Hi all,
during last weekend's Lake Constance Marathon I had the opportunity to paddle the new Nelo 550L (in WWR) for a couple of minutes. My background: a midpacker using an own-designed hybrid ski made of Paulovnia Wood, I can't sit a K1. I like to test other skis to compare to my own designs, get new ideas or strengthen my prejudices
![:P]( ":P")
As I paddled the new boat only for some minutes on flat water, these are really just first impressions supposed to start a discussion, not conclude it.
The intermediate Nelo was advertised as much more stable but almost as fast as the 560. This is to be achieved by a hull that is no longer round, but rather flat and box-like. In mention this beforehand because this explains the impression of boat behaviour I got. I also had the chance to paddle the 560 in similar conditions a couple of months ago, and I liked that ski very much.
The 550 has ample initial stability, as can be expected. It also accelerates very fast and turns on a dime. Secondary stability, at least for what I am used to, is lower than expected when you hit chop (it still high compared to an elite ski!). The cruising speed did not seem extraordinary to me as compared to my 580 x 52 hybrid (which has a very rounded hull with a 42cm max waterline). I would guess the 550's max waterline at my weight (72 kg) rather at 43-44 cm. I can of course not make any serious judgment on downwind behavior, but the few boat wakes I surfed left me with a very good impression about the maneuvrability & controllability of the ski.
Still, I must say that this boat did not 'blast me away' ... well, compared to my own design, commercial skis always tend to give me the impression of not snugly sitting in the boat, and the boat not snugly sitting in the water, but rather 'on' it, which I do not like, but this is rather better with the 550 as compared to longer skis. In defense of the 550 I also should mention that only the L version is available right now, in which I do not get enough boat contact.
The major point I want to make is something else: I believe it is not a fortunate strategy to make skis more stable by mostly flattening the bottom. This may give you excellent primary stability when first entering the boat, but stability reserves are then quickly exhausted in the rough if the boat is only around 45 cm max width.
Instead, I would make a narrow, tipply hull just broader (not flatter), which mostly adds secondary stability, something that in some boats you only discover once you enter the waves. The resulting boat behavior is more harmonious in real conditions, and the waterline stays narrow, preserving the speed potential. Last saturday I raced my own much broader hybrid in flat conditions over exactly 21 km in 11.8 kmh, with wash-riding opportunities only in the first half of the race, and I am not a race paddler by pedigree (I am training hard, nevertheless). And my boat is more stable than the 550 in waves, I dare say.
The message I want to get across is that I believe that many intermediate skis perform worse than they could (given their stability) because many designers commit the same specific mistake: they are anxious to keep overall width narrow in order not to give the impression of a beginner boat, and then pay for that with a flat bottom. Maybe I see that wrong, but it would be a pity if - after the excellent new 560 - the 550 would be merely a 'me too' design in that respect.
My remarks may be irrelevant for real downwind conditions, but let's face it: flatwater speed is an important criterion for surfskis, many of which are actually much more paddled in calm conditions than imagined by the designers. And speed may be even more sought after by buyers of intermediate than of elite skis. (in discussions on elite skis, people always ask for the stability of the ski, while speed is dominant in discussions on intermediate skis). I just think that many intermediate designs follow a misguided approach, but maybe that is just ... my prejudice I once more managed to confirm
![;)]( ";)")
.
.
