MidAtlanticFoil said..

greg87foil said..
Very interesting topic. I find myself not liking my Appletree Appleslice V2 60L as much as I did 2 years ago. I was 76kg when I bought it, but "bulked up" to 85kg since (let's not talk about where that bulking has accumulated).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I just went from a 4'11" x 23.5" 60L (Barg: 3.43, BargX: 2.32) to the Armstrong 5'5 x 18" 55L ML (Barg: 4.46, BargX: 3.06) and I feel like it is so much less sticky getting off the water in comparison. I'm 65KGs.

Comparing to my smaller 40L FG 4'4" x 18.5" (Barg: 3.43, BargX: 1.73), I'd say the BargX version is more applicable when getting into sinker territory, although if I'm properly powered, the standard Barg factor does seem applicable (similar takeoff between old 60L and new 40L). The 60L just has a bit more low end obviously if the wind wains.

@greg87foil you most likely bulked up in the shoulders and back. Winging does that to us all!
As @midatlanticfoil said, I believe the BargX version is best applied for sinkers. As you reach neutral buoyancy and higher using the Barg+ version is most applicable so that they numbers don't run away from you. I'll be re-running the data tables this year with new riders and with the X calibration but if you re-run your numbers with the multiplier you get this layout:

60l Appletree: 1.76
65l Sultan: 2.6
65l Armstrong: 2.76
75l Armstrong: 3.21
75l Sultan: 3.36

Here's where I'm at today: 87kg
Sunova Carver 5'10"x20" 85l
BAR=3.5
GF=.97
BAR*GF=3.395
BAR+GF=4.47

and where I'm headed:
Sunova Aviator 6'6"x18" 90l
BAR=4.33
GF=1.03
BAR*GF=4.46
BAR+GF=5.36

IMO I wouldn't encourage anyone to go below the 20" wide Carver (or the 20" wide armstrong you listed) until they have experience at that width. I think most people will be 100% satisfied at that size. I'm picking up the Aviator because I want to complete my research on this and think that the board will be very comparable to the Carver due to the design. I'm very comfortable at 20" now, but I do have mild 18" anxiety. I often feel the edge of the board with my feet on the 20" I expect this will be common on the 18"

I'm a huge Sunova fan so that's what I'd recommend, you can tweak the dims for a 10% charge if you want.

Regardless of your choice: For you, any one of those boards, and no matter how you do the math, will be a phenomenal upgrade.

greg87foil said..

BWalnut said..

MidAtlanticFoil said..

greg87foil said..
Very interesting topic. I find myself not liking my Appletree Appleslice V2 60L as much as I did 2 years ago. I was 76kg when I bought it, but "bulked up" to 85kg since (let's not talk about where that bulking has accumulated).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I just went from a 4'11" x 23.5" 60L (Barg: 3.43, BargX: 2.32) to the Armstrong 5'5 x 18" 55L ML (Barg: 4.46, BargX: 3.06) and I feel like it is so much less sticky getting off the water in comparison. I'm 65KGs.

Comparing to my smaller 40L FG 4'4" x 18.5" (Barg: 3.43, BargX: 1.73), I'd say the BargX version is more applicable when getting into sinker territory, although if I'm properly powered, the standard Barg factor does seem applicable (similar takeoff between old 60L and new 40L). The 60L just has a bit more low end obviously if the wind wains.

@greg87foil you most likely bulked up in the shoulders and back. Winging does that to us all!
As @midatlanticfoil said, I believe the BargX version is best applied for sinkers. As you reach neutral buoyancy and higher using the Barg+ version is most applicable so that they numbers don't run away from you. I'll be re-running the data tables this year with new riders and with the X calibration but if you re-run your numbers with the multiplier you get this layout:

60l Appletree: 1.76
65l Sultan: 2.6
65l Armstrong: 2.76
75l Armstrong: 3.21
75l Sultan: 3.36

Here's where I'm at today: 87kg
Sunova Carver 5'10"x20" 85l
BAR=3.5
GF=.97
BAR*GF=3.395
BAR+GF=4.47

and where I'm headed:
Sunova Aviator 6'6"x18" 90l
BAR=4.33
GF=1.03
BAR*GF=4.46
BAR+GF=5.36

IMO I wouldn't encourage anyone to go below the 20" wide Carver (or the 20" wide armstrong you listed) until they have experience at that width. I think most people will be 100% satisfied at that size. I'm picking up the Aviator because I want to complete my research on this and think that the board will be very comparable to the Carver due to the design. I'm very comfortable at 20" now, but I do have mild 18" anxiety. I often feel the edge of the board with my feet on the 20" I expect this will be common on the 18"

I'm a huge Sunova fan so that's what I'd recommend, you can tweak the dims for a 10% charge if you want.

Regardless of your choice: For you, any one of those boards, and no matter how you do the math, will be a phenomenal upgrade.

Most definitely it's the back and shoulders!!....ahum

And...BargX?? What did I miss?

When I originally published the formula I used BAR + GF and I made note that you can break the formula on the extreme ends of the spectrum. I asked for feedback and was messaged about changing from BAR + GF to BAR x GF specifically for sinker sizes because the multiplication more accurately gives feedback on how the sizes compare when using sinkers.

If you look back through this thread Taavi demonstrated exactly what I predicted, the breaking of the BAR+GF formula with a couple of the board they have. However, when a user from the progression project recommended I switch to BARxGF it fixed Taavis calculation and gave a perfect representation of his takeoff profiles.

Your numbers make sense with simple addition or multiplication since you are comparing boards of similar dims and volumes. If you start comparing 40 vs 80 liter boards with wildy different dims though, you can break the equation.

So, essentially, don't worry about it! In your get approximately the same differences on your boards wether you multiply or add the two variables.

greg87foil said..

BWalnut said..

greg87foil said..

BWalnut said..

MidAtlanticFoil said..

greg87foil said..
Very interesting topic. I find myself not liking my Appletree Appleslice V2 60L as much as I did 2 years ago. I was 76kg when I bought it, but "bulked up" to 85kg since (let's not talk about where that bulking has accumulated).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I just went from a 4'11" x 23.5" 60L (Barg: 3.43, BargX: 2.32) to the Armstrong 5'5 x 18" 55L ML (Barg: 4.46, BargX: 3.06) and I feel like it is so much less sticky getting off the water in comparison. I'm 65KGs.

Comparing to my smaller 40L FG 4'4" x 18.5" (Barg: 3.43, BargX: 1.73), I'd say the BargX version is more applicable when getting into sinker territory, although if I'm properly powered, the standard Barg factor does seem applicable (similar takeoff between old 60L and new 40L). The 60L just has a bit more low end obviously if the wind wains.

@greg87foil you most likely bulked up in the shoulders and back. Winging does that to us all!
As @midatlanticfoil said, I believe the BargX version is best applied for sinkers. As you reach neutral buoyancy and higher using the Barg+ version is most applicable so that they numbers don't run away from you. I'll be re-running the data tables this year with new riders and with the X calibration but if you re-run your numbers with the multiplier you get this layout:

60l Appletree: 1.76
65l Sultan: 2.6
65l Armstrong: 2.76
75l Armstrong: 3.21
75l Sultan: 3.36

Here's where I'm at today: 87kg
Sunova Carver 5'10"x20" 85l
BAR=3.5
GF=.97
BAR*GF=3.395
BAR+GF=4.47

and where I'm headed:
Sunova Aviator 6'6"x18" 90l
BAR=4.33
GF=1.03
BAR*GF=4.46
BAR+GF=5.36

IMO I wouldn't encourage anyone to go below the 20" wide Carver (or the 20" wide armstrong you listed) until they have experience at that width. I think most people will be 100% satisfied at that size. I'm picking up the Aviator because I want to complete my research on this and think that the board will be very comparable to the Carver due to the design. I'm very comfortable at 20" now, but I do have mild 18" anxiety. I often feel the edge of the board with my feet on the 20" I expect this will be common on the 18"

I'm a huge Sunova fan so that's what I'd recommend, you can tweak the dims for a 10% charge if you want.

Regardless of your choice: For you, any one of those boards, and no matter how you do the math, will be a phenomenal upgrade.

Most definitely it's the back and shoulders!!....ahum

And...BargX?? What did I miss?

When I originally published the formula I used BAR + GF and I made note that you can break the formula on the extreme ends of the spectrum. I asked for feedback and was messaged about changing from BAR + GF to BAR x GF specifically for sinker sizes because the multiplication more accurately gives feedback on how the sizes compare when using sinkers.

If you look back through this thread Taavi demonstrated exactly what I predicted, the breaking of the BAR+GF formula with a couple of the board they have. However, when a user from the progression project recommended I switch to BARxGF it fixed Taavis calculation and gave a perfect representation of his takeoff profiles.

Your numbers make sense with simple addition or multiplication since you are comparing boards of similar dims and volumes. If you start comparing 40 vs 80 liter boards with wildy different dims though, you can break the equation.

So, essentially, don't worry about it! In your get approximately the same differences on your boards wether you multiply or add the two variables.

Thanks! Makes sense.

Might have the opportunity to demo the Armstrong 65L sometime soon. The Amos Sultan, probably impossible here in Europe...

Keen to compare these "long & skinny but not DW" boards side to side with the Appletree 60L.

It feels like a different sport! I rode my old 60L 23.5" wide board one last time before selling and it felt really foreign after being on sub 19" boards for a while. So much rail line sticking far out. Skinny boards really lets you crank turns with confidence, keeping the foil deeper for less tips out. Not to mention the quick acceleration onto foil.

BWalnut said..

MidAtlanticFoil said..

greg87foil said..
Very interesting topic. I find myself not liking my Appletree Appleslice V2 60L as much as I did 2 years ago. I was 76kg when I bought it, but "bulked up" to 85kg since (let's not talk about where that bulking has accumulated).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I just went from a 4'11" x 23.5" 60L (Barg: 3.43, BargX: 2.32) to the Armstrong 5'5 x 18" 55L ML (Barg: 4.46, BargX: 3.06) and I feel like it is so much less sticky getting off the water in comparison. I'm 65KGs.

Comparing to my smaller 40L FG 4'4" x 18.5" (Barg: 3.43, BargX: 1.73), I'd say the BargX version is more applicable when getting into sinker territory, although if I'm properly powered, the standard Barg factor does seem applicable (similar takeoff between old 60L and new 40L). The 60L just has a bit more low end obviously if the wind wains.

@greg87foil you most likely bulked up in the shoulders and back. Winging does that to us all!
As @midatlanticfoil said, I believe the BargX version is best applied for sinkers. As you reach neutral buoyancy and higher using the Barg+ version is most applicable so that they numbers don't run away from you. I'll be re-running the data tables this year with new riders and with the X calibration but if you re-run your numbers with the multiplier you get this layout:

60l Appletree: 1.76
65l Sultan: 2.6
65l Armstrong: 2.76
75l Armstrong: 3.21
75l Sultan: 3.36

Here's where I'm at today: 87kg
Sunova Carver 5'10"x20" 85l
BAR=3.5
GF=.97
BAR*GF=3.395
BAR+GF=4.47

and where I'm headed:
Sunova Aviator 6'6"x18" 90l
BAR=4.33
GF=1.03
BAR*GF=4.46
BAR+GF=5.36

IMO I wouldn't encourage anyone to go below the 20" wide Carver (or the 20" wide armstrong you listed) until they have experience at that width. I think most people will be 100% satisfied at that size. I'm picking up the Aviator because I want to complete my research on this and think that the board will be very comparable to the Carver due to the design. I'm very comfortable at 20" now, but I do have mild 18" anxiety. I often feel the edge of the board with my feet on the 20" I expect this will be common on the 18"

I'm a huge Sunova fan so that's what I'd recommend, you can tweak the dims for a 10% charge if you want.

Regardless of your choice: For you, any one of those boards, and no matter how you do the math, will be a phenomenal upgrade.

Coming back to this.

Realizing Appletree also just released their Appleslice V3 board. Not nearly as high B.A.R. as the Amos or Armstrong midlength, but definitely an improvement over the Appleslice V2.

appletreesurfboards.com/product/appleslice-v3-wing-foil-board/

Ideally I'd get something around the 65-70L, but their 60L is still 21.5" wide (and 5'0" long), and their 70L still 22" wide (and 5'2" long).

But they do "custom" orders as well, so might shoot them an email and see if they could come up with something in the 65L and 19" wide range, based on their new V3 model.

greg87foil said..

BWalnut said..

MidAtlanticFoil said..

greg87foil said..
Very interesting topic. I find myself not liking my Appletree Appleslice V2 60L as much as I did 2 years ago. I was 76kg when I bought it, but "bulked up" to 85kg since (let's not talk about where that bulking has accumulated).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I just went from a 4'11" x 23.5" 60L (Barg: 3.43, BargX: 2.32) to the Armstrong 5'5 x 18" 55L ML (Barg: 4.46, BargX: 3.06) and I feel like it is so much less sticky getting off the water in comparison. I'm 65KGs.

Comparing to my smaller 40L FG 4'4" x 18.5" (Barg: 3.43, BargX: 1.73), I'd say the BargX version is more applicable when getting into sinker territory, although if I'm properly powered, the standard Barg factor does seem applicable (similar takeoff between old 60L and new 40L). The 60L just has a bit more low end obviously if the wind wains.

@greg87foil you most likely bulked up in the shoulders and back. Winging does that to us all!
As @midatlanticfoil said, I believe the BargX version is best applied for sinkers. As you reach neutral buoyancy and higher using the Barg+ version is most applicable so that they numbers don't run away from you. I'll be re-running the data tables this year with new riders and with the X calibration but if you re-run your numbers with the multiplier you get this layout:

60l Appletree: 1.76
65l Sultan: 2.6
65l Armstrong: 2.76
75l Armstrong: 3.21
75l Sultan: 3.36

Here's where I'm at today: 87kg
Sunova Carver 5'10"x20" 85l
BAR=3.5
GF=.97
BAR*GF=3.395
BAR+GF=4.47

and where I'm headed:
Sunova Aviator 6'6"x18" 90l
BAR=4.33
GF=1.03
BAR*GF=4.46
BAR+GF=5.36

IMO I wouldn't encourage anyone to go below the 20" wide Carver (or the 20" wide armstrong you listed) until they have experience at that width. I think most people will be 100% satisfied at that size. I'm picking up the Aviator because I want to complete my research on this and think that the board will be very comparable to the Carver due to the design. I'm very comfortable at 20" now, but I do have mild 18" anxiety. I often feel the edge of the board with my feet on the 20" I expect this will be common on the 18"

I'm a huge Sunova fan so that's what I'd recommend, you can tweak the dims for a 10% charge if you want.

Regardless of your choice: For you, any one of those boards, and no matter how you do the math, will be a phenomenal upgrade.

Coming back to this.

Realizing Appletree also just released their Appleslice V3 board. Not nearly as high B.A.R. as the Amos or Armstrong midlength, but definitely an improvement over the Appleslice V2.

appletreesurfboards.com/product/appleslice-v3-wing-foil-board/

Ideally I'd get something around the 65-70L, but their 60L is still 21.5" wide (and 5'0" long), and their 70L still 22" wide (and 5'2" long).

But they do "custom" orders as well, so might shoot them an email and see if they could come up with something in the 65L and 19" wide range, based on their new V3 model.

Sounds like an Omen, which are produced in the same factory.

greg87foil said..

Grantmac said..

greg87foil said..

BWalnut said..

MidAtlanticFoil said..

greg87foil said..
Very interesting topic. I find myself not liking my Appletree Appleslice V2 60L as much as I did 2 years ago. I was 76kg when I bought it, but "bulked up" to 85kg since (let's not talk about where that bulking has accumulated).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I just went from a 4'11" x 23.5" 60L (Barg: 3.43, BargX: 2.32) to the Armstrong 5'5 x 18" 55L ML (Barg: 4.46, BargX: 3.06) and I feel like it is so much less sticky getting off the water in comparison. I'm 65KGs.

Comparing to my smaller 40L FG 4'4" x 18.5" (Barg: 3.43, BargX: 1.73), I'd say the BargX version is more applicable when getting into sinker territory, although if I'm properly powered, the standard Barg factor does seem applicable (similar takeoff between old 60L and new 40L). The 60L just has a bit more low end obviously if the wind wains.

@greg87foil you most likely bulked up in the shoulders and back. Winging does that to us all!
As @midatlanticfoil said, I believe the BargX version is best applied for sinkers. As you reach neutral buoyancy and higher using the Barg+ version is most applicable so that they numbers don't run away from you. I'll be re-running the data tables this year with new riders and with the X calibration but if you re-run your numbers with the multiplier you get this layout:

60l Appletree: 1.76
65l Sultan: 2.6
65l Armstrong: 2.76
75l Armstrong: 3.21
75l Sultan: 3.36

Here's where I'm at today: 87kg
Sunova Carver 5'10"x20" 85l
BAR=3.5
GF=.97
BAR*GF=3.395
BAR+GF=4.47

and where I'm headed:
Sunova Aviator 6'6"x18" 90l
BAR=4.33
GF=1.03
BAR*GF=4.46
BAR+GF=5.36

IMO I wouldn't encourage anyone to go below the 20" wide Carver (or the 20" wide armstrong you listed) until they have experience at that width. I think most people will be 100% satisfied at that size. I'm picking up the Aviator because I want to complete my research on this and think that the board will be very comparable to the Carver due to the design. I'm very comfortable at 20" now, but I do have mild 18" anxiety. I often feel the edge of the board with my feet on the 20" I expect this will be common on the 18"

I'm a huge Sunova fan so that's what I'd recommend, you can tweak the dims for a 10% charge if you want.

Regardless of your choice: For you, any one of those boards, and no matter how you do the math, will be a phenomenal upgrade.

Coming back to this.

Realizing Appletree also just released their Appleslice V3 board. Not nearly as high B.A.R. as the Amos or Armstrong midlength, but definitely an improvement over the Appleslice V2.

appletreesurfboards.com/product/appleslice-v3-wing-foil-board/

Ideally I'd get something around the 65-70L, but their 60L is still 21.5" wide (and 5'0" long), and their 70L still 22" wide (and 5'2" long).

But they do "custom" orders as well, so might shoot them an email and see if they could come up with something in the 65L and 19" wide range, based on their new V3 model.

Sounds like an Omen, which are produced in the same factory.

Didn't know about Omen, just looked them up. Not sure about that wide tail they have on their Flux board. Anyone given it a go?

And "Produced in the same factory" -> aka produced by Appletree (I've been to the factory)

Some people really love those Omen Flux boards for sure. I wasn't stoked on my demo but they recommended going way too small IMO. If you're already going narrow mid length then the Flux is a bit chubby. If it's your first narrow board, seems like it is quite loved.

greg87foil said..
Just got some mock ups in Shape3D from Appletree (won't share them as they're proprietary).

My inputs to them were: 19" for the widht and 65L for the volume. Besides the Appleslice V3, they also sent me a mock up of their DW skipper model with those same inputs. That model looks more like the Armstrong ML, with a more defined pin tail.

Here's the results:



All look like a decent improvement from my current 60L Appleslice V2. Going to have to pull the trigger soon!

I demo-ed the Armstrong 75L a few days ago and it's amazing to feel how much easier it is to get boards of this type to get up on foil.

Really nice seeing this broken down into a visual form. Stoked to hear what you land on and what you report back!

BWalnut said..

greg87foil said..

Grantmac said..

greg87foil said..

BWalnut said..

MidAtlanticFoil said..

greg87foil said..
Very interesting topic. I find myself not liking my Appletree Appleslice V2 60L as much as I did 2 years ago. I was 76kg when I bought it, but "bulked up" to 85kg since (let's not talk about where that bulking has accumulated).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I just went from a 4'11" x 23.5" 60L (Barg: 3.43, BargX: 2.32) to the Armstrong 5'5 x 18" 55L ML (Barg: 4.46, BargX: 3.06) and I feel like it is so much less sticky getting off the water in comparison. I'm 65KGs.

Comparing to my smaller 40L FG 4'4" x 18.5" (Barg: 3.43, BargX: 1.73), I'd say the BargX version is more applicable when getting into sinker territory, although if I'm properly powered, the standard Barg factor does seem applicable (similar takeoff between old 60L and new 40L). The 60L just has a bit more low end obviously if the wind wains.

@greg87foil you most likely bulked up in the shoulders and back. Winging does that to us all!
As @midatlanticfoil said, I believe the BargX version is best applied for sinkers. As you reach neutral buoyancy and higher using the Barg+ version is most applicable so that they numbers don't run away from you. I'll be re-running the data tables this year with new riders and with the X calibration but if you re-run your numbers with the multiplier you get this layout:

60l Appletree: 1.76
65l Sultan: 2.6
65l Armstrong: 2.76
75l Armstrong: 3.21
75l Sultan: 3.36

Here's where I'm at today: 87kg
Sunova Carver 5'10"x20" 85l
BAR=3.5
GF=.97
BAR*GF=3.395
BAR+GF=4.47

and where I'm headed:
Sunova Aviator 6'6"x18" 90l
BAR=4.33
GF=1.03
BAR*GF=4.46
BAR+GF=5.36

IMO I wouldn't encourage anyone to go below the 20" wide Carver (or the 20" wide armstrong you listed) until they have experience at that width. I think most people will be 100% satisfied at that size. I'm picking up the Aviator because I want to complete my research on this and think that the board will be very comparable to the Carver due to the design. I'm very comfortable at 20" now, but I do have mild 18" anxiety. I often feel the edge of the board with my feet on the 20" I expect this will be common on the 18"

I'm a huge Sunova fan so that's what I'd recommend, you can tweak the dims for a 10% charge if you want.

Regardless of your choice: For you, any one of those boards, and no matter how you do the math, will be a phenomenal upgrade.

Coming back to this.

Realizing Appletree also just released their Appleslice V3 board. Not nearly as high B.A.R. as the Amos or Armstrong midlength, but definitely an improvement over the Appleslice V2.

appletreesurfboards.com/product/appleslice-v3-wing-foil-board/

Ideally I'd get something around the 65-70L, but their 60L is still 21.5" wide (and 5'0" long), and their 70L still 22" wide (and 5'2" long).

But they do "custom" orders as well, so might shoot them an email and see if they could come up with something in the 65L and 19" wide range, based on their new V3 model.

Sounds like an Omen, which are produced in the same factory.

Didn't know about Omen, just looked them up. Not sure about that wide tail they have on their Flux board. Anyone given it a go?

And "Produced in the same factory" -> aka produced by Appletree (I've been to the factory)

Some people really love those Omen Flux boards for sure. I wasn't stoked on my demo but they recommended going way too small IMO. If you're already going narrow mid length then the Flux is a bit chubby. If it's your first narrow board, seems like it is quite loved.

I am 80kg and in fresh water and have the 60 ltr flux. It is awesome, I use it for everything and can take off in gusts around 10 knots with a 6m wing. Once on the surface the board pops up on plane super quick and in the air it feels awesome. The boards width is 21" but the thickness is 4", which in the air I believe makes it feel great. It is now the only board I have, I got rid of my 95 ltr 5'4" board. The only time I miss it is when the gusts are spotty I can slog to them and take off. With 60 ltrs I am up to my hips unless I get at least 7 knots of wind, then I can slog around on the surface to find gusts.

I also think bottom contour/shape has a lot to do with how quick to foil the board is. The Omen seems to have that figured out.

If I purchase another board it most likely would be a DW board in the 7'6 to 8' range that I can use for paddle, prone, and extreme light wind winging.

Jafalex said..

greg87foil said..
Just got some mock ups in Shape3D from Appletree (won't share them as they're proprietary).

My inputs to them were: 19" for the widht and 65L for the volume. Besides the Appleslice V3, they also sent me a mock up of their DW skipper model with those same inputs. That model looks more like the Armstrong ML, with a more defined pin tail.

Here's the results:



All look like a decent improvement from my current 60L Appleslice V2. Going to have to pull the trigger soon!

I demo-ed the Armstrong 75L a few days ago and it's amazing to feel how much easier it is to get boards of this type to get up on foil.

How did you get on? I was originally hesitating between the Armie FG and ML, and now thinking the V3 is the perfect compromise (not too narrow/wide/long/short) between the two Armstrong boards. I'm pretty much the same weight as you, although I'm leaning towards the 80L V3 or 75L ML..

I put in an order for a custom Appleslice V3, should arrive any day now!

I went for 65L, which is in between their stock 60L and 70L sizes. And I went for 20" wide, which is slightly narrower but not suuuper narrow (their 60L is 21.5" wide and their 70L is 22" wide).

So 5'4" x 20" @ 65L

greg87foil said..

I put in an order for a custom Appleslice V3, should arrive any day now!

I went for 65L, which is in between their stock 60L and 70L sizes. And I went for 20" wide, which is slightly narrower but not suuuper narrow (their 60L is 21.5" wide and their 70L is 22" wide).

So 5'4" x 20" @ 65L

Exciting Just to get back on the comparison between the Armstrong ML and the AppleSlice, since you've ridden both. Was there anything in particular that turned you away from the ML?
Also, good food for thoughts on the literage... Assuming you're also based in AU, the import fees are making the AT such a more expensive board that I'd rather make sure I got the right one!

greg87foil said..

Jafalex said..

greg87foil said..

I put in an order for a custom Appleslice V3, should arrive any day now!

I went for 65L, which is in between their stock 60L and 70L sizes. And I went for 20" wide, which is slightly narrower but not suuuper narrow (their 60L is 21.5" wide and their 70L is 22" wide).

So 5'4" x 20" @ 65L

Exciting Just to get back on the comparison between the Armstrong ML and the AppleSlice, since you've ridden both. Was there anything in particular that turned you away from the ML?
Also, good food for thoughts on the literage... Assuming you're also based in AU, the import fees are making the AT such a more expensive board that I'd rather make sure I got the right one!

I'm in Europe, so much cheaper for us here for sure.

So yeah what turned me away from the ML is the price, but also the construction vs the Appletree.

It's crazy, but you literally don't have to repair dings and the Appletree doesn't suck up water, because it's closed cell foam. It just makes the board so much more durable, meaning you'll probably ride it for much longer, so the $$ spent per unit of time ridden is much lower vs a regular construction board.

But the ML is a super nice shape too, felt really nice when I demoed it. But it's imo too midlength-y. As in: they've gone all in on the hype, whereas the AT takes cues from the midlength hype, but haven't gone overboard with it.

Can post pics once it arrives, it's somewhere in transit atm.

Super insightful once again, thanks. I was thinking the same re: ML length, it's really long at 6'1 compared to the AT, making it a pain to carry around.
Regarding the foam, agree it's great to not have to worry about dings, but I keep hearing that it's a super soft material. Like, you can literally push through it with your thumb... let alone you knees, etc. if you push anywhere outside the pad. So that's something to think about as well...

Jafalex said..

greg87foil said..

Jafalex said..

greg87foil said..

I put in an order for a custom Appleslice V3, should arrive any day now!

I went for 65L, which is in between their stock 60L and 70L sizes. And I went for 20" wide, which is slightly narrower but not suuuper narrow (their 60L is 21.5" wide and their 70L is 22" wide).

So 5'4" x 20" @ 65L

Exciting Just to get back on the comparison between the Armstrong ML and the AppleSlice, since you've ridden both. Was there anything in particular that turned you away from the ML?
Also, good food for thoughts on the literage... Assuming you're also based in AU, the import fees are making the AT such a more expensive board that I'd rather make sure I got the right one!

I'm in Europe, so much cheaper for us here for sure.

So yeah what turned me away from the ML is the price, but also the construction vs the Appletree.

It's crazy, but you literally don't have to repair dings and the Appletree doesn't suck up water, because it's closed cell foam. It just makes the board so much more durable, meaning you'll probably ride it for much longer, so the $$ spent per unit of time ridden is much lower vs a regular construction board.

But the ML is a super nice shape too, felt really nice when I demoed it. But it's imo too midlength-y. As in: they've gone all in on the hype, whereas the AT takes cues from the midlength hype, but haven't gone overboard with it.

Can post pics once it arrives, it's somewhere in transit atm.

Super insightful once again, thanks. I was thinking the same re: ML length, it's really long at 6'1 compared to the AT, making it a pain to carry around.
Regarding the foam, agree it's great to not have to worry about dings, but I keep hearing that it's a super soft material. Like, you can literally push through it with your thumb... let alone you knees, etc. if you push anywhere outside the pad. So that's something to think about as well...

It's absolutely the opposite, the foam is rock solid.

I've had the Appleslice V2 for 2.5 years as my only board, and it still looks like new. No pressure dents or anything like that.

Jafalex said..
I ended up demo'ing the Armstrong ML75, it was everything I wanted in a board, an amazing ride, I pulled the trigger there and then. Stoked. only thing is it doesn't fit in the boot of the car, so I'm on the hunt for a van, any recommendations?

.jokes

Thanks for all the help picking the ride

nice one, they're nice boards indeed.

I ended up receiving my custom Appletree, but they messed up some of the custom specifications I wanted so it's going back and I have to wait another 2 months until they make me one again, this time to the proper specs...

annoying, but from what I saw in the box it's a very very nice shape..

patronus said..
Moved from 3.4 to 3.7 and feels like 0.3m less sail area needed in light winds. Unlike in windsurfing I notice change in a few kg bodyweight so multiply rather than add gets that better. I'm 90kg wet on a 90l board.

So, would everyone say it's about time to commit to updating the master plan and transitioning it towards the multiply system?

www.wouzel.com/post/calculating-your-barg-factor

BWalnut said..

patronus said..
Moved from 3.4 to 3.7 and feels like 0.3m less sail area needed in light winds. Unlike in windsurfing I notice change in a few kg bodyweight so multiply rather than add gets that better. I'm 90kg wet on a 90l board.

So, would everyone say it's about time to commit to updating the master plan and transitioning it towards the multiply system?

www.wouzel.com/post/calculating-your-barg-factor

Every "factor" or mathematical coeficient should be easy to interpretate, aligned with a physical characteristic or an understandable board performance metric... if not it's just a mathematical number with several correlations, hard to understand.