Forums > Stand Up Paddle Foiling

Cloud IX F-32 Vs MFC 1400

Reply
Created by BurleighFoil A week ago, 1 Jul 2020
BurleighFoil
QLD, 22 posts
1 Jul 2020 8:38PM
Thumbs Up

www.cloud9surffoils.com.au/ mfchawaii.com/surf/hydrofoils/

First thing to understand that this is not a review about which is better, rather, what the differences are and in identifying that, you may be able to decide which foil suits you better or which one interests you more. I will say I own both and have ridden both extensively and I am torn between them, but I will leave personal preferences until the end.

Specifications:
Cloud IX F-32: Construction - carbon Wing Span: 32" / 81.28cmProjected Area: 175sq.in. / 1129cm2

MFC - 1400: Construction - carbon Weight: 1.10kg | Wingspan: 78cm 1400 cm2

Shape: Front Wing
Cloud IX: The F-32 is definitely a high aspect wing with the tips slightly curved making it the first real hybrid between Low and High Aspect. A very new "batwing" design which is remarkably efficient for its smaller surface area.

MFC: The 1400 has the dihedral low aspect shape, however, in saying that, the curve is slight and more of a higher aspect low aspect wing (if that makes sense). It definitely has a flatter overall shape than other non high aspect wings.

Tail: Both have a "curved" tail, at 225 cm2, the curve is slightly different with each but neither would be called flat. Check out the pics attached and the websites listed above for a more detailed view.

Shims:
Cloud IX - no

MFC: Yes. Three shims come with the kit. Zero (white), 1.5mm (black) and 2.5mm (red)Shims are needed to adjust and control the Angle Of Attack (AOA) of the back wing. Shims help dictate the amount of lift we will achieve from the back wing. The bigger the AOA the most Lift we will have, the smaller the AOA the most speed you will achieve. These should be chosen in relation to the size of the front wing that is being used.

Mast:
Cloud IX: The mast has a tapered construction, wider at the base and then tapers at the fuselage. 76 cm in length. Full carbon construction. Stiff.

MFC: the mast is uniform in width. 70 cm. Full carbon construction. Some degree of flex.

Fuselage:
Cloud IX: Both front wing and tail are located on the same side. Construction is carbon.

MFC: Front wing and tail are mounted on opposite sides, allowing the shim to be applied and affect the angle of the rear wing. The position of the rear wing along the fuselage is fixed. The front wing attaches in a modular format, male and female parts and then screwed in once fully "inserted". I have struggled removing the wing from the fuselage as the fit is very tight. Even after applying a lubricant of sorts, it is tight, this is a good thing as you don't want movement here but perhaps a less tight fit so changing wings is not a struggle. Construction is carbon

Comment: The Cloud IX fuselage has additional holes for the tail wing to be mounted allowing you to "shorten" the fuselage length by moving the rear wing further forward. The shorter the fuselage, the tighter the turning capacity and the looser the foil will feel but the compromise is with stability and the pump. What you gain with being more manoeuvrable, you lose a little stability and ease of pump. The shorter fuselage requires a slightly quicker cadence with the pump than when the rear wing is at the very back.

Screws:
Cloud IX: Stainless steel Torx size 40 (all). The various screws are different length and size, ie base screws are the longest and thickest and the tail screws smaller and thinner but they are all T-40 in size making it easier to have the one tool.

MFC: Stainless steel - Hex system. Base Hex size is larger than the screws for the mast and wings. 2 Hex sizes, so you need to carry 2 x Hex drivers.

Lift: In determining this, I mounted both foils in the same position on the board and foiled similar conditions on the same day. Approximately a dozen waves each. Bear in mind I rode the MFC for about 4 months straight and then the F-32 since it arrived, about 5-6 hours every day since the 9th of June. I am comfortable and very familiar with both.

Cloud IX: The F-32 has a more progressive lift, it feels very stable and controlled. I felt I could take steeper drops with this foil and not feel like it wants to launch (within reason). Once up on foil and riding, the lift is easy to maintain.

MFC: The 1400 has more lift on take off, not dramatic like a low aspect wing but more pronounced than the F-32. It was also easy to get up on foil and maintain.

The Feel (glide):
Cloud IX: Very smooth and stable, effortless in flying along the wave, no sense of drag and doesn't feel like there is a limit to the speed, the bigger the wave or steeper, the faster it wants to go.

MFC: Also very smooth and stable but it feels a little "twitchier" than the F-32. No drag, and very fast, similar to the F-32. Both these wings feel smooth and glide without the sensation of drag and seem similar in speed capabilities.

Turning:
Cloud IX: The F-32 feels great in turns, stable and fast, definitely glides and slices through the turn. This stays true to the company desire to create "surf" foils.

MFC: The 1400 feels more lively and this is where the term "twitchier" comes in. I feel like this foil and wing is more responsive and quicker to react. In that sense it may be a little less stable in the turn requiring more focus and control from the rider.

Comment: Both turn well and both are enjoyable to ride and link turns. After changing the MFC over, I caught a wave on the F-32 and cranked the best combination of turns I have done to date, super fast going right (I am a natural footer)and turning strongly in the pocket on the steeper section, banking back into the wave and then immediately turning sharply, nice and high on the steeper section of the wave. Continued acceleration through the turns and shooting back towards the right and flying down the line. When I got back out a friend said he could tell I was still on the MFC with the speed and tightness of the turns. F-32 I said and he couldn't believe it. So in saying that, both turn hard without doubt but the 1400 is definitely more lively in its feel and the F-32 has a more stable feel.

Flying:
Cloud IX: The F-32 flies and glides easily, feels smooth and stable with very little effort to keep it up on foil. The longer mast is more forgiving even though it is only 6cm longer. More stable through white water and turbulence.

MFC: The 1400 is not dissimilar to the F-32 but has that lively feeling to it. The flex in the mast is noticeable when going through whitewash or turbulence, you can really feel the mast responding and initially it can be disconcerting until you get used to it and then you can describe it as feeling the shockers ride over bumps, you feel the movement but you absorb it in your legs.

The Pump:
So here it is, the thing that everyone wants to know - how do they pump? I should say that I am not the greatest in pumping, it has been the most challenging part of my foiling, part of which I attribute to starting on the wrong equipment and having a smaller foil to begin with. I feel if I started on a larger foil, I would have eased into the pumping more readily and quickly.

Cloud IX: The pump on this is similar to a high aspect wing, keep it high and more of a "tap" than the full porpoise movement. Speed is critical coming off the wave and stay high on the foil. Three quick pumps in succession as you exit the wave and glide past the back of the wave before starting the pump. The wing is fast and allows you to keep building speed. When you get in the zone this wing feels great and has plenty of glide. Surprising pump for a wing with such a small surface area. This confirms its efficiency.

MFC: The 1400 has a more common low aspect type of pump, similar requirements coming off the wave, speed is king and stay high on the foil. It has a more porpoise like pump with a glide at the top so let the foil come up, glide for a second and then pump, if you can incorporate the pump, glide, pump action then you can feel this wing go with medium effort. The glide part is not as long and pronounced as with the Takuma wings, they have tremendous lift and glide.

Comment: I felt the F-32 was easier to pump overall and maybe it suited my style a bit more (?) Before I had the F-32 I really struggled with the pumping on the MFC and I think that was mostly due to technique, I just couldn't get the feel happening. After getting the F-32, I spent session after session kicking out early and just pumping. For about a week, 5-6 hours a day all I focused on was the pump. Then I hopped back on the MFC to see how I could pump it and I was more successful than previously. Once I had the feel, I felt I could adapt it more easily to the MFC. I do feel that coming off the wave with speed is more important on the MFC than the F-32. If you lose a little speed on the MFC you have to work considerably harder to keep it going and I find it easier to stall than the F-32.

Pricing:
Cloud IX: The F-32 comes in at $2,850 AUD

MFC: The MFC is more expensive coming in at $3,799 AUD

Comment: It is hard to justify an additional $1,000 for the MFC, you have to ask, is it $1,000 better? That extra $1,000 can buy you another Cloud IX wing, an F-28 or an F-38. I also have the MFC 1250 wing so when you look at the combination of the 1250 and the 1400 wings, you are up for $5,400. That is a significant outlay and very hard to justify when the comparable competition is coming in at much lower pricing. Cloud IX with two wings is $3,850, about $1600 cheaper than a similar setup with the MFC.

Customer Service: I have had to deal with both companies in this area and I cannot fault either company. Both are eager and ready to help and attend to any issue you have. I spoke directly with Pio Murasco from MFC and the man could not have been more of a gentleman and eager to provide customer satisfaction. Karl Muggeridge from Cloud IX was equal to the task in attention and ensuring customer satisfaction. Regardless of where you go, you will be looked after.

Conclusion: Is there one? Both foils are very well constructed and works of art. The MFC looks very cool with colour tones, the carbon grain and the smooth lines. The F-32, no less a work of art, beautiful black sheen to the carbon grain, the aerodynamic look of the batwing and the overall sleek look. Both are very aesthetically pleasing to the eye, sleek, carbon finish, smooth lines and quality construction. If money is an issue then the Cloud IX is the winner. If money is no object, then it really comes down to personal preference and rider feel. Both foils are fast, sleek and turn readily at a drop of the hat, accelerating continually through the turns. The F-32 feels a little more stable underfoot and copes better with steeper drops, the MFC carries more lift on take off and has a livelier feel through turns. I would need to apply some GPS tracking to try and determine which foil is actually faster and that is always hard to determine as no two waves are the same. They fly smoothly and no sensation of drag. I cannot imagine anyone would be disappointed with whatever they choose.

@foil_surf

(Please note: i tried posting pics of the MFC but the format would not allow, i will try and change format and then update the post.)










JOSHSB
13 posts
1 Jul 2020 7:45PM
Thumbs Up

What a great report. Appreciate the effort that it took you to get all that information and relay it on! Thank you! That f-32 really sounds like its meet everyone's expectations and lived up to all the hype!

BurleighFoil
QLD, 22 posts
1 Jul 2020 9:50PM
Thumbs Up

Select to expand quote
JOSHSB said..
What a great report. Appreciate the effort that it took you to get all that information and relay it on! Thank you! That f-32 really sounds like its meet everyone's expectations and lived up to all the hype!


Thank you for your comments. The F-32 really is the new mark in trying to establish the qualities of the high aspect wing with the surf capabilities of a low aspect wing. Definitely worth giving it a go and feeling the quality of this foil for yourself. The F-28 should be available this week or next and then the F-38 comes along. The specs of the F-38 are very similar to the Hyper 210 from Unifoil so i am looking forward to trying that out and pumping the daylights out of it.

JOSHSB
13 posts
1 Jul 2020 8:41PM
Thumbs Up

I would Love to give them ago, they look so sick! Though I just recently bought the Hs1550 kit so by budget doesn't allow for another set up ATM. Hopefully someone in WA has one that I could get a sneak peak of!

container
18 posts
1 Jul 2020 9:04PM
Thumbs Up

Burleigh sounds like youve just discovered the joys of forward swept wings!

With the x series if you draw a line along thickest part of the foil from root to tip (roughly the centre of effort) you will see it curves forward.

If you want a rough comparison, put out riggers on the back of a surfboard and go surfing. Now put them on the front and repeat. Guess which one will have more drive and stability

Hdip
70 posts
1 Jul 2020 11:20PM
Thumbs Up

Thanks for the effort put into the review. I've seen the x28 in the water And can confirm that it rips in the turns.

exiled
296 posts
2 Jul 2020 2:18AM
Thumbs Up

Thanks for putting in the effort. I know that reviews like this don't always get the most interaction, but they do a lot to build the wider foil community.

BurleighFoil
QLD, 22 posts
2 Jul 2020 5:45AM
Thumbs Up

Select to expand quote
JOSHSB said..
I would Love to give them ago, they look so sick! Though I just recently bought the Hs1550 kit so by budget doesn't allow for another set up ATM. Hopefully someone in WA has one that I could get a sneak peak of!



if you do decide that you want one, use the following code, it will give you discounts on any and all of the Cloud IX gear: TVAC1008

They are every bit as sick as they look. The gear you bought is great, no question, the Armstrong stuff is well made and flies like a dream, especially the HS series. (Now you are just getting greedy!!!!)

BurleighFoil
QLD, 22 posts
2 Jul 2020 5:50AM
Thumbs Up

Select to expand quote
container said..
Burleigh sounds like youve just discovered the joys of forward swept wings!

With the x series if you draw a line along thickest part of the foil from root to tip (roughly the centre of effort) you will see it curves forward.

If you want a rough comparison, put out riggers on the back of a surfboard and go surfing. Now put them on the front and repeat. Guess which one will have more drive and stability


thanks for that info, its something i wasnt aware of at all. I will check out the wings, dont think i will do the outrigger exercise though, but i will gladly take your information and advice on that.

BurleighFoil
QLD, 22 posts
2 Jul 2020 5:52AM
Thumbs Up

Select to expand quote
Hdip said..
Thanks for the effort put into the review. I've seen the x28 in the water And can confirm that it rips in the turns.


yes they are a great surf wing, the F-28 slices and carves like a dream, so fast and very efficient, if you overlay it on the F-32 they are almost identical in body size, the F-32 just sticks out the end by 2" each side. The new F Series is so efficient.

BurleighFoil
QLD, 22 posts
2 Jul 2020 5:58AM
Thumbs Up

Select to expand quote
exiled said..
Thanks for putting in the effort. I know that reviews like this don't always get the most interaction, but they do a lot to build the wider foil community.


You're welcome, they are both such high quality foils and those that know me have been asking me what i think about the F-32, how does it compare etc etc. I think there is some cache value to the MFC because of Kai Lenny and then there is the cost so its not a foil we see around a lot in Aust unless you score one second hand. I figured an depth comparison would be good so that people can compare similar types of wings in regard to efficiency, glide and turning capabilities and see how they perform with respect to something that is already known. You cant go wrong with either foil that is for sure. i can see myself jumping back and forth from time to time. Still have more sessions to go on the Cloud until i nail it to the point where i can pump that thing for as long as i last.

frenchfoiler
156 posts
2 Jul 2020 4:39AM
Thumbs Up

Nice review !!

kobo
NSW, 258 posts
2 Jul 2020 6:52AM
Thumbs Up

Great review, my takeaway is the takuma pumps and glides better than both of these, so is it a better choice than either of these?

max_ob
QLD, 174 posts
2 Jul 2020 7:22AM
Thumbs Up

Select to expand quote
BurleighFoil said..


exiled said..
Thanks for putting in the effort. I know that reviews like this don't always get the most interaction, but they do a lot to build the wider foil community.




You're welcome, they are both such high quality foils and those that know me have been asking me what i think about the F-32, how does it compare etc etc. I think there is some cache value to the MFC because of Kai Lenny and then there is the cost so its not a foil we see around a lot in Aust unless you score one second hand. I figured an depth comparison would be good so that people can compare similar types of wings in regard to efficiency, glide and turning capabilities and see how they perform with respect to something that is already known. You cant go wrong with either foil that is for sure. i can see myself jumping back and forth from time to time. Still have more sessions to go on the Cloud until i nail it to the point where i can pump that thing for as long as i last.



Great read . . . still curious about a couple of things.

Were you using a shim on the MFC 1400 during the comparison?

Given area size of the F-32, why did you not compare it to the MFC 1250 or do you find that the 1250 is not big enough for easy pumping?

BurleighFoil
QLD, 22 posts
2 Jul 2020 8:46AM
Thumbs Up

Select to expand quote
kobo said..
Great review, my takeaway is the takuma pumps and glides better than both of these, so is it a better choice than either of these?


The Takuma definitely has a great deal of lift and glide but it does create more drag than either the MFC or the Cloud. It doesnt turn as well as the MFC or the Cloud so it depends on what you are after, if it is the pump you are focused on then possibly the Takuma is your choice. The two wings for the Takuma, 1600 and 1300 are excellent and you cant go wrong. I have a few friends who ride them and they rip, pump well and turn well. The Cloud and the MFC have more finesse, smoother, faster, more refined. You will get a better feeling from the Cloud and the MFC without doubt, but as i said, the Takuma is a good kit and you wont go wrong. I have ridden all three and the Takuma would be third on my list out of these.

BurleighFoil
QLD, 22 posts
2 Jul 2020 9:00AM
Thumbs Up

Select to expand quote
max_ob said..

BurleighFoil said..



exiled said..
Thanks for putting in the effort. I know that reviews like this don't always get the most interaction, but they do a lot to build the wider foil community.





You're welcome, they are both such high quality foils and those that know me have been asking me what i think about the F-32, how does it compare etc etc. I think there is some cache value to the MFC because of Kai Lenny and then there is the cost so its not a foil we see around a lot in Aust unless you score one second hand. I figured an depth comparison would be good so that people can compare similar types of wings in regard to efficiency, glide and turning capabilities and see how they perform with respect to something that is already known. You cant go wrong with either foil that is for sure. i can see myself jumping back and forth from time to time. Still have more sessions to go on the Cloud until i nail it to the point where i can pump that thing for as long as i last.




Great read . . . still curious about a couple of things.

Were you using a shim on the MFC 1400 during the comparison?

Given area size of the F-32, why did you not compare it to the MFC 1250 or do you find that the 1250 is not big enough for easy pumping?


Yes, i was using the 1.5mm shim when i did the comparison but i could have easily used the zero shim, even with the zero shim the MFC has more overall lift. I rarely ride the MFC with the zero shim.

I thought the better comparison was the 1400 because of the similar widths. Its hard to compare the two wings directly because they are so different in some aspects. The 1250 MFC is definitely harder to pump but it is faster than the 1400 and would turn a great deal harder.

The F-32 , with its width of 81.28 cm compared to the MFC 1400 at 78cm gives it a closer comparison but then again when you look at the surface area, its a huge disparity, from 1129cm2 compared to 1400cm2. That should exemplify the efficiency of the F32 when you look at how much wing is in the water and the results they get. In regard to efficiency of action, the F-32 wins hands down.

It would be interesting to spend more time on the 1250 and then hop back on the F-32 to compare, and i will consider doing that. When you find wings you enjoy riding it is hard to take others out because you know what experiences you are likely to get and then if the less ridden one doesnt perform you can feel a little bummed. i think when my pumping is solid i will do a comparison between the 1250 and the F-32.

the F-28 is here and should be available for sale this week or next week, that is a very efficient wing, it has pretty much the same body mass as F-32 but is shorter at the ends by 2" each side. A friend of mine has been riding the prototype extensively and he loves it, he pumps really well and says that you definitely have to work a little harder with the F-28 but it slices and glides through waves at such a rate, he said it is insane. Maybe that would be a better comparison with the MFC 1250.

Two comparisons coming up??? MFC 1250 Vs Cloud IX F-32 and the MFC 1250 Vs the Cloud IX F-28? Could be interesting.

Stingersup
WA, 31 posts
2 Jul 2020 8:07AM
Thumbs Up

Thanks for the write up. Have been waiting for a report on these foils. Sounds like they go as good as they look.

max_ob
QLD, 174 posts
2 Jul 2020 10:13AM
Thumbs Up

Select to expand quote
BurleighFoil said..

max_ob said..


BurleighFoil said..




exiled said..
Thanks for putting in the effort. I know that reviews like this don't always get the most interaction, but they do a lot to build the wider foil community.






You're welcome, they are both such high quality foils and those that know me have been asking me what i think about the F-32, how does it compare etc etc. I think there is some cache value to the MFC because of Kai Lenny and then there is the cost so its not a foil we see around a lot in Aust unless you score one second hand. I figured an depth comparison would be good so that people can compare similar types of wings in regard to efficiency, glide and turning capabilities and see how they perform with respect to something that is already known. You cant go wrong with either foil that is for sure. i can see myself jumping back and forth from time to time. Still have more sessions to go on the Cloud until i nail it to the point where i can pump that thing for as long as i last.





Great read . . . still curious about a couple of things.

Were you using a shim on the MFC 1400 during the comparison?

Given area size of the F-32, why did you not compare it to the MFC 1250 or do you find that the 1250 is not big enough for easy pumping?



Yes, i was using the 1.5mm shim when i did the comparison but i could have easily used the zero shim, even with the zero shim the MFC has more overall lift. I rarely ride the MFC with the zero shim.

I thought the better comparison was the 1400 because of the similar widths. Its hard to compare the two wings directly because they are so different in some aspects. The 1250 MFC is definitely harder to pump but it is faster than the 1400 and would turn a great deal harder.

The F-32 , with its width of 81.28 cm compared to the MFC 1400 at 78cm gives it a closer comparison but then again when you look at the surface area, its a huge disparity, from 1129cm2 compared to 1400cm2. That should exemplify the efficiency of the F32 when you look at how much wing is in the water and the results they get. In regard to efficiency of action, the F-32 wins hands down.

It would be interesting to spend more time on the 1250 and then hop back on the F-32 to compare, and i will consider doing that. When you find wings you enjoy riding it is hard to take others out because you know what experiences you are likely to get and then if the less ridden one doesnt perform you can feel a little bummed. i think when my pumping is solid i will do a comparison between the 1250 and the F-32.

the F-28 is here and should be available for sale this week or next week, that is a very efficient wing, it has pretty much the same body mass as F-32 but is shorter at the ends by 2" each side. A friend of mine has been riding the prototype extensively and he loves it, he pumps really well and says that you definitely have to work a little harder with the F-28 but it slices and glides through waves at such a rate, he said it is insane. Maybe that would be a better comparison with the MFC 1250.

Two comparisons coming up??? MFC 1250 Vs Cloud IX F-32 and the MFC 1250 Vs the Cloud IX F-28? Could be interesting.



Thanks for that. Great reply to my questions. Looking forward to reading more of your comparisons.

I have used the 1075 and 1250 with 70cm and 82cm masts but have only used them for kite foiling at this stage and have played around with the shims. They do make quite a difference to lift and also to speed. Have considered the 1400 but the price has stopped me for now.

BurleighFoil
QLD, 22 posts
2 Jul 2020 10:14AM
Thumbs Up

Select to expand quote
Stingersup said..
Thanks for the write up. Have been waiting for a report on these foils. Sounds like they go as good as they look.


Better

BurleighFoil
QLD, 22 posts
2 Jul 2020 10:28AM
Thumbs Up

Select to expand quote
max_ob said..

BurleighFoil said..


max_ob said..



BurleighFoil said..





exiled said..
Thanks for putting in the effort. I know that reviews like this don't always get the most interaction, but they do a lot to build the wider foil community.







You're welcome, they are both such high quality foils and those that know me have been asking me what i think about the F-32, how does it compare etc etc. I think there is some cache value to the MFC because of Kai Lenny and then there is the cost so its not a foil we see around a lot in Aust unless you score one second hand. I figured an depth comparison would be good so that people can compare similar types of wings in regard to efficiency, glide and turning capabilities and see how they perform with respect to something that is already known. You cant go wrong with either foil that is for sure. i can see myself jumping back and forth from time to time. Still have more sessions to go on the Cloud until i nail it to the point where i can pump that thing for as long as i last.






Great read . . . still curious about a couple of things.

Were you using a shim on the MFC 1400 during the comparison?

Given area size of the F-32, why did you not compare it to the MFC 1250 or do you find that the 1250 is not big enough for easy pumping?




Yes, i was using the 1.5mm shim when i did the comparison but i could have easily used the zero shim, even with the zero shim the MFC has more overall lift. I rarely ride the MFC with the zero shim.

I thought the better comparison was the 1400 because of the similar widths. Its hard to compare the two wings directly because they are so different in some aspects. The 1250 MFC is definitely harder to pump but it is faster than the 1400 and would turn a great deal harder.

The F-32 , with its width of 81.28 cm compared to the MFC 1400 at 78cm gives it a closer comparison but then again when you look at the surface area, its a huge disparity, from 1129cm2 compared to 1400cm2. That should exemplify the efficiency of the F32 when you look at how much wing is in the water and the results they get. In regard to efficiency of action, the F-32 wins hands down.

It would be interesting to spend more time on the 1250 and then hop back on the F-32 to compare, and i will consider doing that. When you find wings you enjoy riding it is hard to take others out because you know what experiences you are likely to get and then if the less ridden one doesnt perform you can feel a little bummed. i think when my pumping is solid i will do a comparison between the 1250 and the F-32.

the F-28 is here and should be available for sale this week or next week, that is a very efficient wing, it has pretty much the same body mass as F-32 but is shorter at the ends by 2" each side. A friend of mine has been riding the prototype extensively and he loves it, he pumps really well and says that you definitely have to work a little harder with the F-28 but it slices and glides through waves at such a rate, he said it is insane. Maybe that would be a better comparison with the MFC 1250.

Two comparisons coming up??? MFC 1250 Vs Cloud IX F-32 and the MFC 1250 Vs the Cloud IX F-28? Could be interesting.




Thanks for that. Great reply to my questions. Looking forward to reading more of your comparisons.

I have used the 1075 and 1250 with 70cm and 82cm masts but have only used them for kite foiling at this stage and have played around with the shims. They do make quite a difference to lift and also to speed. Have considered the 1400 but the price has stopped me for now.


One of the crew i foil with occasionally rides the MFC 1075 and it is very humbling to watch him pump all over the place with it, he is a ot lighter but has the pump action down to a T. It would be too small for me and i would only use it for towing. I am 78kg. i would like to see the MFC with a 75 cm mast, i think they are in between with the 70 and the 82. 75 and either 85 or 90 would be a better range.

I notice a big difference with the 2.5mm shim and i use that on the really small days, i havent noticed a great reduction in speed on the small days although you know it would be the case because of the change in AOA. the wing / foil is very efficient so it gets a great deal more glide and speed than most other foils.

Ahhh, the price, well there you have it. I think more people would be on MFC without doubt, the quality of the build, the efficiency of the foil, the beauty of the design, the speed, the surfability etc etc all amazing, but then after the currency conversion.....ouch. The 1400 wing is $1,600 brand new, its a good wing without doubt but you saw the pricing comparisons in my review. If you want to have three wings which is the direction most people are going, one wing for the bigger days or towing, normal wing for most days and then a large wing for the really small days you are forking out a great deal of money. Unless you have a sponsorship deal you are in for some hurt. I have had numerous people approach me just to buy the 1400 wing and i am not even close to considering it. You would have to pry it from my dying hands....

BurleighFoil
QLD, 22 posts
2 Jul 2020 4:11PM
Thumbs Up

the rest of the pics that were supposed to be attached to the article












max_ob
QLD, 174 posts
2 Jul 2020 6:26PM
Thumbs Up

Select to expand quote

BurleighFoil said..



One of the crew i foil with occasionally rides the MFC 1075 and it is very humbling to watch him pump all over the place with it, he is a ot lighter but has the pump action down to a T. It would be too small for me and i would only use it for towing. I am 78kg. i would like to see the MFC with a 75 cm mast, i think they are in between with the 70 and the 82. 75 and either 85 or 90 would be a better range.

I notice a big difference with the 2.5mm shim and i use that on the really small days, i havent noticed a great reduction in speed on the small days although you know it would be the case because of the change in AOA. the wing / foil is very efficient so it gets a great deal more glide and speed than most other foils.

Ahhh, the price, well there you have it. I think more people would be on MFC without doubt, the quality of the build, the efficiency of the foil, the beauty of the design, the speed, the surfability etc etc all amazing, but then after the currency conversion.....ouch. The 1400 wing is $1,600 brand new, its a good wing without doubt but you saw the pricing comparisons in my review. If you want to have three wings which is the direction most people are going, one wing for the bigger days or towing, normal wing for most days and then a large wing for the really small days you are forking out a great deal of money. Unless you have a sponsorship deal you are in for some hurt. I have had numerous people approach me just to buy the 1400 wing and i am not even close to considering it. You would have to pry it from my dying hands....



yep . . . that price for the 1400 wing alone is what has stopped me from getting one at this stage.

BurleighFoil
QLD, 22 posts
2 Jul 2020 7:56PM
Thumbs Up

completely understandable

db541
11 posts
2 Jul 2020 6:57PM
Thumbs Up

Great info thanks! Lots of what seems to be well deserved hype as far as the Cloud 9 goes.
If you were into Sup foiling mixed w prone with the cloud 9 setup at 85/90 kg would you go F32 and then up to F38 for the smallest gutless sup days? Just curious...

BurleighFoil
QLD, 22 posts
2 Jul 2020 9:03PM
Thumbs Up

Select to expand quote
db541 said..
Great info thanks! Lots of what seems to be well deserved hype as far as the Cloud 9 goes.
If you were into Sup foiling mixed w prone with the cloud 9 setup at 85/90 kg would you go F32 and then up to F38 for the smallest gutless sup days? Just curious...


Yes, the hype is well deserved and as we ride the wing more, we find more and more boundaries to push and the wings keep delivering. I think your call of the F-32 and the F-38 is correct. I dont know of anyone using them for SUPs as yet, perhaps the F-38 might be your main SUP wing? i dont SUP so i am not the best at answering this but i generally notice SUP riders start with larger wings as their base so i am thinking the F-38 might be better for you. However, in saying that, the F-32 is very efficient so it would be worth giving it a go for sure, the wing just loves to glide.



Subscribe
Reply

Forums > Stand Up Paddle Foiling


"Cloud IX F-32 Vs MFC 1400" started by BurleighFoil