I've been working on a simple equation to roughly calculate ease of takeoff for boards based on your board aspect ratio (B.A.R.) and your guild factor (G. Factor).

I've collected data from over 100 different riders and kits at this point and have a few notable data points to share, but need to more deeply refine this equation over time.

Here's how it works:
Calculate your board aspect ratio by simply dividing length by width. Add that number to your guild factor which is calculated by taking your boards liters, and dividing them into your weight in kgs.

My board progression as examples:
85kg rider.

Learned for 10 days on an 8'x30" 170l monster.
AR = 3.2
GF = 1.98
Sum = 5.18 (very easy to get on foil, I don't think I ever turned it, no skill yet. Worth noting I was up and foiling on my first day as a self taught rider with a wing. I also caught every wave I paddled for in the ocean even though I didn't know how to foil and just straight lined them back to shore)

First board I owned:
E3 5'10"x29" 123l 15.5lbs
BAR = 2.41
GF = 1.43
Sum = 3.84 (not to shabby to get on foil, crummy in the air)

E3 4'8"x26 83l 12.7lbs
BAR = 2.15
GF = .97
Sum = 3.12 (least favorite board I've ever owned terrible takeoff)

Barracuda 8'x21" 112l 13lbs
BAR = 4.57
GF = 1.3
Sum = 5.87 (easiest board I've ever had to get on foil and was fun in the air)

E3 5'3"x22" 83l 11.5lbs
BAR = 2.86
GF = .97
Sum = 3.83 (fun to ride and quite quick to take off in all but the most extremely light winds)

Custom 6'3"x20" 83l 9lbs
BAR = 3.75
GF = .97
Sum = 4.72 (extremely fast off the water, track boxes were awkwardly placed so I didn't get a good feel for it in the air unfortunately)

Sunova Carver 5'10"x20" 85l (arrives next week, weight tbd)
BAR = 3.5
GF = 1
Sum = 4.5 (unridden, testing begins early 2024)

Things to consider:
With the 100 or so data points I collected from other riders I asked for the sum to be reported and if they felt as though their board was "easy to waterstart." Here's what the results showed.
Competent riders considered a BARG Factor of:
5 and higher to be capable for DW SUP.
3.5 and higher, to be easy to water start.
3.25 and lower, to be hard to water start.
BEGINNERS considered a BARG Factor of:
4.5 and higher to be easier to water start.
Anything below that was considered average/hard.

Conclusions this gives us:
This gives some rough guidelines for buyers who don't have extensive access to gear demos to consider.
This gives rough guidelines to beginners who are picking up their first board and want to consider if it will be easy to learn on, and if, when they progress, it would be considered easy for the average rider to get up on.
This gives us guidance on how easy takeoff will be.
I personally really like that this drives the conversation away from liters, and more towards shape, to define efficiency.

What this doesn't give us:
This does not take foil into consideration.
This doesn't give you a guide to how fun a board will be once in flight.
This doesn't take into consideration the nuanced details of hull design.
This doesn't take windspeed and water currents into consideration.
You can break this equation, for example: an 8'x1' sheet of plywood would have a BAR of 8 but a GF of 0 = BARG Factor of 8 which sounds highly efficient. But, this is yet to be tested and quite possibly not true.

I'll continue to refine this equation to try and take in additional considerations and how each aspect can be weighted and more correctly evaluated. However, while this should not be considered the final word on how to pick your next board, it absolutely is a worthy calculation to take into consideration if you are unsure and want to continue to explore the possibility of other shapes.

I, personally, expect to focus my research on board efficiency in the 4-4.75 range.

By water start you mean this, right?



32 litres board, (B.A.R.G 3.15), and at least with this particular board (having no volume in the tail) the foil plays a big role in how easy it's to start. Here in this clip I have a 631 cm2 front wing, and with such foil it's easier to water start it like a windsurf board. With a more buoyant and bigger area foil, it's fairly easy just to knee start it as well.

Interesting idea but can you detail your calculation, because when i do lenght of 8 / 30 = i got a bar of 0.26 !

Select to expand quote

youdigsurf said..
Interesting idea but can you detail your calculation, because when i do lenght of 8 / 30 = i got a bar of 0.26 !

All have to be in the same units (8ft = 8x12")
In your case that's 8x12=96/30=3.2 AR

83kg

Fanatic skyfree te 5'3*26" 95l
A.R = 5'3(63")/26 = 2.43
G.F = 95/73 = 1.44
B.A.R.G = 3.87

Recently sold my DaKine chase 5'4" x 27" 98l
BAR - 2.37
GF - 1.20
BARG - 3.57
This board was very difficult to start, so glad I sold it after a summer on GONG HIPE Cruzader 7'6". Gong starts insanely easy, I can't believe I actually learned how to wingfoil on the DaKine. Went back to it at end of summer for one session, could not believe how sticky slow and awful it felt. More windage than the GONG too. Short fat boards were a mistake in the evolution, can't believe it was a thing. Will be getting a sunova carver or Cabrinha Swift or upcoming KT long skinny ASAP.

Recently sold my DaKine chase 5'4" x 27" 98l
BAR - 2.37
GF - 1.20
BARG - 3.57
This board was very difficult to start, so glad I sold it after a summer on GONG HIPE Cruzader 7'6". Gong starts insanely easy, I can't believe I actually learned how to wingfoil on the DaKine. Went back to it at end of summer for one session, could not believe how sticky slow and awful it felt. More windage than the GONG too. Short fat boards were a mistake in the evolution, can't believe it was a thing. Will be getting a sunova carver or Cabrinha Swift or upcoming KT long skinny ASAP.

Select to expand quote

FoilColorado said..
Recently sold my DaKine chase 5'4" x 27" 98l
BAR - 2.37
GF - 1.20
BARG - 3.57
This board was very difficult to start, so glad I sold it after a summer on GONG HIPE Cruzader 7'6". Gong starts insanely easy, I can't believe I actually learned how to wingfoil on the DaKine. Went back to it at end of summer for one session, could not believe how sticky slow and awful it felt. More windage than the GONG too. Short fat boards were a mistake in the evolution, can't believe it was a thing. Will be getting a sunova carver or Cabrinha Swift or upcoming KT long skinny ASAP.

I agree about the short and fat. There's still plenty of holdouts too! I'm interested in seeing how the shape change lands for beginners as well. I see so much more success for beginners on narrow boards, but I still hear stories about the occasional person with balance issues who can't stabilize themselves long enough to get a wing in the air. I'm convinced this is faulty technique/teaching and definitely feel for the people stuck on old gear.

Wondering about the G factor, and whether there are diminishing returns as liters exceeds body weight...say...once over +10 or +20, do the extra liters continue help, or by that point is it all gains in board length/AR?

Looking forward to hearing about the Carver too...

Select to expand quote

SpokeyDoke said..
Wondering about the G factor, and whether there are diminishing returns as liters exceeds body weight...say...once over +10 or +20, do the extra liters continue help, or by that point is it all gains in board length/AR?

Looking forward to hearing about the Carver too...

I agree with you on wondering about this. For the time being I've maintained the same liters so I can accurately analyze the BAR values on my own board. I think the BAR of the Carver is going to be perfect for what I like to do. If so, then the next boards will likely keep the same BAR and decrease the GF (or increase, but hopefully not) to see where the tipping point is.

4.6 (54) / 23 = 2.3
65l / 65kg = 1
B.A.R.G. = 3.3

a longer board would be easier to on foil but I enjoy the small board

I find I prefer boards with a b.a.r.g of >= 4.5, winging, sup etc, thanks for the calculation and will apply it to all board purchase decisions from now on. Great to have a calculation to work out what you like based on your weight, versus gut feel

interesting, I would like to use the smallest foil as first choice then smallest wing as second choice then smallest board as third choice.

is it possible to refine data and calcs on this basis? but there is also a weighting to the three choices
eg very windy - small/small/small
very light - big/big/big
in between - choose your weapons

Select to expand quote

noepoxy said..
I find I prefer boards with a b.a.r.g of >= 4.5, winging, sup etc, thanks for the calculation and will apply it to all board purchase decisions from now on. Great to have a calculation to work out what you like based on your weight, versus gut feel

My new kit is exactly 4.5 so I'll let you know what it feels like!

Select to expand quote

Poida said..
interesting, I would like to use the smallest foil as first choice then smallest wing as second choice then smallest board as third choice.

is it possible to refine data and calcs on this basis? but there is also a weighting to the three choices
eg very windy - small/small/small
very light - big/big/big
in between - choose your weapons

In my experience, the board should always be the biggest piece of gear, as opposed to more traditional thinking where most people try to get a really small board. Even in the extreme wind spectrum, if you have a TINY foil and TINY wing you still need a reasonable sized board in super heavy winds. This is because those tiny wings let so much blow by and you still need some good glide and movement to get a tiny foil going.

In very light I've also found that if you have a big long board, you can still have a medium foil and wing.

My goal this year is to ride my 550-700 foils as much as possible.,never use a wing bigger than my 4.2, and continue to hone in on the perfect BARG Factor for myself.

@BWalnut, where does this B.A.R.G. thing come from? Smaller barg is supposed to be more difficult, right? It does not seem to work too good though. Take a look at your 83l and pretty wide board above having a smaller BARG than my 32 litres board (see above). That does not make sense.

cheers
T.

Select to expand quote

Taavi said..
@BWalnut, where does this B.A.R.G. thing come from? Smaller barg is supposed to be more difficult, right? It does not seem to work too good though. Take a look at your 83l and pretty wide board above having a smaller BARG than my 32 litres board (see above). That does not make sense.

cheers
T.

First off: Your BARG Factor vs my BARG Factor will be different on the same board. You have to recalculate it based on your weight. You can't use my BARG Factor to determine yours. Every calculation has to be done based on your stats. I'm reverse calculating and guessing you must be about 73kg. If you put 73kg on my wide e3 you get a BARG Factor of 3.29 which is a significant difference.

That's what makes this equation strong, is that it's individualized to each user on each board.

Next, you've got to look at your skillset and those conditions and realize a few things:

1. If you're using a 32l board with a 631 foil you are an advanced rider and your perspective is now skewed.

2. You were using a 3m wing in that video and it pulled you up out of the water like it was nothing. Maybe 7 pumps to get you from laying in the water to up on foil. This means the wind was really strong which overpowers small foils/boards and makes it easier.

3. You were doing an advanced water start and within 7 seconds switched from laying in the water to riding one handed. Again, this signals that you are an advanced rider in strong winds.

4. Your board was 6.5" narrower than the e3 you referenced which gives it a big boost in forward movement and takeoff ability.

It's really important that advanced riders recognize they are viewing gear through a different lens than an intermediate or beginner rider. I touched on that in the original post when I made note that beginners prefer really high BARG Factors to consider the kit easy. The better you get, the lower your number can be and you perceive it as easy. With over 100 kits tested this was accurate 97% of the time, but there were a few outliers who were advanced freestyle riders who claimed their kit at 3.1 was a very normal/average kit to ride. Other people find those kits to be impossible to get out of the water on.

So, congrats! It looks like you are already a badass rider. Just make sure you recalculate the BARG Factor for your own weight on any board you are considering. Beyond that, make sure you consider the other elements of your skill level and the board design that I mentioned and it will continue to be a useful tool to reference for you!

85 kg, competent winger.

Current board: 85 L Amos Sultan Wing
BAR = 5'10'' / 18" = 70/18 = 3.9
G = 85/85 = 1
BARG = 4.9

Previous board: 60 L Amos Nitro
BAR = 5' / 24' = 60/24 = 2.5
G = 1
BARG = 3.5

I wouldn't want to SUP the Sultan (for that volume, it is unstable and sinks when I am in choppy water, even mild chop). So it still fits with your assessment (very easy to water start) and is at the borderline of being able to SUP it (maybe an extremely skilled rider would be able to SUP this - or someone 10 - 20 kg lighter than me, of course).

And the Nitro at 3.5 is on the lower cusp of your definition of being easy to water start. I would say yes, but it always required an adequate strength of wind, and for that board, I would say it was about 15 knots. I often had frustrating sessions waiting for gusts, so I bought the Sultan as an experiment. Since the three months I've used the Sultan, I can count on one hand times when I was stranded and had to wait for wind (and two of those this last week when we had very unusual wind for our local). So, the experiment has been a rip-roaring success.

Anyway, this should be nothing new to you @BWalnut, I commented earlier on your post. I believe in this new style of wingboard and see only benefits. (I have not used my Nitro since starting to ride the Sultan). I now happily use the Sultan in 12 - 30 knots, flat to waves and DW winging. Like you, I don't jump, and I would remove the inserts in a new board.

If I were to be critical of my current setup and extend the experiment analogy, next I would like to try a 20' board at 95L. The reason is simply that the 85L, at a G-factor of 1, is too hard to manage in very light wind (like I had twice in the last two days, i.e. lulls of 10 knots or lower). But now I am used to the 85L and have paid my dues, so to speak. But for others out there, my advice when considering a DW wing board is to add 10L over body weight and consider 19" or 20" wide. I realise that's the same advice Jimmy Casey gave in a podcast referenced by you.

You see the 85 L Sultan Wing and a Nitro 60L below.





Next board: 95 L, 20" wide, 6'
BAR: 3.6
G: 0.9
BARG = 4.5.

...and yes, I noticed it's exactly the same as your Carver. So,I will continue to follow your updates and progress @BWalnut.

Select to expand quote

BWalnut said..

Taavi said..
@BWalnut, where does this B.A.R.G. thing come from? Smaller barg is supposed to be more difficult, right? It does not seem to work too good though. Take a look at your 83l and pretty wide board above having a smaller BARG than my 32 litres board (see above). That does not make sense.

cheers
T.

First off: Your BARG Factor vs my BARG Factor will be different on the same board. You have to recalculate it based on your weight. You can't use my BARG Factor to determine yours. Every calculation has to be done based on your stats. I'm reverse calculating and guessing you must be about 73kg. If you put 73kg on my wide e3 you get a BARG Factor of 3.29 which is a significant difference.

Thank you for the good explanation. I am still puzzled a bit though. The barg (3.15) calculated for me and for my 32L board does not feel that much significantly different compared to the barg (3.29) that you calculated for me if I would use your 83L board.

And for one of my 62L boards it would be 3.26, which again feels too close to the 3.29 (me riding your short and wide 83 L board). Would be fun to try such a board though.

BTW, the exact same kit I had in the video above works in some pretty light wind too. Just a different technique is needed for the start, as in this clip.

Select to expand quote

Taavi said..

Thank you for the good explanation. I am still puzzled a bit though. The barg (3.15) calculated for me and for my 32L board does not feel that much significantly different compared to the barg (3.29) that you calculated for me if I would use your 83L board.

And for one of my 62L boards it would be 3.26, which again feels too close to the 3.29 (me riding your short and wide 83 L board). Would be fun to try such a board though.

I'd say don't over think it nearly every wing board of traditional design results in a BARG Factor between 3.1 and 3.9 so, there's hundreds of boards that fit in between those two numbers.

I have to ask, why do you keep referring to the e3 at 3.29 and what seems wrong about it? Do you think it would be super easy? Way harder? You'd want to share the dims on the 62l as well.

Select to expand quote

ArthurAlston said..

If I were to be critical of my current setup and extend the experiment analogy, next I would like to try a 20' board at 95L. The reason is simply that the 85L, at a G-factor of 1, is too hard to manage in very light wind (like I had twice in the last two days, i.e. lulls of 10 knots or lower). But now I am used to the 85L and have paid my dues, so to speak. But for others out there, my advice when considering a DW wing board is to add 10L over body weight and consider 19" or 20" wide. I realise that's the same advice Jimmy Casey gave in a podcast referenced by you.

Next board: 95 L, 20" wide, 6'
BAR: 3.6
G: 0.9
BARG = 4.5.

...and yes, I noticed it's exactly the same as your Carver. So,I will continue to follow your updates and progress @BWalnut.

Good point about the ultralight wind. I, too, struggle in sub 10 knots on my 5'3"x22" 83l but am hoping the 5'10"x20" 85l will be a good slog home option. There's a chance it wont be, but then if I need to prone paddle it back home it will be much nicer than my 5'3" was!

Hopefully in the water on the Carver later this week for initial testing!

Select to expand quote

BWalnut said..

Taavi said..

Thank you for the good explanation. I am still puzzled a bit though. The barg (3.15) calculated for me and for my 32L board does not feel that much significantly different compared to the barg (3.29) that you calculated for me if I would use your 83L board.

And for one of my 62L boards it would be 3.26, which again feels too close to the 3.29 (me riding your short and wide 83 L board). Would be fun to try such a board though.

I'd say don't over think it nearly every wing board of traditional design results in a BARG Factor between 3.1 and 3.9 so, there's hundreds of boards that fit in between those two numbers.

I have to ask, why do you keep referring to the e3 at 3.29 and what seems wrong about it? Do you think it would be super easy? Way harder? You'd want to share the dims on the 62l as well.

I calculated a barg for just a very few boards, and threw in your E3 83L as well.


See how close are the barg values for my 40 and 80 litres boards that are actually lightyears apart, when it comes to the ease of takeoff.

I rated the ease of takeoff with these boards manually, and this is what I came up with:


EDIT: But I think the problem is more fundamental. Just like you said how the barg values of riders with different weights can't be compared with each other, I think to some extent the barg values of different boards can't be compared to each other either : ) Some vastly different boards are just not used in the same conditions ever, or they would be used with very different sized foils and/or wings. And that would render the calculation that does not take these details into account quite meaningless I think.

cheers
T.

Select to expand quote

Taavi said..

BWalnut said..

Taavi said..

Thank you for the good explanation. I am still puzzled a bit though. The barg (3.15) calculated for me and for my 32L board does not feel that much significantly different compared to the barg (3.29) that you calculated for me if I would use your 83L board.

And for one of my 62L boards it would be 3.26, which again feels too close to the 3.29 (me riding your short and wide 83 L board). Would be fun to try such a board though.

I'd say don't over think it nearly every wing board of traditional design results in a BARG Factor between 3.1 and 3.9 so, there's hundreds of boards that fit in between those two numbers.

I have to ask, why do you keep referring to the e3 at 3.29 and what seems wrong about it? Do you think it would be super easy? Way harder? You'd want to share the dims on the 62l as well.

I calculated a barg for just a very few boards, and threw in your E3 83L as well.


See how close are the barg values for my 40 and 80 litres boards that are actually lightyears apart, when it comes to the ease of takeoff.

I rated the ease of takeoff with these boards manually, and this is what I came up with:


EDIT: But I think the problem is more fundamental. Just like you said how the barg values of riders with different weights can't be compared with each other, I think to some extent the barg values of different boards can't be compared to each other either : ) Some vastly different boards are just not used in the same conditions ever, or they would be used with very different sized foils and/or wings. And that would render the calculation that does not take these details into account quite meaningless I think.

cheers
T.

Maybe probably re-read the original post. I don't think you're understanding how to use it correctly and I clarified all of this. This isn't intended to get ABSOLUTES out of the equation, it is designed to give ROUGH GUIDANCE. As such I think you need to work on your ability to interpret data and find use it it. Even in what you posted, there is actually a very clear and useful data thread between the boards if you take a moment to analyze it. Since you've made a few mistakes in a row on using it correctly I would discourage you from repeatedly saying it doesn't work and it's meaningless.

No worries. I am just saying that the barg factor difference of my 40 litres 5'0'' and 80 litres 5'2'' is just 0.013. You may say there are hundred boards in between, but such a small value for sure does not leave this impression that these boards are actually lightyears apart in their ease of getting going, as they are. Your formula seems to give too much credit to the narrowness of a board, which may work when judging a board with enough volume, but it does not work that way for the boards that sink. You would need tons of more sail power and better technique to get a sinker going, compared to another board that floats you comfortably and just slides on top of the water easilly. Strange that nobody has given you such a feedback before.

cheers
T.

Select to expand quote

Taavi said..
No worries. I am just saying that the barg factor difference of my 40 litres 5'0'' and 80 litres 5'2'' is just 0.013. You may say there are hundred boards in between, but such a small value for sure does not leave this impression that these boards are actually lightyears apart in their ease of getting going, as they are. Your formula seems to give too much credit to the narrowness of a board, which may work when judging a board with enough volume, but it does not work that way for the boards that sink. You would need tons of more sail power and better technique to get a sinker going, compared to another board that floats you comfortably and just slides on top of the water easilly. Strange that nobody has given you such a feedback before.

cheers
T.

Haha. All of that was already addressed and you missed it all. This probably isn't a good tool for you since you seem more dedicated to a negative perspective and ignoring the OP as well as your own data. The funny thing is that with the numbers you posted it's actually dead on, but you're so hung up on trying to disprove it that you can't see it. Fortunately it sounds like you've got your boards sorted already so there's really no need for you to use this.

Select to expand quote

BWalnut said..

Taavi said..
No worries. I am just saying that the barg factor difference of my 40 litres 5'0'' and 80 litres 5'2'' is just 0.013. You may say there are hundred boards in between, but such a small value for sure does not leave this impression that these boards are actually lightyears apart in their ease of getting going, as they are. Your formula seems to give too much credit to the narrowness of a board, which may work when judging a board with enough volume, but it does not work that way for the boards that sink. You would need tons of more sail power and better technique to get a sinker going, compared to another board that floats you comfortably and just slides on top of the water easilly. Strange that nobody has given you such a feedback before.

cheers
T.

Haha. All of that was already addressed and you missed it all. This probably isn't a good tool for you since you seem more dedicated to a negative perspective and ignoring the OP as well as your own data. The funny thing is that with the numbers you posted it's actually dead on, but you're so hung up on trying to disprove it that you can't see it. Fortunately it sounds like you've got your boards sorted already so there's really no need for you to use this.

I must have missed it too. Can you address this particular case? ... I am interested in the value of this tool as well.

Select to expand quote

gorgesailor said..

I must have missed it too. Can you address this particular case? ... I am interested in the value of this tool as well.

Sure!

If you look back at the original post you'll see that I made note that this is all providing rough estimates, not flawless computations. I also made note and gave an example that you can break the equation with a higher BAR and a low GF, which is exactly what Taavi did in this situation.

However, if you look close at his data you can see that there is useful variances in the BARGF between boards of similar volume as well as boards of larger vs narrower widths. So, it is still applicable, you just can't try to compare average boards vs boards at the extremes, which is what I said in the first place. I also said the equation would need work to become better.

Another user in a different forum (I_draw_boxes) offered help by posting the idea of multiplying the BAR x GF instead of adding them together which as a first impression seems like a great idea to tweak. If we apply that to Taavis boards we get this:
32 = 1.19
40 = 1.62
54 = 1.86
62 = 2.064
56 = 2.253
80 = 2.64
Which is actually, perfectly in order of how he rated the ease of takeoff on those boards. So, I don't think the equation is meaningless, it's just data that needs proper interpretation and tweaking to ease its use.

I don't know that multiplying is the silver bullet here, but it's worth looking at and comparing since it shows promise. My intuition tells me that while the original equation breaks under super low volume boards, the multiplied equation will break under super high volume boards, but I haven't had the time to sit down and work out parameters and examples on it yet. The data has value and I'm quite convinced that there's a thread worth pursuing here that will help us all when shopping around. That's why I give pushback when people flatly say it doesn't work or is meaningless.

In the short term using common sense when interpreting the results and looking for solutions or value in the data, instead of dead ends, will definitely result in more helpful forward momentum.

Don't know mate, weight of the board, bottom shape, foil, mast length, fresh water, wing size and above all skill level. These are all variables that will change how easy a board goes up on foil.
If we are talking rough idea, we all know that more volume, more length and less width will get up easier.always at a cost.

All the more reason to start somewhere ;-)

If you don't make an effort, and don't collect any data, then it can't ever point you towards any other useful conclusions.

Tested my new board out today:

Sunova Carver 5'10"x20" 85l 10.7lbs
BAR = 3.5
GF = 1
Sum = 4.5

It was a huge upgrade from:

E3 5'3"x22" 83l 11.5lbs
BAR = 2.86
GF = .97
Sum = 3.83

Both the old equation and the new were accurate on these boards, the new board was lightyears ahead of the other which makes sense with such a big gap between them.

Very interesting topic. I find myself not liking my Appletree Appleslice V2 60L as much as I did 2 years ago. I was 76kg when I bought it, but "bulked up" to 85kg since (let's not talk about where that bulking has accumulated).

Me 2 years ago at 76kg with the 4'9" x 23" 60L Appletree Appleslice V2:
BAR = 2.48
GF = 0.79
Total = 3.27

Me today at 85kg with the 4'9" x 23" 60L Appletree Appleslice V2:
BAR = 2.48
GF = 0.71
Total = 3.19

I used to be able to comfortably ride my Armstrong HA725 in anything over 17 kts or so, and rode my HA925 down to 13-14 kts. Now I struggle to get the HA925 up in anything under 15-16kts.

I've been eyeing these long and skinny wing (but not DW) boards, such as the Amos Sultan's (the 65L prone, and 75L wing) as well as the new Armstrong midlengths.

Me today at 85kg with the 5'5" x 19" 65L Amos Sultan Prone:
BAR = 3.42
GF = 0.76
Total = 4.18

Me today at 85kg with the 5'5" x 17" 75L Amos Sultan Wing:
BAR = 3.82
GF = 0.88
Total = 4.70

Me today at 85kg with the 5'9" x 19" 65L Armstrong midlength:
BAR = 3.63
GF = 0.76
Total = 4.39

Me today at 85kg with the 6'1" x 20" 75L Armstrong midlength:
BAR = 3.65
GF = 0.88
Total = 4.53

I'm leaning towards either the 65L Amos or 65L Armstrong, as according to this algorithm, both should give me a much easier take-off than my old 60L Appletree did, even when I was lighter. I think the 75L Amos and 75L Armstrong will "feel" too big.

What do y'all think? Any other boards to consider?

These new Smik Middys look good.

?si=rfWIThDTTwB4GerG