2020 nelo surfskis

Hi,

Recently Nelo launched their 2020 surfski line-up.
Is there anybody who can compare the updated versions with the old versions. I have read that the new models are more stable, I'm keen to learn more about those boats.

Thanks!
Karel

I'd also like to know how the new Nelo models can possibly be faster on flat water with a bulge in the hull.  Maybe there is some principle of physics involved, but it seems counter-intuitive . . . .

Given that Oscar Chalupsky is stuck here in Cape Town while he has treatment for multiple myeloma, NELO were due to send a batch of the new boats here for him to paddle (and, hopefully, for us to try out).

Our new fleet arrives in a few weeks here in california - can't wait to paddle the new 560 ML. Will do a full review as soon as I can!

A few weeks ago I had the chance to try out the new Nelo 540 and 550 on a small lake for approx. 30 minutes.
What I immediately noticed was that the new 550 was significantly more stable than the older model. 
I tested the 550 when it came out a few years ago and  I could handle it in calm conditions but I thought that it might be too unstable for me when it gets really rough. Also the old 550 didn´t fit me well. The L-size was too wide for my 33 waist and the ML was too tight. The new L-size is just perfect for me. The shape of the bucket felt really good  and I think it might be the first ski which I can can paddle without a seatpad for hours. I noticed that the sidewalls where my feet are were quite high so I guess it will give you a drier ride under calm conditions. When I realized that the 550 is so stable I wasn´t interested in the 540 anymore which is of course even more stable. After these first impressions I was so convinced that I ordered the new 550 but I have to wait till the end of June for the delivery.
When I get the chance to try out the new ski in downwind conditions I might send a new post with my impressions.
     

Thanks for the feedback everybody, I currently am paddling an 'old' 550. Looks like there will be more reviews available soon.

I'm very keen to hear about new Nelo surf-skis, the concept of slight wave in the rocker line is interesting.
Even if it probably doesn't make sense when looking at the hull hydrodynamics as a standalone object, I can imagine why it can work very well speed wise for kayak/surf-ski - person sitting in/on craft is many times heavier then the hull itself, so any lowering of that mass (which can be done via "depression" for feet + seat moved down) can be very beneficial, by making the craft more stable or narrower/more rounded in cross-section with the same stability as with a traditional rocker line.
I found this video where all the new nelo surf-skis are speed-tested (power controlled, which is awesome) and also compared with other "old" models as 510, Viper surf-ski & K1 7:

Needless to say that speed of the new models on flat water is very, very impressive -> 560 is as fast as K1 7 and 550/540 are both faster then Viper...
I would love to try one of those and probably buy 540 or 550 as a step up from my (old model) 520.

I am not surprised that the 560 is the same speed as a K1. My understanding is that all elite skis are,  depending on paddler weight, with athletes under 75 kg or so faster in k1 and those over 75 faster in ski.   

What does surprise me is the poor performance of the viper 46 ski. It is only 0.1 kph faster than the 520. But the 520 has loads of secondary stability and is the most fun beginner ski I have been in.  The 520 is a blast downwind. The viper 46 probably has a narrower catch but I can’t think of any other advantage to that boat over the 520.  Maybe it has more k1 like ergonomics with a higher seat? That is just a guess. 

One thing to note is that most of us only have experience with the "old" model 520, while the tested model was a new 2020 520 with completely different hull.
In fact I think better approximation of the old 520 speed would be 510, since they have the same hull and same stability, granted 520 should have slightly less drag due to the composite construction (better surface finish) but if the tested 510 is a new boat and the plastic hull is not "fuzzy" from scratching, that shouldn't be a big factor.
And as you can see, 510 is significantly slower then any other boat tested, my opinion is that the old 520 (I own one) is somewhere between 510 and new 520 speed-wise (probably closer to 510...) which has been my experience as well -> It's a great ski, fun, super manoeuvrable, but I don't think speed on flatwater is one of its strengths.
So I get that Viper 46 ski did make sense in the past, being faster then 520 (probably as fast as "old" 550), but with the current range, not so much. 

You have to bear in mind here that the video only seemed to suggest they did one run for each boat and there is no calculated error of the testing protocol so the data could be larger/smaller than what their results summary suggests. I've published outdoor watercraft testing in a scientific journal and it's more than feasible that the error of the tests could swamp the differences between the boats. Caution is advised when interpreting these results (particularly when you can clearly see subtle changes in water state between the runs).

Actually, that speed testing is one of the most controlled I have ever seen -> he is apparently using real-time power data (strain/power sensor on the paddle shaft) and correlating that with actual speed on a protected lake with no current and very little wind.
It's way, way better then almost all the other tests where paddler is testing different boats and comparing speed "while doing approximately the same effort", because holding that's next to impossible (fatigue, seating position, stability...) and the only way to control that is with power sensor.

In the cycling community, there is an established protocol for testing the aero properties of the bike (or rather bike-rider combo, since rider/riding position is more important) in real-time conditions called R. Chung method where you can very accurately predict real CdA value using speed/power data with some constraints such as not using brakes and using a loop course -  anonymous.coward.free.fr/wattage/cda/indirect-cda.pdf 
Those constraints wouldn't be necessary if one could find testing course with absolute no wind, which is next to impossible, but for boat, it's not that hard at all to find body of water with no current.

Of course one can question the quality of sensor data and some sort of pitot-tube sensor for measuring true water-speed would be much more sensitive/accurate then gps, especially for low speed the boats are moving at.

Helldiver wrote: 1) It's way, way better then almost all the other tests where paddler is testing different boats and comparing speed "while doing approximately the same effort", because holding that's next to impossible (fatigue, seating position, stability...) and the only way to control that is with power sensor.

2) In the cycling community, there is an established protocol for testing the aero properties of the bike (or rather bike-rider combo, since rider/riding position is more important) in real-time conditions called R. Chung method where you can very accurately predict real CdA value.

1) I completely agree that power is the best unit to use. However, without multiple runs, the results here may not be meaningful. It isn't the only option to produce robust results (we have used the 'stroke index' for this too but granted, power output is superior).

2) Yes, its now well established. I'm friends with Robert Chung and validated his method for use scientifically for cyclists on a velodrome (when compared to the 'gold standard' of the wind tunnel) in a journal a couple of years back. There is also the Martin method too. These days, many of us in the cycling community use tools such as Garmins Alphamantis real time measurement system or bolt-ons such as the Notio Konect.

Fundamentally, the approach in the video is very good but they need at least 5 or 6 runs of each boat so we can see the accuracy and precision of the boats testing as well as the power equipment itself (and that's if you settle for the fact it's only two paddlers). Granted, that's a time consuming process. When I did this with SUP boards, it took me 2 hours to compare the impact of three fin changes on a single board or comparing two board designs. That was 6-9 runs of each variable, a 300m measurement distance, randomised running order, and only using windless and calm water conditions. It took 3 attempts to get the right conditions and it does invalidate the results if it's not completely calm. What stands out for me is that the error of the testing itself could easily be as great as +/- 0.1km/h when you compare the results of the male and the female paddlers.

Hi there! Has anyone managed to ry out the Nelo 540 in downwind conditions? I've been paddling a Nelo Viper 556 ski for the past two years and am considering whether to but the new Nelo 520 or 540. My dilemma is that the 520 provides lots of stability and would make downwind fun (without having to worry too much about falling over), however I consider myself a beginner/intermediate paddler and think that the 540 will allow more opportunity to grow (since I think it is a little less stable than the viper ski I am using)....

I mostly enjoy downwinds, so question is, will it be too unstable in big waves, or will I get used to the (in)stability with enough practice?

Thanks!
Isaac

Deg wrote: Hi there! Has anyone managed to ry out the Nelo 540 in downwind conditions? I've been paddling a Nelo Viper 556 ski for the past two years and am considering whether to but the new Nelo 520 or 540. My dilemma is that the 520 provides lots of stability and would make downwind fun (without having to worry too much about falling over), however I consider myself a beginner/intermediate paddler and think that the 540 will allow more opportunity to grow (since I think it is a little less stable than the viper ski I am using)....

I mostly enjoy downwinds, so question is, will it be too unstable in big waves, or will I get used to the (in)stability with enough practice?

Thanks!
Isaac

Hey Isaac, I passed your question onto the big O, who's currently staying just down the road here in Cape Town.  He said, "The 540 is very close to the stability of the 520. Nearly the same."

So, for what it's worth!  Looks like the 540 is the choice!

Oh my, that's fantastic!! And just like that, dilemma gone.....540 it is then!! 
Really appreciate your help and for seeking the guru's advice on this too  
Cheers and keep well!
Isaac (from Malta)

Looking for some info on the new 560 XXL.  Currently paddling a 560L at 205 lbs.  Looking at the Nelo website the new 560 XXL shows a 46 cm width and my previous version 560L is listed at 45 cm; anyone know if that's true that the large 560s are now wider?  I like my current 560 but some more primary stability would be nice and I like the idea behind the new hull shape.  I realize it's probably earlier for many comparisons but anyone tried both?  Thanks.

stvandev wrote: Looking for some info on the new 560 XXL.  Currently paddling a 560L at 205 lbs.  Looking at the Nelo website the new 560 XXL shows a 46 cm width and my previous version 560L is listed at 45 cm; anyone know if that's true that the large 560s are now wider?  I like my current 560 but some more primary stability would be nice and I like the idea behind the new hull shape.  I realize it's probably earlier for many comparisons but anyone tried both?  Thanks.

Just been chatting with Oscar Chalupsky - he said, yes, it is slightly wider at the top and it's "more stable and faster"...  So there you go!

From the man himself, thanks!

Has anyone tried the new nelo skis and have any impressions to share?

I was able to try a new 560ml on a “downbreeze” with 1ft waves, 2ft in a few sections, barely big enough to surf. The new 560 felt much more planted and stable than I remember the old one.  A short ski is really nice in small waves.  I could not tell if the rudder lines were stretching or slipping in the ratchet but i did have to tighten both lines several times over a couple hours. 

Hi Zach,
I've been paddling the new 560 XXL for about 6 weeks now, and own the last gen 560 and 550.   I need to put together a write up.  For me....basically same top speed as previous 560 but much more stable.   I can take the new XXL out in ocean conditions that my previous 560 would not have come off the truck.   Have had other folks agree with me on stability after trying. Bucket is much lower, but keeps the butt-foot ratio the same.   I have found I need to shorten my paddle 1cm to accommodate for the lower bucket.

Flatwater top speed pretty much same for me, but I can keep it at speed slightly easier, and definitely keep it at 80-90% effort easier.  This may be due to my size, 200lbs, the extra volume and tail rocker helps??  Boat stays very flat on acceleration as well, perhaps due to flat to reverse rocker from foot board back...it seems to work

Rougher water speed.  Maybe same top end, but for me I am much faster in ocean/rough due to the extra stability.  Takes a little to get used to since its an active boat like all Nelos, but actually has quite a bit of secondary for a HP ski...confirmed by others.   Can't quantify how much extra stability, but definitely very noticeable. 

Love/hate with the ratchets/line.  Seems the latest gray dyneema type does not stretch that bad after it gets through some initial stretching.  Ratchets nice to quick adjust, but have removed them off my older Nelos...

The 560 sizes are basically the same hull, but different volume in the bow, with different bucket widths.  Have not confirmed this in person yet.

Will have a 550XXL in 6-8 weeks to compare against 560XXL, as well as a 550L that my wife will be paddling to compare against her current 550L.   Also have a 540 coming

Full disclosure, while I'm continuing to focus 100% on Braca Sport sales in US, I'm helping SpeedBoard USA sell Nelo Surfskis here in the Northeast US.  Nice since have frequent containers coming to Boston area

Chris
Fastpaddler.com
Braca-Sport US Importer