Perhaps interesting for some of you. I discuss the smallest version of the Omnia, the 75 used for the Pozo event by Moritz Mauch and in a custom 80 liter version also by Marc Par?:

Cool to see rail rocker vs central rocker etc on the graphs, great info. Looks like a turny fast one

Thank you for the detailed explanation of the board shape and how it affects the performance on the water. Nice to see a comparison between the different boards too, it is not easy to decide on a board purchase when there there are so many different models too choose from, even from within one brand

Are the larger volume boards in the Omnia model design differently?
I noticed from the Simmer website that they have a powerbox for the central fin, which is quite limiting in terms of fin tuning (to me). I would have thought that a US box would be suitable, and still allowing for a single fin set-up?

Select to expand quote

SurferKris said..

Are the larger volume boards in the Omnia model design differently?
I noticed from the Simmer website that they have a powerbox for the central fin, which is quite limiting in terms of fin tuning (to me). I would have thought that a US box would be suitable, and still allowing for a single fin set-up?

The design of the larger Omnias are pretty much the same. Same rocker and bottom and quite similar outline. The reason for the powebox on the bigger ones are that these boards are sometimes used for blasting with bigger fins. But arguably a US box would be enough.

Thanks Ola, very interesting as always!

Appreciate that you talk freely about the origin of the board with Alessio and kind of influence of Seb Wenzel shapes.

As I understand it, the main difference between the small ones (75 and 80proto) to the big ones (85 and onward) is the volume to outline area ratio. As you said 55cm for 75 is rather narrow whereas 59.5cm for 85l is pretty wide.
How does this impact the behaviour of the board on water?

And also, how does this board compare to the quantex? It seems to me that both board range overlap quite a bit in term of sailing spectrum

Select to expand quote

Ola H said..
Perhaps interesting for some of you. I discuss the smallest version of the Omnia, the 75 used for the Pozo event by Moritz Mauch and in a custom 80 liter version also by Marc Par?:

Hi Ola, you do integrate your rocker and rail curves from the curvature. You need a starting point and a direction to do so. I wonder if the direction you start is the same for the center and the rail or do you some times not make that collinear?

Also wrt to the concave depth? If I understand correctly you kind of create a surface that is rectangular and then cut the outline out of it?! Do you then include the concave depth into the calculation of that surface before you cut the outline or after ?

And with your approach do you also create the deck surface with a curvature approach? Or is that done "conventionally" by having "slices" or any other genuine idea you came up with?

I case you might want to share it, I am curious appreciator of your approach.

Select to expand quote

Ola H said..
Perhaps interesting for some of you. I discuss the smallest version of the Omnia, the 75 used for the Pozo event by Moritz Mauch and in a custom 80 liter version also by Marc Par?:

Hi Ola, you do integrate your rocker and rail curves from the curvature. You need a starting point and a direction to do so. I wonder if the direction you start is the same for the center and the rail or do you some times not make that collinear?

Also wrt to the concave depth? If I understand correctly you kind of create a surface that is rectangular and then cut the outline out of it?! Do you then include the concave depth into the calculation of that surface before you cut the outline or after ?

And with your approach do you also create the deck surface with a curvature approach? Or is that done "conventionally" by having "slices" or any other genuine idea you came up with?

I case you might want to share it, I am curious appreciator of your approach.

Select to expand quote

Nicko29 said..
Thanks Ola, very interesting as always!

Appreciate that you talk freely about the origin of the board with Alessio and kind of influence of Seb Wenzel shapes.

As I understand it, the main difference between the small ones (75 and 80proto) to the big ones (85 and onward) is the volume to outline area ratio. As you said 55cm for 75 is rather narrow whereas 59.5cm for 85l is pretty wide.
How does this impact the behaviour of the board on water?

And also, how does this board compare to the quantex? It seems to me that both board range overlap quite a bit in term of sailing spectrum

The width just (trivially) make it wider and thinner. There is abit of a shift of the volume to the rear on the bigger Omnias too, so a bit thicker rails around the front strap. In effect this makes the bigger Omnias oriented towards riding at a bit slower speed and with less sailor power and finesse. The 75 in fact feel very narrow and locked in when sailing it, so in a way I think most will feel the wider ones are more turny. Outline curvatures are more or less the same. The Quantex is even more oriented towards feeling loose at slower speed and when less powered up. But the Omnia is for sure more stable at speed going out, and earlier planing and faster too. The Quantex and Omnia might seem to overlap quite a bit, but in fact feels very different. But with the Omnia being such a big hit, I'm not sure where to go with the Quantex in future iterations. The thing is that we are also working in new stuff with Marc and then the Fly is really super versatile too. So even if I personally kind of prefer the Quantex in slower waves it might makes sense stick with the Omnia and recommend a slightly oversized Fly for those that want tighter turning. Then we might be able to fit in a Marc pro model too. It would be interesting to hear what you guys think in terms of reasonable production lineups.

Select to expand quote

SchobiHH said..

Hi Ola, you do integrate your rocker and rail curves from the curvature. You need a starting point and a direction to do so. I wonder if the direction you start is the same for the center and the rail or do you some times not make that collinear?

Both the rail rocker and the rocker inside the double can have different 0-tangent (or starting) points. This is a super way of tuning bottom shapes. Fx, lets for simplicity have the same curvatures of center and rail rocker but move the tangent of the rail rocker rearwards. This will be like rotating the rail rocker up in the nose and down in the tail. This will give you a concave rear section and v front section, geometrically speaking. From a riding point of view this will make the board sort of drop down on its front rail and lock in when you engage it. And if you then also lift up the whole rail rocker, you can instead have a bottom with light vi in the back and strong v in the front with the same general "lock in when loaded" feel. And this is even before starting to work on different curvatures.

Select to expand quote

SchobiHH said..Also wrt to the concave depth? If I understand correctly you kind of create a surface that is rectangular and then cut the outline out of it?! Do you then include the concave depth into the calculation of that surface before you cut the outline or after ?

Due to certain technical reasons I (in the digital world) design what is to become the rail rocker when the block is still rectangular and then kind of drop the outline onto that bottom. This it to be able to keep bottoms more or less unaltered when adjusting outlines. And when working on the actual 3d bending rail rocker, you right creating all sorts of funky negative rocker effects.

The concave depth (and/or v depth) is included in the bottom before (metaphorically) cutting the outline (in practice the whole shape is obviously in 3d surface from the cnc machines point of view so then there is no sense in talking about what is cut first)

Select to expand quote

SchobiHH said..
And with your approach do you also create the deck surface with a curvature approach? Or is that done "conventionally" by having "slices" or any other genuine idea you came up with?

Since a year or so, I do in fact design the center deck line with a curvature approach, but the rest of the deck shape is done in other ways.
When I get some time I will make some more youtube clips on my design thinking and the process.

Thank you for your answer Ola.

Sounds like the range is not sustainable for the average shop right now...
To understand better the differences between the omnia and quantex, which one would you recommend for float n ride?
Judging by the specs and marketing words, I would go for the omnia since I believe it would be more stable when non planning and then need less power input to get planning. With that navigate the line up should be easier and wave count higher. Unless it's very stiff on the curve...

Select to expand quote

Nicko29 said..
Thank you for your answer Ola.

Sounds like the range is not sustainable for the average shop right now...
To understand better the differences between the omnia and quantex, which one would you recommend for float n ride?
Judging by the specs and marketing words, I would go for the omnia since I believe it would be more stable when non planning and then need less power input to get planning. With that navigate the line up should be easier and wave count higher. Unless it's very stiff on the curve...

For pure slog and ride when no chance of planing and no chance of waterstarting, an oversized board with a lot of rocker is nice in bigger waves. Nice to be able to wobble out, tack easily and uphaul. Have to practice the art of pumping onto the wave just before it breaks!

Select to expand quote

Nicko29 said..
Thank you for your answer Ola.

Sounds like the range is not sustainable for the average shop right now...
To understand better the differences between the omnia and quantex, which one would you recommend for float n ride?
Judging by the specs and marketing words, I would go for the omnia since I believe it would be more stable when non planning and then need less power input to get planning. With that navigate the line up should be easier and wave count higher. Unless it's very stiff on the curve...

It depends a bit on the type of wave. For a quality wave, I would in fact use an upsized Fly. For float and ride in smaller waves, a Quantex. An Omnia would do it too but it has a stiffer top turn than the other two so if the waves are smaller it will require more sailor power to be whipped around well compared to both Fly and Quantex. All three are very efficient getting going one a wave, so I would not choose based on that factor. I normally ride smaller boards than most, but even I (74kg) can easily turn a Fly 92 (or 90 in the new model) at for example Cabo Verde type waves at some size.

Ola - I bought a pair of quantex this year. Lovely boards for the onshore conditions we get often here. I think manufacturers are maybe missing the mark with a focus on speed/jumping (e.g. your small omnia, severne pyro) for onshore boards. For pros at sylt or pozo, I'm sure these are the right characteristics. But for mere mortals like the rest of us, I think it's control and ease/tightness of turning that's more suited for chaotic mush. For small-ish (maybe 85-100l) boards used for blasting it's a great overlap with the pros' shape needs though, and a lot more marketable than a fsw. But for the smaller (<85l) stuff I think most normal sailors would not be well served by these kind of fast boards for waves.

Select to expand quote

ChrisA UK said..
Ola - I bought a pair of quantex this year. Lovely boards for the onshore conditions we get often here. I think manufacturers are maybe missing the mark with a focus on speed/jumping (e.g. your small omnia, severne pyro) for onshore boards. For pros at sylt or pozo, I'm sure these are the right characteristics. But for mere mortals like the rest of us, I think it's control and ease/tightness of turning that's more suited for chaotic mush. For small-ish (maybe 85-100l) boards used for blasting it's a great overlap with the pros' shape needs though, and a lot more marketable than a fsw. But for the smaller (<85l) stuff I think most normal sailors would not be well served by these kind of fast boards for waves.

Good point, Chris. I sail such stuff myself and have boards that are basically more compact versions of the Quantex in my quiver for the reasons you say. In my custom shaping range, I have perhaps 7-10 different types of wave boards, catering for slightly different styles and needs, while all of them still being kind of all round. So most _could_ be production boards. A bit like most surf brands. But for windsurfing production it is simply hard to decide what to have in the range. At Simmer we have always been honest about what our shapes are for, what they do and how they came about etc, with very little "pure marketing talk". This might mean it is a bit harder to sell a board like the Quantex because many will think the Fly sounds more exciting despite the Quantex perhaps being a better fit for them. So it is always nice to hear from people that make an informed deliberate choice of the Quantex.

To my eyes the quantex may only have one problem :
[Pic]encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSocKtu01D4BZxS-4PxAjd9b0_3D1SZBnz9aQ&s[/Pic]