Select to expand quote

Johndesu said..

Pasquales said..
Some have been reported by users-

Wing SUP -Size Vol Mass (Kg)
4'8"(50L) - 4.6
4'11"(60L) - 5.2
5'2.5"(75L) - 5.8
5'5"(88L)/5'8"(99L)/5'11"(115L)/6'4"(132L) - Unknown

I really want to know the exact weights for the other "unknown" boards but I think they are hiding the possible fact/s that they are not as light as the older models perhaps?:-)

Given that the original wing boards suffered from serious box failures it sounds like they're doing the right thing in beefing up the new boxes possibly at the expense of a bit more weight

Select to expand quote

DWF said..
When i winged Armstrong HS, I tuned the foil to balance out using a chopped 300 tail shimmed for least lift. It's what the local Armstrong shop recommended. This shop is all hard core Armstrong riders. I tested the 232 tail anyway, and agreed with the shop opinion for winging. FYI, this shop recommended the 232 for prone. Tuned like this, Armstrong is fully compatible with other board brands.

Armstrong did hurt the track adjustability by making the base plate longer than other brands. It takes away about 3 cm of usable adjustment range with industry standard tracks. Even worse, this extra base plate length is all at the front, killing the ability to move it forward. I'm sure it was done for better loading. Back at the beginning, many windsurf foils had extended load bearing additions at the front. Now we know they are not needed.

Regarding Axis, the HPS wings require the mast back about 2-3 cm from other models in their lineup. So possibly the HPS won't work with the Armstrong board.

232 tail shimmed for least lift works with all
board brands? Well I've gone through three that still want to go more forward and that's shimmed with minus 2 for most lift. Even my carbon yob (which I highly recommend by the way) still feels it could go tad more forward.

Just out of interest, what happens when you do the kdmaui balance test on these new boards? Do they balance flat on the ideal track placement or has Armstrong managed to defy the laws of foiling physics? HB

Select to expand quote

HBsups said..
Just out of interest, what happens when you do the kdmaui balance test on these new boards? Do they balance flat on the ideal track placement or has Armstrong managed to defy the laws of foiling physics? HB

Not sure if that balance test is 'the law of foiling physics', but I did the test on my 60L with 50fuse and 1125.

At my latest mast position (5), the test resulted in a slightly nose high position when lifting the board using the front 3rd of the wing as the lift point. I tried full rear setting (0) and max forward. Even at full rear, there was a tiny amount of nose high position. At full front, the angle increased so the nose was even higher.

Trying to wrap my mind around what effect his actually has is not easy. Perhaps some foiling geometry wizards out there can chime in?

Balance point slightly to the aft of the center-point of foil? Less work required by back leg to force the board down? More front foot pressure is a result?

Select to expand quote

robbo1111 said..

Johndesu said..

Pasquales said..
Some have been reported by users-

Wing SUP -Size Vol Mass (Kg)
4'8"(50L) - 4.6
4'11"(60L) - 5.2
5'2.5"(75L) - 5.8
5'5"(88L)/5'8"(99L)/5'11"(115L)/6'4"(132L) - Unknown

I really want to know the exact weights for the other "unknown" boards but I think they are hiding the possible fact/s that they are not as light as the older models perhaps?:-)

Given that the original wing boards suffered from serious box failures it sounds like they're doing the right thing in beefing up the new boxes possibly at the expense of a bit more weight

OMG, I've ordered an old model 5'11 thinking I was betting on quality...

Select to expand quote

MidAtlanticFoil said..

HBsups said..
Just out of interest, what happens when you do the kdmaui balance test on these new boards? Do they balance flat on the ideal track placement or has Armstrong managed to defy the laws of foiling physics? HB

Not sure if that balance test is 'the law of foiling physics', but I did the test on my 60L with 50fuse and 1125.

At my latest mast position (5), the test resulted in a slightly nose high position when lifting the board using the front 3rd of the wing as the lift point. I tried full rear setting (0) and max forward. Even at full rear, there was a tiny amount of nose high position. At full front, the angle increased so the nose was even higher.

Trying to wrap my mind around what effect his actually has is not easy. Perhaps some foiling geometry wizards out there can chime in?

Balance point slightly to the aft of the center-point of foil? Less work required by back leg to force the board down? More front foot pressure is a result?

Yeh I'd say you are right. Higher nose point more front foot pressure needing less back. Which I assume is the whole point of "forward geometry".

Select to expand quote

1fox said..

robbo1111 said..

Johndesu said..

Pasquales said..
Some have been reported by users-

Wing SUP -Size Vol Mass (Kg)
4'8"(50L) - 4.6
4'11"(60L) - 5.2
5'2.5"(75L) - 5.8
5'5"(88L)/5'8"(99L)/5'11"(115L)/6'4"(132L) - Unknown

I really want to know the exact weights for the other "unknown" boards but I think they are hiding the possible fact/s that they are not as light as the older models perhaps?:-)

Given that the original wing boards suffered from serious box failures it sounds like they're doing the right thing in beefing up the new boxes possibly at the expense of a bit more weight

OMG, I've ordered an old model 5'11 thinking I was betting on quality...

I know about 10 people with Armstrong boards, not one has had a box failure. They are futures boxes mounted in high density foam so even if you do rip one out hitting a reef at speed the board does not take on water. Not sure where the serious issue is??

I am looking forward to having more flexible with mast placement.

Select to expand quote

MidAtlanticFoil said..

HBsups said..
Just out of interest, what happens when you do the kdmaui balance test on these new boards? Do they balance flat on the ideal track placement or has Armstrong managed to defy the laws of foiling physics? HB

Not sure if that balance test is 'the law of foiling physics', but I did the test on my 60L with 50fuse and 1125.

At my latest mast position (5), the test resulted in a slightly nose high position when lifting the board using the front 3rd of the wing as the lift point. I tried full rear setting (0) and max forward. Even at full rear, there was a tiny amount of nose high position. At full front, the angle increased so the nose was even higher.

Trying to wrap my mind around what effect his actually has is not easy. Perhaps some foiling geometry wizards out there can chime in?

Balance point slightly to the aft of the center-point of foil? Less work required by back leg to force the board down? More front foot pressure is a result?

So when you say a "slightly higher nose position when lifting the board" so then the nose is pointing up? or down? when you are looking down from a standing position lifting it?:-)

Select to expand quote

Johndesu said..

MidAtlanticFoil said..

HBsups said..
Just out of interest, what happens when you do the kdmaui balance test on these new boards? Do they balance flat on the ideal track placement or has Armstrong managed to defy the laws of foiling physics? HB

Not sure if that balance test is 'the law of foiling physics', but I did the test on my 60L with 50fuse and 1125.

At my latest mast position (5), the test resulted in a slightly nose high position when lifting the board using the front 3rd of the wing as the lift point. I tried full rear setting (0) and max forward. Even at full rear, there was a tiny amount of nose high position. At full front, the angle increased so the nose was even higher.

Trying to wrap my mind around what effect his actually has is not easy. Perhaps some foiling geometry wizards out there can chime in?

Balance point slightly to the aft of the center-point of foil? Less work required by back leg to force the board down? More front foot pressure is a result?

So when you say a "slightly higher nose position when lifting the board" so then the nose is pointing up? or down? when you are looking down from a standing position lifting it?:-)

Higher nose when board upside down holding.
Armie said the following in an fbook post today about the matter: " less leveraged board weight for the foil to carry = more efficient angles possible for the foil in the water. And more reactive to pitch inputs so pump requires less power to adjust trim angle - up and down."

Select to expand quote

MidAtlanticFoil said..

Johndesu said..

MidAtlanticFoil said..

HBsups said..
Just out of interest, what happens when you do the kdmaui balance test on these new boards? Do they balance flat on the ideal track placement or has Armstrong managed to defy the laws of foiling physics? HB

Not sure if that balance test is 'the law of foiling physics', but I did the test on my 60L with 50fuse and 1125.

At my latest mast position (5), the test resulted in a slightly nose high position when lifting the board using the front 3rd of the wing as the lift point. I tried full rear setting (0) and max forward. Even at full rear, there was a tiny amount of nose high position. At full front, the angle increased so the nose was even higher.

Trying to wrap my mind around what effect his actually has is not easy. Perhaps some foiling geometry wizards out there can chime in?

Balance point slightly to the aft of the center-point of foil? Less work required by back leg to force the board down? More front foot pressure is a result?

So when you say a "slightly higher nose position when lifting the board" so then the nose is pointing up? or down? when you are looking down from a standing position lifting it?:-)

Higher nose when board upside down holding.
Armie said the following in an fbook post today about the matter: " less leveraged board weight for the foil to carry = more efficient angles possible for the foil in the water. And more reactive to pitch inputs so pump requires less power to adjust trim angle - up and down."

So that must mean when the board is in the water - then the nose would want to dip down more (the opposite) is that correct in what I am thinking so then to compensate you would require a bit more overall lift perhaps ??:-)

Select to expand quote

hilly said..

1fox said..

robbo1111 said..

Johndesu said..

Pasquales said..
Some have been reported by users-

Wing SUP -Size Vol Mass (Kg)
4'8"(50L) - 4.6
4'11"(60L) - 5.2
5'2.5"(75L) - 5.8
5'5"(88L)/5'8"(99L)/5'11"(115L)/6'4"(132L) - Unknown

I really want to know the exact weights for the other "unknown" boards but I think they are hiding the possible fact/s that they are not as light as the older models perhaps?:-)

Given that the original wing boards suffered from serious box failures it sounds like they're doing the right thing in beefing up the new boxes possibly at the expense of a bit more weight

OMG, I've ordered an old model 5'11 thinking I was betting on quality...

I know about 10 people with Armstrong boards, not one has had a box failure. They are futures boxes mounted in high density foam so even if you do rip one out hitting a reef at speed the board does not take on water. Not sure where the serious issue is??

I am looking forward to having more flexible with mast placement.

Any box failure is serious in my opinion but good on Armstrong for redesigning their box/track system, the failures I saw reflect what Armstrong acknowledge on their website: "plastic does not do the job well enough, so we designed our own 320mm carbon fibre mast tracks".
By the way the box failures I saw were covered under warranty with a new board

Select to expand quote

hilly said..

1fox said..

robbo1111 said..

Johndesu said..

Pasquales said..
Some have been reported by users-

Wing SUP -Size Vol Mass (Kg)
4'8"(50L) - 4.6
4'11"(60L) - 5.2
5'2.5"(75L) - 5.8
5'5"(88L)/5'8"(99L)/5'11"(115L)/6'4"(132L) - Unknown

I really want to know the exact weights for the other "unknown" boards but I think they are hiding the possible fact/s that they are not as light as the older models perhaps?:-)

Given that the original wing boards suffered from serious box failures it sounds like they're doing the right thing in beefing up the new boxes possibly at the expense of a bit more weight

OMG, I've ordered an old model 5'11 thinking I was betting on quality...

I know about 10 people with Armstrong boards, not one has had a box failure. They are futures boxes mounted in high density foam so even if you do rip one out hitting a reef at speed the board does not take on water. Not sure where the serious issue is??

I am looking forward to having more flexible with mast placement.

Yeh I'm in the same boat. Several people I know using army boards. Have never heard one box failure. (That doesn't mean it hasn't happened though). I've seen and heard box failures on other boards through. Not enough to say categorically it's an issue though.

Select to expand quote

eppo said..

hilly said..

1fox said..

robbo1111 said..

Johndesu said..

Pasquales said..
Some have been reported by users-

Wing SUP -Size Vol Mass (Kg)
4'8"(50L) - 4.6
4'11"(60L) - 5.2
5'2.5"(75L) - 5.8
5'5"(88L)/5'8"(99L)/5'11"(115L)/6'4"(132L) - Unknown

I really want to know the exact weights for the other "unknown" boards but I think they are hiding the possible fact/s that they are not as light as the older models perhaps?:-)

Given that the original wing boards suffered from serious box failures it sounds like they're doing the right thing in beefing up the new boxes possibly at the expense of a bit more weight

OMG, I've ordered an old model 5'11 thinking I was betting on quality...

I know about 10 people with Armstrong boards, not one has had a box failure. They are futures boxes mounted in high density foam so even if you do rip one out hitting a reef at speed the board does not take on water. Not sure where the serious issue is??

I am looking forward to having more flexible with mast placement.

Yeh I'm in the same boat. Several people I know using army boards. Have never heard one box failure. (That doesn't mean it hasn't happened though). I've seen and heard box failures on other boards through. Not enough to say categorically it's an issue though.

I personally have owned or know of at least 10 first gen boards with no box failures.

Select to expand quote

Johndesu said..

MidAtlanticFoil said..

Johndesu said..

MidAtlanticFoil said..

HBsups said..
Just out of interest, what happens when you do the kdmaui balance test on these new boards? Do they balance flat on the ideal track placement or has Armstrong managed to defy the laws of foiling physics? HB

Not sure if that balance test is 'the law of foiling physics', but I did the test on my 60L with 50fuse and 1125.

At my latest mast position (5), the test resulted in a slightly nose high position when lifting the board using the front 3rd of the wing as the lift point. I tried full rear setting (0) and max forward. Even at full rear, there was a tiny amount of nose high position. At full front, the angle increased so the nose was even higher.

Trying to wrap my mind around what effect his actually has is not easy. Perhaps some foiling geometry wizards out there can chime in?

Balance point slightly to the aft of the center-point of foil? Less work required by back leg to force the board down? More front foot pressure is a result?

So when you say a "slightly higher nose position when lifting the board" so then the nose is pointing up? or down? when you are looking down from a standing position lifting it?:-)

Higher nose when board upside down holding.
Armie said the following in an fbook post today about the matter: " less leveraged board weight for the foil to carry = more efficient angles possible for the foil in the water. And more reactive to pitch inputs so pump requires less power to adjust trim angle - up and down."

So that must mean when the board is in the water - then the nose would want to dip down more (the opposite) is that correct in what I am thinking so then to compensate you would require a bit more overall lift perhaps ??:-)

Is that right? or am I wrong? does anybody now?:-)

Well the board pointing further higher (so turn it around and the nose is at a higher angle in the water relative to a balanced / levelled KD Maui test surely just means an increased angle of attack on the foil (given same feet placement)- hence earlier / more lift. Surely it's all relative to a consistent foot placement relative to the mast. The length/type of the board is relatively mute.


nose higher just means you are standing further back relative to the mast hence more - earlier lift which equals the need for more front foot pressure to compensate, that is to achieve a level board flight. That's my take anyhow.



to put it more simply . moving mast forward/board pointing higher equals doing a wheelly!!

IMHO no angles change Eppo,it is just the balance point position.
So feet will have to be further forward and the pitch inertia will be bigger ,on paper :)

But i do not think KDmaui meant his balance method to be the last word ,more like a very good starting point to setup your gear.

With all the variables involved in the finicky pitch change motion and considering that Armstrong foils in particular have their very own (backfooted?) feel this might be more efficient.

With my Kujira/Naish setup i still have room to move the foil forward and get it to balance a bit tail down...but it is riding so nicely now.Fiddling gear is hard work :)

The KD Maui balance approach is simply lining up the centre of lift of the foil with the centre of gravity of the board and foil combined. Ideally you would want the board's longitudinal centre of buoyancy when in level trim to also be in the same position.

The reasoning is simple. In addition to the three rotations, pitch, roll and yaw, you also have three possible translations, surge, sway and heave. Heave is motion in the vertical direction, and when foiling or getting onto the foil, we do a lot of it. The thing is that if the board is being accelerated upward by the lift from the foil, and that acceleration is being resisted by the weight of the board, if the centre of gravity of the board is forward of the centre of lift of the foil then the nose will tend to pitch down as a result.

conversely, if the centre of mass is above the centre of lift of the foil, then there won't be any unwanted changes in pitch angle due to heave, and the pitch angle will be solely dependent on where you place the centre of gravity of your body.

Regarding having the centre of buoyancy of the board lined up with the foil centre of lift and the board centre of gravity, this is so that whether you are kneeling on the board, standing on the board when going slow or standing on the board when flying on the foil, your body's centre of gravity is in the same location. Much better than having to move forward or aft when you transition between displacement mode and foiling

Select to expand quote

Pacey said..
The KD Maui balance approach is simply lining up the centre of lift of the foil with the centre of gravity of the board and foil combined. Ideally you would want the board's longitudinal centre of buoyancy when in level trim to also be in the same position.

The reasoning is simple. In addition to the three rotations, pitch, roll and yaw, you also have three possible translations, surge, sway and heave. Heave is motion in the vertical direction, and when foiling or getting onto the foil, we do a lot of it. The thing is that if the board is being accelerated upward by the lift from the foil, and that acceleration is being resisted by the weight of the board, if the centre of gravity of the board is forward of the centre of lift of the foil then the nose will tend to pitch down as a result.

conversely, if the centre of mass is above the centre of lift of the foil, then there won't be any unwanted changes in pitch angle due to heave, and the pitch angle will be solely dependent on where you place the centre of gravity of your body.

Regarding having the centre of buoyancy of the board lined up with the foil centre of lift and the board centre of gravity, this is so that whether you are kneeling on the board, standing on the board when going slow or standing on the board when flying on the foil, your body's centre of gravity is in the same location. Much better than having to move forward or aft when you transition between displacement mode and foiling

Yes I see/understand now Pacey but in your option what is the best compromise as I have the Foil Drive attached to the back of my board/sup (a few kilos just before the least plug) as it is impossible to achieve a perfect Balance now because of this (but previously before I added the Foil drive a perfect Balance was possible?;-)
Thanks :-)

Does it change the balance of the board much when you hang the board upside down from the centre of lift of the foil? I would have thought that the extra weight of the foil drive was reasonably close to the mast anyway, so wouldn't change the c. of g. much. Or maybe I'm underestimating the weight of the foil drive

Select to expand quote

eppo said..
Well the board pointing further higher (so turn it around and the nose is at a higher angle in the water relative to a balanced / levelled KD Maui test surely just means an increased angle of attack on the foil (given same feet placement)- hence earlier / more lift. Surely it's all relative to a consistent foot placement relative to the mast. The length/type of the board is relatively mute.


nose higher just means you are standing further back relative to the mast hence more - earlier lift which equals the need for more front foot pressure to compensate, that is to achieve a level board flight. That's my take anyhow.



to put it more simply . moving mast forward/board pointing higher equals doing a wheelly!!

So a few more sessions on the 60L on some <1000 cm wings and I'm getting a better sense of the effects of the 'nose high' KD balance. The 'heave' moment when launching does require moving my back foot forward 4-6 cm and a VERY front foot heavy trim for the first few seconds until reaching a stable cruising speed, then the balance goes back to neutral. On my previous board, it was the opposite, with the balance point not quite balanced with a back foot bias.


Again, I still haven't lucked into any major bump or ocean swell sessions to get a test, but I did get to chase down a boat in high gear and did some speed lines down their wake (fun!).

Select to expand quote

Pacey said..
The KD Maui balance approach is simply lining up the centre of lift of the foil with the centre of gravity of the board and foil combined. Ideally you would want the board's longitudinal centre of buoyancy when in level trim to also be in the same position.

The reasoning is simple. In addition to the three rotations, pitch, roll and yaw, you also have three possible translations, surge, sway and heave. Heave is motion in the vertical direction, and when foiling or getting onto the foil, we do a lot of it. The thing is that if the board is being accelerated upward by the lift from the foil, and that acceleration is being resisted by the weight of the board, if the centre of gravity of the board is forward of the centre of lift of the foil then the nose will tend to pitch down as a result.

conversely, if the centre of mass is above the centre of lift of the foil, then there won't be any unwanted changes in pitch angle due to heave, and the pitch angle will be solely dependent on where you place the centre of gravity of your body.

Regarding having the centre of buoyancy of the board lined up with the foil centre of lift and the board centre of gravity, this is so that whether you are kneeling on the board, standing on the board when going slow or standing on the board when flying on the foil, your body's centre of gravity is in the same location. Much better than having to move forward or aft when you transition between displacement mode and foiling

Yep got ya. Nice explanation.

Select to expand quote

Pacey said..
Does it change the balance of the board much when you hang the board upside down from the centre of lift of the foil? I would have thought that the extra weight of the foil drive was reasonably close to the mast anyway, so wouldn't change the c. of g. much. Or maybe I'm underestimating the weight of the foil drive

Well Pacey the actual motor/propeller (about2kg) is actually on the mast but the Battery (about 1kg) is right on the tail which tips the board off balance heaps compared to before when doing the test?:-)

I am looking to buy the 55 @ 88L. I am still learning , so i have the CF2400. Has anyone tested a larger foil on these boards. Are the track to far forward to use these bigger foils ?

Ran the 1050 wing today for the first time on the 60L FG. Tried it first at the 5 setting I'd been running the 1125 and immediately turned back to adjust back and nailed a crab pot on a blind gybe. Ended up trying a 2 setting and it felt great. Running the A+ 60 fuse with FV200 and .5 degree shim. Wind was 10-20mph.

Strapped up and got some rad dad credit card airs. The offset to the rail rear strap setting makes it comfy for straps. Finally!

Select to expand quote

LWjay said..
I am looking to buy the 55 @ 88L. I am still learning , so i have the CF2400. Has anyone tested a larger foil on these boards. Are the track to far forward to use these bigger foils ?

Tracks are extra-long so it should be fine.

[url=ibb.co/mNQKPpC] [url=ibb.co/drHS2j0]

Select to expand quote

hilly said..

LWjay said..
I am looking to buy the 55 @ 88L. I am still learning , so i have the CF2400. Has anyone tested a larger foil on these boards. Are the track to far forward to use these bigger foils ?

Tracks are extra-long so it should be fine.

Yes but I think he wants to know if the Tracks go far back enough (towards the tail?:-)

Given that my 1050 felt great at setting 2 with a .5 degree shim, I'm guessing the 2400 would need to be max rear setting with a +2 tail wing tuning. The bigger the board, the more room for adjusting stance forward as well.

When I tried the 1050 at the 5 setting, I had just put on straps so I couldn't adjust stance forward at all.

Select to expand quote

Johndesu said..

hilly said..

LWjay said..
I am looking to buy the 55 @ 88L. I am still learning , so i have the CF2400. Has anyone tested a larger foil on these boards. Are the track to far forward to use these bigger foils ?

Tracks are extra-long so it should be fine.

Yes but I think he wants to know if the Tracks go far back enough (towards the tail?:-)

Yes Exactly. I managed to talk to Armie and he told me that with the 88L I should be fine with my 2400 with +2 shim. I imagine that as the board come out more tests will be made.