NELO 560M Review

tony h wrote: 560 & 560M have same hull so shouldn't be any different in terms of 'corkiness"

The 560M may be derived from the 560L, but they are indeed different hulls.
Here are some of the main hull differences:
The 560M (measured by me with some degree of accuracy that I still question) is 43.8cm in width, while the 560L is 45cm. The stern area of the hull is clearly different to the naked eye, as is the forward area of the hull, but there are also other minor subtle differences.

I actually found the 560L to be far more stable than the 560M, probably because of its width increase behind the seat, as well as its sitting position that is slightly lower than the 560M. This may vary from one paddler to another, especially from what I am seeing above.

However, so far, all paddlers who have demoed both skis in Brittany have found the 560L to be more stable, all except one person (83 kilos) who found no noticeable difference.

thanks for the info on the 'different' hulls - agree 560L felt more stable IMO
apologies to Nell on the friendly wager

Thank you for in-depth review and technical advices Ludovic! I tested (just a few minutes after the race) Nelo 560 a few days ago in flat/minor wind chop condition on a river and was really impressed with the comfort, stability and handling. I am considering additional boat for flat conditions and keeping my V10 Sport 2G for the ocean/winter paddling. I got into kayaking 4 years ago and paddled V10S Ultra ever since. I am 46, 175 lbs and 6'1" with 33/34" inseam.
I tried V10L Ultra same day prior to 560 thinking leg length would be a problem, was surprised to see that I was just fine on the last setting. Thought v10L was quite a change in stability from v10S. It felt similar to SEL 2G Excel which I tried a year ago in same conditions.
560 (construction 7) felt more stable (secondary stability) than V10L with both having weedless rudders. The bucket felt more comfortable to me and I didn't feel I would need to pad the back of the seat as I do with my Sport to place me a little more forward and upright. It looked like 560 had more of a flat bucket bottom and I was able to seat upright leaning slightly forward without any effort. The width of bucket felt good too, a little loose but I had only spandex pants on. Leg length was ample, probably long enough for somebody who is 6'7". I really enjoyed the narrow catch area also and didn't feel like hitting the boat which happens often with Sport. Noticed that turning radius was much smaller than my Sport, likely because of shorter length.
I am interested in comparison between V10 and 560 since they are about same width. I haven't tried v10 yet, it might be more appropriate for my weight than v10L.
Look forward to spending more time in 560!

If you have the opportunity, you should try the V10. You've tried so many skis that you are probably quite receptive at this point and time. Flat water will probably feel ultra stable to you on the V10, but speed may disappoint a little there. It's in open water ski. The catch area is much wider than the 560. You should be quite fortunate to have long legs: you can fit the V10 Sport, the V10, and the 560. My choices are rather limited: the V10L is way too wide at the catch for my taste, and I can't even get into a 560 with my short legs.

It’s been 4 months+ with the 560M
As it turns out I am still making person best speeds in Open Ocean, and completely blowing personal bests on flat water.

Ludovic are you referring to the catch of the old v10L? The new one is very narrow.

From the epic website:

"Ergonomically, the new V10L has the narrowest width at the stroke catch of all Epic surfskis (even narrower than V14), giving the paddler more comfort and ease in the stroke."

No, I am referring to the V10L (2G), where anyone comparing it with a 560 will immediately notice:
The catch of the 560 and 560M will be narrower than the V10L (G2).

I feel that a narrow catch is crucial when seeking more efficiency in your stroke, but even more so for smaller paddlers.

560 catch area felt more narrow to me than v10L 2G. Attached image was taken of me during my short demo by the owner of 560. Could you please help me understand how I can improve this stage of stroke? Is my upper hand not high enough? Is the blade entry too far forward? Thanks everybody for a great site!

Sounds like we need somebody to take some actual measurements. I looked at the pictures of the boats online and scaled them equally and took measurements off the computer screen. using that method the catch area on both boats was exactly 14 inches. But a difference of even half an inch is meaningful and I don't think that my method is capable of being that accurate. I imagine that a higher seat will also make an equivalent catch seen narrower.

Quick measurements. Measured our V10L at catch near bulkhead, 14 inches. Measured Nelo 560 at footplate for me (35.5 inch inseam,) - 12 inches . For kicks measured our Nelo 520 and is also 14 inches at bulkhead. - same as v10l. I'm making a jig and will get some more accurate measurements in a few days. Measured couple of times and 560 looks like an inch narrower on either side of hull at equivalent catch locations. At top of gunnels, not quite as much since v10l has a slightly greater angle towards the center of boat. Will compare to my ICF and V14 as well. Attached pic of the 560 catch. Hope this helps for now

The CATCH area is crucial: just ask any K1 flat water racer.

Here are the factors affecting your catch area width:
1. The actual width of the ski, at the catch, based on where your blade enters the water. That's going to be different for nearly all paddlers.
2. Bucket height: higher seating position will make it feel like a narrower catch and will therefore help with power.
3. Bucket placed forward: the more forward the seat, the narrower your catch on the ski. The 560M's seat is much more forward than the V10L. Actually, I think that most small issues with smaller paddlers on the V10L would be resolved if the seat was more forward.
4. Bow height: your catch will be affected by the bow height, especially if you have short limbs. Low volume bows will automatically give you a feel for a narrower catch area. The 560M excels there.

ccchappell wrote: Quick measurements. Measured our V10L at catch near bulkhead, 14 inches. Measured Nelo 560 at footplate for me (35.5 inch inseam,) - 12 inches . For kicks measured our Nelo 520 and is also 14 inches at bulkhead. - same as v10l. I'm making a jig and will get some more accurate measurements in a few days. Measured couple of times and 560 looks like an inch narrower on either side of hull at equivalent catch locations. At top of gunnels, not quite as much since v10l has a slightly greater angle towards the center of boat. Will compare to my ICF and V14 as well. Attached pic of the 560 catch. Hope this helps for now

2 inches is a huge difference.

I'd like to think that 2 inches is huge as well. In fact, the 560 seems to be 2 inches less - at THE FOOT PLATE, when measured with someone with normal legs.

Add to this:
- That the 560M is narrower
- That smaller paddlers like myself have foot plates further away from the narrow bow, and that the V10L doesn't tapper very much in the cockpit

You end up with:
- Probably a 560M that may very well be about 3+ inches narrower at the catch, for a smaller paddler.

I have been paddling the Nelo 560M in WWR layup (24 lbs) for the past few weeks and am finding it to be superbe. I recently raced it on the short course at L2L and found that it performed very well for me. For reference, I am 1.83m tall and weigh around 77kg.
The bucket feels great, with the nicest paddling position I've tried in a ski thus far. I am at the absolute maximum on the length and were my inseam any longer I would not fit, so if you're much over my height/inseam, you would be out of luck with this ski. Catch is very narrow (I've not measured it but it looks narrower than the standard 560 ski) and ergonomics are excellent. The bucket is much more narrow than in the standard 560 and fits me very well. I am technically over the max weight of 75kg but the ski paddles great for me. It is FAST on the flat and in small chop and small downwind conditions, and it accelerates like nothing else I've tried. I've been comparing speed with my regular training partner on our harbor runs, and we have found the speed to be very similar to his V14 GT, but with a touch better acceleration.
The ride is definitely wet, but the DeBrito bailer is so efficient that you soon get over that. It felt strange at first attacking waves and chop with such a small volume ski, but once I got over the novelty of it I realized that it performs great. I found that it changes direction and moves across the waves well in small downwinds, with no real tendency to broach noted, and jumps on runs really well. I've not had a chance to try it in larger conditions yet, but will hopefully be giving it a go soon. Stability seems reasonable for such a fast ski, comparable to other brand's respective flagships.
I have had several people of various sizes and body types try the ski. Most note the K1 feel on the flat and then remark about how surprised they are about how well it paddles in choppy conditions and on small swell. I have found that hip width and leg length, more so than weight, are the two factors that seem to limit who fits the ski. For me at 77kg it is definitely a winner for small harbor conditions and flat water. We will see on bigger ocean stuff. I can imagine that for an advanced paddler who weighs 65kg, this ski would be tough to beat all around!

Thanks for the review, how would you rate stability of the 560M compared to the new 560? I've seen the other posts here on that comparison, but you are +- at the weight range where either one would fit ...

For me the 560 seems to have less primary but more secondary than the 560M. The 560 bucket is loose on me, so I wonder if the primary would be better if I padded it out a bit, but haven't tried yet. I have found that once you paddle them for a short period, their respective stability levels and points become clear and predictable, which I find key for me personally. The skis I find tough are ones where it's tough to predict when/where the stability is going to kick in and/or let go.

As for the catch area: it also depends on how high the paddler sits in the ski, i.e. their torso and thus shoulder height above the water, and how tall the gunwales are at the catch - in order to be able to sink the paddle in closer to the ski.

While I've only spent a couple of hours in the 560 thus far, I only have an initial impression, and that is that the catch area of the 560 is quite narrow, but the gunwales are higher there than on the V10 2G that I came from. But, I think it's narrower than the gunwales are high, if that makes sense, so the combo makes it paddle like it's got a narrower catch than the V10 2G. (The V10 2G has low gunwales at the catch plus cutaways in the deck, so while its catch is measured as being wide, the low gunwales and cutaways compensate pretty well.)

Zach, I think you'd swim in the 560 seat bucket, but you'd love the ski. You're welcome to drive over and try mine. But, I suspect you'd prefer a 560M.

That's very interesting.
After spending hours (literally HOURS) in the 560M, I took the 560L out again yesterday to check it out on my favorite run. I had just paddled 15k with the 560M, and within just 2 minutes went back out. My immediate and first impression was: WOW, the 560L is way more stable and provided me with a "comfy" platform.

The seating position in the 560L is without a doubt lower.
The gunwales on the 560L are a bit higher.
As I have also mentioned before: the catch area of the 560L is a bit wider and higher.

The stability gain on the 560L is very interesting to me, because the 560M is almost (custom-built) for me, while the 560L wasn't really designed for my 55-57 kilos, small-bone-structure, and short legs. Basically, the 560L is so large for me that I am swimming in the bucket: therefore no reason to find it more stable, yet, I feel like the 560L offers quite a bit more stability.

Does anyone have proper measuring tools?
I used an archaic measuring system, and came up with the following numbers:
560L max width: 45 cm
560M max width: 43.9 cm

I am very much interested in the intermediate ski 550M (the planned 2017 model).
Do you or any others have more information about the ski 550M ?

photofr wrote: Nelo has plans to release new skis. Probably fair to say that it can only truly be confirmed when the first skis ship out

2016 SURFSKIS
560Lx45
560Mx43.8
520x51

PERHAPS PLANNED 2017 SURFSKIS
510x55 (poly)
550Lx47
550Mx47

To make it very clear, that's not yet confirmed... and to me will not be until I see the first ski. In the meantime, the first three 2016 skis are truly unique; it's a success story - so more will come out.

Perhaps others know more than I do and will enlighten us all.

Actually, I thought we would have more information by now regarding the new upcoming Nelo skis for 2017. However, it looks as though the annual Nelo Dealer Meeting will take place soon. I am super excited, because while I am only a small representative of Nelo on the West of France, it looks like I may be invited to "listen in".

If this happens, I'll be sure to take a moment and share.

a PE, a double (as per big O. interview Euro championship) , a first 55o ? ... bets are on lol