shipping it as a quad, or least send out demos with a quad fin option. Personally it thought it was good as a thruster but I like my 83L so much better as a quad. Its worth spending some time with fin setups on the Nano, being so short a little change to fin position can make a big difference.

in pozo this year there was on severne board with five fins in the box ripping....( a pro )

Select to expand quote

RichardG said..

R1DER said..

RichardG said..
RIDER sounds sweet. I note your comments about perhaps being a bit slower to plane. In view of its fast rocker as you have suggested and since I understand it can be used as a thruster I believe this would promote earlier planing over the quad configuration. Any thoughts ? Alternatively do you believe the board is better as a quad ? Naturally compared to the other brands of quad ( relatively older models of quad with older school shapes) you have mentioned, this is somewhat not apples and oranges , as this NANO is the new school wider "Tomo" type shape with a more parallel outline and set up for earlier planing anyway. I note your comments about its "turneability" off the top and in view of its wide tail, I understand that wider usually means that you can turn the board a bit better over the outline; narrower usually gives you more control in over-powered conditions but also makes the board less stable and seem to be less floaty. Any thoughts on the shapers intent here ? I guess the quad configuration will be better in overpowered conditions and bigger waves and so allow more tuneability and range. Thanks.

My comment about being slower to plane was only in relation to my board I was using which is longer and therefore might possibly have a lower water entry point, I'm being super picky about the planing as I said it's no slouch. I didnt think I suggested it had a fast rocker i couldn't tell, by eye it looks like it's not a heavily rocker board. I didn't try it as a thruster so I can't comment or speculate on how it would go as a thruster. Yes I might be comparing apples to oranges. But in the end they are all wave boards and how much fun we can get out of them. Sorry I have no idea on the shapers intent I can only comment on how the board felt for me.


If I needed a new board and my circumstances were different would I get one ??? Hell yeah.
But I would like to try out the stubbie F2 and JP first.

Thanks. Do you believe the 2018 model is revised over the 2017 ?

Board is unchanged in 2018, it was actually hard to get your hands on one in 2017 due to limited supply anyways :-)

But I disagree about being slow on the plane, it planes super fast in my opinion.
I've got the 83L and running it as a quad.

It makes onshore and or light wind sessions fun, but can still handle a decent wave.
here's a little clip of onshore session, was on my 4.4, but wind died so most footage is in under powered conditions.

I can't really say if it's working in onshore I don't see any surf......I do know you can fwd however!

Select to expand quote

Eazy said..

RichardG said..

R1DER said..

RichardG said..
RIDER sounds sweet. I note your comments about perhaps being a bit slower to plane. In view of its fast rocker as you have suggested and since I understand it can be used as a thruster I believe this would promote earlier planing over the quad configuration. Any thoughts ? Alternatively do you believe the board is better as a quad ? Naturally compared to the other brands of quad ( relatively older models of quad with older school shapes) you have mentioned, this is somewhat not apples and oranges , as this NANO is the new school wider "Tomo" type shape with a more parallel outline and set up for earlier planing anyway. I note your comments about its "turneability" off the top and in view of its wide tail, I understand that wider usually means that you can turn the board a bit better over the outline; narrower usually gives you more control in over-powered conditions but also makes the board less stable and seem to be less floaty. Any thoughts on the shapers intent here ? I guess the quad configuration will be better in overpowered conditions and bigger waves and so allow more tuneability and range. Thanks.

My comment about being slower to plane was only in relation to my board I was using which is longer and therefore might possibly have a lower water entry point, I'm being super picky about the planing as I said it's no slouch. I didnt think I suggested it had a fast rocker i couldn't tell, by eye it looks like it's not a heavily rocker board. I didn't try it as a thruster so I can't comment or speculate on how it would go as a thruster. Yes I might be comparing apples to oranges. But in the end they are all wave boards and how much fun we can get out of them. Sorry I have no idea on the shapers intent I can only comment on how the board felt for me.


If I needed a new board and my circumstances were different would I get one ??? Hell yeah.
But I would like to try out the stubbie F2 and JP first.

Thanks. Do you believe the 2018 model is revised over the 2017 ?

Board is unchanged in 2018, it was actually hard to get your hands on one in 2017 due to limited supply anyways :-)

But I disagree about being slow on the plane, it planes super fast in my opinion.
I've got the 83L and running it as a quad.

It makes onshore and or light wind sessions fun, but can still handle a decent wave.
here's a little clip of onshore session, was on my 4.4, but wind died so most footage is in under powered conditions.

I didn't actually say it was slow to plane.
As per my initial post I said "It was a bit slower to get on the plane than mine"
as in .... I got off my board got on the 93 used my sail and noted a difference, just a comparison. So yes I agree it's not slow to plane.

Select to expand quote

R1DER said..


I didn't actually say it was slow to plane.
As per my initial post I said "It was a bit slower to get on the plane than mine"
as in .... I got off my board got on the 93 used my sail and noted a difference, just a comparison. So yes I agree it's not slow to plane.

No worries Mike, apologies should have read your post better.
Your board must have a really fast rocker, is that the one you tweaked?

Select to expand quote

Eazy said..

R1DER said..


I didn't actually say it was slow to plane.
As per my initial post I said "It was a bit slower to get on the plane than mine"
as in .... I got off my board got on the 93 used my sail and noted a difference, just a comparison. So yes I agree it's not slow to plane.

No worries Mike, apologies should have read your post better.
Your board must have a really fast rocker, is that the one you tweaked?

No worries Sander no just my regular board.

Interesting discussion of the quad versus thruster preference. Suggestion is that heavier riders or more back footed oriented riders and/or in lighter more onshore conditions prefer thruster over quad.