100 Kgs. Running a F one 5'5" 85L and I'm wanting to go smaller for swing weight pumping and turning responsiveness.

I feel like I have room to move down without loosing range (based on my current foil/wing) - I have a few Kt range where I can get to my feet but can't get on foil.

I tried my prone board (30 ish liters, 4'4" x 20" float at my chest) and I got to my feet a few times but couldn't get on foil, maybe in super lit conditions but who wants to be that lit?! Obviously 85 to 30 is too big of a gap and diminishing returns on the micro micro

Im looking at a few boards with a lot smaller footprint than the F one but relatively similar volume.

Cabrinha Macro 5'0" x25 is the safe choice - 78 liters

cab code 4'10" is the middle choice 68 liters

Macro 4'8" is the reach board at 58 liters

what are others riding (as a daily - not a special condition board). Please include weight!

Now 94kg, but was last inter 102kg (48y old).Daily driver 90l AK5.8 and that board gets/keeps me going from very lightwind 6m conditions till 3m full power silly winds.To challenge my self/ keep progressing I bought an AppleTree AppleSlice V2 4.9x60l, next to the AK5.8x90l.Had today a 3th go on the Appletree: First sess was mostly swimming, 2th on flat water to learn the ropes, today at sea with onshore messy conditions but no too much waves. Its a great board once flying but when you go to such small board you need a bigger wing. Normally I would be comfortable with a 4m. all my pals who usually are on the same size were fine with a 4m, but with a sinker you need a 5 to get going.

Gains: a whole new vocabulary in swearing to get on the board,
more control/precise feel, better pumping, going switch upwind is easier, easier to pump, less swingweight in turns.

Losses: a shorther boards finds ways to flip under you away you never thought of so getting on it is more exhausting/precise weight placement.
ease of use when there are breaking waves around you,
low end. When there is not enough wind I can slogg with the 90l (also when i was a 102kg+full hooded wintersuit), but it is a LOT harder/to impossible with such a short one.

I really really like it, but see boards a lot smaller as your body weight as an extra otherwise you lose low end.

Select to expand quote

TooMuchEpoxy said..
100 Kgs. Running a F one 5'5" 85L and I'm wanting to go smaller for swing weight pumping and turning responsiveness.

I feel like I have room to move down without loosing range (based on my current foil/wing) - I have a few Kt range where I can get to my feet but can't get on foil.

I tried my prone board (30 ish liters, 4'4" x 20" float at my chest) and I got to my feet a few times but couldn't get on foil, maybe in super lit conditions but who wants to be that lit?! Obviously 85 to 30 is too big of a gap and diminishing returns on the micro micro

Im looking at a few boards with a lot smaller footprint than the F one but relatively similar volume.

Cabrinha Macro 5'0" x25 is the safe choice - 78 liters

cab code 4'10" is the middle choice 68 liters

Macro 4'8" is the reach board at 58 liters

what are others riding (as a daily - not a special condition board). Please include weight!

See if you can demo a macro .. I found the 58L 4'8 harder to get on foil than a 4'10 40L autopilot .. Was lovely when on foil tho .. very compact .. I think it was the steep nose scoop that made it slow to plane / foil .. the codes have a much flatter entry rocker so should plane earlier / be a better choice .. I haven't tried one tho ..



(I'm 68kg btw ..)

57years young 65kgs board 65L, I can get on foil if wind is a consistent 6kts plus but 8kts is way easier, with a large foil goes up to about 12kts then over that I use a medium sized thinner foil wing, hand wings 6.0 and 4.0

I run ~10L to my kgs and I have lost zero low end. I'd go smaller than that but only in places where I'm sure the wind wont shut off. You are already past -10.

Keep in mind the whole point of going smaller is saving weight so you are more one with the foil, not to make things harder for yourself. F-one boards are pretty light in the industry so you may have trouble beating that even if you go to a 65L.

You have a ~13lb 5'5" 85L f-one, but you can also have an 85L 4'8" at 10lbs if you go with a smaller brand or custom. This would be a big improvement AT 9" shorter and lighter. Even if it weighed the same, the shorter length would make the weight feel less when you went to turn.

I'm sure a good custom builder could do it under 10lbs.

Select to expand quote

JohnnyTsunami said..
I run ~10L to my kgs and I have lost zero low end. I'd go smaller than that but only in places where I'm sure the wind wont shut off. You are already past -10.

Keep in mind the whole point of going smaller is saving weight so you are more one with the foil, not to make things harder for yourself. F-one boards are pretty light in the industry so you may have trouble beating that even if you go to a 65L.

You have a ~13lb 5'5" 85L f-one, but you can also have an 85L 4'8" at 10lbs if you go with a smaller brand or custom. This would be a big improvement AT 9" shorter and lighter. Even if it weighed the same, the shorter length would make the weight feel less when you went to turn.

I'm sure a good custom builder could do it under 10lbs.

Yeah, the f one is pretty spread out. Long and wide for the volume. I'm thinking I'll get a lot of the swing weight advantages just having the same or similar weight in a smaller package. As I said I'm willing to loose some low end.

Jeroen, good copy there. Sounds like for you the 60 is a little small for a daily(but useable on good days). I should probably look at the 70 liter range.

Smee, Good feedback on the macro. I heard the code was better, thanks for the detail on that. Probably steer clear of the macro!

all signs pointing to the 4'10 code(but I hate the bamboo - whatever)

Love more feedback from someone who has stepped down to something 25-30 liters under body weight!

If you want to lose swing weight you do not need to lose liters. I have a 5 2 91l Starboard Takeoff in the pro construction for my 105kg+. It works well. Kalama has some compact high-volume boards that are worth a look. Look at the length you want and then work out the width and liters you need.

Read somewhere there is an awkward volume for every weight, if memory serves it's about -15 to 20L. Still keeps most of the body out of the water when on knees but especially if it's short and thick, very tippy. -30 to 40 then gets easier as more of the body is in and supported by the water. Gets harder again smaller than that. I do find my -20 challenging sometimes...

Anyone know the actual stats?

Select to expand quote

Thatspec said..
Read somewhere there is an awkward volume for every weight, if memory serves it's about -15 to 20L. Still keeps most of the body out of the water when on knees but especially if it's short and thick, very tippy. -30 to 40 then gets easier as more of the body is in and supported by the water. Gets harder again smaller than that. I do find my -20 challenging sometimes...

Anyone know the actual stats?

At body weight is unstable. 15 to 20 under is better. I found at 30 to 40 under I needed a much bigger wing to get up, spent a lot of time swimming.

Select to expand quote

TooMuchEpoxy said..
100 Kgs. Running a F one 5'5" 85L and I'm wanting to go smaller for swing weight pumping and turning responsiveness.

I feel like I have room to move down without loosing range (based on my current foil/wing) - I have a few Kt range where I can get to my feet but can't get on foil.

I tried my prone board (30 ish liters, 4'4" x 20" float at my chest) and I got to my feet a few times but couldn't get on foil, maybe in super lit conditions but who wants to be that lit?! Obviously 85 to 30 is too big of a gap and diminishing returns on the micro micro

Im looking at a few boards with a lot smaller footprint than the F one but relatively similar volume.

Cabrinha Macro 5'0" x25 is the safe choice - 78 liters

cab code 4'10" is the middle choice 68 liters

Macro 4'8" is the reach board at 58 liters

what are others riding (as a daily - not a special condition board). Please include weight!

I'm running a 4'11 90L board right now and loving it Nick. No swing wieght. I can paddle out to the wind line(or in if the wind shuts off). Once adjusted to the increased height of the board, there is no drawback in my mind.Ill shoot ya a picture
Oh ya, 95kg w/a 5mm wetsuit

Also thinking about the 5'0" Fanatic. No fancy cutaways, nice square shape makes use of 100% of its footprint for more volume. Looks good.

Probably ruling out custom....i'm hard on boards and i wouldn't trust anyone but the morst $$$$ builders. I'm not willing to futz with my own build on something this size.(buid my own prone boards all day.

The SlingShot Wing Raider would be good safe choice at 4'8" x 26" @ 80 Liters.
I have the 4'10" 90Liters and at around body weight it is very comfortable board in comparison
to other boards I tried ( including the Fanatic & Cabrinha ).

The board has huge adjustment range with 14" boxes and reduced nose volume makes it
really nimble even at 90 Liters. Wetted surface of the board is ridiculously low, it will
release and pop-up like a much smaller board.

That said, for my lower volume board I am actually looking at the F-One range.
I believe these thin boards move better through the water and more direct feel of the foil.
I think think the F-One has a better volume distribution than the SlingShot ( and the Cabrinha)
and it is easier to pump the board out of the water. I mostly use F-One foils and with the SlingShot
that means I have to shim the base plate or ride slightly nose down.

As mentioned, the F-One boards are very light and thin and with its lower volume, rocker tail 5'x 23" x 3.7" x 60L
you'll be standing roughly 1" closer to the foil in comparison to the Cabrinha Macro 4'8" x23 x 3.9" x 58L board.

Thinking out loud, I'll take the 1" thinner and 4" longer of similar weight board.

Select to expand quote

burchas said..
The SlingShot Wing Raider would be good safe choice at 4'8" x 26" @ 80 Liters.
I have the 4'10" 90Liters and at around body weight it is very comfortable board in comparison
to other boards I tried ( including the Fanatic & Cabrinha ).

The board has huge adjustment range with 14" boxes and reduced nose volume makes it
really nimble even at 90 Liters. Wetted surface of the board is ridiculously low, it will
release and pop-up like a much smaller board.

That said, for my lower volume board I am actually looking at the F-One range.
I believe these thin boards move better through the water and more direct feel of the foil.
I think think the F-One has a better volume distribution than the SlingShot ( and the Cabrinha)
and it is easier to pump the board out of the water. I mostly use F-One foils and with the SlingShot
that means I have to shim the base plate or ride slightly nose down.

As mentioned, the F-One boards are very light and thin and with its lower volume, rocker tail 5'x 23" x 3.7" x 60L
you'll be standing roughly 1" closer to the foil in comparison to the Cabrinha Macro 4'8" x23 x 3.9" x 58L board.

Thinking out loud, I'll take the 1" thinner and 4" longer of similar weight board.

TBH i hate everything about that Slingshot shape. I've ridden the wing craft in a few sizes and hated the cutaways, concave chines, and rediculous tail cut. Somehow the wingcraft 130L had less stability than the F one 85! It looks like they turned the volume up on that nonsense. It looks like its a board with the swing weight of a 4'8"x26 but the stability and effective surface area of a 4'2" x 18"!

Select to expand quote

TooMuchEpoxy said..

burchas said..
The SlingShot Wing Raider would be good safe choice at 4'8" x 26" @ 80 Liters.
I have the 4'10" 90Liters and at around body weight it is very comfortable board in comparison
to other boards I tried ( including the Fanatic & Cabrinha ).

The board has huge adjustment range with 14" boxes and reduced nose volume makes it
really nimble even at 90 Liters. Wetted surface of the board is ridiculously low, it will
release and pop-up like a much smaller board.

That said, for my lower volume board I am actually looking at the F-One range.
I believe these thin boards move better through the water and more direct feel of the foil.
I think think the F-One has a better volume distribution than the SlingShot ( and the Cabrinha)
and it is easier to pump the board out of the water. I mostly use F-One foils and with the SlingShot
that means I have to shim the base plate or ride slightly nose down.

As mentioned, the F-One boards are very light and thin and with its lower volume, rocker tail 5'x 23" x 3.7" x 60L
you'll be standing roughly 1" closer to the foil in comparison to the Cabrinha Macro 4'8" x23 x 3.9" x 58L board.

Thinking out loud, I'll take the 1" thinner and 4" longer of similar weight board.

TBH i hate everything about that Slingshot shape. I've ridden the wing craft in a few sizes and hated the cutaways, concave chines, and rediculous tail cut. Somehow the wingcraft 130L had less stability than the F one 85! It looks like they turned the volume up on that nonsense. It looks like its a board with the swing weight of a 4'8"x26 but the stability and effective surface area of a 4'2" x 18"!

Yeah, you're not the first dude I know hating on their boards though you are right about the swing weight and the effective surface area of 4'x18.5".
This is why the board is great for light wind, If you can get used to how it moves in the water (like I did) you'll pop up instantaneously.

What I don't like about this board which is something I can't seem to shake off is a the volume distribution and the pumpabilty (and the
no self venting plug) hence my next board is an F-One.

105kgs ...

In my experience I think you end up having a trade off between length and volume as a fuller figured individual.

You have to able to get the board to plane.

If you choose to go to a board that is 50% (or less) of your weight, you will need a bit of length and/or flatness in the board shape to get it to plane.
If you choose to go to a board that is 60% of your weight, you can sacrifice some of length because you do not have to work so hard to get the board to plane.

Tried a 4'6" 40 litre board ..... could get to my feet but could never get up to plane.
Tried a 4'9" 47 litre board ..... could get it to plane and go provided I had 15 knots (still hard work)
Tried a 5'10" 51 litre board .... could get it to plane and go provided I had 15 knots (quite easy)
Tried a 4'8" 75 litre board .... could get it to plane and go provided I had 10 knots (quite easy)

All this for me is predicated on using the stinkbug. I was a complete failure before the stinkbug.

Select to expand quote

hilly said..

Thatspec said..
Read somewhere there is an awkward volume for every weight, if memory serves it's about -15 to 20L. Still keeps most of the body out of the water when on knees but especially if it's short and thick, very tippy. -30 to 40 then gets easier as more of the body is in and supported by the water. Gets harder again smaller than that. I do find my -20 challenging sometimes...

Anyone know the actual stats?

At body weight is unstable. 15 to 20 under is better. I found at 30 to 40 under I needed a much bigger wing to get up, spent a lot of time swimming.

Interesting. So the sweet spot is around 15 to 20 under your body weight?

Select to expand quote

TooMuchEpoxy said..

TBH i hate everything about that Slingshot shape. I've ridden the wing craft in a few sizes and hated the cutaways, concave chines, and rediculous tail cut. Somehow the wingcraft 130L had less stability than the F one 85! It looks like they turned the volume up on that nonsense. It looks like its a board with the swing weight of a 4'8"x26 but the stability and effective surface area of a 4'2" x 18"!

Yeah, Tony is famous for weird shapes but much of that weirdness actually works really well. The concave rails, the squared off nose, even the tail cut I'm betting will come back into 'style' again on next years boards. I can't seem to tell any difference between squared off tails or cut aways for getting going. A little wind fixes everything

Select to expand quote

marco said..

hilly said..

Thatspec said..
Read somewhere there is an awkward volume for every weight, if memory serves it's about -15 to 20L. Still keeps most of the body out of the water when on knees but especially if it's short and thick, very tippy. -30 to 40 then gets easier as more of the body is in and supported by the water. Gets harder again smaller than that. I do find my -20 challenging sometimes...

Anyone know the actual stats?

At body weight is unstable. 15 to 20 under is better. I found at 30 to 40 under I needed a much bigger wing to get up, spent a lot of time swimming.

Interesting. So the sweet spot is around 15 to 20 under your body weight?

Depends on shape as well. I'm 75kg on a 60l FG. Only problem is when is inconsistent. You can kind of dog it although you need to be moving the wing a bit or you will sink. For easy digging to catch a whiff I'd say minus 10 is woukd be better given the right shape and also given using the same wing sizes.

Select to expand quote

bigtone667 said..
105kgs ...

In my experience I think you end up having a trade off between length and volume as a fuller figured individual.

You have to able to get the board to plane.

If you choose to go to a board that is 50% (or less) of your weight, you will need a bit of length and/or flatness in the board shape to get it to plane.
If you choose to go to a board that is 60% of your weight, you can sacrifice some of length because you do not have to work so hard to get the board to plane.

Tried a 4'6" 40 litre board ..... could get to my feet but could never get up to plane.
Tried a 4'9" 47 litre board ..... could get it to plane and go provided I had 15 knots (still hard work)
Tried a 5'10" 51 litre board .... could get it to plane and go provided I had 15 knots (quite easy)
Tried a 4'8" 75 litre board .... could get it to plane and go provided I had 10 knots (quite easy)

All this for me is predicated on using the stinkbug. I was a complete failure before the stinkbug.

Thanks big tone for passing on your experience here as this is very valuable information. Minus 30% or 30 litres

I recently went to 50 litre 4'10" x 21 and at 65kgs and 4/3 wetsuit, found it surprisingly easy to start using my normal wing sizes. Need 10 knots. So for me minus 23% and feel I could have gone just a little smaller but very happy with the guess erroring on the safe side.

Select to expand quote

AnyBoard said..

bigtone667 said..
105kgs ...

In my experience I think you end up having a trade off between length and volume as a fuller figured individual.

You have to able to get the board to plane.

If you choose to go to a board that is 50% (or less) of your weight, you will need a bit of length and/or flatness in the board shape to get it to plane.
If you choose to go to a board that is 60% of your weight, you can sacrifice some of length because you do not have to work so hard to get the board to plane.

Tried a 4'6" 40 litre board ..... could get to my feet but could never get up to plane.
Tried a 4'9" 47 litre board ..... could get it to plane and go provided I had 15 knots (still hard work)
Tried a 5'10" 51 litre board .... could get it to plane and go provided I had 15 knots (quite easy)
Tried a 4'8" 75 litre board .... could get it to plane and go provided I had 10 knots (quite easy)

All this for me is predicated on using the stinkbug. I was a complete failure before the stinkbug.

Thanks big tone for passing on your experience here as this is very valuable information. Minus 30% or 30 litres

I recently went to 50 litre 4'10" x 21 and at 65kgs and 4/3 wetsuit, found it surprisingly easy to start using my normal wing sizes. Need 10 knots. So for me minus 23% and feel I could have gone just a little smaller but very happy with the guess erroring on the safe side.

I think you can certainly go smaller, but I always ask myself the question, Am I enjoying the entire exercise?

The 75L offered the best all round level of fun versus effort for our local wind conditions.

It's either gonna be the Fanatic or Naish 75. Thanks for the good feedback all.

If you want to keep the low end, 15 liters less than your weight maximum. A long and narrow outline makes a massive difference in the energy required to get you planning, flat sharp tail for water release, foil box far forward. I had a 4'6 22" lethal from gong and made a custom 5'2 20" fanatic style, the difference is massive, can get going in ~4kts less for the same foil. With this board I can use 1000 sqcm foils above 8 knots which is crazy (80kg). www.instagram.com/p/CgMFuntIylR/?utm_source=ig_web_copy_link

At 92 kgs riding the Cabrihna Code 68 L, looking now to demo a short 60 L board. The stinkbug start really is a game changer.

I owned and tried a few fanatics, they have a certain feeling and it has to suit you.The more I tried the more I found out that I prefer slightly longer and thinner boards as the Thick compact Fanatics, but it is really a matter of taste.

On the small board department:Last week I punctured my 5m when going into the water with the 60l board so got my 4m wich was great for like 45min and then the wind dropped 2knots or something like that.
Couldnt get back on the foil and had to drag/swim in for 1km.
-35/-40l is fun when you got ample of power otherwise they suck (big time!)

I've tried a fair few boards now and have settled with the ensis 4'4, 22" 57L as my daily driver down to about 12 knots and I weigh in at about 85kgs..

after ridding smaller boards there's no way I could go back to riding a big wide door again as that's what they feel like in comparison.

not many have touched on this but width plays a big part on how a board planes and also how it feels up on foil. I think boards will start moving narrower as the sport progresses along with boxes further forward for less swing weight. Shifting everything more centralized on the board.
I think you'll be happy with anything under 5 foot and not too wide. But trying to demo is the best thing you can do or swap out with some buddies in the water.