Topic-icon NELO 560M Review

4 months 3 weeks ago #28260 by Steve Hansen
I was hoping for just the opposite: A 560m with a 560L bucket length ! Wouldn't that make more sense ? Why would you want a bigger volume ski sized for a small paddler? Smaller person with big hips I guess. I think there's a stronger case for building a low volume ski for lightweight, long legged paddlers. As a matter of fact, I can't really think of a ski outside of the Epic V10L that fits that niche.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

4 months 3 weeks ago - 4 months 3 weeks ago #28261 by Uffilation
S Hansen, would have thought so, too.

Marc, actual weights of 520s/560s scs7 are heavier than 11kg, or?
The following user(s) said Thank You: Steve Hansen

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

4 months 3 weeks ago - 4 months 3 weeks ago #28262 by mckengmsurfski
Interesting Steve. The majority of people that I've had make suggestions about the 560L have been that they would like a narrower/tighter bucket like the 560M has in it, or that it needs to have a shorter footwell adjustment. I'm 6ft tall with a 34" inseam and 32" waist, weigh around 170lbs and the 560L bucket is somewhat large on me. Conversely, I fit the 560M bucket perfectly at the maximum length. I paddle the 560M in smaller conditions but the volume at my weight is too low to take out in bigger open ocean conditions, unlike the 560L, which I can take out in anything. I have had multiple paddlers my size buy the 560M over the 560L for racing and small conditions due to the fit of the bucket. But, they will likely need another ski for bigger stuff b/c they're too heavy for the 560M. The 560ML is aimed at those paddlers b/c it should fill all of their needs.
I have yet to have anyone in the appropriate weight range for the 560M try it and feel that it needed a bigger bucket or footwell, b/c most people taller and/or wider than I am are too heavy for the volume and would be better suited to the 560L.
The following user(s) said Thank You: Steve Hansen, Uffilation

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

4 months 3 weeks ago #28263 by mckengmsurfski
Uffilation. We've had multiple SCS layup skis in 560L, 560M, and 520. They have all weighed between 9.7kg (a 560M and a 560L) and 10.9kg. We weigh most of our skis that pass thru and haven't had an SCS weigh over 11kg yet.
The following user(s) said Thank You: Uffilation

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

4 months 3 weeks ago - 4 months 3 weeks ago #28264 by photofr

Steve Hansen wrote: I was hoping for just the opposite: A 560m with a 560L bucket length ! Wouldn't that make more sense ? Why would you want a bigger volume ski sized for a small paddler? Smaller person with big hips I guess. I think there's a stronger case for building a low volume ski for lightweight, long legged paddlers. As a matter of fact, I can't really think of a ski outside of the Epic V10L that fits that niche.


Here's an overview on the 560s... I think you will be surprised by how tall you CAN be and still use a 560M.

560M
Designed specifically for smaller hips, and lighter paddlers.
Weight Range (tested) - 45 to 70 kilos (ideal for Open Water, ok for 80 kilos in dead flat).
Paddler size range: 1.45m to 1.90 meters (therefore long legs).

Note:
I have a testing facility in Brittany, and have had a great many people test the 560M. I have yet to see a single paddler whose legs were too long for that ski.

560L
Designed as a "more volume ski" for paddlers weighing a little more - with wider hips.
Weight Range (tested) - 65 to 112 kilos (ideal for Open Water).
Paddler size: 1.68 to 2.10 meters

560ML
This is the NEW one: designed for NORMAL paddlers who have somewhat narrow hips (that would be nearly 8 out of every 10 European paddlers).
Weight Range (tested) - 65 to 112 kilos (ideal for Open Water).
Paddler size: 1.68 to 2.10 meters
Paddler Hips: Somewhat narrow to narrow
(specifically for someone who doesn't want to use hip pads on their 560L)

EDIT: Sorry Marc, I just noticed you had already answered that one. Pretty funny actually, for we pretty much have the exact same answer to give.

Ludovic
(Brittany, France)
The following user(s) said Thank You: Steve Hansen, Uffilation, yogavnture

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

4 months 3 weeks ago #28265 by photofr

Uffilation wrote: S Hansen, would have thought so, too.

Marc, actual weights of 520s/560s scs7 are heavier than 12kg, or?


I come up with nearly identical numbers as Marc regarding the weight of Construction 7 skis. I'll add that I have not seen a single 520.4 (520 construction 4) weigh more than 11.9 kilos - all rigged. Perhaps I have just been very lucky.

Ludovic
(Brittany, France)
The following user(s) said Thank You: Uffilation, yogavnture

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

4 months 3 weeks ago #28266 by Steve Hansen
Mark and Ludo, you made a valid argument for a 560ML. A boat that fits Oscar is going to be too big for a lot of people. But... there is a work around. At least one could pad it out to fit. Conversely, if a boats volume is too big, there is no work around. This is the problem I always run into. Granted I'm a bit of a freak: 6'2", 36 " inseam, 150 lbs. Great build for lots of sports but problematic for paddling. I once bought a ski from a guy that was 6'4", fit me perfectly. I did take special note of Mark's dimensions when I read his excellent review of the two 560's. I can confidently say I would not fit in a 560m. Hopefully some day, manufacturers will address this length/weight predicament.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

4 months 3 weeks ago #28267 by Uffilation
Weights:
Thankyou Mark (it was the autocorrection that made it "Marc", sorry for that).
Thankyou Ludovic.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

4 months 3 weeks ago #28268 by Steve Hansen
Mark, I believe you made a typo: "likely need another ski for bigger stuff b/c they're too heavy for the 560L". You mean too heavy for the 560M.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

4 months 3 weeks ago #28269 by Ranga
I find it strange that people think the 560L is to high volume, it is lower volume than most if not all other full length skis, other than the specific low volume skis made for very light weight paddlers below 70kg.
Likewise you want a bigger ski for heavier paddlers, why? The 560L is designed for much heavier than 150 lbs in fact Oscar is close to 200 lbs and funnily enough has a waist of 35" and has no problem with the seat, he specifically designed the seat bigger, not for himself but for customers. You can always pad the seat narrower to your specific requirement, but to make it wider is a huge problem.
Likewise a seat that is too high, just makes the ski unstable, and then again you can pad the seat up if you want a higher seat, the stupidest thing to do is to make a high seat and stop most of your customers from ever getting on it, not to dissimilar to previous Nelo skis.
The following user(s) said Thank You: Steve Hansen

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

4 months 3 weeks ago #28270 by mckengmsurfski
Steve H, thanks for the heads up on the typo! Corrected! I did not read thru the entire thread, but have you actually tried a 560L? You might be surprised at 150lbs how well it works for you at your size. Definitely long enough, like you said you can pad up the seat as needed, and I don't think the volume would be too much for you (particularly compared to other elite level skis).
Ranga, I agree mostly but I will say that I've had several clients balk at the 560L b/c of the seat and being adverse to padding it up, then sit in the 560M and say they want that seat in the 560L. I will be interested to see how much less stable the 560ML is to the 560L, b/c I find the 560L very easy to paddle downwind. I will say that I find the 560M surprisingly stable considering the speed and the paddling position, but again the volume is low enough for me that it's strictly a flat water and harbor ski for me, and for ocean paddling I reach for my 560L but only b/c of volume, not stability.
I agree 100% that the 560L is a comparatively low volume ski and that even for paddlers in the high 140lbs range it would be a great all around ski, particularly if you were paddling in downwind and mixed conditions regularly. And yes, you can easily pad it up, remove pads, and customize the bucket. I have also had multiple paddlers that could not paddle other brands and struggled to find a ski who's bucket fit them in an elite level ski that have found the answer in the 560L. I have one client who has literally waited years for a ski like this! My training partner loves his after struggling the past 3 years to find a ski with a bucket size and shape that suited him in an elite level ski. I have a long list of clients who love the bucket, how stable the ski is, and how it has elite ski speed with great downwind capabilities. Everytime I jump into a more traditional sized ski I'm reminded of how amazing the 560L is in overall performance with a relatively low volume and profile.
The following user(s) said Thank You: Steve Hansen

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

4 months 2 weeks ago - 4 months 2 weeks ago #28328 by Uffilation
I've waited long on 550 info (and postponed a 560 purchase sofar for the 550 to materialize ):
> would com ein M ... M/L ... L

podcast to TC surfski:
- first part ob 510
- a bit 550 from 24 min
- later bigger part on the Nelo 600 double and the advantage of having steering also at the back seat
- length and speed from 32 min.
- last part on customiziation and working with Big. O.

New interview on the Nelo lineup:
tcsurfski.com/2017/03/09/ppp-episode-012...lo-ceo-andre-santos/
The following user(s) said Thank You: JonathanC, Atlas

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

4 months 6 days ago #28477 by Llodrá
Hi! Any pic related with the new 560 ml size? Just curious to know the way it feels on water

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

4 months 5 days ago #28492 by photofr
For your personal needs of snorkeling, I would recommend a Nelo 520 instead of the more Elite Nelo 560.

Ludovic
(Brittany, France)
The following user(s) said Thank You: Steve Hansen

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

4 months 3 days ago #28529 by mckengmsurfski

Llodrá wrote: Hi! Any pic related with the new 560 ml size? Just curious to know the way it feels on water

We should be receiving our first 560ML skis here in the USA in a couple of weeks. I will begin testing as soon as they arrive and will let you know. I use a 1cm seat pad in my 560L and the 560M seat is 8mm higher than the 560L seat, so I'm hoping it will feel similar but with a slightly more connected feeling due to the more narrow overall fit of the bucket/footwell. Excited to try it!

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

3 months 3 weeks ago - 3 months 3 weeks ago #28667 by Uffilation
I think it's great news that the

Nelo wiggle system will be bundled together with personalized logos

also for all upcoming surfski models B) :



Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

Latest Comments

Latest Forum Topics

2 skis for sale Florida Panhandle

8 hours 19 minutes ago

Airlines and paddles

9 hours 35 minutes ago

Think Evo 3rd Generation

17 hours 44 minutes ago
Protected by R Antispam