NELO 560M Review

5 years 6 months ago #26437 by JohnK
Replied by JohnK on topic NELO 560M Review
Ludo,
In an earlier post I saw the Type 4 construction was quoted as 11Kgs now it is quoted at 12.5kgs. The type 7 had a smaller increase. The pricing is still competitive however.

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

5 years 6 months ago #26438 by photofr
Replied by photofr on topic NELO 560M Review
Good point John...
For stand up paddling, the strange norm seems to be to provide weight without the fin.
For Surfski, the norm seems to be without the rudder.

I provided weight by saying:
Approximately 12.5 kilos
(meaning complete, and meaning that you can actually expect to get a ski that will be less than 12.5 kilos)

Hope this helps.

Ludovic
(Brittany, France)

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

5 years 6 months ago #26439 by JonathanC
Replied by JonathanC on topic NELO 560M Review
Hello Ludovic, do you have any thoughts so far on how the 520 Nelo compares to the Epic V8. At my height of about 173 5'7" and 65kg I find the hump still inhibits rotation and leg drive slightly compared to my Stellar SES. Tried the V8 Pro and it was much better in terms of hump hitting calves. Looking for a family friendly addition and something for super big downwind conditions.
Would be great to learn a little more about the stable member of the family.
Thanks, Jonathan

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

5 years 6 months ago - 5 years 6 months ago #26440 by Uffilation
Replied by Uffilation on topic NELO 560M Review
scroll down to "Specifications", gives 10-11kg range for WWR 4
www.performancepaddling.net/nelo_560_2016model.html
no idea if he measured it for his models with rudder or took Nelo's specs.

as there are different fin/rudder sizes (marathon/surf), I could understand the reasoning behind fin-/rudderless weighing as this could make the difference between e.g 11.9 or 12.1 kg ... marketing numbers

ps: recent years it was all about being long, being narrow and low weight ..

meant for the few percent elite paddlers, but the aim also for the average Joe (yeah, men and material obsession ... )
then Joe realized, wider can be faster if one can paddle stable to apply a good stroke ...
now "shorter" is the new "longer" ...

and then there is ... boat weight, also dep. on personal preference and paddler's size/weight
www.surfski.info/getting-started/tips-ot...in-your-surfski.html

given that weight reg. momentum for turning is an issue, I can understand that low ski weights are favoured by some for reactivity, for acceleration though I am in the "comfortable situation" that I could go for losing 1kg of my personal weight if I think that a 9kg ski is 1kg too heavy .. yeah, I was joking ... esp. since paddling a heavier boat alllows me to achieve that goal of losing that 1kg faster ...

No offense, but I think the Nelo prices are competitive and I'd consider the raised price/weight issue a bit picky ...
hey I paid 3.5k Euros for a 12kg+X ski from another European brand
hmm, sure, if more material is used in a comparable construction, it costs more lol

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

5 years 6 months ago - 5 years 6 months ago #26441 by Steve Hansen
Replied by Steve Hansen on topic NELO 560M Review
Unfortunately I don't have the opportunity to try this ski. What makes this ski so different from the other low volume skis I mentioned above? Not trying to be an *sshole, just trying to understand why you think it's so much better. Sounds like it is the summation of little things: shorter length, seating position, low volume, narrow catch, secondary stability.

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

5 years 6 months ago #26445 by photofr
Replied by photofr on topic NELO 560M Review

Hello Ludovic, do you have any thoughts so far on how the 520 Nelo compares to the Epic V8. At my height of about 173 5'7" and 65kg I find the hump still inhibits rotation and leg drive slightly compared to my Stellar SES. Tried the V8 Pro and it was much better in terms of hump hitting calves. Looking for a family friendly addition and something for super big downwind conditions.
Would be great to learn a little more about the stable member of the family.
Thanks, Jonathan


@ Jonathan
I’ve been using the 520 (as much as possible) and find it worthy of getting its very own review. I’ll do my best to find a bit of time to put all those thoughts on paper – soon.

In the meantime, here’s what you can expect from the Nelo 520 (compared, as requested, to the V8)
• Narrow front end: narrow catch area for more efficiency when you paddle.
• Narrow catch area translates to more comfort, especially on longer sessions.
• Nearly non-existent hump (I am 5’6 with shorter legs than most)
• Turns faster (everyone has mentioned it so far).
• A little more speed on the flats.
• Agile in DW conditions (advanced paddlers will be blown away by the fun on this boat)
• Almost as stable as the V8 (and I do mean very close to it).
• A saving of about 1000 euros for a ski that will be 11.6 kilos with its rudder (construction 4).

You are however going to miss the V8 handle in the center of the boat – but it’s not the end of the world considering that the 520 is very light.

Ludovic
(Brittany, France)

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

5 years 6 months ago #26446 by photofr
Replied by photofr on topic NELO 560M Review

Unfortunately I don't have the opportunity to try this ski. What makes this ski so different from the other low volume skis I mentioned above? Not trying to be an *sshole, just trying to understand why you think it's so much better. Sounds like it is the summation of little things: shorter length, seating position, low volume, narrow catch, secondary stability.


@ Steve
It’s an important question: “what makes the 560M different from other “low volume” skis”?
Here are skis that I have tested extensively, and how I compare them to the Nelo 560M. Please note that what follows is my expressed opinion, and it may differ from one person to another, depending on your size, your ability, and more importantly: the conditions you enjoy MOST.

Elite SL
It’s an older ski, but I thought it was a great attempt to suit smaller paddlers. Unfortunately, 6.44 meters is VERY long for a “low volume ski”. The front is narrow, but very high, thus creating the effect of a sail with side wind. This is a huge problem for smaller and lighter paddlers like myself. Read: butterfly in the wind.

SPARK
The SL wasn’t cutting it, so they decided to come up with the Spark. I thought that the Spark was a great ski, and super evolution towards making a better “low volume ski”. The catch area was very narrow (almost as narrow as the 560M, but not quite). The Spark has better primary stability than the 560M, but the 560M has better secondary stability – but back to their volume:

The Spark was only missing a few things for lighter and/or shorter paddlers:
The hump was HUGE on the Spark, though I understand this may have changed with the new one.
The Spark is still 6.44 meters long: pure physics tells you that it going to be more buoyant than the same ski missing nearly 1 meter in length. Basically, I now have huge difficulties calling the Spark low volume, and you will too as soon as you try a 560M.

V10L
My biggest issue with this ski was how it felt sticky in flat water, and slow to accelerate. To this day, I am not sure why, but that’s how I felt. I even tried the V10L Ultra, and felt the same way. Flat water paddling is not what I usually aim at, but unfortunately, there are flat water sections.

The reduced length of 6.15 meters made this ski lower volume, but it’s still 35 cm longer than the 560M (that’s more than a foot longer, which will affect shorter paddlers tremendously).

The V10L surfed quite well, and actually surprised me because that’s when the boat became alive. Nonetheless, the catch area is quite large, and didn’t make for a pleasant paddling experience. In that respect, the Spark felt better, and the 560M much better. Perhaps the worst thing about the low volume V10L was how large the sitting area was. If it’s going to be for shorter and smaller paddler, why make a seat that must be padded by all paddlers?

SES
At 6.2 meters long, I found that ski too long. Too long also meant that moving my body fore and aft on the ski didn’t do very much for me, but that is clearly a personal problem (not enough soup).

Strangely, it’s a very narrow ski, but the catch area wasn’t “that narrow” for a low volume ski. In fact, the ski was so narrow that most people couldn’t paddle it: too tippy for a lot of paddlers.


In summary: To make a low volume surfski for shorter and / or smaller paddlers, it takes more than just moving a foot rest closer to the paddler. In fact, you first need to move the seat forward, and then you’d need to ensure that the seat will fit smaller paddlers, and finally ensure that the catch area isn’t too large for those smaller shoulders. In my opinion, the 560M has totally “nailed” it. It’s a very comfortable low volume ski, that’s much more stable than the SES.

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

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

5 years 6 months ago #26452 by AdrianBruce
Replied by AdrianBruce on topic NELO 560M Review
Does anybody know if Nelo plan to release a new intermediate level ski? There seems to be a large gap between the 520 and the 560/560M.

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

5 years 6 months ago #26453 by photofr
Replied by photofr on topic NELO 560M Review
Have you tried a 520?
Based on the numerous tests with many different people ranging in all size and shapes that I have put in the water, the 520 seems to have the stability of an entry level ski. Don't let that fool you though, because the speed of the 520 is more like an "intermediate" ski.

If you haven't already, try a small downwind, then a big downwind on the 520 and compare it to your favorite ski. It has the stability between the V8 and the XT, yet I find its flatwater speed closet to the Swordfish.

The 520 overall average speed on downwind might really surprise you.

Ludovic
(Brittany, France)

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

5 years 6 months ago - 5 years 6 months ago #26454 by tony h
Replied by tony h on topic NELO 560M Review
yes, they are - narrow seat version of current "large", that will be called "Large" & existing large will be "XL"

edited:
oops misunderstood the question :-(
was talking about 3rd seat size in in 560 model

ski's - McGregor C/R // Nelo 560L // Epic: 1st/2nd/3rdG V10/10L/10 sport, V14, V12, V8, V7, double -v10/v8 // Stellar: SES 1G/2G, SEI 2G // Fenn: double, elite SL, swordfish 1G/2G // Carbonology: vault, atom, flash //hayden spec ski / gibbons oc. ski / red7 / stealth spec/ocean ski / think legend

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

5 years 6 months ago #26455 by AdrianBruce
Replied by AdrianBruce on topic NELO 560M Review
No, I haven't tried a 520. With respect though, I would indeed be pretty amazed if a 52cm wide ski could have similar flat water speed to a 45cm wide Swordfish.
The following user(s) said Thank You: supsherpa

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

5 years 6 months ago #26456 by photofr
Replied by photofr on topic NELO 560M Review
Based on my GPS data, and after owning the Swordfish for a year, I can only tell you what I am seeing:
The 520 is often faster than the Swordfish in small downwind, and so far always faster on bigger downwind. In flat water (the dead of flat) the 520 is close to the swordfish (not faster, but very close to it).

There's more than just max width on skis to compare speed.
The Swordfish was a fun ski, but l found it to be a bit sticky on the flats, but speaking of max width:

On paper, the Swordfish has a max width of 45cm, just like the V10 - yet those two skis couldn't possibly be any different. There's a clear difference in stability, in pure flat water speed, and downwind ease.

Here are couple of things that may make the 520 stand out:
It has a max width of 51 cm (stable)
Looking at photos, you can see that it's not 51cm for nose to tail: it has the look of a needle nose.
The bucket is a little higher: promoting more power in your existing technique.
It's light.
It's super maneuverable (not that this will help you much on pure flat water races, but it will help for everything else, including "not loosing that bump".)

It's a compromise, like everything else, but it's worth taking notice, or at least trying.

Ludovic
(Brittany, France)

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

5 years 6 months ago - 5 years 6 months ago #26457 by AdrianBruce
Replied by AdrianBruce on topic NELO 560M Review
I reckon the Swordfish and V10g2 are actually pretty similar in terms of speed & stability. Wouldn't have expected the 520 to fit in the same category, but appreciate the comments.

But back to the question: will Nelo have an intermediate ski any time soon? By that I mean something in the traditional 45-48cm width range.

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

5 years 6 months ago #26458 by photofr
Replied by photofr on topic NELO 560M Review
Here are some strange facts to put it all in prospective:
The V10 is said to have a max width of 45cm.
The Swordfish is said to also have a max width of 45cm.
The V10 Sport is said to have a max width of 48cm.
The Nelo 520 has a max width of 51cm.

STABILITY
The V10 Sport and the Swordfish are nearly identical.
The V10 has less stability.
The Nelo 520 has the most stability.

SPEED – Flat water
Based on my data, and my paddling:
There’s no doubt that the V10 is much faster on the flat.
The V10 Sport is next for speed on the flats.
The Swordfish is a little faster, but not by much (at ALL).

SPEED – Downwind
Based on my data, and my paddling:
Again, the V10 is faster.
Next comes the Nelo 520.
The Swordfish surfs better than the V10 Sport.
Without a doubt, the Nelo 520 is the most agile ski of the 4 listed above.

INTERMEDIATE SKI PRODUCTION
Nelo is one of the biggest manufacturer of kayaks and canoes in the world. Judging from the size of their factory, I am going to “guess” that other models will soon be available.

I hope there will be a 559 – something like a 5.59 meters x 47 cm, while keeping the many of the same properties as the 560M and 520 (that needle-nose aspect, and that higher seating position) – but that’s just what I am “hopping” for.

Ludovic
(Brittany, France)

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

5 years 6 months ago #26460 by AdrianBruce
Replied by AdrianBruce on topic NELO 560M Review
I'd have to disagree with some of your "facts". The V10 Sport is considerably more stable than the Swordfish, for example. But again, thanks for your point of view. :)

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

5 years 6 months ago #26461 by photofr
Replied by photofr on topic NELO 560M Review
There's no problem to disagree. All skis will feel different, depending on who you place on it. There are several factors: the person's weight seems to be a huge one, but you also have: water conditions, person's fitness, person's experience, etc...

Though, I have to ask:
Did you spend a lot of time on the V10 Sport and the Swordfish?
Did you try the V10 Sport in rough water?

NOTE
Someone's review is a point of view, and can give you some general idea as to what you can expect. When several people tell me that the 520 is stable, and when those people came in all size and shape, it's no longer a point of view: it's pretty much what you can expect.

BTW
My "facts" where the first 4 lines (ski specs). Everything else had a clear title.

Ludovic
(Brittany, France)

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

5 years 6 months ago #26462 by AdrianBruce
Replied by AdrianBruce on topic NELO 560M Review
I have owned 2 x V10 Sports (1&2g), a Swordfish and a V10 2g, amongst other boats. Yes I paddle in a variety of conditions, including rough water.

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

5 years 6 months ago #26464 by photofr
Replied by photofr on topic NELO 560M Review

I have owned 2 x V10 Sports (1&2g), a Swordfish and a V10 2g, amongst other boats. Yes I paddle in a variety of conditions, including rough water.


Since you found the V10 (not the sport) and the Swordfish pretty similar in speed and stability, you should give us your weight, and your ability. That may help people on this forum get a better idea.

But just out of curiosity:
You wanted to know if Nelo was going to come out with an intermediate ski. Where would you like this "new" ski to fall in terms of stability?

More stable than the V10, more stable than the Swordfish, 80% for flat water or 80% for downwind?

Ludovic
(Brittany, France)

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

5 years 5 months ago - 5 years 5 months ago #26495 by photofr
Replied by photofr on topic NELO 560M Review
This guy is 73 kilos, out testing the 560M (for paddlers under 75 kilos).

Below are couple of things we will totally agree on, with photos to back it up.

It's a bit of a wet ride, but you are so connected with the ocean.

File Attachment:


Catches bumps with total ease

File Attachment:


Large stickers can be fun too... but not on the hull

File Attachment:


The 560M turns on a dime!

Ludovic
(Brittany, France)

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

5 years 5 months ago #26496 by Kayaker Greg
Replied by Kayaker Greg on topic NELO 560M Review
We now have the Nelo 560L and 520 in NZ but alas the importer did not bother to bring any 560M in so looks like I won't get to try my new 67kg in a ski that is made for someone my size :(

Looks like I'll be sticking to my Swordfish for the time being until someone else makes a smaller ski.

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

Latest Forum Topics

General questions on repairing an EPIC Elite. (3 Posts)

1 hour 34 minutes ago
Goldschmidt's Avatar

What's new in surfskis for 2022? (3 Posts)

8 hours 29 minutes ago

Nelo 550 Rudder (3 Posts)

14 hours 50 minutes ago
Protected by R Antispam