I am traing to move to smaller board. My water in not perfectly glosy but not too bad.
I am 85kg
surfing 8.5 31 125l
I have two options. To go 115 same width. Or stay 125 but go 29.5 width.
1: witch board will be more stable
2: witch will be more fun to surf...the less volume or less width.
There is no one answer, there are way too many variables.
IMO Generally, I would first go lower volume, then to lower width.
You should be easily able to go to 105L @ 85kg.
I wouldn't spend the money to only drop 10L with the same shape - yes the rails might be a little thinner, but unless you surf proper hollow and big, you'd not likely notice the difference very much if at all.
tough question ,board rocker plays a big part too ...
I have both wide board at 125 litres 31,5 ,and 125 litre board at 30.5/8 ,the narrower does test me more but i like the extra speed
you get from narrow boards ,also have a 140 litre at 29.5 ,it has the extra length ,so length also can play a big part in the equation .
at 85 kgs I don't think you will have a problem with 115 litre .and 31 ,and it might give you enough of a buzz ,but i would go 30.5 wide .or 29,5 why not .?
witch boards ,never heard of them .
I'm not sold on volume etc if a
boards already working for you maybe try subtle changes through different fins for your board
Have been down this path earlier in the year, so much more to it then the volume, in particular the shape forward of centre and where the thickness is, there has been lots of discussions on this so I won't write too much more.
if you can demo both types you are looking at in the waves you most often surf this will give you the answer IMO.
Hi GUZ, welcome to the Breeze!
Well, you got a lot of different answers, all in different directions, all of them right
Me personally? I like more width, less volume. But that's just me... lots disagree with that.
Actually, there are lots of additional info needed to answer your questions in a way that is meaningful to you.
Age, height, fitness, surf skill level, waves you surf, what style boards you are discussing, do you prefer comfort or do you have capacity for challenge.
As STC has said, lots of questions to answer.
That said, i am 85kg and ride two different boards that are only 2ltrs difference in volume but significantly different in shape.
Board 1 is my "go to" everyday board Sunova Placed 8'3 @112ltrs. This is a very stable board in most conditions but can handle a bit of size and turns beautifully. I would like it to have a little more rocker but that would take away some of it's stability.
Board 2 is a Jimmy Lewis Worldwide 8'1 @110ltrs. Very small sweet spot and only used on those glassy days. Super fast and fun and turns really well.
At 110ltrs the JL deck is just under water.
Both of these boards are very close in dimension but the shape of the Placid makes it a much more stable board.
Conclusion: it's not just about the numbers......
Hope this helps.
Thank you guys....
The answers are great help.
I totaly understand the issues of the rocker and the general shape but
You will see the new Pro from startboard 2021
compared to Fone Madiero
Pro 8.5 29.5 135
Vs Fone 8.5 31 125
pro boards... targeting same surfer. one is nerrow and additional volume.... the other one wider and less volume
the large size of pro will be 9 160 30
I never surfed high volume nerrow boards only
and the two options I have for 125 vs 115 is the same decition.
So I understand there are many factors but as tumb of rule... some tell me wider boards and low volume it the way to rip.. other say nerrow boards are the most fun to surf because it is like surfing board.
So I was lost:)
Those volume numbers for the Starboard Pro are way higher than the current model. Where are you getting your info?
Fair enough. For what its worth, I like narrow plus high volume if you can get the rails right on such a thick board. at 99 kg I ride 7'11x28.5 @110L. If I went with a higher volume I would need a wider board, there is a sweet spot.
Honestly, if you can keep your current board, I'd look at something smaller than the choices you listed.
Hi guzcre, unfortunately I can't give you a lot of advice than just my own experience learning it the hard way.
I have a Naish Hokua 7'10 x 32" at 120 liters and a Naish Hokua 7'6 x 29" at 109 liters. Because of the width of the 32" is it much more stable than the 29" and it's just 11 liters. I sold my RRD Cosmo Pro 8'5 x 32 at 130 liters because I felt comfortable enough on the 7'10 in any conditions. Gave the 7'6 a few times a try but I couldn't get used to it (still have it though). For the RRD did I got a Quatro Carve Pro 8'0 x 28,5" at 109 liters and it's much more stable than the 7'6 even though they have the same volume.
Last week I had one session with good condition but still a bit choppy (Dutch waves) and I barely could balance on the Naish, I switched to see the difference and on the Quatro was it no problem which I didn't expect because it was narrower.
bottom line, the same volume doesn't always say everything, the rocker is much more on the Naish, length on the Naish is shorter, width is a bit smaller on the Quatro, and the as an additional shape and construction came into play.
So at really windy and choppy condition, I grab my Naish 7'10 is it a bit cleaner I grab my Quatro 8'0
If I could give my 2 cents do I agree with Hoppo3228 that you could go lower in volume, the best is to test it out without buying first and see if you can use a board from someone else and then decide. I always buy and sell if it's not "my" board and doesn't test it out first
I'm in a similar situation.
I am 72-74Kg and have custom 7'8"x28 1/2 x99 liters custom board with quite parallel rails. I'm happy with it but want something more "surfy".
I was planning to drop 4-5 liters and get a more surfy shape but I got the opportunity to test a performance 7'6" x 85 liters the other day and was reasonably stable for me. I was not catching as many waves, and the conditions were glassy.
So now I am in the same situation. Drop to just 95 liters and have a surf shape or drop to 90 liters?
I guess I'll go for the 92-94 liters. Same legnth (7'8") and working on the shape to be more performant. Maybe trying also dropped rails.
Based on what other people have said and comparing myself to other riders I know locally I found a rough consensus that a 1.25 volume to weight ratio was kind of a sweet spot for an advanced (non-pro) or ambitious rider, assuming comparable shapes.
I'm waiting for delivery on my first custom shape dropping volume from 1.48 to 1.28 1 inch narrower and 4 inches shorter, keeping lots of tail and nose width. Hopefully I can still paddle it reasonably, but might be more of a good conditions board. I'll report back a comparison after I get it...
From my expirience and from other people as rule of tumb...
1.25 ratio is the place to be at my level
heavy rocker should add about 10%
But I am going back to the first issue
lets say same shape with same rocker. what is more fun to surg... More litters and nerrower or less volume and wider...?
Well regardless sup is a wide board you want to turn with your foot on the rails so never having tried the experiment my bias would be in having lower volume so I could have better rail feel. A too high volume board feels more disconnected to me. But if you are talking small differences in volume width would have more noticeable impact on performance both negatively on stability and positively in making the board more reactive rail to rail.
Wave quality and rider skill trumps everything but I like to try and dial in my equipment anyway.
The taller you are the wider you can go because trying to paddle a shorter fatter board at a low height creates instability due to a wider stance and paddle inefficiency due to the angle .
So I tried the two boards. They are both custom boards and moderate rocker.
I am inter level only so can share my un professional feedback .
Stability: width more efficiant then volume. The wider low volume was more stable. I think due to two factors. first width more efficiant and second the board at 1.2 ratio sitting lower in the water and less affected by the chop on the top.
Catching waves: nerrower and high volume is easier. with the low volume and wider you need to go down and and be closer to braking point of the wave but I found it as small price to pay.
On the wave:
Nerrower and higher volume is faster.. feeling higher from the water.... less connected but rail to rail slitly better.... but in small to mid waves the low volume and lower board gave me much higher fun factor.
For me... it seems like.... lower volume as possable... thinner board... flater rocker for stability and easier wave catching is the best fun factor. The stronger rocker in a small board is less important for my personal feeling at my surfing level.
I hope it helps.... but it is only my unprofecional feedback.
Have you thought about the Pocket Rocket from Starboard?
Such a great fun all round board. My feeling is that if you are intermediate level surfing you will have more fun and progress faster on the PR than the Pro. IMO quote a percentage of people on the Pro boards would be better off and have more fun on the less hardcore models, particularly if it's not always glassy steep waves. You will probably catch waves earlier than even a longer Pro board and feel more confident learning to bottom and top turn. Just something to think about ! Re the 8'5, it's a shorter version of a bigger board, hence the volume - just so you know your figures for the 2021 board aren't quite right
I cannot share the catalog......
but it will be out shortly...
Interesting to read, even though you are not a profesional it's still your feedback.. Today was it choppy, so I tried a narrower and lower volume board, but after 10 minutes I took 10 liters more en a bit more width 32" over 28," and it added of course stability and a lot more of fun. I agree with JonathanC that I have until now more fun on a wider board than narrower.
Instability in waiting for the sets or trying to paddle for a wave Is an important factor to consider when choosing your board. The adage of - ' if you can't catch them, you can't ride them' is relevant here.