Hi All
I've been riding an Xcite ride 110 for the last 18 months and recently bought an Atomiq 120 AST to help improve my gybes, go from flare to planing etc. I've really enjoyed, as a butcher's pencil built bloke of 60kg, being able go out in any wind on the new board and uphaul my way home. Last weekend I went for a sail at Manly Qld and found that even though there was some wind, the board felt really hard to get on the plane. I've only used it in weak winds since I got it, but am really wondering if I've ended up with a board that is slower to plane in spite of its resemblance to SLW style boards. One of the crew said that he thought the Atomiqs are tough to get planing without a pump or two and bearing off, Pity, as my technique leaves a lot to be desired. Definitely left an Ah shucks moment.

When I took a photo of the two, it added to my theory, the Xcite looks like it is designed to lift up, the Atomiq sits flatter. Would be very interested to hear your thoughts., which one planes easier.

Whatever the outcome, I reckon the Atom will be a keeper, great for ToW and I reckon could come in for small weak waves like a windsup and an easy cruise out to the line up, and maybe plane when it's windy. Can I get this board to plane like the Xcite and if so, how?
Image:

I've only been using it with the standard Drake fin which is pretty rakey and narrow . Even the freeride fin on the JP is far more vertical. I'll keep an eye out for a decent slalom fin and see if I can track down a vector volt. I'm in this far, I reckon it will be worth it if it increases the stoke. Cheers Sparky

As above, gotta step back with flatter, wide tailed boards.

Dear Hungry Wave,

I have a 2016 Atomiq 114. I am a bit bigger than you, weighing 80 kg and standing 174 cm. I use the Atomiq with Ezzy Cheetah sails of 6.0 to 8.0, which is well within the range Starboard states (5.5 to 8.5). Prior to owning the Atomiq, I had an RRD Firemove 122. That board (the RRD 122 Firemove) planed VERY, VERY early. The Atomiq, on the other hand, if very hard to get planing. I am selling it the swap meet in two months. I wish I had kept the Firemove and not purchased the Atomiq.

I have also owned at JP Magic Ride 104. So, I have experience with three of the short, wide, thin (top to bottom) free move boards. As i said, the Firemove was amazing. I could plane on it with a 7.5 in winds that would barely get me going on my Starboard Formula and 9.5. In fact, I got rid of the Formula and 9.5 because there was too much overlap in wind range between that set up and the Firemove 122, and the Firemove and 122 were a whole lot easier on the body. In contrast to the Firemove, the Atomiq seems too sticky (to the water). I can make it plane with a lot of effort, such as going deep off the wind, moving my weight back, and pumping my arse off. But it is not an easy or early planer like the Firemove was. The Magic Ride was about average in planing ability when compared to a conventional board. It was definitely not a super early planer.

The Firemove was also faster than the Atomiq. My top GPS speed on the Firemove was 24.42 knots. My top speed on the Atomiq was 20.3 knots. (I realize neither is great speed. For GPS speed sailing, I have a Fanatic Blast that I have gotten up to 27 knots. Still not great, but very thrilling.)

One thing I learned about this style of board (free move) is that the manufacturers overstate the maximum sail size. For example, the manufacturer says the Atomiq 114 will take an 8.5. It will, but the board won't plane any earlier than it will with a 7.5. The extra weight of a fully loaded sail (loaded with wind) pushes the thin (top to bottom) board down and makes planing more difficult. Similarly, the range on the Magic 104 was supposed to be 5.7 to 7.5, but 7.5 was too big for the board. It planed just as early with a 6.5. Finally, the range on the Firemove 122 was supposed to be 6.0 to 9.0. When I sailed it with my 8.5, my very large friend whom I use to gauge planing ability was planing much earlier than me. When I sailed it with a 7.5, I was planing much earlier than him. So try (as illogical as this sounds) a smaller sail and a bigger fin for early planing.

As far as the small sail of the range, I fear I would get injured sailing the Atomiq with a 5.5 or the Firemove with a 6.0. JP was much more realistic when it said the Magic 104 could go out in 5.7 conditions. My Magic worked just fine with a 5.5 and at a stretch a 4.7.

To sum up, move weight back, pump, and head off the wind. Try a smaller sail that does not push the board down into the water because the board is too thin top to bottom to handle your weight and the weight of a fully loaded sail.

By the way, the Atomiq is a jibing machine once you get it planing. I was amazed at how well it jibes.

I've not ridden the Atomic, so I can't comment on its comparative planning ability.
While board design contributes to early planning, setup and technique also have a significant effect as well. So before you throw the baby out with the bath water, consider what you can do to maximise the early planing ability on your Atomic. Things to try:
- tune your sail to maximise power, eg optimise downhaul, outhaul and batten tension
- try a bigger fin
- try raising your boom
- try moving your mast base back
- try bearing away down the face of chop/waves when trying to get on the plane
- try pumping onto the plane

Im a heavy guy and always chasing the planing threshold . Im not sure if short wide boards are the answer. My 78 wide xcite ride planes far earlier than my 90 wide starboard go or my 85 wide starboard go ( 170 , 155 ) they are however faster.
I believe a longer straighter outline ( rockers being equal ) is better for planing. The rounded outside shape of the shorter wider boards seem to grab the water. It makes for a fast stable board that can also turn but bogs through the water pre planing.

Big fin , mast back ???

Imax1 said..
Im a heavy guy and always chasing the planing threshold . Im not sure if short wide boards are the answer. My 78 wide xcite ride planes far earlier than my 90 wide starboard go or my 85 wide starboard go ( 170 , 155 ) they are however faster.
I believe a longer straighter outline ( rockers being equal ) is better for planing. The rounded outside shape of the shorter wider boards seem to grab the water. It makes for a fast stable board that can also turn but bogs through the water pre planing.

Big fin , mast back ???

Out of interest what years are the starboard GOs.?

Us sandstone mob love the older GOs for early planing - after my disappointment with a modern GO 2015 150 we recon starboard have messed up a good thing.

@hungrywave just wondering where you are at with water starting. Trying to understand need for a bigger board


Cheers Jeff

jirvin4505 said..

Imax1 said..
Im a heavy guy and always chasing the planing threshold . Im not sure if short wide boards are the answer. My 78 wide xcite ride planes far earlier than my 90 wide starboard go or my 85 wide starboard go ( 170 , 155 ) they are however faster.
I believe a longer straighter outline ( rockers being equal ) is better for planing. The rounded outside shape of the shorter wider boards seem to grab the water. It makes for a fast stable board that can also turn but bogs through the water pre planing.

Big fin , mast back ???

Out of interest what years are the starboard GOs.?

Us sandstone mob love the older GOs for early planing - after my disappointment with a modern GO 2015 150 we recon starboard have messed up a good thing.

@hungrywave just wondering where you are at with water starting. Trying to understand need for a bigger board


Cheers Jeff

The older style starboards. They are good boards , quite fast and can handle rough water . But the older style Xcite ride 160 planes a lot earlier . But not the newer xcite ride plus 160 , they are harder to plane than the older ones . The newer xcite is shorter and about the same width and is fatter. It has less straight rocker and has about 5 mm rear rocker where the old one is flat. It did turn a little better , but that's not what a big early planing board is about. I didn't like the new one and sold it. Newer is not always better.
I haven't ridden a new go.
I made a board with the old xcite ride rocker and plan shape ( a little smaller all round ) and the concaves of the go and it's a ripper.

I would have thoughy the excite ride was already perfect for your weight as your first board. You probably will never want a sail bigger than 6.5 or 7 too. Just keep pracising with the excite ride. The likelihood is that after another season you will be wanting a smaller board and you wont be thinking about large boards at all.

This thin n wide stuff is a passing fad anyway. The advertised benefits just aren't there.

Hungrywave said..
Hi All
This will be the last post on this thread before SB (rightly) close it down due to old age.
I've heeded most of the wise counsel over the last few months, I've picked up a good 40cm fin, raised the boom, sget the footstraps forward and in, bought some more horsepower, an 8.0 Ezzy Cheetah, and for Father's Day have been given a 47.5cm Dragon Freeride which I tried out this morning. No planing problems for me anymore, particularly with the new fin. I was concerned that it would be over the top, but measured one foot off the tail and found it was smaller than the width measurement so gave it a go. What a great set up. The board feels like it wants to lift out of the water now. Loads of 'donk' to use a petrolhead term.
In conclusion, I reckon that the Xcite carbon is easier to pump out of the water because of it's weight, but not sure it stays on the plane anymore than the Atomiq. I've really enjoyed the journey of refining the technique and actually being aware of what is going on and how I can tweak the way the kit performs. Thanks everyone again. You'll be seeing me out there, planing and stoked. Hungrywave over and out.

Great news

Glad to see the Xcite stills gets some quality time!!